Delhi High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March, 2023 [Citations 1-279]
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 279NOMINAL INDEXGIRISH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1BHAVIKAA KESHWANI & ANR. (THROUGH THEIR LEGAL GUARDIANS) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 2AKSHAY DHINGRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 3ARJUN ANAND v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 4Sanghvi...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 279
NOMINAL INDEX
GIRISH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1
BHAVIKAA KESHWANI & ANR. (THROUGH THEIR LEGAL GUARDIANS) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 2
AKSHAY DHINGRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 3
ARJUN ANAND v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 4
Sanghvi Movers Ltd. versus Vivid Solaire Energy Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 5
ARMASUISSE v. THE TRADE MARK REGISTRY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 6
Ram Sarup Lugani & Anr. versus Nirmal Lugani & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 7
Sameer Wankhede v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 8
M/s Fermina Developers Private Limited versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 9
Kamlesh v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 10
NEERAJ BHATT v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 11
MR. SAAD AHMED SIDDIQUI (IN J.C.) & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 12
Raj Kumar Gupta versus M/ S Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 13
Govind Singh v. Satya Group Pvt. Ltd, FAO (COMM) 136 of 2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 14
SUNIL v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 15
Pratima Devi (Dog Amma) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 16
VIRENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 18
Apollo Tyres Limited versus Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 19
CA NITESH PARASHAR v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ICAI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 20
Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. versus UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 21
Mahendra Kumar Verma versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 22
ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 23
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 24
VP v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 25
Sandeep v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 26
M/s Diamond Entertainment Technologies Private Limited & Ors. versus Religare Finvest Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 27
MANISH KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 28
PAWAN KUMAR AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 29
Machine Tools Aids India versus M/s. GNC Infra LLP & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 30
Sushil Ansal v. ENDEMOL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 31
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation versus Joint Venture Of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 32
Communication Components Antenna Inc. versus Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 33
M/s Liberty Footwear Company versus M/s Liberty International 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 34
EHRAZ ZAFAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 35
MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 36
Capital Food Private Limited versus Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 37
Anil Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 38
DR. U.S. AWASTHI v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY PMLA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 39
IKRA KHAN v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 40
SMT KAMESHWARI DEVI & ANR. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 41
RAJO v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42
Bright Simons versus Sproxil Inc & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43
SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44
SUBWAY IP LLC v. INFINITY FOOD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 45
Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 46
M/S JAI SINGH AND CO versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 47
AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 48
EMTA COAL LIMITED & ORS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 49
JAGJIT PAL SINGH VIRK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 50
Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 51
Anubhav Jain versus Satish Kumar Jain & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 52
ARUSHI MEHRA & ANR. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 53
Ashwani Kumar Sharma & Ors. versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 54
SN versus IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 55
RABINDRA TIWARY v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 56
MCD v. Lokpal of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 57
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 58
Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt Ltd versus Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 59
Union of India & Anr. versus Alcon Builders and Engineer Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 60
PSV v. THE INDIAN SCHOOL & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 61
X v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 62
DUKHTARAN-E-MILLAT v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 63
Amanatullah Khan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 64
Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65
SURJEET KUMAR v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 66
Sneh Aggarwal versus Punjab National Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 67
RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 68
KRBL LIMITED vs VIKRAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 69
SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 70
UNION OF INDIA v. KOLLI UDAY KUMARI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 71
V K KANJLIA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 72
Monika Oli versus M/s CL Educate Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73
Raghav Bahl v. ED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 74
N v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Department GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 75
ISHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 76
RS v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 77
Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Delhi (GST) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 78
M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 79
VIRENDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 80
RITA SEHGAL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 81
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Hqrs.) versus M/s Spraytec India Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 82
Arvind Goyal CA Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 83
Chabbras Associates v. HSCC India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 84
MINOR R THR MOTHER H v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 85
M/s Shyamjee Prepaid Services versus M/s Top Steels & Mrs. Renu Devi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 86
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 87
MADHUR MITTAL v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 88
Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. National Research Development Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 89
Yashdeep Chahal v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 90
NEHA KAPOOR & ANR v. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 91
Blackstone Capital Partner Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 92
Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Sukumar Chand Jain 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 93
X v. GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 94
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 95
CPIO, CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU v. G.S. SRINIVASAN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 96
RAVINDER LAL AIRI v. S.SHALU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 97
SANDISK LLC & ANR versus LAXMI MOBILES & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 98
Al Sudais Haj and Umrah Service v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 99
WAZIRPUR BARTAN NIRMATA SANGH (THROUGH ITS SECRETARY) & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 100
Charu Chains & Jewels (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 101
SMT. BENI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 102
Pink City Expressways Pvt Ltd versus Aaron Security & Services Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 103
GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Limited v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 104
M/s Raj Chawla and Co. Stock & Share Brokers versus M/s Nine Media & Information Services Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 105
SONAM RAWAL v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 106
NT v. VT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 107
AMAR SINGH EX NB SUB & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 108
Sun Renewables Rt Pvt Ltd versus Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 109
NEERAJ MEHTA & ANR. v. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 110
Damodar Valley Corporation versus Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 111
East India Hotels Ltd. Versus Commissioners of Customs, General Excise and Central GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 112
RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 113
Ozone Research & Applications (I) Pvt Ltd versus Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 114
NHAI v. IJM GAYATRI JV, OMP (COMM.) 235 of 2021 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 115
BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN v. GNCTD & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 116
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. Cpio, Ministry Of Home Affairs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 117
NITYA NAND GAUTAM v. CENTRAL BEREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Flowmore Ltd versus Skipper Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 119
M/s Special Cables Pvt Ltd versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 120
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER vs CAPITAL GENERAL STORE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 122
HP Cotton Textile Mills Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 123
Ambrosia Corner House Pvt Ltd versus Hangro S Foods 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 124
Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 125
P v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 126
SR. SEPHY v. CBI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 127
AX v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 128
RR Patil Foundation & Anr. v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 129
SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 130
CHITRA RAMKRISHNA v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 131
Shahrukh Pathan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 132
Kidde India Ltd versus National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 133
NATASHA NARWAL & ANR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 134
Raman Bhuraria versus Directorate Of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 135
SONALI KARWASRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 136
TARU PURI v. ANMOL SHEIKH ALIAS MALAIKA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 137
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 138
AKASH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 139
PO v. VP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 140
Intercontinental Great Brands versus Parle Product Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 141
Hinu Mahajan v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 142
M/s Oasis Projects Ltd versus Managing Director, National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 143
K. P. RAO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 144
SUNIL PODAR v. THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSON WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 145
University of Delhi versus M/s Kalra Electricals 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 146
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Bindu Paswan & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 147
HERMES INTERNATIONAL & ANR. v. CRIMZON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 148
SANDEEP SINGH DESWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 149
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 150
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 151
ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 152
DB v. RB 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 153
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 154
Milan Saini v. Kamal Kumar & Anr. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 155
Ghanshyam Pandey versus Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 156
Jindal Exports and Imports Pvt Ltd vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 157
VED YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 158
Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 159
Sunil Kumar Chandra versus M/s Spire Techpark Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 160
WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 161
PARMINDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 162
JAI A. DEHADRAI AND ANR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 163
BHUPINDER SINGH & ANR. v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 164
Asad Mueed & Anr versus Hammad Ahmed & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 165
HARSHPAL SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 166
SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 167
Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 168
PUNJAB KESARI PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD & ANR vs AJIT SINGH BULAND & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 169
M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd & Anr. versus Shipra Estate Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 170
D Narasimha Rao & Ors versus Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 171
HARDIK KAPOOR v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 172
MALVIKA CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 173
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. REHMAN AFTAB ALAM 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 174
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 175
Shyam Jaju & Anr. v. Saurabh Bhardwaj & Ors. LiveLaw (Del) 176
TTK Prestige Ltd versus KK & Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 177
MOHD. MANAN DAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 178
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 179
Bolt Technology OU versus Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 180
DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 181
KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 182
Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 183
HARSH AJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 184
New Delhi Municipal Council versus Decor India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 185
Tejpal Singh versus Surinder Kumar Dewan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 186
M/S GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 187
OYO Hotels And Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 188
CHHOTE LAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 189
Bernd Alexander Bruno Wehnelt vs. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 190
CHANDRIL DABAS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 191
SANJAY KUMAR SAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 192
GORE LAL SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 193
MR SUBRATA MONINDRANATH MAITY v. INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 194
FIITJEE Ltd vs. Ashish Khare & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 195
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Narinder Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 196
ARTH LAKRA (MINOR) v. INDRAPRASTHA WORLD SCHOOL AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 197
CHATUR SAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 198
MOTI LAL BASAK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 199
MEHBOOBA MUFTI v. JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 200
KOLISETTY SHIVA KUMAR v. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 201
SAMAR DEVAL v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Sanjay Sudan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 203
Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs. Siti Networks Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 204
Syed Shahbaz Hussain & Anr v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 205
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 206
RKY v. MD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 207
SHOAIB ALAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 208
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 209
TVF MEDIA LABS PVT LTD & ORS v. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 210
Prashant Kumar Umrao v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 211
Swati Chaturvedi v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 212
Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) vs M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 213
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 214
M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt Ltd vs M/s GAIL Gas Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 215
NHAI v. Patel-KNR (JV) , O.M.P.(COMM) 416 of 2018 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 216
CHIRAG KHANDAL v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 217
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. VS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 218
Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 219
Swati Maliwal v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 220
Newton Engineering and Chemicals Ltd vs. UEM India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 221
GADE INNA REDDY AND ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 222
RAIL DAWA BAR ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 223
Burger King Corporation v. Ranjan Gupta and others. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 224
ITD Cementation India Limited v. SSJV-ZVS Joint Venture and ors, OMP(ENF.)(COMM.) 188 of 2021 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 225
MS. X THR. HER NATURAL GURADIAN /FATHER AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 226
M/s Balaji EXIM vs Commissioner, CGST and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 227
M/s Kuldeep Kumar Contractor vs. Hindustan Prefab Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 228
Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Bar Council of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 229
A S RAWAT v. DAWA TASHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 230
Amazing Research Laboratories v. Krishna Pharma 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 231
M/s. Modi Construction Company vs. M/s Ircon International Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 232
Zahir Ahmed vs. Government of NCT Of Delhi Through District Magistrate & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 233
SANJAY MALIK @ SANT SEVAK DAS v. THE STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 234
Rohit Verma v. NHRC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 235
DR. SUBRMANIAN SWAMY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 236
Court on Its Own Motion vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 237
Title: DOLBY INTERNATIONAL AB v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 238
MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL AND ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 239
Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 240
SUPERTECH URBAN HOME BUYERS ASSOCIATION (SUHA) FOUNDATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 241
PARNITA KAPOOR & ORS. v. AM 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 242
Chadha Motor Transport Company Pvt Ltd vs. Barinderjit Singh Sahni 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 243
Prime Interglobe Pvt Ltd vs. Super Milk Products Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 244
Kewal Krishan Kumar v. ED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 245
PC Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 246
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 247
DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 248
DEVAS EMPLOYEES MAURITIUS PVT. LTD v. ANTRIX CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 249
KESHAW SANYASI GAWO SHEWASHARAM v. GOVT OF NCT AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 250
Bawana Infra Development Pvt Ltd vs. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (DSIIDC) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 251
Yash Deep Builders v. Sushil Kumar Singh 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 252
Anil Kumar Versus The Gst Commissioner, Cgst, And Central Excise And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 253
Milestone Systems A/S vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 254
SAMRIDHI ENTERPRISES v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 255
Asif Mohammad Khan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 256
X v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 257
ASHISH RASTOGI v. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 258
NHAI vs. M/s AE Tollway Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 259
Antique Art Export Pvt Ltd vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 260
Shankar Shyamnaval Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 261
KAPIL SIBAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 06 NEW DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 262
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Natraj Construction Company 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 263
NAVEEN ARORA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 264
MASTER PRATHAM SINGH LATWAL v. GURU GOBIND SINGH GOVT HOSPITAL AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 265
VIJENDER GUPTA v. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 266
M/S Balaji Exim Versus Commissioner, CGST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 267
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ,ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 268
UNION OF INDIA v. ARVIND M KAPOOR AND ANR & other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 269
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA v. THE INSTITUTE OF COST ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 270
INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. v. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 271
State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 272
NTPC Ltd vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 273
Azad @ Gourav vs. State of GNCT of Delhi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 274
THE WIRE THROUGH ITS EDITOR & ANR. v. AMITA SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 275
DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 276
INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD versus TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON (PUBL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 277
VIVO MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 278
OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 279
Judgments/Orders
Title: GIRISH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure free food and medical treatment to HIV positive persons, who are below the poverty line and are unable to afford the same in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Delhi government to ensure strict compliance of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention & Control) Act 2017 and the Rules made thereunder.
The court passed the direction while disposing of a public interest litigation filed in 2011 by various individuals, who were suffering from HIV AIDS and multiple disabilities, for housing and other facilities for their well being, including hot cooked meals.
Delhi University Admissions: High Court Junks Plea Challenging Seat Allocation Policy For CUET, 2022
Title: BHAVIKAA KESHWANI & ANR. (THROUGH THEIR LEGAL GUARDIANS) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 2
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging Delhi University’s policy for seat allocation in admissions to various undergraduate courses in its colleges through Common University Entrance Test, 2022.
A vacation bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru said the challenge is unsubstantial, and that there is no plausible reason to hold that the Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS) is arbitrary, unreasonable and falling foul of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court was hearing a plea moved by two candidates, who apart from challenging the CSAS, also sought permission to change their course or seat mutually.
Title: AKSHAY DHINGRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 3
The Delhi High Court has observed that the law does not permit a husband to take away the wife's household articles including jewellery without her consent and knowledge.
Observing that no person can be allowed to take law in his own hands with an excuse that the parties are litigating, Justice Amit Mahajan observed:
“Only because a complaint of wife in relation to istridhan is pending, does not mean that the husband can be allowed to surreptitiously throw the wife out of the matrimonial house and take away the articles.”
The court made the observation while denying pre-arrest bail to a man in a complaint lodged by his wife alleging that her household articles were stolen while she was away from the house. The FIR was registered under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Title: ARJUN ANAND v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 4
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant any interim relief to a third year law student, who was debarred from appearing in V-semester examinations by Campus Law Centre, Delhi University.
"The father of the Petitioner, who is present during the hearing, has expressed his dismay and urges the Court to take a lenient view considering the fact that the decision of the University would prolong Petitioner’s course and result in wastage of six precious months. The Court, however, remains unconvinced as the Petitioner has attended classes sporadically throughout the semester, and the minimum attendance criteria is a requirement which cannot be glossed over," said the court.
A vacation bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula issued notice on the law student’s plea seeking deletion of his name from the detention lists dated December 30 and 31, 2022 and permission to appear in the V semester examination commencing from January 3to 14, 2023.
Case Title: Sanghvi Movers Ltd. versus Vivid Solaire Energy Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 5
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the parties would be governed by the arbitration clause contained in the Contract, even though the arbitration clause is not specifically incorporated in the purchase orders.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the purchase order was not independent of the Contract and that the parties clearly intended the Contract to be the main agreement. Thus, the Court concluded that the parties would be governed by the arbitration clause contained in the Contract, even though an arbitration clause was not specifically incorporated in the purchase order.
Title: ARMASUISSE v. THE TRADE MARK REGISTRY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 6
Ruling in favour of Armasuisse, which is a federal agency of Switzerland, the Delhi High Court has declared various marks under the name “Swiss Military” ineligible for trademark registration.
Justice C Hari Shankar allowed the appeals moved by Armasuisse, which represents the military wing of the Swiss Government, and set aside the orders passed by Deputy Registrar of Trademarks permitting trademark registration in favour of a private entity, Promoshirt, for the impugned marks in respect of clothing and textile.
“…it cannot be held that the use of the white cross on a red background, or the "SWISS MILITARY" logo below it, serves in trade to designate the geographical origin of the goods as being Switzerland. The possibility of such a mark confusing or deceiving the public into believing that the goods are of Swiss origin when, in fact, they are not, may fatally imperil the entitlement of the mark to registration in view of Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act; Section 9(1)(b) would not, however, stand attracted on that ground," the court observed.
Case Title: Ram Sarup Lugani & Anr. versus Nirmal Lugani & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 7
The Delhi High Court has ruled that courts can permit a person to join an application seeking leave to institute a suit against a Trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as at that stage the suit is yet to be instituted.
Dealing with a case wherein one of the two plaintiffs died even before the court had granted the leave to file a suit, and therefore a prayer was made seeking impleadment of two more persons as co-plaintiffs, Justice Yashwant Varma said court does not lack the power to permit persons to join an application seeking leave to sue a Trust.
It further said no provision of the Code, either expressly or impliedly, prohibits persons from joining an application for leave to sue. All that Section 92 mandates is that the application seeking leave must be made by at least two persons, the court observed.
Title: Sameer Wankhede v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 8
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a plea moved by former Mumbai zonal director of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Sameer Wankhede seeking protection in a case accusing him of owning disproportionate assets.
Wankhede had sought a direction that he must be given time to submit relevant documentary evidence before any action in terms of search or seizure is initiated against him.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani refused to entertain the plea after opining that Wankhede had failed to produce relevant material on record so as to enable the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and also in view of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/s Fermina Developers Private Limited versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 9
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) or the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) do not lay down an omnibus bar to arbitration. In each case, the Court would have to consider the nature of the dispute and determine whether the said statutes require the dispute to be tried exclusively by the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), the Court held.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma noted that the dispute between the parties, relating to whether the petitioner/debtor had made a default in repaying the loan, empowering the respondent/creditor to proceed under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, involved the determination of debt. Thus, the dispute fell within the scope of adjudication contemplated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and it cannot be referred to arbitration, the Court said.
Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act provides a procedure for seeking enforcement of security interest by a secured creditor, if a default is made by the debtor.
Case Title: Kamlesh v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 10
Upholding life imprisonment of an accused convicted for committing rape upon a 2 year old minor girl, the Delhi High Court has ruled that MLC (medico-legal case) report can be relied upon by the courts even when the doctor who prepared it is not examined and the record is proved by any other doctor of the hospital.
The division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said that proving of MLC report by a colleague doctor or an administrative staff of the hospital, who identify handwriting and signatures of the doctor who had examined the patient, is sufficient and good proof. It added that such a report cannot be doubted.
Delhi High Court Grants Four Weeks Parole To POCSO Convict For Filing SLP In Supreme Court
Title: NEERAJ BHATT v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 11
The Delhi High Court has granted parole of four weeks to a man convicted under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to enable him file a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. His conviction was upheld by the high court on July 04 last year.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted relief to Neeraj Bhatt who was convicted under Sections 363 and 376(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act in December 2019 by a Special POCSO court. He was sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and is presently confined in the city’s Mandoli jail.
Title: MR. SAAD AHMED SIDDIQUI (IN J.C.) & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 12
The Delhi High Court has advised trial court judges to pay “special attention” and “show sensitivity” in cases where accused persons are languishing in jails as undertrials and also where they may be rendered remediless.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that although criminal courts are duty bound to consider rights of the victim, they cannot overlook or brush aside the rights of an accused or a convict.
“A person who gets convicted has a statutory right to challenge the conviction in a higher court as well as seek suspension of sentence. However, such statutory right can only be exercised once the order on sentence is also pronounced by the Court concerned, as sentence is a part of the judgment in a trial,” the court said.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Gupta versus M/ S Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 13
The Delhi High Court has ruled that non-attestation of the affidavit accompanying the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is a mere procedural irregularity. Thus, it cannot be treated as fatal to the institution of the suit, the bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna concluded. The Court held that the application cannot be considered as non-est for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 34 (3).
The petitioner- Raj Kumar Gupta, filed an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the Delhi High Court, challenging the arbitral award rendered against it. After certain objections were raised by the Registry to the petition filed by the petitioner, the petition was refiled after a delay of 57 days beyond the limitation period of three months and 30 days, as provided under Section 34(3).
Case Title: Govind Singh v. Satya Group Pvt. Ltd, FAO (COMM) 136 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 14
The Delhi High Court has held that mere participation in the arbitration proceedings cannot be considered to be waiver of Section 12(5) that provides for ineligibility of arbitrator.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that applicability of Section 12(5) can only be waived off by an express agreement and not by the conduct of parties. The Court held that the objection to challenge an arbitration award on the ground of ineligibility of arbitrator due to his unilateral appointment can be raised regardless of no such objection being taken before the arbitrator.
Title: SUNIL v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 15
Calling it a classic case where canons of justice were kept aside by trial court as the accused wasn't provided any effective legal aid, the Delhi High Court has acquitted a man in a case of preparation for committing dacoity.
"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court’s judicial conscience does not permit to now remand back the matter and direct the learned Trial Court to again conduct a fresh trial. In view thereof, the accused is acquitted of all the charges since the trial in itself was vitiated due to non-assistance of accused by legal aid counsel, besides existence of several inconsistencies and lacunae in the case of prosecution before the learned Trial Court," said the court.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the ruling observed that the judiciary has a crucial role to play in ensuring enforcement of human rights and has to meet the “great challenge” towards making justice accessible in practical terms to the poor.
Title: Pratima Devi (Dog Amma) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 16
The Delhi High Court ordered status quo on the action of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) of demolishing a temporary makeshift shelter of an 80 years old woman, housing over 200 displaced stray dogs for over 30 years.
Pratima Devi, an octogenarian popularly known as “Dog Amma”, moved court seeking immediate alternate shelter after the demolition happened on January 3, leaving the elderly woman and stray dogs shelterless.
Title: VIRENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 92 (i) of the Air Force Act, 1950 which allows deduction from the pay and allowance of Air Force personnel for maintenance of the wife and their children.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar also upheld an office order issued by Air Force on February 6, 2013 providing the procedure for grant, modification or cessation of maintenance allowance to the wife and the children of such personnel.
Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 18
The Delhi High Court observed that the advertisement industry thrives on creativity and freedom of expression and would loathe a government dictated regulation, adding that not many industries enjoy a self- regulated regime.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Dabur India seeking to restrain the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) from creating impediments in the broadcast of its advertisement regarding the health nutrition drink ‘Vita’.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Limited versus Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 19
In a case relating the alleged copying of the tread pattern of tyres, the Delhi High Court has ruled that registration of a tread pattern, which is nearly identical to the suit pattern, as a design would not ipso facto operate to disentitle it from being regarded as a “trade mark” within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
"At the highest, the matter would be one of trial, in which it would have to be examined whether the tread pattern which was registered as a design was identical or nearly identical to the suit pattern," Justice C. Hari Shankar said in an order.
The court was dealing with the argument that whether Apollo Tyres Limited, which has filed a suit against Pioneer Trading Corporation accusing it of violating a 2018 settlement agreement, deserves to be non-suited on the ground that it had applied for registration of the suit pattern as a design under Section 5 of the Designs Act.
Title: CA NITESH PARASHAR v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ICAI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 20
Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has observed that the complaint of sexual harassment and inquiry proceeding cannot be quashed merely because internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to complete inquiry within the time-frame of 90 days mentioned under section 11(4) of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
“Needless to say, that such complaints containing allegations of sexual harassment deserves to be treated with a certain amount of seriousness and responsibility and accordingly, the same have to be inquired into and taken to their logical conclusion for it is both in the interest of the complainant as well as the person against whom the allegations of sexual harassment have been levelled,” Justice Vikas Mahajan said.
Observing that section 11(4) of the Act cannot be said to be mandatory, the court referred to the decision of Tripura High Court in Vinay Kumar Rai v. Union of India and Ors. wherein it was observed that the time limit provided under the provision cannot be seen as a terminal point beyond which the inquiry cannot be continued.
Case Title: Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. versus UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court has said that promotion under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme of Central Health Services cannot be made in a mechanical manner without considering the employee’s grading in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR).
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said there can be no upgradation of post solely on basis of the number of years of service completed by the employee, de hors the Recruitment Rules and other provisions governing promotion in services.
The court passed the judgement on a petition challenging a decision passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners are members of the Central Health Services, who upon their selection by the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) were appointed in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Grade of Assistant Professor (Teaching Sub-Cadre), in the Department of Pathology, Lady Hardinge Medical College. They were promoted to the Post of Associate Professor in 2001 and 2002.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Verma versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 22
The Delhi High Court has ruled that reimbursement of medical expenses under Central Government (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 cannot be denied on the ground that the hospital charged an amount in excess of the approved rates, in a case where the patient is referred to such hospital.
Expressing dismay at how a petition seeking reimbursement of only Rs 51, 824 remained pending for past 16 years and was vehemently contested by Delhi government, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said the beneficiary employee cannot faulted or penalised to pay the excess amount that was charged from him by the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, when he in the first instance did not even choose the hospital but was referred there.
Title: ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has ordered that no coercive steps be taken against private unaided schools if the qualifications of their Managers are not in accordance with the circulars issued by Delhi Government’s Directorate of Education (DoE) on November 24, 2004 and November 17, 2022.
Justice Prathiba M Singh in the interim order said that any action may impact lakhs of students in the schools, while listing the matter for hearing on May 18.
The court said in so far as schools, whose schemes of management were approved prior to 2004, are concerned and no further approval is being sought by them in respect of the schemes of management, the Managers who are already functioning or who are appointed by these schools shall not be disturbed.
Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 24
The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking constitution of an independent and "politically neutral body" for implementation of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act to avoid misuse of law by the executive.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad pronounced the decision. The plea was moved by the Association for Democratic Reforms and Dr. E.A.S. Sarma, former Secretary to the Government of India in 2015.
Observing that the power to set up a committee or tribunal is purely a policy decision, the court said the mere possibility that a statute will not be administered adequately is not a ground for the statute to be invalidated or for the court to supplement its wisdom with the legislature’s.
Title: VP v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 25
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no bar to file anticipatory bail under section 438 (4) of CrPC in an FIR registered under section 376(3) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the alleged incident happened prior to introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a father accused of raping her minor daughter when she was 15 years of age. While the alleged incident happened in the year 2017, the FIR was filed last year.
Title: Sandeep v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 26
Delhi High Court told the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consider combining other subjects with the law courses to increase diversity of knowledge in the legal field.
“You could consider giving combination courses like biology with law, physics or chemistry with law. Those courses are not there in India. How will you have people who will be well qualified to deal with challenging issues which courts are facing now?” Justice Prathiba M Singh told Advocate Preet Pal Singh, who was appearing for BCI.
Asking the BCI to revisit its present structure of offering 3 years and 5 years of LLB programmes and offer more combination courses, the court said that it is important to have law courses with other subjects included so that people with more diverse backgrounds can be legal professionals.
Court Has No Jurisdiction To Review Order Passed Under Section 11 of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Diamond Entertainment Technologies Private Limited & Ors. versus Religare Finvest Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 27
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that orders passed in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C) cannot be reviewed since there is no provision of review contained in the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing a review petition filed against the arbitral reference made under Section 11, held that in view of the decision of Apex Court in M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt Ltd versus Hero Fincorp Ltd. (2017), disputes covered under the SARFAESI Act in respect of which proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are initiated, can be referred to arbitration.
Title: MANISH KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 28
The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that the Police Commissioner is personally monitoring the registration of FIRs regarding misbehaviour and harassment of women in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was also informed by the government that whenever any instance of misbehaviour on woman is brought to the notice of the Delhi Police, FIR is registered promptly in the matter.
The court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking direction for ensuring that all DTC buses and other public transport buses in the national capital are installed with CCTV cameras and other security features.
Title: PAWAN KUMAR AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 29
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall be applicable for all the personnel of Central Armed Police Forces and directed the Centre to issue necessary orders within eight weeks.
The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in its decision on a batch of 82 petitions seeking quashing of orders denying the benefit of OPS to personnel of CRPF, BSF, CISF and ITBP, said the notification dated 22.12.2003 as well as OM dated 17.02.2020 granting the benefit of Old Pension Scheme "shall be applicable in rem."
The court said Notification dated 22.12.2003 for New Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) shows that in Para (i) it has been categorically mentioned that 'the system would be mandatory for all new recruits to the central Government service from 1st of January 2004 (except the armed forces in the first stage)'.
Case Title: Machine Tools Aids India versus M/s. GNC Infra LLP & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 30
The Delhi High Court has directed the civil courts to incorporate the endorsement that “defendant should file his written statement of defence within 30 days from the date of service/receipt of summons” while issuing summons to the defendant in a commercial suit.
“The Registrar of this Court is directed to transmit copies of this order to the learned District & Sessions Judge (HQ) as well as District & Sessions Judge of all other districts in order to pass necessary orders to make the endorsement as stipulated in Para 35 of this judgment a mandatory part of the summons to be issued under Order V Rule 5 CPC, 1908 in cases pertaining to Commercial Suits as a necessary requirement," Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
Title: Sushil Ansal v. ENDEMOL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 31
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea moved by real estate baron Sushil Ansal seeking an ad interim stay on the release of upcoming Netflix series ‘Trial By Fire' which is based on the Uphaar fire tragedy. The series is scheduled to be released on January 13.
Justice Yashwant Varma refused to grant interim relief to Ansal in his suit which seeks permanent and mandatory injunction against the series and a restraint of further publication and circulation of the book titled ‘Trial By Fire- The tragic tale of the Uphaar Tragedy’.
The book has been authored by Neelam Krishnamoorthy and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, who lost their two minor children in the 1997 fire incident. Neelam is also chairperson of the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, which has led a long struggle in the case against Sushil Ansal and his brother Gopal Ansal.
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation versus Joint Venture Of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 32
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) does not cease to be an application merely because the applicant has not complied with certain procedural requirements.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that filing an affidavit in support of an application and the statement of truth by way of an affidavit, are procedural requirements. In absence of these requirements, the application cannot be treated as non est, the Court said.
Is Order XXV Rule 1(1) CPC Mandatory? Delhi High Court Larger Bench To Decide
Case Title: Communication Components Antenna Inc. versus Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 33
The Delhi High Court has referred the issue relating to the interpretation of Order XXV Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to a larger bench.
Observing that appears to be a "clear inconsistency" in the views expressed by different coordinate benches of the high court on whether the proviso to Order XXV Rule 1(1) of CPC is mandatory in nature or whether the court has a discretion while deciding an application under Order XXV Rule 1(1), the court said “as a matter of judicial propriety, the present matter may be referred to a larger Bench of this Court, so that an authoritative judgment may be passed by the Court on the interpretation of Order XXV Rule 1(1) of the CPC”.
Case Title: M/s Liberty Footwear Company versus M/s Liberty International
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 34
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that disputes relating to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem are arbitrable. Thus, the bench of Justice Navin Chawla concluded that the dispute whether a partner can use the partnership firm’s trade mark for his own sole proprietorship concern, can be referred to arbitration.
The Court further ruled that merely because a Statute specifies which Civil Court is to adjudicate a dispute, is not enough to infer the implicit non-arbitrability of such dispute.
Title: EHRAZ ZAFAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 35
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation alleging gender discrimination by the Delhi Government in promotion of Vice Principals to the post of Principals in government-aided schools.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that in case any female Vice Principal is ignored of promotion on the basis of gender bias, such an individual is certainly at the liberty to file appropriate legal proceedings.
After making some submissions, the plea was withdrawn from court.
Title: MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 36
The Delhi High Court has summoned Delhi Government’s Inspector General of Registration after expressing concern that a large volume of land and property records went missing from a Sub-Registrar office.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue of the Delhi Government to join the court proceedings on February 8, the next date of hearing.
The court observed that the function of the Sub-Registrars is for registering various documents relating to assets of the citizens and the same cannot be treated in a “cavalier and negligent manner.”
Case Title: Capital Food Private Limited versus Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 37
Refusing to grant an interim injunction in favour of Capital Foods against use of the mark ‘Schezwan Chutney’ by Radiant Indus Chem for its products, the Delhi High Court has said that the mark is a descriptive term.
Justice Navin Chawla said that extensive use of the mark ‘Schezwan Chutney’ or ‘Szechuan Chutney’ by other manufacturers indicates that the industry recognizes the mark as a description of the product.
“In the present case, in my prima facie opinion, the combination of the two words does not take away the descriptive nature of the words as they still continue to describe the nature and quality of the product in question. In fact, it is together that they become descriptive,” said the court.
Delhi High Court Directs CARA To Issue NOC To NRI Couple For 2011 Adoption
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 38
Directing CARA to issue an NOC within 30 days to an NRI couple for adoption of a child, the Delhi High Court in a ruling said the application being prior to the coming into force of Adoption Regulations, 2022, the "adoption would not be strictly required to be dealt with in the procedure prescribed in the said Regulations."
"The Court finds that in the present case the adoption dates back to 2011 and the application seeking NOC was filed much before the Regulations came into force on 23rd September, 2022. The Regulations have been notified and current applications, would require verification by the District Magistrate," said the court.
Title: DR. U.S. AWASTHI v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY PMLA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 39
The Delhi High Court has observed that an application for cross-examination filed before the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an integral part of the adjudication process and not alien to the proceedings under Section 8 of the enactment. The court also said cross-examination need not be permitted in every case.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that any interim or procedural orders passed as part of the adjudication process would be “orders under this Act” as stipulated under Section 26. The provision states that the Director or any person aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
The court, however, said that not every appeal against such order would be liable to be entertained and that it is for the Appellate Tribunal to decide as to whether an appeal ought to be entertained at all.
Title: IKRA KHAN v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 40
Questioning AJK Mass Communication Research Centre's action of conducting a “qualitative assessment” after declaration of results of the interview in a PhD programme, the Delhi High Court has said that it “hopes and expects” that Jamia Millia Islamia will conduct admissions strictly as per the procedure laid down under its academic ordinance and regulations.
Denying relief to a candidate aggrieved by denial of admission to Ph.D. programme in AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the practice of making such deliberations after award of marks for the interview is contrary to scheme of admission process contemplated under “Ordinance No. 9 (IX), Part I of Ordinances and Regulation (Academic).”
“Court is unable to appreciate why after awarding marks and announcement of results, further assessment was undertaken. Interview is the only time during the entire admission process that merit and suitability of both, candidates and their proposal, are evaluated and assessed,” the court said.
Title: SMT KAMESHWARI DEVI & ANR. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 41
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to keep in mind the fact as to whether any insurance amount has been received while awarding compensation to the victims or dependents in case of death or grievous injuries.
“In future, whenever the DSLSA considers cases of compensation in the case of death or grievous injuries, the fact as to whether any amount has been received from the Insurance Company, or not, would be borne in mind while awarding the compensation to the victims or the dependents thereof,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: RAJO v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board to consider accepting applications of constructions workers six months before they become eligible for receiving the pension.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that since the Building and Other Construction Workers, Act 1996 and Rules are silent regarding the time period during which pension must be sanctioned to the workers after they attain the age of 60 years, it would save a lot of inconvenience to them if they are permitted to submit their applications six months prior to their becoming eligible for receiving pension.
“The respondent Board is, therefore, directed to consider accepting applications of the constructions workers six months before they become eligible for receiving pension so that once they reach the age of superannuation, their pension can be sanctioned, at the earliest, without any further delay,” the court said.
Case Title: Bright Simons versus Sproxil Inc & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because the arbitrator had wrongly applied the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP Policy), while adjudication a dispute over domain names under the said Policy, the award cannot be set aside in the absence of perversity.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ruled that the terminology used by the arbitrator in the award, that the party had failed to prove its claim “beyond doubt”, cannot be equated with the legal term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, as is used in the criminal trial. Thus, the Court rejected the argument that the standard of proof imposed by the arbitrator violated the fundamental principles of Indian law.
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea seeking review of a judgment dismissing the public interest litigation that had last year challenged the appointment of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the petition was an appeal “disguised as a review” and it did not fall within the four corners of review.
“Petitioner is not able to show any error apparent on face of record. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed on November 11, 2022. The petition is accordingly dismissed,” the bench said.
Title: SUBWAY IP LLC v. INFINITY FOOD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 45
Dismissing its prayer for interim injunction, the Delhi High Court has observed that Subway cannot claim any exclusivity over the word ‘Sub’, especially when used in the context of eateries serving submarine sandwiches.
Justice C Hari Shankar ruled that the word "Sub" is "publici juris" when used in the context of eateries dealing with submarine sandwiches.
“No exclusivity can, therefore, be claimed, by the petitioner over the first part of its registered SUBWAY mark, i.e, "SUB." The plaintiff cannot claim a monopoly over all two-syllable words of which the first syllable is "SUB", especially when used in the context of eateries which serve sandwiches and similar items," the court said.
Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 46
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Unnao rape case, to allow him attend his daughter’s wedding.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba granted interim bail to Sengar for a period of 15 days - January 27 to February 10.
Title: M/S JAI SINGH AND CO versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 47
Allowing petitions that had challenged National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)'s decision to invite fresh bids for collection of user fee at two toll plazas in Haryana during subsistence of ongoing contracts, the Delhi High Court has ruled that a mere possibility of more money in a public contract cannot be the sole criteria for terminating contracts and more particularly, the contracts which are for a fixed duration.
Observing that increase in traffic was the sole reason for calling the fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) by the NHAI, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the decision was arbitrary, capricious and whimsical on part of the authority.
Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 48
The Delhi High Court directed Yash Raj Films to prepare audio description, close captioning and subtitles in Hindi language for the OTT release of its upcoming movie Pathaan to make it accessible for hearing and visually impaired persons.
The movie is scheduled to be released in theatres on January 25 and will be screened on Amazon Prime later in April.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the producer Yash Raj Films to prepare audio description, close captioning and subtitles of the movie within two weeks and submit it to Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for a decision on re-certification by February 20. The court directed that a decision on recertification of the film be taken by March 10.
Title: EMTA COAL LIMITED & ORS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 49
The Delhi High Court has quashed the ECIR and attachment orders passed by the Enforcement Directorate against EMTA Coal Limited and other individuals, observing that if there is an acquittal or discharge or a closure report has been filed in the predicate offence, the ECIR would not stand and the same would be liable to be quashed.
"In view of the settled legal position in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and the subsequent decisions and orders thereafter, the impugned attachment orders dated 14th February, 2022 and 20th June, 2022 as also the ECIRs are quashed," Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: JAGJIT PAL SINGH VIRK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 50
The Delhi High Court has observed that information relating to Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and senior personnel of Indian Navy would not be liable to be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Prathiba M Singh upheld an order passed by Chief Information Commission (CIC) rejecting an RTI application filed by a commander in the Indian Navy. He had sought the information after denial of promotion to the post of Captain in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
Case Title: Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 51
The Delhi High Court Bench comprising of the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has held that that avoidance applications filed under IBC survive even after approval of the resolution plan, in cases where Resolution Plans are unable to account for such applications. These applications can be heard even after CIRP stands concluded.
Case Title: Anubhav Jain versus Satish Kumar Jain & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 52
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to seek cancellation of a mark and rectification of the register, conferred by Section 57 and by Clause (ii) of the second part of Section 124(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, are independent rights, which are both available for invocation by an interested party.
“…. while the right under Section 57, for cancellation of a mark and rectification of the register remains available, if an infringement suit has been filed by the opposite party and the defendant pleads invalidity of the plaintiff’s mark as a ground of defence to the suit, the defendant would acquire an independent right under Clause (ii) of Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to move the learned IPAB (now the High Court) for rectification of the register," the court said.
Title: ARUSHI MEHRA & ANR. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 53
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no requirement of “at least one party being a citizen of India” for solemnization and registration of marriage of a couple under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that section 4 of the enactment leaves no doubt that any two persons can seek solemnization of their marriage so long as conditions stipulated in the provision are fulfilled.
“Sub-Sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 4 do not make any reference to citizens. It is only in Sub-Section (e) of Section 4, where the statute requires that in case of marriages solemnized in Jammu and Kashmir, both parties have to be citizens of India,” the court said.
Case Title: Ashwani Kumar Sharma & Ors. versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 54
The Delhi High Court has ruled that BSNL employees, who opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) 2019, can be engaged in any Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE) or Government Department on contractual or consultancy basis.
The division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with a writ petition filed by former employees of BSNL, who had taken VRS from the government telecom company in 2019. Their petition challenged the "clarification/directive" dated 25.06.2021, issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), which interpreted the term “employment/re-employment” in the VRS Scheme to include engagement on contractual/consultancy basis.
Case Title: SN versus IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 55
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the grant of recovery rights to an insurer against the registered owner of the car whose son was involved in a road accident leading to the death of a 42 year old man in 2013.
Justice Rekha Palli said the 42-year-old man lost his life only because the minor's father did not take appropriate steps to ensure that his vehicle is driven only by a person holding a valid driving licence.
Title: RABINDRA TIWARY v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 56
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a candidate's plea seeking appointment as a judicial officer against the unfilled vacancies which were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination - 2022.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the petitioner candidate does not have any indefeasible right to be appointed to the higher judicial service and that he cannot, as a matter of right, claim that the vacancies reserved for SC/ST candidates be de-reserved.
Title: MCD v. Lokpal of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 57
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to not act on the order passed by Lokpal of India directing the central agency to initiate a probe against officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) over a complaint alleging illegal and unauthorized constructions in South Delhi area.
"Considering the nature of matter, in the meantime, the CBI shall not proceed with the investigation under the impugned order ... It is however clarified that if there are any specific complaints which are received by Lokpal against any other officials of the MCD or in general against unauthorised constructions, there would be no interdiction of the Lokpal proceedings, in accordance with law, in such a matter," said the court.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 58
The Delhi Police has informed the High Court that it is carrying out periodic checks throughout the national capital to ensure that no barricade remains unmanned and that it will make all possible endeavours to keep all the barricades manned.
Taking noting of the submission, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a suo moto public interest litigation registered by the court last year in respect of the unmanned barricades
Case Title: Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt Ltd versus Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 59
The Delhi High Court has ruled that no appeal is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the order of refusal of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint.
While holding that an appeal can be filed only against the orders passed by a Court which are specifically provided under Order XLIII Rule 1, the bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not find any mention in Order XLIII Rule 1.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. versus Alcon Builders and Engineer Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 60
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mandate contained in Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), as per which an arbitral award shall state the reasons on which it is based, must pervade every aspect of the award, including the award of costs.
“Awarding costs by a stroke of the pen, without stating reasons therefor, would fly in the face of section 31(3), apart from being opposed to well accepted canons of fairness and justice”, the bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked. The Court thus set aside the award of costs made against the award debtor, holding that the same was arbitrary since it was unreasoned and did not contain any quantification.
Title: PSV v. THE INDIAN SCHOOL & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 61
The Delhi High Court has observed that barring a student from taking examinations on the ground of non-payment of fees would be infringement of rights of a child as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that a child’s future cannot be allowed to be spoiled and blemished by barring him or her from taking examinations, especially at a crucial juncture of class X and XII examinations.
“Thus, a child cannot be made to suffer and not be allowed to attend classes or barred from taking examinati
Title: X v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 62
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions regarding the presence of POCSO victims during bail hearings, observing that the same has an adverse impact on the psyche of the victim.
Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the victim can be produced virtually before the court, either by the IO or a support person, by way of Video Conferencing or by taking assistance of the District Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
Observing that the victim and accused will not come face to face in this manner and the same can prevent “victim’s re-traumatization,” the court said that hybrid form of hearing of bail applications would suitably address the concerns of the victim while at the same time safeguarding the rights of accused.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By Asiya Andrabi's Dukhtaran-E-Millat Challenging UAPA Ban
Title: DUKHTARAN-E-MILLAT v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 63
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Separatist leader Asiya Andrabi led Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) challenging a notification declaring it as a terrorist organisation under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The Kashmir-based all-women outfit was banned by the Centre on December 30, 2004 under Section 3 of UAPA. Arrested by the National Investigation Agency in 2018, Andrabi continues to remain in judicial custody.
Justice Anish Dayal dismissed the plea after noting that the petitioner organization has a remedy available under UAPA to seek removal of its name from the Schedule, which was not exercised in the matter.
Case Title: Amanatullah Khan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 64
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan challenging opening of history sheet against him by Delhi Police in March last year declaring him as a bad character.
VAT Department Not To Initiate Coercive Measures Against PSU Pawan Hans: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65
The Delhi High Court has granted a stay to helicopter charterer PSU Pawan Hans Ltd. against a VAT demand of Rs. 176 crores.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the issue needs consideration and directed the VAT department not to initiate coercive measures for recovery of the VAT demand confirmed by the Delhi VAT Tribunal in the interim.
Title: SURJEET KUMAR v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 66
The Delhi High Court has said that there is no requirement of a birth certificate to prove the age of the victim and that any school certificate is sufficient evidence to prove the victim’s age.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while perusing section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2015 which provides for presumption and determination of age.
The provision states that where the Child Welfare Committee or the Juvenile Justice Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, it shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate.
Case Title: Sneh Aggarwal versus Punjab National Bank
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 67
The Delhi High Court has said that findings of departmental authorities in disciplinary proceedings cannot be challenged by the employee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the grounds of adequacy or reliability.
"It is also a settled proposition that if the enquiry is properly held the departmental authorities are the sole judge of facts," Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.
The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a bank employee, who was dismissed from service in 1995 for misconduct and fraud after a departmental enquiry was conducted by the bank. The employee challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), where the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement in service was dismissed.
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 68
The Delhi High Court has appointed retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, as Administrator to oversee utilization of funds in the upcoming ISSF Shooting World Cup, 2023.
ISSF World Cup (Rifle/Pistol) is scheduled to be held in Bhopal in March.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the country’s prestige will be affected if there is any impediment in organizing the World Cup event which would require funding from the Central Government.
Title: KRBL LIMITED vs VIKRAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 69
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of KRBL Limited, a market leader in the business of processing, marketing and exporting rice, in a case accusing Vikram Roller Flour Mills of infringing its right over the 'India Gate' mark by its use in respect of 'dalia'.
Justice Amit Bansal said Vikram Mills has placed sufficient material on record showing use of the ‘INDIA GATE’ device mark by it from 1990, which is prior to the registration granted to KRBL.
Title: SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 70
The Delhi High Court has ordered that there will be age relaxation of three years in the upper age limit as a “one time measure” for candidates intending to apply for the posts of Head Constable (Ministerial) in CRPF 2022 examination. An advertisement for the posts was issued on December 27 last year.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has directed the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Central Government to issue a Corrigendum on or before January 25, the last date of applying to the post in question and also to extend the date of inviting applications.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. KOLLI UDAY KUMARI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 71
The Delhi High Court has said that a widowed or divorced daughter is entitled to the benefit under freedom fighter pension scheme of 1980, noting that the scheme does not contemplate their exclusion.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh observed that a “quick read” of the 1980 Scheme and 2014 Guidelines framed under it would show that an unmarried daughter falls in the category of eligible dependents and hence, is entitled to pension upon the expiry of the freedom fighter.
“The expression “unmarried” adverts to a person who is not married. It includes a woman who is single i.e., who was married but divorced and even a woman who is widowed,” the court said.
Title: V K KANJLIA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 72
The Delhi High Court has observed that death caused due to overwork and toxic work environment is a social problem which requires the government, labour unions, health officials and corporates to formulate appropriate policies.
Observing that the problem of “toxic work culture” is plaguing all booming economies, Justice Jasmeet Singh cited the example of Japan where a term "karoshi” - which means “overwork deaths”, is used to signify a large number of deaths caused on account of “hostile working environment” which causes physical and mental stress.
Case Title: Monika Oli versus M/s CL Educate Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73
The Delhi High Court has ruled that delivery of arbitral award, to be effective under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), must be made to a person who has direct knowledge of the arbitral proceedings. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that the word ‘party’ in Section 34(3) of the A&C Act means party to the arbitral proceedings and does not include an agent of the party as well.
The Court further held that, delivery of the arbitral award to the employee of an entity in which the award debtor is a shareholder but the arbitral dispute does not pertain to that entity, would not constitute as proper delivery in terms of the A&C Act.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Money Laundering Case Against Raghav Bahl, Calls Plea 'Premature'
Title: Raghav Bahl v. ED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 74
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a money laundering case against The Quint's founder Raghav Bahl at this stage. The court also refused to quash the look out circular (LOC) against him at this stage
Dismissing the plea challenging registration of ECIR and proceedings initiated by ED, Justice Jasmeet Singh said:
“The allegations (under the complaint) are yet to reach the stage of trial. Whether there is generation of proceeds of crime or not is being investigated and for the said reason, the petition as of today is premature and is rejected.”
The Income Tax department had initiated proceedings against Bahl under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act for alleged irregularities in IT returns filed for the assessment year 2018-2019. The complaint was filed under section 51 of the Act.
Title: N v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Department GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 75
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue a circular directing that the identity of a minor girl, who is seeking medical termination of her pregnancy, and her family shall not be disclosed in the report prepared by registered medical practitioners (RMP) to the police.
Section 19(1) of POCSO Act provides mandatory reporting of child sexual offences to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.
Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the direction after observing that the minors and their families may be forced to approach non-registered and unqualified medical practitioners, midwives and courts to terminate the pregnancies which could result in adverse impact on the health of the minor.
Title: ISHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 76
Observing that COVID-19 vaccination cannot be insisted upon by the employer, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to a government school lecturer seeking permission to teach and undertake other responsibilities without being forced to take the vaccine.
Noting that the teacher, who moved court in 2021, was now vaccinated, Justice Prathiba M Singh permitted her to make a representation to the concerned authority for service benefits and directed that the decision on the same be taken within 30 days.
Title: RS v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 77
Observing that FIRs should not be registered against law students for posing as lawyers before the courts, the Delhi High Court has said that they should be counselled instead.
"It is understandable that Presiding Officers take an objection where law interns tend to pose as lawyers, but on the other hand, these law interns, who are merely students, should be counselled, properly informed and instructed, rather than FIRs being registered, merely on this basis," said the court.
Justice Anish Dayal said that a law intern is a student who is in process of understanding the court practice and procedures and therefore it is the “duty of the institution” to take adequate steps to facilitate their education and training and not simply punish them for these “inadvertent acts.”
Case Title: Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Delhi (GST)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 78
The Delhi High Court has held that the payment of tax and penalty to release the detained goods shall not be treated as "admission" on the part of the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner had paid the tax and penalty for the release of the goods and that the said payment was not voluntary. Neither the show-cause notice nor the order of demand clearly sets out the reason for imposing the tax liability as well as the penalty.
Title: M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 79
The Delhi High Court has observed that Enforcement Directorate (ED) can only investigate the offence of money laundering and cannot assume, from the material gathered by it during investigation, that a predicate offence stands committed
Emphasising that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 empowers the ED to investigate offences under Section 3 only, Justice Yashwant Varma said:
“Its power to investigate and enquire stands confined to the offence of money laundering as defined in that Section. However, the same cannot be read as enabling it to assume from the material that it may gather in the course of that investigation that a predicate offense stands committed. The predicate offence has to be necessarily investigated and tried by the authorities empowered by law in that regard.”
Deaf Sportspersons Have To Be Treated On Par With Para-Athletes: Delhi High Court To Centre
Title: VIRENDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 80
The Delhi High Court has observed that deaf and para sportspersons have to be treated equally and neither category can be discriminated against the other.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing the petitions moved by four sportspersons in 2020, who won medals in several international events. They have been assessed with having 100% disability in hearing and speaking. By way of the petitions, they sought equal treatment of deaf sports persons with other para-athletes.
It was their case that sportspersons who participate in Deaflympics, being deaf, would be deserving of the same status as those who participate in Olympic games.
Title: RITA SEHGAL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 81
The Delhi High Court has asked the Union of India to enforce the recently-enacted provisions for grant of compensation to road accident victims, under the Motor Vehicles Act, within six months.
Referring to Motor Vehicles (32nd Amendment) Act, 2019 which inserted sections 145 to 165 in the Act of 1988, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said:
“Resultantly, as the statute provides for a remedy for grant of compensation to the road accident victims even if the accident causing vehicle is uninsured as well as in the accidents caused by hit and run cases, Union of India is granted six months’ time to enforce the provisions which are now in the statute books.”
Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Hqrs.) versus M/s Spraytec India Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 82
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an officer of customs contemplates that a question may arise for consideration, does not mean that the question is “pending” consideration so as to bar the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) from deciding the issue in an application for advance ruling, under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that in order for a question to be considered as pending before any customs officer, its necessary that the question must be raised in a notice, enabling the assessee to respond to the said issue. It added that the CAAR is not barred from giving an advance ruling on a question only on the ground that a preliminary exercise was done by a customs officer to determine whether any question for consideration in the case of the assessee arises or not.
No Provision In GST Act for Confiscating Currency From The Premises : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Arvind Goyal CA Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 83
The Delhi High Court ruled that there is no provision in the GST Act that would allow for the forcible removal of currency from the premises of any person.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the powers of search and seizure are draconian powers and must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute and only if the necessary conditions are satisfied.
Case Title: Chabbras Associates v. HSCC India Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 84
The Delhi High Court has held that an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the A&C Act would be premature if it is filed without compliance with the pre-arbitration internal dispute resolution mechanism stipulated under the agreement.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla held that when the agreement provides for a multi-tier dispute resolution process in the form of reference of dispute firstly to some internal authorities and on being dissatisfied invoke the arbitration, then the parties cannot directly approach the court for the appointment of arbitrator without exhausting the remedy given under the contract.
Title: MINOR R THR MOTHER H v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 85
The Delhi High Court has issued guidelines to the Investigating Officers to be followed in rape and sexual assault cases where victim's pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that at the time of medical examination of a victim of sexual assault, it will be mandatory to conduct a “Urine Pregnancy Test”.
The court further said that when the victim, who is major and is found pregnant due to sexual assault, expresses her desire for medical termination of pregnancy, the investigating officer will ensure that she is produced before a medical board on the same day.
Arbitration Clause Continues To Operate Even After Dissolution Of Partnership: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Shyamjee Prepaid Services versus M/s Top Steels & Mrs. Renu Devi & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 86
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a contract executed with a partnership firm, will continue in effect even after the death of a partner causes the dissolution of the partnership.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the Court has the power to conduct a procedural review of its order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). It further remarked that the Courts’ competence to review Section 11 orders is unaffected by substantive concerns like a Tribunal’s jurisdiction or the authenticity of evidence.
Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 87
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Government’s Director of Education to ensure that there is no scarcity of teachers in primary schools meant for visually impaired students.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also said that all possible efforts must be made to ensure that teachers are permitted to continue in such schools till the current academic session is over and the students do not suffer due to unavailability of teachers.
“Director (Social Welfare) & Director (Education) of the State Government are directed to ensure strict compliance of the order keeping in view the fact that the examinations are going to be held in the month of March,” the court said.
Not Permissible To Take One Dose Of Covishield And Another Of Covaxin: Centre To Delhi High Court
Title: MADHUR MITTAL v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 88
The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that it is not permissible for an individual to take first dose of Covishield and second dose of Covaxin.
Central Government’s standing counsel Anurag Ahluwalia told Justice Prathiba M Singh that mixing of two COVID-19 vaccines is not permissible for the first and second dose. However, he said it is allowed for the booster dose.
The court was hearing a plea moved by Madhur Mittal, a cancer patient, in 2021 seeking permission to take Covaxin for second dose instead of Covishield, which was administered to him as the first dose.
Case Title: Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. National Research Development Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 89
The Delhi High Court has held that objections available under Section 47 of CPC cannot be considered by a Court at the time of enforcement of an arbitration award under Section 36 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Vashwant Varma held though under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Arbitral Award was required to be made a rule of the Court and a decree but Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, confers the Arbitral Award with a status of a decree to be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. However, the deeming fiction is limited for the purpose of enforcement and not to make it a decree for all purposes, thus, the objections that can be raised against a decree at the enforcement stage would not apply to an arbitration award which is a deemed decree only.
Title: Yashdeep Chahal v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 90
Dealing with a plea seeking action against media houses for revealing identity of victim and accused persons of Hyderabad rape case, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to set up “one stop centres” in every district in compliance of a Supreme Court decision of 2018.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad referred to the judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India passed on December 11, 2018.
The apex court in the ruling had requested state governments and Union Territories to set up at least one one stop centre in every district within one year of the judgment. It had observed that such centres can be used as a central police station where all crimes against women and children in town or city are registered.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Censor Board For Non-Film Songs Released On Internet
Title: NEHA KAPOOR & ANR v. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 91
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation which had sought setting up of a regulatory authority or censor board to review and censor the non-film songs and their contents including their lyrics and videos, before their release on internet. The petition had sought immediate ban on all non-film songs with "obscene/vulgar" content.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that there is a clear regulation or regime laid down by the Central Government to regulate the information or content which is available to the general public through various media platforms.
Case Title: Blackstone Capital Partner Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 92
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice as the AO failed to apply his mind as to whether an investment in shares was a capital account transaction.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the principal allegation against the assessee is that it purchased shares of an Indian company and that this led to the escapement of income chargeable to tax. The central issue to which the AO should have applied his mind is whether the investment in shares by the assessee was a capital account transaction, given the fact that there is no allegation of round-tripping. There is no reference to Section 115Aeither in the show-cause notice or in the order passed by the AO.
Case Title: Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Sukumar Chand Jain
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 93
The Delhi High Court has held that the a no-claim certificate is given under coercion if it was in a pre-printed form and a pre-condition to the release of payment under the final bill.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held dispute between the parties cannot be said to be settled by accord and satisfaction on account of no-claim certificate given by the contractor, if the employer, as a matter of practice, requires all the contractors to furnish a pre-printed no-claim certificate as a pre-condition to release of payment under the final bill.
Title: X v. GNCTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 94
Delhi High Court has granted bail to a 20-year-old in a POCSO case after the victim — the wife of accused, told the court that they were in a consensual relationship at the time of alleged offence, and is offering to stand as surety for him in case he is granted bail.
In the decision on the bail application moved by the accused, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the offences under Section 376 (2) and Section 6 POCSO Act are alleged to have been committed when the victim, who is over 19 years old now, was at the cusp of majority.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 95
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2014, which bars deduction of CSR expenses while computing income from business or profession, is prospective in nature.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that deductibility of CSR expenses under Section 37(1), prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, cannot depend upon how the funds are spent by the recipient.
Title: CPIO, CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU v. G.S. SRINIVASAN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 96
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an exempted intelligence or security organisation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, cannot be asked to disclose the outcome of a complaint which does not relate to corruption or human rights violations.
Setting aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the CPIO of Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) to consider providing outcome of a complaint to the appellant, Justice Prathiba M Singh said the information relating to money laundering business, hawala money transactions, tax evasion and smuggling activities do not relate to “corruption or human rights violations” and thus, they cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Title: RAVINDER LAL AIRI v. S.SHALU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 97
The Delhi High Court has observed that a revision petition filed against an order directing registration of FIR is maintainable as such an order is not an interlocutory order. The accused has a valuable right to be heard, said the court.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said the registration of FIR affects the fundamental right and freedom of an accused. The person can be summoned for investigation, arrested without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences, the court observed.
“Therefore, an order directing registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and the revision petition against the same would be maintainable as the accused has a valuable right to be heard,” Justice Singh said.
Title: SANDISK LLC & ANR versus LAXMI MOBILES & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 98
Passing a permanent injunction against two shopkeepers for selling counterfeit microSDHC cards and USB flash drives under 'SanDisk' name, the Delhi High Court has held them liable to pay damages of Rs 4 Lakh to SanDisk LLC and SanDisk India Device Design Centre.
Justice Sanjeev Narula in a ruling said the photographs of goods seized by the Local Commissioners from the shopkeepers in Trichy, Tamil Nadu demonstrate that they were indulging in sale and distribution of products which display identical marks as that of SanDisk's.
Case Title: Al Sudais Haj and Umrah Service v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 99
The Delhi High Court on Monday quashed and set aside an order which debarred a private tour operator from applying for being enlisted as a Haj Group Operator (HGO) for a period of 05 years.
Centre had also forfeited the tour operator's security deposit of Rs 25 lakhs. The court has said the petitioner Al Sudais Haj and Umrah Service shall be entitled to refund of the security deposit.
"Since the Court has found that the debarment would not sustain, the same shall not act as a disqualification in the future years," the court said further.
Title: WAZIRPUR BARTAN NIRMATA SANGH (THROUGH ITS SECRETARY) & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 100
Taking exception to the “unhealthy pattern” of not filing status reports and affidavits in time, the Delhi High Court has cautioned the government authorities, state departments and corporations that costs would be imposed if the time schedule for pleadings fixed is not adhered to.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that usually all the governmental authorities, despite specific directions, are unable to file the affidavits within the specified time schedule and “they choose to do so only within the same just one or two days before the date of hearing.”
Case Title: Charu Chains & Jewels (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 101
The Delhi High Court has held that the underlying information or material that formed the basis for triggering the assessment or reassessment proceedings was required to be furnished to the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has noted that the petitioner has indicated that it will file a further response once the information or material is provided, and even if the information or material is not provided, it will reserve its right to file a further response.
Title: SMT. BENI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 102
The Delhi High Court has ruled that jhuggi jhopri dwellers cannot be disqualified from rehabilitation under Delhi Government’s policy merely because their name doesn't reflect in the electoral roll.
Justice Prathiba M Singh relied on the judgment of a division bench in Udal and Ors. v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Ors wherein it was held that the parties would be permitted to place on record other documents including ration card, school records, driving license, aadhar card etc for being considered eligible of the rehabilitation scheme.
Case Title: Pink City Expressways Pvt Ltd versus Aaron Security & Services Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 103
The Delhi High Court has upheld the arbitral reference made to a common Sole Arbitrator as well as a common State of Claims filed before the Arbitral Tribunal, with respect to a dispute arising under two separate agreements, considering the fact that the agreements were closely interlinked and contained identical Arbitration Clauses, stipulating same conditions.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh remarked that the services the respondent/claimant was providing under the two agreements, were connected services. Considering the ‘allied nature’ of the two contracts and the common conditions of the Arbitration Clauses, the filing of a common claim petition before the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be faulted with, the Court said.
Case Title: GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Limited v. NHAI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 104
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court cannot grant a relief which is final in nature in an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that relief contemplated under Section 9 of the Act is only interim in nature I.e., ‘in the intervening time’ or ‘provisional’ and it has to be in aid of the enforcement of the award and subject to the final relief given in the award. The Court refused to injunct the respondent from withholding the payment on account of alleged delay as the Court observed that the relief claimed by the petitioner was final in nature as it was neither subject to any award or in aid of any enforcement.
Case Title: M/s Raj Chawla and Co. Stock & Share Brokers versus M/s Nine Media & Information Services Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 105
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that since the the amended provisions of Section 29A (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) are essentially procedural in character, they would apply even to arbitrations pending on the date the amended provision was brought into force.
Section 29A (1) of A&C Act, as amended by the 2019 Amendment Act, w.e.f. 30.8.2019, provides that an arbitral award must be rendered within 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings before the Arbitral Tribunal as per Section 24 (3).
Title: SONAM RAWAL v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 106
The Delhi High Court has said that the University of Delhi needs to take “immediate corrective measures” for removal of misleading information on admission eligibility criteria from its official website.
Justice Vikas Mahajan said such contradictory and misleading criteria not only creates confusion in the minds of the candidates but also leads to unwarranted litigation.
“….the University of Delhi needs to take immediate corrective measures in identifying and removing all such material from its website which mentions the eligibility criteria for admission to any course, contrary to the one stipulated in the Bulletin of Information or the statutory Rules, Regulations and Ordinances of the University, for such contradictory and misleading criteria not only creates confusion in the minds of the candidates but also leads to unwarranted litigation,” the court said.
Title: NT v. VT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 107
Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has said that the protection under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not available to a husband or male member of the family, in view of sections 2(a) of the statute.
Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the 'respondent' and alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence.
Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a plea moved by a wife challenging the proceedings initiated by her husband under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Title: AMAR SINGH EX NB SUB & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 108
A full bench of Delhi High Court has clarified that final orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal can be challenged before High Court.
A full bench of Justice Manmohan, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna answered a reference seeking a clarification that whether the right of appeal against the final orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal excludes the remedy of judicial review by High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: Sun Renewables Rt Pvt Ltd versus Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 109
The Delhi High Court has said that the purpose of Achievement-Linked Incentives and Awards Scheme under ‘Grid Connected Rooftop and Small Solar Power Plants Program’ is to increase the installation and use of solar panels for the purpose of encouraging renewable energy projects.
“In the opinion of the Court, the Scheme is a beneficial scheme the purpose of which is to promote private participation and incentivise energy efficiency. Thus, in such cases literal / technical construction ought to be avoided. Rather, the authorities ought not to follow a pedantic approach but a pragmatic approach that fulfils the purpose for which the Scheme was made,” the court said.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said climate change is a cause for concern and harnessing solar energy is the need of the hour.
Title: NEERAJ MEHTA & ANR. v. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 110
The Delhi High Court has asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to consider "the manner in which products" of health insurance policy "can be designed for persons with hearing disabilities and implants."
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that IRDAI, while submitting its position to the court, shall consider the existing policies and guidelines as may be applicable to persons with disabilities.
The court passed the order in addition to the directions given in Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., wherein it had asked IRDAI to call a meeting of all insurance companies to ensure that products relating to health insurance coverage are designed for persons with disabilities.
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 111
Setting aside the observations made by Central Information Commission (CIC) against Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and the costs imposed by the statutory body against its CPIO in a RTI case related to workplace sexual harassment, the Delhi High Court has directed the Public Sector Undertaking to pay a cost of Rs 75,000 to the RTI applicant in view of the long-drawn battle he had to undertake.
"The only issue that now remains is whether Respondent No. 2 who has been litigating since 2016 has to be awarded any litigation costs in the matter. In the opinion of the Court, while disagreeing with the approach of the CIC of making sweeping observations, in view of the long-drawn battle that the Respondent had to undertake, the ends of justice would be met by awarding costs of Rs.75,000/- to Respondent No.2," said the court.
Aircraft Imported For Private Purposes, No Customs Duty Exemption Allowed: Delhi High Court
Case Title: East India Hotels Ltd. Versus Commissioners of Customs, General Excise and Central GST
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 112
The Delhi High Court has held that the aircraft was imported for private purposes and not for providing non-scheduled passenger or charter services. Therefore, the condition for customs duty exemption was not available to the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bhakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the appellant has not used the aircraft for providing air transport service for remuneration of any kind. The provision of non-scheduled (passenger) services, as defined under clause (b) of the explanation to Condition No. 104 of the exemption notification, entails providing air transport services to the public at large on the basis of payment of the published tariff.
Title: RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 113
The Delhi High Court refused to stay release of filmmaker Hansal Mehta’s movie Faraaz which is based on the terrorist attack that took place on July 01, 2016, at Holey Artisan, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh directed the filmmaker and producers to “scrupulously adhere” to the disclaimer which states that the film is inspired by the attack and elements contained in it are pure works of fiction.
The court was hearing an appeal moved by two women, who lost their daughters in the attack, against the order of the single judge who had refused to grant interim relief against release of the movie.
Case Title: Ozone Research & Applications (I) Pvt Ltd versus Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 114
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the ‘Seat’ of arbitration would be the place where the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) has conducted the arbitral proceedings as per the provisions of Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that since there was no arbitration agreement between the parties containing a jurisdiction clause, and since the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act had assumed jurisdiction and rendered the arbitral award in Nagpur where the supplier was located, in view of Section 18(4), therefore, the seat of arbitration was in Nagpur.
ONGC v. Afcons By SC Will Not Affect Fee Already Fixed By Arbitration Tribunal : Delhi High Court
Case Title: NHAI v. IJM GAYATRI JV, OMP (COMM.) 235 of 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court has held that the fees fixed by arbitral tribunal in accordance with judgment of its coordinate bench in Rail Vikas Nigam case cannot be held to be either against the public policy or the substantive law as existed on the said date.
It refused to stay the operation of an award that had directed the petitioner to pay the fees of arbitral tribunal in terms of the judgment in Rail Vikas.
The Supreme Court in ONGC v. Afcons held that maximum fees that an arbitrator can charge on a claim is Rs. 30 Lakhs.
The court was considering a situation wherein the fees was fixed in terms of the earlier law. The petitioner challenged the fees so fixed as violative of the Supreme Court order.
Title: BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN v. GNCTD & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 116
The Delhi High Court has ordered that a committee be constituted in each district for inspection of the premises where units are employing child labourers, and called for a status report regarding the action taken.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that under the supervision of Chief Secretary of Delhi, the Deputy Commissioner of Police of each District in coordination with the Department of Labour, Women and Child Welfare Department, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are directed to form such committees.
Title: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. Cpio, Ministry Of Home Affairs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 117
The Delhi High Court observed that the reports and dossiers prepared by intelligence agencies cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that major public interest is in protecting safety and security of the country and not in disclosing such reports.
“Reports and dossiers by intelligence authorities, which are subject matter of investigation cannot be disclosed under RTI, especially if they compromise the sovereignty or integrity of the country,” the court said.
Title: NITYA NAND GAUTAM v. CENTRAL BEREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Observing that the right to travel is a valuable fundamental right, the Delhi High Court has said that pendency of an appeal when sentence has been suspended cannot be an “exceptional circumstance” under which such right can be curtailed.
Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed one Nitya Nand Gautam, a convict in a case registered under Prevention of Corruption Act, to travel to Dubai for one month to meet his daughter from February 15 to March 15.
Delhi High Court Upholds Use Of Rule Of Contra Proferentem By Arbitrator While Interpreting Contract
Case Title: Flowmore Ltd versus Skipper Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 119
The Delhi High Court has ruled that if the arbitrator uses a contract executed between the parties to determine a dispute, the clauses of the contract should, in principle, be construed contra proferentem, i.e., the clauses should be interpreted against the party that drafted it.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that the rule of contra proferentem can be regarded as a ‘general canon’ of interpretation that exists independently of national legal systems.
Budgetary Support Under GST Regime Can’t Be Denied To An Eligible Unit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Special Cables Pvt Ltd versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court has directed the revenue authorities to grant budgetary support to a manufacturing unit under the “Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax (GST) Regime”, available to ‘eligible units’ located in specified States. The Court took note that the petitioner was eligible for exemption from Central Excise Duty prior to 01.07.2017, i.e., before the introduction of the GST regime in India, and thus, in terms of the Scheme, it was entitled to avail budgetary support.
Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121
The Delhi High Court refused to pass directions on a public interest litigation praying that Centre and Election Commission of India be directed to ascertain the feasibility of conducting elections to Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly together in 2024.
“ We cannot do it. We are not lawmakers. We know our limitations. We ensure compliance of law. We can’t issue such mandamus,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
As Upadhyay said that the plea be treated as representation, the bench disposed of the same by directing ECI to consider the PIL as representation and decide it in accordance with law.
Case Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER vs CAPITAL GENERAL STORE & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 122
The Delhi High Court has directed a Sadar Bazar trader to pay rupees five lakhs to Louis Vuitton within four weeks or face civil prison for a week, after he was held guilty of contempt for violating a restraining order by continuing to sell counterfeit products of famous French luxury brand.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that a counterfeiter abandons any right to equitable consideration by a court functioning within the confines of the rule of law, adding that he is “entitled to no sympathy” as he “practices, knowingly and with complete impunity, falsehood and deception.”
Case Title: HP Cotton Textile Mills Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 123
The Delhi High Court has ruled that appeal against the order of the High Court, passed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, since it is not one of the orders enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), from which an appeal would lie.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that in view of the proviso to Section 13(1A), an appeal shall lie only from such orders that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC. The Court ruled that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kandla Export Corporation & Ors. v. OCI Corporation & Ors. (2018), the scope of appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act is controlled by its proviso.
Sec 34 Petition Is Not Non-Est, Even If Award Is Not Filed In A Separate Folder: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ambrosia Corner House Pvt Ltd versus Hangro S Foods
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 124
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the error committed by the petitioner/award debtor in not filing the documents, including the copy of the Arbitral Award challenged by it, in a separate e-folder, as prescribed in the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, would not render the petition filed by it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as non-est.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla remarked that a more liberal approach must be adopted by the Court while considering whether the filing should be treated as ‘non-est.’
Department Can’t Go Behind TRC Issued By The Other Tax Jurisdictions: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 125
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment and held that the department cannot go behind the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the other tax jurisdiction.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the reason given for reopening the assessment, namely, to verify the nature and genuineness of the transactions of the assessee in the assessment year, was untenable in law as the return of income had been filed by the assessee within time with full particulars. The notice has been issued on borrowed satisfaction, which is impermissible in law.
Case Title: P v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 126
The Delhi High Court has observed that institutions cannot escape the liability for dragging on sensitive sexual harassment complaints under Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act and that management and authorities must behave in a responsible manner.
Observing that constitution of the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) is of utmost importance in such cases, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:
“ Adjudication of complaints relating to sexual harassment need to be dealt with utmost care. The inquiry needs to be by a duly constituted ICC and the same needs to be complete in all aspects. Institutions cannot escape liability for dragging on these sensitive complaints.”
Title: SR. SEPHY v. CBI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 127
Calling it a form of “inhuman treatment”, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that conducting virginity test on a female detainee or accused under investigation is unconstitutional and in violation of her right to dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that virginity test is “sexist” and violates human right to dignity of a female accused if she is subjected to such a test while being in custody.
Title: AX v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 128
The Delhi High Court asked the social media platforms, including WhatsApp and Google, to take down URLs or posts relating to a video, showing a judicial officer in a compromising position, if not already removed in terms of the interim restraining order passed earlier.
Justice Yashwant Varma disposed of a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the social media platforms from publishing or sharing the video in question. It is not known who filed the suit as the court has allowed a prayer to mask the identity of the plaintiff.
Title: RR Patil Foundation & Anr. v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 129
The Delhi High Court directed Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to expeditiously consider the plea of an NGO in case it wishes to co-organize a cultural programme at Agra Fort on February 19 on the occasion of birth anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, with Maharashtra government.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a plea moved by Maharashtra based registered trust R.R. Patil Foundation along with Ajinkya Devgiri Pratishthan, challenging a communication of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) dated December 23, 2022, denying permission to organize the event.
Title: SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 130
The Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital told Delhi High Court that it will provide free medical treatment to patients belonging to economically weaker section (EWS) to the extent of 10% in inpatient department (IPD) and 25% in out patient department (OPD) with effect from March 01.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation moved by an NGO namely Social Jurist, against lack of free treatment facilities for poor patients in the hospital.
NSE Phone Tapping Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Chitra Ramkrishna In Money Laundering Case
Title: CHITRA RAMKRISHNA v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 131
The Delhi High Court granted bail to former NSE (National Stock Exchange) CEO Chitra Ramkrishna in a money laundering case related to the alleged illegal phone tapping of employees by National Stock Exchange (NSE).
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Ramakrishna is not guilty of the offence and that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The court said that prima facie, no scheduled offences against her were established and thus, the provisions of PMLA cannot be attracted to the present case.
Title: Shahrukh Pathan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 132
The Delhi High Court asked Shahrukh Pathan, accused in 2020 Northeast Delhi riots cases, to move an application before trial court for advancing the hearing of his petition alleging that he was attacked and assaulted by jail officials.
Justice Amit Sharma, who was hearing a similar petition moved by Pathan, said that since a plea has already been moved before trial court, it would be appropriate if an application is moved seeking early hearing before the concerned court.
Case Title: Kidde India Ltd versus National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 133
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the limitation period within which a party is required to approach the court for seeking constitution of the arbitral tribunal, cannot be conflated with the limitation period for invoking the arbitration agreement. Thus, any delay by the party in taking further steps for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, will not render the party’s substantive claims as barred by limitation.
Title: NATASHA NARWAL & ANR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 134
The Delhi High Court disposed of Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita's plea seeking various facilities of prisoners in Tihar jail. Narwal and Kalita are accused in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 North-East riots.
Both Narwal and Kalita moved the plea in 2020 in wake of the restrictions imposed on account of COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting multiple issues faced by undertrials inside the prison. They were granted bail by High Court in June 2021, against which appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To CA In Money Laundering Case Against Shakti Bhog
Case Title: Raman Bhuraria versus Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 135
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to the Auditor of M/s Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd in the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the company. The ED had opposed the bail application, alleging that the company’s Internal Auditor Raman Bhuraria was the mastermind of the whole operation.
Observing that no satisfactory explanation has been given by the ED for the lack of documents that could directly point to Bhuraria as the “mastermind”, Justice Jasmeet Singh said that the only substantial evidence against him are the statements made by the employees of Shakti Bhog under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which too have been retracted.
Title: SONALI KARWASRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 136
The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and subsequent amendments made in the enactment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also called for strict compliance of a standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on December 17, 2018, in respect of validation of driving license, registration certificates and other transport related documents in electronic form.
In Camera Proceedings Can Be Allowed Under Section 151 CPC In Appropriate Cases: Delhi High Court
Title: TARU PURI v. ANMOL SHEIKH ALIAS MALAIKA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 137
The Delhi High Court has observed that in-camera proceedings can be allowed to be held in appropriate cases under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that merely because there is no express provision in CPC regarding in-camera proceedings does not mean that such proceedings cannot be allowed by court.
Delhi High Court Directs Trial Courts To Decide Cases Pending Against MPs, MLAs On Priority
Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 138
The Delhi High Court directed trial courts in the national capital to decide pending cases against former and sitting lawmakers (MPs and MLAs) on priority.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing a suo motu case initiated by it in the year 2020 concerning expedited trial of cases against MPs and MLAs.
Title: AKASH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 139
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a 21-year-old in a case registered under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after the prosecutrix, who was 17 years old on the date of commission of alleged offence, submitted that she is desirous of marrying him. The couple already have a child, who is now about 18 months old.
The petitioner was in custody for more than one year as on January 16 in the case registered in November 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Title: PO v. VP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 140
The Delhi High Court has said that statements made by a lawyer during judicial proceedings are conferred with an “absolute privilege” and no action for defamation, slander or libel can lie against them for advancing the submissions.
Observing that such statements are “complete defence against any allegations of defamation”, Justice Mini Pushkarna said that justice system would be adversely affected “if lawyers were to be in fear of law themselves” for any submission or statement made by them during a hearing.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection To OREO, Restrains Parle From Using 'FAB!O'
Case Title: Intercontinental Great Brands versus Parle Product Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 141
While granting interim protection to 'OREO' in a suit filed by its owner Intercontinental Great Brands, the Delhi High Court has said that the brand names for biscuits and cookies, ending in 'IO' or 'EO' are rare in market and a customer of average intelligence is likely to presume an association between OREO cookies and Parle's 'FAB!O' biscuits.
Justice C Hari Shankar said names ending in 'O' or 'IO' are not common on biscuits and Parle has made concluding 'io' intonation in its 'Fab!O' mark identical to the concluding 'eo' intonation in 'Oreo' mark, by adding 'O' to its earlier 'Fab!' mark.
Case Title: Hinu Mahajan v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 142
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking recovery of damages from persons who allegedly indulged in destruction of public and private properties during the protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that once Claim Commissioner has already been appointed to consider grant of compensation and that FIRs have already been registered by Delhi police, no further orders are required to be passed in the matter.
Agreement To Explore Conciliation Before Arbitration, Only Directory In Nature: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Oasis Projects Ltd versus Managing Director, National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 143
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the agreement between the parties to explore conciliation before resorting to arbitration, is not mandatory in nature.
The Court took note that as per Section 77 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), in cases of urgency, arbitral proceedings can be initiated even when conciliation proceedings are pending for preserving the party’s rights.
Title: K. P. RAO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 144
The Delhi High Court has held that State and District Kabaddi Associations must comply with “age and tenure restrictions” imposed by National Sports Code for continue to be members of Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI), failure of which may entail their disaffiliation.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that “age and tenure restrictions” on members of the Governing Body imposed by National Sports Code applies not only to AKFI but also to all its constituents at State and District level.
Title: SUNIL PODAR v. THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSON WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 145
The Delhi High Court has observed that a foreign national cannot claim a vested or constitutional right to be appointed as guardian of a person with disabilities.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma was hearing a plea moved by a father whose adopted son has "severe mental retardation" with disability certified to be 90% disability.
He challenged the validity of Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2001 and Regulation 12(1)(i) of Board of Trust Regulations, 2012. The provisions allow only Indian citizens to be guardian of a person. The petitioner and his son are citizens of the USA but hold Overseas Citizenship of India cards.
Case Title: University of Delhi versus M/s Kalra Electricals
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 146
The Delhi High Court has ruled that information and clarification sought by the Arbitral Tribunal on matters and dispute arising under other contracts, which do not form a part of the arbitral reference, will not alone make them the subject of arbitral proceedings.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked that the letter issued by the Arbitrator, seeking information and clarification as to whether payments were released to the claimant under other contracts, which were not inter-related with the contract under consideration, was neither a direction nor an order made by the Arbitrator, and it was merely an effort to seek clarification on certain matters.
Case Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Bindu Paswan & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 147
The Delhi High Court has set aside the award passed by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) where it had refused to grant recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the driver/owner of a two-wheeler involved in an accident.
While rejecting the insurance company's argument that it is not liable to pay anything as the rider was not holding a valid licence to drive the two-wheeler, the MACT had said that a male person who is competent to drive a Light Motor Vehicle cannot be expected to be incompetent in driving a two-wheeler.
Delhi High Court Declares Hermes International’s ‘H’ Mark As Well-Known Trademark
Title: HERMES INTERNATIONAL & ANR. v. CRIMZON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 148
The Delhi High Court has declared the stylized mark - “H” - of Hermes International, a french luxury brand, as a well-known trademark within the meaning of section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the criteria mentioned under section 11 (6) and (7) of the Act was satisfied in the matter to justify declaration of the mark as a well-known trade mark.
Title: SANDEEP SINGH DESWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 149
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere suspicion of an accused not returning to India, when the liberty granted to travel abroad has never been misused on earlier occasions, cannot be a basis to deny permission to travel abroad.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said that the issuance of a look out circular (LOC) is a coercive measure “aimed at ensuring that an accused appears before the investigating agency or a court of law.”
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 150
The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunications to take action in accordance with Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 against domain name registrars (DNRs) who are not complying with the Rules.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that stringent steps are required to be taken in order to “curb the menace of illegal domain name registrations” having marks and names of well-known business houses. The bench particularly called for action against those DNRs which have not appointed grievance officers or have failed to implement orders of courts and authorities in India.
Title: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 151
The Delhi High Court has said though American fast food restaurant chain Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has no exclusive right on the word “Chicken”, the trademark registry can consider its application for registration of mark “Chicken Zinger” in Class 29.
Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing an appeal moved by Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings challenging an order dated December 24, 2018, and Statement of Grounds of decision passed by Senior Examiner of Trademarks, refusing its application for registration of the mark “CHICKEN ZINGER.”
Title: ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 152
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the application of Alexandra Elbakyan, founder of shadow library website Sci Hub, seeking rejection of plaint filed by publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society in a copyright infringement suit against her.
The suit has been filed by major publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley India, Wiley Periodicals and American Chemical Society against online repositories Sci-Hub and Libgen. The publishers have said the websites indulge in online piracy by making their literary work available to the public for free.
Title: DB v. RB
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 153
While upholding dissolution of a couple’s marriage on the ground of cruelty, the Delhi High Court has observed that repeated use of derogatory and humiliating words by the wife against husband and his family amounts to cruelty.
The court said every person is entitled to live with dignity and honour, and no one can be expected to live with constant abuse being hurled upon him.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 154
The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar General to deposit the amount paid by news organisations as fine for disclosing the Kathua rape victim's name, with the Victim Compensation Fund maintained by Jammu & Kashmir State Legal Services Authority for disbursement of the same to the victims or family of deceased victims of sexual violence.
The high court in 2018 had taken suo motu note of the media reportage of the rape case and noticed that the name of the victim was widely reported by the journalists. The manner in which the incident was reported in contrary to Section 23 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 228A, said the court in its latest order.
Delhi High Court Imposes One Rupee Cost On Litigant For Filing Frivolous Applications
Title: Milan Saini v. Kamal Kumar & Anr. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 155
The Delhi High Court has imposed a symbolic fine of One Rupee on an applicant for filing frivolous applications to seek action against a petitioner and his Special Power of Attorney-holder for alleged perjury.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the allegations contained in the applications are so completely bereft of a factual basis or merit, no further judicial time or ink need be wasted on them.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Pandey versus Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 156
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the former CEO, Director and Auditor of Shilpi Cable Technologies, in connection with Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)'s ongoing probe against the company for allegedly siphoning off money through its foreign entities.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh said that though LOCs impinge upon the individual’s right to travel, which is recognised as a fundamental right, the rights and interests of the investing public would also be a relevant consideration which cannot be ignored.
Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Pvt Ltd vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 157
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), which empowers the Central Government to formulate and announce the foreign trade policy, cannot be applied retrospectively by the Central Government.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that once a notification issued under Section 5 of the FTDR Act is quashed by the Court, the same cannot be relied upon by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to refuse Advance Authorization to an importer seeking import of certain goods, on the ground that the importer was not a party to the said proceedings before the Court.
Case Title: VED YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 158
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of guidelines for cases where an inmate or convict sustains work related injuries in prison, observing that there is no monitoring or remedial mechanism available to address such cases.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that when there is no employee or employer relationship between prisoners and jail authorities, such inmates must be provided protection and remedies for work related injuries as the Constitutional vision does not permit any citizen to be left remediless for availing compensation for injuries even as a prisoner.
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 159
The Delhi High Court has directed Union of India to immediately release Rs. 5 crores to All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to ensure that treatment of children with rare diseases, where it has already commenced, is not stopped due to lack of funds.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the fund to be released within two weeks and that its expenditure shall be maintained by AIIMS under direct supervision of the doctor heading its Rare Diseases Committee.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Chandra versus M/s Spire Techpark Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 160
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that where there is any inconsistency between the two clauses of a same instrument/document, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with the petitions filed under Section 11 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Title: WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 161
The Delhi High Court has observed that the warning displayed by Google to users before they download WinZo's APK file is in the nature of disclaimer to caution them and does not result in trademark infringement of gaming platform.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the reference to the name of the APK file or application “WinZO” in Google’s disclaimer is only for identifying the file being downloaded for purpose of warning.
The court dismissed an application moved by Winzo Games Private Limited seeking to restrain Google from displaying the warning "against" use of its gaming application “WinZO Games” on the Android Operating System.
Title: PARMINDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 162
Observing that India has taken huge strides in providing medical facilities with latest technologies and qualified professionals at accessible costs, the Delhi High Court has said that courts cannot take decision on procurement of instruments in hospitals as it is a matter of policy.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a public interest litigation moved by one Parminder Singh seeking directions for ensuring availability of video laryngoscopes in the healthcare system to manage difficult intubation systems.
Title: JAI A. DEHADRAI AND ANR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 163
The Delhi High Court has said that Delhi Government's decision to restrict the total number of visits by family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers with jail inmates to two times a week, keeping in view the number of undertrials and prisoners, cannot be said to be arbitrary.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the decision has been taken after “careful consideration” of the facilities available in jails, availability of the staff and the number of undertrials.
Title: BHUPINDER SINGH & ANR. v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 164
The Delhi High Court Monday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking direction for a “special audit” of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and Guru Harkrishan Public School Society by Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the PIL is not maintainable as there is already an applicable law in place, Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971, which provides a complete methodology and mechanism for carrying out an audit by Chartered Accountants after due nomination by the Committee under the enactment.
Case Title: Asad Mueed & Anr versus Hammad Ahmed & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 165
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the power of the Arbitral Tribunal to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not inferior to the power of a court under Section 9.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma remarked that though Section 9(3) of the A&C Act is not an ouster clause, it still requires the court to consider whether its intervention is warranted after the Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted and is in seisin of the dispute.
Title: HARSHPAL SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 166
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to conclude proceedings initiated against schools which are found in violation of its bye-laws within six months.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking CBSE enquiry into the transactions between education societies and franchise schools and also to inspect affairs of schools operated by Delhi Public School Society (DPSS).
Title: SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 167
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the computer generated e-mails sent by Citibank to its customers without the mention of contact details of officials under whose instructions they were generated and sent.
Observing that there ought to be some accountability of bank officials, Justice Prathiba M Singh sought response of the bank as to whether names of its officials along with their e-mail IDs can be inserted in the emails sent to customers.
Case Title: Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 168
The Delhi High Court Wednesday asked the Delhi Waqf Board to file a separate petition to challenge Central Government’s decision to “absolve” the board from all matters pertaining to 123 properties, which have been under dispute for a long time.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri refused to pass an urgent order in Delhi Waqf Board’s application moved in a pending petition filed last year against the action of Union of India to delist the 123 properties.
The court asked the Board to file a separate substantive petition to challenge the letter and listed the application with the pending petition for hearing on August 4, the date already fixed.
Title: PUNJAB KESARI PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD & ANR vs AJIT SINGH BULAND & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 169
The Delhi High Court has restrained a freelance reporter from using 'Kesari TV' mark and related logo for providing news services in print or electronic mode till further orders. The court also ordered suspension of the domain name 'www.kesaritv.com'.
The order has been passed in a suit filed by the owners of Punjab Kesari newspaper who alleged that the defendant had got the domain name registered in his favour and concretised an internet presence under the name 'Kesari TV' with a logo deceptively similar to its unregistered mark for 'Punjab Kesari TV'.
Case Title: M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd & Anr. versus Shipra Estate Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 170
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to set aside the sale notice issued by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, seeking to enforce its “security interest”.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked that the matter of a notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is not arbitrable at all, and thus, the Arbitrator does not have the option to exercise any discretion under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) in relation to the said matter.
Case Title: D Narasimha Rao & Ors versus Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 171
The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Registrar is not divested of its authority and jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Section 84 (4) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), when a dispute pertaining to a multi-state cooperative society is sought to be referred to arbitration under Section 84 of the Act.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma remarked that as per the direction issued by the Central Government under the Notification dated 24th February, 2003, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of States is contemporaneously empowered to refer matters to arbitration, however, the same does not denude the jurisdiction of the Central Registrar.
Law Interns To Wear White Shirt, Black Pants & Black Tie In Courts: Delhi High Court
Title: HARDIK KAPOOR v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 172
The Delhi High Court has said that law interns can enter court complexes in the national capital by wearing a white shirt, black tie and black pants as prescribed by the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).
Justice Prathiba M Singh also said that the advocates appearing before any courts, from city civil courts to the Supreme Court, would have to wear white bands along with the uniform prescribed for them.
Title: MALVIKA CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court has observed that lawyers "being put to harassment and frustration" due to repeated complaints to Bar Council cannot be countenanced, unless some serious case of misconduct is made out.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Bar Council of Delhi to place on record the details of all pending complaints against the advocates. The information sought includes the dates of filing of the complaints and first notices.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. REHMAN AFTAB ALAM
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 174
Closing the contempt proceedings against a person, the Delhi High Court observed that the anxiety, which the man went through during the trial of the case filed by his former wife, does not justify the actions of casting aspersion on a judicial officer.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora accepted the unconditional apology tendered by him, with a warning to exercise restraint and refrain from casting any aspersion on the court in future.
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 175
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had granted relief to an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer charged for fraudulently obtaining a birth certificate from Uttar Pradesh and then applying for an Indian diplomatic passport for his child born through an arrangement of surrogacy with a Mongolian national.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the order of the Tribunal was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Title: Shyam Jaju & Anr. v. Saurabh Bhardwaj & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed Aam Aadmi Party leaders Saurabh Bhardwaj, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh and Dilip Kumar Pandey to remove the alleged defamatory material and allegations made on social media platforms against politician and former BJP National Vice-President Shyam Jaju and his son.
Justice Navin Chawla observed that prima facie case is made out in favour of Jaju and his son for grant of interim relief and directed AAP leaders to remove the material within two days.
High Court Restrains Delhi-Based Company From Selling Gas Stoves, Kitchenware Under 'Prestige' Mark
Case Title: TTK Prestige Ltd versus KK & Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 177
In a trademark suit filed by TTK Prestige Ltd, the Delhi High Court has restrained K. K. AND Company Delhi Private Limited from using the mark 'PRESTIGE' in relation to gas stoves or any kitchenware or cookware.
Noting that Prestige has been selling its products under the trademark since 1955, and the earliest registration of its mark dates back to 14th December, 1949, Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the contention that pressure cookers and gas stoves are different products and therefore there would be no confusion in the market.
Title: MOHD. MANAN DAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 178
The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the report of Public Prosecutor is not required to be provided to the accused at the stage of grant of extension of remand for continued investigation under section 43D(2) of UAPA.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal however said that when the accused is produced to inform him about the extension of period of investigation based on Public Prosecutor’s report, “the accused cannot be a silent spectator” and the Special Court would be required to take into consideration, submissions on behalf of the accused, while examining the report regarding progress of investigation and the reasons for seeking further detention.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 179
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power under Section 31(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to pass an interim Award on the basis of the admissions made by a party before the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the CIRP proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the opposite party.
Case Title: Bolt Technology OU versus Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim injunction in favour of Bolt Technology OU in relation to use of the mark ‘Bolt’ in EV (electric vehicle) charging stations in India by Ujoy Technology Private Limited.
The court observed that since Bolt is not engaged in providing EV charging services anywhere in the world and has merely installed some EV charging stations in a handful of locations for charging its own vehicles, no trans-border reputation in providing EV charging services can be credited to it which can be said to have spilled over to India.
Title: DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 181
The Delhi High Court has observed that places of worship cannot encroach public land and hinder developmental activities meant for the larger segment of the public.
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observations while paving the way for demolition of portions of a Mandir and a Masjid situated at Jheel ka Piao in Delhi’s ITO area for making the pedestrian pathway uniform.
The court observed that the Public Works Department (PWD) has to be permitted to make the pedestrian pathway uniform so as to not cause inconvenience to pedestrians on the busy stretch of road which also has access to a Metro station.
Delhi High Court Stays MCD Mayor's Notice For Re-Election To Standing Committee
Title: KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 182
In a special Saturday hearing, the Delhi High Court stayed the newly-elected Mayor Shelly Oberoi's notice for re-election of the six members of standing committee of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that prima facie the returning officer or Mayor is conducting re-elections without declaring the results of elections conducted on February 24 which is in violation of Regulation 51 of New Delhi Municipal Council (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1997.
“From a perusal of Regulation 51, it is nowhere reflected that the returning officer or mayor has the authority to declare an election of standing committee as null and void. It is not out of place to mention that admittedly, the counting of votes and further duty casted upon mayor as in declaring the result of elections held on February 24 shall culminate into final result,” the court said.
Case Title: Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 183
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that when a person has itself become ineligible by operation of law to act as an arbitrator, it cannot nominate another person to act as arbitrator.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with an arbitration clause which exclusively empowered the Chief Project Manager to appoint the arbitrator from a panel which was itself maintained by it.
Title: HARSH AJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 184
Upholding the Union Government's Agnipath scheme for the armed forces, the Delhi High Court on Monday said it can conclusively state that the scheme was made in national interest to ensure that armed forces are better equipped.
Referring to the skirmishes on the borders, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that such transgressions exacerbate the need to have a leaner and fitter Armed Force which is capable of handling the mental and physical distress that accompanies service in the Armed Forces.
Case Title: New Delhi Municipal Council versus Decor India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 185
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that though it is permissible to introduce an amendment in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), however, new grounds of challenge containing new material/ facts cannot be introduced when the said grounds were neither raised in the original petition under Section 34 nor before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: Tejpal Singh versus Surinder Kumar Dewan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 186
The Delhi High Court has ruled that since the party had failed to challenge the termination of the Collaboration Agreement in the first round of arbitral proceedings, the demolition of the structure built by it under the said Collaboration Agreement would not give it a fresh cause of action.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla remarked that the cause of action for challenging the termination of the Collaboration Agreement and/or for claiming any relief under the said Collaboration Agreement, was available to the petitioner at the stage of the earlier arbitral proceedings.
Title: M/S GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 187
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to take expeditious steps for appointing Chairperson and other members of the Appellate Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) within eight weeks.
Taking judicial notice of the fact that there are a “large volume of cases” pending under PMLA, Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there is a “dire need” for constitution of multiple benches.
Income Tax Demand On OYO For 1,140 Cr: Delhi High Court Directs CIT To Give Personal Hearing
Case Title: OYO Hotels And Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 188
The Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) to accord a personal hearing to OYO for the stay on the income tax demand of Rs. 1,140 crores.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the CIT has not dealt with its application, which was preferred before him, in respect of the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Expeditiously Appoint ASHA Workers For Chilla Khadar Locality: High Court Directs Delhi Govt
Title: CHHOTE LAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 189
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union of India and Delhi Government to expeditiously conclude the process of appointment of ASHA workers in Chilla Khadar locality on the Yamuna bank. Around 4250 people live there in hutments.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the appointment process be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks.
Delhi High Court Allows Extradition of German National For Trial In Child Sexual Abuse Case
Case Title: Bernd Alexander Bruno Wehnelt vs. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 190
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by a Delhi Court recommending the extradition of a German national, who is accused of sexually abusing children.
Justice Anish Dayal held that the order passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), recommending extradition of the accused, Bernd Alexander Bruno Wehnelt, to Germany for trial for the offences under the German Criminal Code, does not suffer from any infirmity.
Title: CHANDRIL DABAS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 191
The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that it is working expeditiously to conclude the tender process for installing CCTV cameras in police stations in the national capital as per directions of the Supreme Court in Paramveer Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.
The Apex Court in Paramveer Singh Saini had directed that CCTV cameras must be installed with a storage period of 18 months.
Title: SANJAY KUMAR SAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 192
The Delhi High Court has said that judges must exercise more control and caution while passing strictures against investigating authorities and police officers on their professional capabilities since it may impair a person’s confidence and have a negative impact on work and reputation.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a thin wall that exists between adjudicatory liberty to point out the flaws in an investigation or on authorities and the obligation to exhibit judicial restraint must be kept in mind.
Delhi High Court Directs MCD To Ensure Patients Living In Leprosy Colonies Are Not Evicted
Title: GORE LAL SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 193
The Delhi High Court has directed Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to ensure that the patients residing in leprosy colonies are not evicted and there are no encroachments on the land.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that leprosy affected persons should be considered for appointment under persons with disability quota and people must be made aware and sensitised to ensure that leprosy patients are not discriminated against.
Delhi High Court Directs NCLT To Upload Orders In Expeditious Manner
Title: MR SUBRATA MONINDRANATH MAITY v. INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to upload its orders in an expeditious manner without delay.
Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the direction considering the nature of orders passed by the tribunal, especially those by which moratorium is declared and IRPs are appointed.
Case Title: FIITJEE Ltd vs. Ashish Khare & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 195
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere reference to a wrong provision or term of the agreement cannot invalidate the notice invoking arbitration, if otherwise such power or provision exists in the document executed between the parties.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which was resisted on the ground that the claimant had wrongly invoked the arbitration clause contained in an agreement which was not binding on the parties.
Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Narinder Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 196
The Delhi High Court has ruled that, as a necessary corollary of the provisions of Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), what cannot be considered by the adjudicating Court under a Section 34 petition can certainly not be adjudicated upon by the appellate Court under Section 37.
The Court added that it has almost “Nil” scope of interference while dealing with a challenge against an order disposing of a Section 34 petition, unless there is something perverse, contrary to law and/or which actually shocks the conscience of the Court.
Title: ARTH LAKRA (MINOR) v. INDRAPRASTHA WORLD SCHOOL AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 197
The Delhi High Court has said that denial of admission by a school under EWS/DG category despite allotment by Directorate of Education (DoE) “frustrates the noble objective” of Right to Education Act, 2009 and violates fundamental rights of such children under Article 21A of Constitution of India.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while allowing the plea of a minor child seeking directions for admission in Indraprastha World School under the EWS/DG category. The school had denied the admission, saying that the child’s residence is not within the distance of one kilometre radius from the school.
Title: CHATUR SAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 198
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) for all SDMs on the manner in which judicial orders of eviction and recovery are to be given effect to.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that it has been “repeatedly noticed” that various orders for enforcement of possession and recovery which are to be given effect to by the concerned SDM are “not dealt with expeditiously and with alacrity.”
Title: MOTI LAL BASAK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to two men charged under UAPA in a fake currency notes case, considering that the main conspirators have not been arrested or charged under UAPA and that there has been unexplained delays in filing supplementary chargesheets.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A Bamba also took note of the fact that the accused have been in custody for over six years and that despite directions of the court to conclude trial within one year from May 5 last year, “only a few further witnesses have been examined” in the last eight months.
Title: MEHBOOBA MUFTI v. JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 200
The Union Government told the Delhi High Court that the Passport Authority in Srinagar has been directed to take a fresh decision on former J&K Chief Minister and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) President Mehbooba Mufti's request for issuance of passport.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the passport officer to take the decision expeditiously, within three months.
The direction was passed considering the fact that the matter has been remanded back to the regional passport officer and there has been a delay of almost two years since the rejection of her application.
Title: KOLISETTY SHIVA KUMAR v. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition against the withdrawal of a notification issued by Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) for celebration of February 14 as “Cow Hug Day”.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the celebration of any event by AWBI is within the domain of policy of the board and the government which cannot be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Title: SAMAR DEVAL v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court has observed that a child is entitled to get admission in the school allotted by Directorate of Education (DoE) on the reserved seats under RTE Act after it is established that he or she belongs to the economically weaker section (EWS) or disadvantaged group (DG) category.
Justice Mini Pushkarna said that denying admission to any child under DG or EWS category after allotment of school by DOE pursuant to due procedure followed by it, would be in violation of The Right of Children To Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which provides for free and compulsory education to every child between 6 to 14 years.
Case Title: Sanjay Sudan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the revenue department cannot adjust the withheld tax (TDS) which has not been deposited by the deductor (employer) in the Central Government Account, against the refund due and payable to the deductee/assessee.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that adjustment of demand against future refund amounts to an indirect recovery of tax, which is barred under Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs. Siti Networks Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the statements made by a party in a ‘Letter of Comfort’, assuring the creditor that it shall ensure that the debtor repays the loan on the relevant due dates, are promissory in character and thus enforceable, even if they do not meet the requirement of Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the Contract of Guarantee.
The bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao thus referred the claim raised by the petitioner/ claimant, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd, seeking compliance with the ‘Letters of Comfort’ issued by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd and Essel Corporate LLP, in relation to a loan availed by their group company, Siti Networks Ltd, to arbitration.
Title: Syed Shahbaz Hussain & Anr v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order directing registration of FIR against BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain and his brother in an alleged rape case.
The woman had alleged that Hussain’s brother Shahbaz Hussain raped on her on the false pretext of marriage in 2017 whereas the BJP leader asked her to not highlight the matter and raise a hue and cry.
While the Metropolitan Magistrate had refused to direct the police to register an FIR, an Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court in criminal revision on May 31 last year observed that the complaint lodged by the woman disclosed cognizable offence by Shahbaz Hussain and directed the Delhi Police to register FIR against him and the BJP leader.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi Government has told Delhi High Court that prisoners are being treated equally in jails in the national capital and parole or furlough is extended to them without any discrimination.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad closed proceedings in a suo moto case initiated in 2015 on the issue of preferential treatment given to certain prisoners in jails.
The court had taken cognizance of two articles published in Hindustan Times titled “Loners, 'Gandhi', fusspots: VIPs spice up jails” and “Inside the world of celebrity prisoners.”
Title: RKY v. MD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual marrying a person who has a child cannot be allowed to argue later that the child is not his or her responsibility.
“When a person solemnizes a marriage with a person who already has a child, said person shall be presumed to have undertaken the responsibility of the child and also cannot later be permitted to contend that the child is not his/her responsibility,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.
Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Accused As Prosecution Accuses Him Of Threatening Witnesses
Title: SHOAIB ALAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 208
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused in a case related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The FIR alleges that former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain's associates stole valuable property from a godown situated at Khajuri Khas.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied bail to Shoaib Alam considering that two eye witnesses gave account of his specific role and the fact that threats were being extended to the witnesses.
Undertake Special Recruitment Drive To Fill Up Vacancies For PwDs: High Court Directs Delhi Govt
Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 209
The Delhi High Court has directed Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government to undertake a special recruitment drive for filling up backlog of vacancies for persons with disabilities(PwDs) in various departments or establishments in a time bound manner.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also set out a time schedule to be followed by the Delhi government to carry out the special recruitment for filling up the vacancies.
Title: TVF MEDIA LABS PVT LTD & ORS v. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 210
Observing that the challenge for enacting appropriate law or guidelines to regulate content on social media and OTT platforms needs urgent attention, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the language used in TVF web series “College Romance” does not pass "morale decency community test" of a common man and transgresses into the area of obscenity.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the use of vulgar language in public domain and social media platforms which are open to children of tender age needs to be taken seriously.
“The individualistic choice which is not the choice of the majority of people of this country cannot be portrayed as choice of that majority and to be broadcasted on the ground or assumption that youth of this country speak such foul or profane language,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Grants Transit Anticipatory Bail To UP BJP Spokesperson Prashant Kumar Umrao
Title: Prashant Kumar Umrao v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 211
Delhi High Court has granted transit anticipatory bail till March 20 to lawyer and Uttar Pradesh spokesperson of BJP Prashant Kumar Umrao in an FIR lodged against him by Tamil Nadu police for allegedly spreading false information in a tweet on the alleged attacks against the migrant workers from Bihar in the state.
"I am of the view that the applicant should be granted reasonable time to approach the territorial jurisdictional court. Tomorrow is a holiday on account of Holi," said Justice Jasmeet Singh, while allowing Umrao's application for transit anticipatory bail.
Title: Swati Chaturvedi v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court proceedings in a defamation case filed by BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga against Journalist Swati Chaturvedi till July 17.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar issued notice on the plea moved by the journalist challenging the summons issued by the trial court against her in the matter.
Bagga filed the case against the journalist seeking action of criminal defamation after she posted a tweet in 2017 in relation to his appointment as spokesperson of the political party.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) vs M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the expression ‘issuance of show cause notice’ in Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR), merely contemplates the dispatch of the notice and not its receipt by the Customs Broker, within the stipulated period.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that there is a distinction between issuance of notice and service of notice and the words ‘issue’ and ‘serve’ are not synonymous. The said words may be construed as interchangeable only if the context of the statute makes it necessary to do so, the Court said.
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 214
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the existence of any dispute between the parties to the contract is not a ground for issuing an injunction to restrain the enforcement of an unconditional bank guarantee.
The Court was dealing with a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking to restrain the opposite party from invoking/ encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee.
Arbitrator Must Serve Sufficient Notice Before Proceeding Ex-Parte Against Party: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt Ltd vs M/s GAIL Gas Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 215
The Delhi High Court has set aside an ex-parte Arbitral Award on the ground that the Arbitrator failed to issue proper communication to the party before proceeding ex-parte against it and that it failed to make adequate efforts to examine whether the absence of the party was with or without showing sufficient cause.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), it has always been preferred and encouraged that an Arbitrator provides a pre-emptory notice to any party against whom it is seeking to proceed ex-parte, even though the same has not been stipulated under the A&C Act in clear terms.
Case Title: NHAI v. Patel-KNR (JV) , O.M.P.(COMM) 416 of 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Delhi High Court has held that a petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act is not a valid filing if it is filed without or in anticipation of the final approval.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a petition by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenging an arbitration award passed against it, however, admittedly the petition was filed by its counsel in anticipation of its final approval. Moreover, the petition was not accompanied by a copy of the award and the date of the impugned award was also wrongly mentioned at certain places.
CaseTitle: CHIRAG KHANDAL v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 217
Pulling up Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) over its selection process for upcoming Asian Games, the Delhi High Court has observed that a National Sports Federation should prioritize identifying and fostering best talent in the country without being muddled by hyper-technicality and personal vendettas against any candidate.
Observing that a sportsperson belongs to the stadium and not in courts corridors, Justice Gaurang Kanth said that no one who aims to bring laurels to their motherland should be subjected to mental agony by the federations and its officials.
Case Title: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. VS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 218
While framing charges under POCSO Act against a man despite the victim stating in her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she had a consensual relationship with him, the Delhi High Court has observed that its hands are tied till any amendment is carried out in law, though it may be desirable that cases of teenage relationships be dealt with on a different footing.
“Therefore, though it may be desirable that the cases of teenage infatuation and voluntary living with each other, eloping with each other or maintaining relationship, such as the present case, are dealt with on a different footing, the Court's hands are tied as far as framing of charge is concerned till any amendment is carried out by the wisdom of the Parliament of this country, if deemed appropriate,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 219
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Consortium for rare diseases to hold a meeting on clinical trials for developing indigenous therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) and Gaucher with DART or Hanugen Therapeutics Private Limited.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the National Consortium for Research and Development on therapeutics for Rare Diseases to consult other Centres of Excellence under the National Policy for Rare Diseases (NPRD) on estimate of candidates who may be requiring medicines and therapies across India and not just in the national capital.
Case Title: Swati Maliwal v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 220
The Delhi High Court has stayed till July 26 the proceedings initiated against Chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Swati Maliwal over corruption allegations for allegedly abusing the official position by illegally appointing various acquaintances, including Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) workers, in the women rights body between August 6, 2015 to August 1, 2016.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said prima facie the essential ingredient of offence under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, namely 'obtaining of any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage' is missing from the chargesheet, order on charge against Maliwal; which accordingly requires closer consideration. Thus, he stayed the trial court proceedings till next date, i.e., July 26.
Case Title: Newton Engineering and Chemicals Ltd vs. UEM India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 221
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the issue whether the disputes between the parties have arisen under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) containing an arbitration clause, or the subsequent work orders issued to the party, which are devoid of any arbitration clause, or whether they are related to both, can be looked into by the Arbitrator who can rule on his own jurisdiction in terms of Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
While reckoning that the existence of the arbitration clause between the parties was not disputed, the Court referred the parties to arbitration, noting that it has limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
Title: GADE INNA REDDY AND ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELI AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 222
The Delhi High Court has allowed holding of a two days National Seminar to be conducted through “Bharat Bachao” platform on the theme “Understanding Fascism In Present India Context” and asked the parties to ensure that it is held in a “peaceful atmosphere.”
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a plea moved by Gade Inna Reddy and Dr. Mondru Francis Gopinath challenging the order passed by Delhi police on March 09 denying permission to hold the seminar two days before its schedule.
Title: RAIL DAWA BAR ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 223
While dismissing a plea challenging re-appointment of Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia as Chairperson of Railway Claims Tribunal with a cost of Rs. 50,000, the Delhi High Court has said that any attempt to vilify judges without any reasonable basis cannot be permitted.
Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected the plea moved by Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow, seeking direction on Central Government to lay down a fair and transparent selection procedure for appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman (Judicial), Vice Chairman (Technical), Member (Judicial) and Members (Technical) in Railway Claims Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Of Invalidity Against BK's Registered Trademark ‘Burger King’
Case title: Burger King Corporation v. Ranjan Gupta and others.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 224
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a claim of invalidity against Burger King Corporation (BKC)'s registered trademark ‘Burger King’.
In response to a trademark infringement suit filed by the Burger King Corporation in 2018, the defendants had argued that BKC's registered trademark is liable to be cancelled. The court considered whether the case of the defendants on this account is "prima facie tenable".
Justice Amit Bansal said defendants have failed to place any material in support of their submission that the trademark ‘Burger King’ is either generic or common to trade.
Case Title: ITD Cementation India Limited v. SSJV-ZVS Joint Venture and ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 225
The Delhi High Court has held that all the members of a ‘joint venture (JV)’ are jointly and severally liable to the third parties with which the JV enters into an agreement.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that a JV is a quasi-partnership wherein two or more entities may come together and jointly undertake a particular transaction or contract for mutual profit. It held the parties to a JV agreement may provide for different rights or obligations amongst themselves, however, this arrangement inter se parties would not have any effect on the right of a third party to proceed jointly or severally against any individual member of the JV.
Title: MS. X THR. HER NATURAL GURADIAN /FATHER AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 226
The Delhi High Court has allowed a 16-year-old minor to undergo medical termination of pregnancy after her father, who had earlier gave consent in the court for the procedure, failed to come forward to fulfil the formality of signing the consent form.
Keeping in view the fact that only two or three days were left for the minor to complete 24 weeks of pregnancy, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma allowed the Superintendent of Nirmal Chhaya Complex who was appointed as victim’s guardian by the Child Welfare Committee to sign the consent form.
The victim was in the custody of Nirmal Chhaya Complex since October 17 last year.
Applications For Refund Of ITC Cannot Be Denied On Mere Suspicion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Balaji EXIM vs Commissioner, CGST and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 227
The Delhi High Court has held that applications for refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be rejected merely on suspicion and without any cogent material.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan directed the department to initiate a refund of ITC of Rs. 72,03,961/-based on the goods that the petitioner has exported.
Case Title: M/s Kuldeep Kumar Contractor vs. Hindustan Prefab Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 228
The Delhi High Court has ruled that while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), if the arbitration clause between the parties in the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC), which does not contain the mandate of a pre-arbitral procedure, is claimed to be overridden by another arbitration clause existing in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which mandates following a pre-arbitral mechanism, the same must be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal as per the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle.
Title: Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Bar Council of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 229
The Bar Council of India (BCI) told the Delhi High Court that it will look into and decide a representation for making Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, or RTE Act, a compulsory subject for students in all law schools, within a reasonable time.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation moved by NGO Social Jurist after the submission.
Title: A S RAWAT v. DAWA TASHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 230
Observing that restricting the right to information only to citizens would be contrary to the Constitution of India and Right to Information Act, the Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 3 of the RTI Act would have to be read as a "positive recognition of the right in favor of citizens but not as a prohibition against non-citizens."
Under Section 3 of the RTI Act, "all citizens" have the right to information.
“Considering that the RTI Act also accords information relating to life or liberty an important and distinct position, it would be inherently contradictory to hold that only citizens are entitled to the Right to Information. Life or liberty could also relate to non-citizens including foreigners, NRI’s, OCI card holders and such other persons,” Justice Prathiba M Singh ruled.
Case Title: Amazing Research Laboratories v. Krishna Pharma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration award that is passed in violation of the provisions of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 would be liable to be set aside as suffering from patent illegality.
The bench of Neena Bansal Krishna partially set aside an arbitration award that was passed in contravention of Sections 59-61 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. The Court explained the law of apportionment of funds vis-à-vis a running and non-mutual account.
Case Title: M/s. Modi Construction Company vs. M/s Ircon International Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 232
The Delhi High Court, while dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), has rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner that the Award of the Majority Tribunal declaring the Clause providing for compound interest as null, was perverse since there were no pleadings made by the opposite party in its Statement of Defence seeking the said declaration.
While holding that it is within the domain of the Arbitrator to interpret the terms of the contract, the bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the Majority Award and the findings made by the Majority Tribunal that since the relevant Clause providing for compound interest did not specify the rate of interest, the entire clause was void under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Case Title: Zahir Ahmed vs. Government of NCT Of Delhi Through District Magistrate & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 233
The Delhi High Court has ruled that conversion of public places of worship into residences and their occupation by persons, who take care of the places, is contrary to law.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the one Zahir Ahmed, who came into occupation of a property located next to the Masjid Zabta Ganj in Delhi, due to his father’s position as an Imam of the mosque. Ahmed filed a writ petition challenging the eviction order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Chanakyapuri. The possession of the property has already been handed over to Delhi Waqf Board.
Title: SANJAY MALIK @ SANT SEVAK DAS v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 234
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because a woman consents to be in the company of a man, “regardless of for how long”, can never be the basis to infer that she had also consented to “sexual liaison” with him.
Observing that a distinction needs to be articulated between a prosecutrix “consenting to a situation” vs. “consenting to sexual liaison,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said:
“Though it is universally accepted that consent given under force, coercion or duress is no consent in law since it is not free or volitional, in many cases it is necessary to examine consent in a more granular manner, with the awareness that substantivity of consent may also be vitiated by several other circumstances that erode the freedom of choice. Several circumstances, including emotional exploitation, may vitiate the substantivity of consent.”
Case Title: Rohit Verma v. NHRC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 235
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to decide within six months a complaint filed over alleged police atrocities by the West Bengal police during Nabanna Chalo rally organised by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha in October 2020.
Justice Prathiba M Singh disposed of a petition moved by one Rohit Verma, a BJP volunteer, aggrieved by the Commission's inaction in responding to his complaint.
Title: DR. SUBRMANIAN SWAMY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 236
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy against the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted by Union of India in 2013 in favour of a Malaysian Company Air Asia Investment Limited.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad closed the proceedings in view of the fact that there is no foreign investment as of today and the prayers sought in the petition have become purely academic.
Case Title: Court on Its Own Motion vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 237
The Delhi High Court has said that banks cannot be loaded with the responsibility of getting the real estate projects completed and they cannot assume the role of a builder to complete the project.
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that banks "can only give a red flag" to the borrower for misutilization of funds by the builder, and it is for the lenders to take appropriate legal action by approaching the civil forum to ensure that the project is completed on time.
Title: DOLBY INTERNATIONAL AB v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 238
The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders refusing applications for grant of a patent cannot be passed mechanically and that any decision to grant or refuse a patent has to be informed by “due application of mind” which must be reflected in the decision.
Pulling up an Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs for passing a “copy-paste” order while refusing an application for grant of patent, Justice C Hari Shankar said that such orders do little justice to the solemn functions which have been entrusted on officers in the office of Controller of Patents and Designs.
Title: MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL AND ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 239
Observing that private unaided schools are entirely dependent on the fee collected by them, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday ruled that planning and maintaining a surplus by such schools, per se, cannot be construed as commercialisation of education.
Emphasising that it is important for private unaided schools to maintain a surplus for further development and honing of their educational facilities and services, Justice Sanjeev Narula said:
“The right of unaided schools to determine fee to be charged from students cannot be faltered purely only on account of presence of reasonable surplus in their books of account.”
Title: Shri Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 240
The Central Bureau of Investigation on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that it will not arrest the Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Prasad Yadav if he appears before the agency in Delhi this month on any Saturday.
The submission was made before the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma in response to Yadav's petition challenging the summons issued to him by CBI asking him to appear at its headquarter in Delhi for questioning in the alleged land for jobs scam case.
Title: SUPERTECH URBAN HOME BUYERS ASSOCIATION (SUHA) FOUNDATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 241
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Supertech Urban Home Buyers Association (SUHA) Foundation and other home buyer’s petitions seeking directions for financial institutions to not charge the pre-EMIs or full EMIs from them till delivery of possession of flats by the real estate developer Supertech Limited.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said there are various agreements - buyer-developer agreement, loan agreement or tripartite agreement - between the homebuyers, the builder and the banks, and the rights claimed by the homebuyers are eventually flowing from the respective agreements only.
Title: PARNITA KAPOOR & ORS. v. AM
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 242
The Delhi High Court on Thursday sentenced a lawyer to six months of simple imprisonment after finding him guilty of contempt of court for not complying with the judicial orders directing him to pay the use and occupation charges to the landlord in respect of a property situated in Kingsway Camp area.
Observing that it is a fit case where any leniency shown by the court will be misunderstood as weakness, Justice Manmeet Pritam Arora also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 on the lawyer.
Case Title: Chadha Motor Transport Company Pvt Ltd vs. Barinderjit Singh Sahni
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 243
The Delhi High Court has ruled that, merely because the defendant participated in a civil suit filed by the plaintiff, he cannot be said to have waived his right to invoke arbitration with respect to all future litigation between the parties under the Agreement.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that participation of a party in a civil suit instituted by a partner, would not debar the party from initiating independent proceedings by way of arbitration, seeking independent remedies under the Partnership Deed.
Case Title: Prime Interglobe Pvt Ltd vs. Super Milk Products Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting a party’s request to file counter claims on the ground of delay, does not foreclose its right to invoke arbitration seeking independent reference of its claims.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that, when arbitration proceedings are invoked at the instance of one party, it is generally open to the other party to file its counter-claims in the same proceedings. However, this does not per se signify that the Court has also referred the claims of the prospective counter-claimant to arbitration, so as to bar its right to assert its claims at a future date.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Shakti Bhog CMD Kewal Krishan Kumar In Money Laundering Case
Title: Kewal Krishan Kumar v. ED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 245
The Delhi High Court granted bail to Kewal Krishan Kumar, chairman and managing director (CMD) of Delhi-based Shakti Bhog Foods Limited, in a money laundering case.
Kumar was arrested by the probe agency on July 04, 2021. As per a press release issued by ED at that time, the arrest was in continuation of search carried out at nine premises located in Delhi and Haryana during which various incriminating documents and digital evidence was recovered.
Case Title: PC Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 246
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the income/ fee earned by an Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) for regulating the poultry market, would fall within the scope of Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus the same would be exempt from income tax.
Rejecting the argument of the revenue department that unless income which is earned by an APMC is relatable to agricultural produce, it cannot be excluded from its total income, the bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that Section 10(26AAB) uses the expression “any income” and not “agricultural income” of the APMC.
Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 247
The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation moved by Advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for compulsory voting in the Parliament and State Assembly elections for increase in voter turnout and political participation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that voting is a right and the choice of the people, and asked Upadhyay if there is anything in the Constitution of India which makes voting mandatory.
Title: DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 248
The Delhi High Court directed the Union of India and Delhi government to forthwith attend to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC)'s request for extension of sovereign guarantee or subordinate debt to enable it make payment of dues to Reliance Infra-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) under the 2017 arbitral award.
Justice Yashwant Varma said the decision shall be taken within a period of two weeks from today and if permission is accorded to the DMRC in respect of either of the suggestions, it shall proceed to deposit the entire amount payable under the award along with up-to-date interest in terms thereof within a period of one month therefrom.
Title: DEVAS EMPLOYEES MAURITIUS PVT. LTD v. ANTRIX CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 249
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against single judge’s order setting aside a 2015 arbitral award by which Antrix Corporation Limited, commercial and marketing arm of ISRO, was required to pay US$ 562.2 million to Devas Multimedia Private Limited over wrongful repudiation of a contract.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish and Justice Subramonium Prasad in its judgment on the appeal moved by Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited said it is "well established" that Devas was incorporated with fraudulent intentions so that it could enter into the agreement with Antrix.
The court said it sees no perversity in Single Bench's decision to set aside the arbitral award on the grounds of fraud and it being with in conflict with the public policy of India. Permitting Devas and its shareholders to reap the benefits of the ICC Award would amount to the court perpetuating the fraud, said the court.
Title: KESHAW SANYASI GAWO SHEWASHARAM v. GOVT OF NCT AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 250
The Delhi High Court has said that though the Delhi Government has sought to make efforts to rehabilitate jhuggi dwellers “on paper” in terms of the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, the ground reality is “far from desirable.”
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing a plea moved by a trust namely Keshav Sanyasi Gawo Shewashram, established for maintaining a temple and cow shelter, against an eviction notice issued to its occupants for vacating the premises. It is being relocated for three months to a shelter home in Geeta Colony.
Case Title: Bawana Infra Development Pvt Ltd vs. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (DSIIDC)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 251
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 31 (7) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which deals with the Arbitrator’s discretion while awarding interest in respect of the pre-reference period, applies only where there is no agreement between the parties with respect to the rate of interest to be awarded.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that the Arbitral Tribunal may not resort to Section 31(7)(b), while awarding post-award interest, when express provisions regarding the rate of interest are present in the agreement between the parties.
Case Title: Yash Deep Builders v. Sushil Kumar Singh, OMP (I) (COMM) 401 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 252
The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of Section 9 of the A&C Act does not envisages relief in the nature that would restore a contract which already stands terminated.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the Court while exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot direct specific performance of a determinable contract. It held that a contract which in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced under Section 14(d) of the Specific Reliefs Act, therefore, the Court cannot do something that is statutorily prohibited.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Versus The Gst Commissioner, Cgst, And Central Excise And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 253
The Delhi High Court has ordered the petitioner to reveal the name of the friend who fraudulently obtained a GSTIN using his credentials at the department.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has directed the petitioner to disclose the identity of his friend, to whom he claims to have handed over his identity documents, to the police authorities as well as to the state GST authorities. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the concerned authorities and provide them with all the information as required.
Case Title: Milestone Systems A/S vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 254
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Income Tax Department’s order rejecting the assessee’s application seeking a certificate for “NIL” rate of withholding tax under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the concerned officer had failed to consider the Apex Court’s decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021), which was relied upon by the assessee in support of its plea for a “NIL” rate of withholding tax.
Title: SAMRIDHI ENTERPRISES v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 255
The Delhi High Court has observed that an intermediary is not required to take action against alleged infringers on receiving a complaint of the user regarding the infringing acts on the portal under Rule 3 of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
“Rule 3(2)(a) only envisages complaints regarding violation of the provision of Rule 3. There is no provision in Rule 3 which requires an intermediary, on receipt of a complaint regarding infringing activities on its port, to take any action against the alleged infringers,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: Asif Mohammad Khan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 256
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to former Congress MLA Asif Mohammad Khan who is accused of allegedly misbehaving with a police officer, subject to the condition that he will offer services at an adult education centre.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma noted that Khan is an alumni of Jamia Millia Islamia University and directed him to offer the service thrice a week.
The FIR was registered by Delhi police at Shaheen Bagh police station under sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 341 (wrongful restraint), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) and 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Title: X v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 257
The Delhi High Court said that while the complainants in sexual assault cases are entitled to fair trial, the responsibility of criminal justice system towards protecting the rights of the accused persons cannot be ignored.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in cases of rape and sexual violence, “conceptualization of definition of sexual consent” is of utmost importance so that the “delicate balance between rape and consensual sex” is fairly arrived at.
“The Courts have to ensure that the right of fair trial to the complainant and rights of the accused of being protected from mala fide trial are taken care of in the Court‘s crucial endeavor to ensure equality before law,” the court said.
Justice Sharma made the observations while upholding a trial court order discharging an accused under Sections 376 (punishment for sexual assault) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in an FIR registered in 2017.
Title: ASHISH RASTOGI v. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 258
The Delhi High Court has directed that the name of a Law Officer working with a public sector undertaking be included in the final list of Delhi Higher Judicial Services, 2022 examination after ruling that he fulfils the mandatory requirement of "continuously practicing as an advocate for not less than seven years.”
A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan granted relief to Ashish Rastogi who challenged the final result notice of the examination dated November 10, 2022, insofar as it rejected his candidature for appointment to DHJS.
Case Title: NHAI vs. M/s AE Tollway Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 259
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Apex Court’s decision in Oil and Natural Gas (ONGC) vs Afcons Gunanusa JV (2022), where it had interpreted the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), clearly requires party autonomy to be given paramount importance.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that though in ONGC (2022), it was held that the term “sum in dispute” in the Fourth Schedule shall be considered separately for the claim and counter-claim, the Arbitral Tribunal was in error in fixing the arbitral fees separately for the claims and counter-claims, contrary to the express Agreement between the parties.
Case Title: Antique Art Export Pvt Ltd vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 260
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the High Court exercises a judicial function under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and thus while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 for appointment of Arbitrator, the High Court can determine the issue of maintainability of a petition on any ground, including on territorial jurisdiction or res judicata.
Title: Shankar Shyamnaval Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 261
The Delhi High Court directed the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to constitute an appellate committee to hear the appeal of Shankar Mishra, accused in the Air India urination case, against the airline’s inquiry committee's order designating him as an “unruly passenger” and banning him from flying for four months.
Justice Prathiba M Singh permitted Mishra to file the appeal before the appellate committee within two we
Title: KAPIL SIBAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 06 NEW DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 262
The Delhi High Court restrained Income Tax authorities from acting on the show cause notice issued to Rajya Sabha MP and senior lawyer Kapil Sibal on March 11 in relation to assessment proceedings pending against him.
"Having heard the leaned counsels of the parties, we are of the view that since the impugned notice has been challenged on jurisdiction as well as on the breach of principles of natural justice, it would require some amount of deliberation," said the division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju.
Issuing notice on Sibal's petitions, the court asked the IT authorities to file a counter affidavit. "In the meanwhile, the concerned officer will stay his hands vis-à-vis the show cause notice dated 11.03.2023," said the court.
Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Natraj Construction Company
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 263
The Delhi High Court has ruled that, in view of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a party cannot be permitted to restrict the period of limitation for invoking arbitration, in contravention to the limitation period provided by law. The Court observed that a lesser period of limitation provided under the Contract between the parties would be hit by Section 28.
While dealing with an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Court dismissed the contention of the appellant/award debtor that the claims raised by the claimant were time-barred.
Title: NAVEEN ARORA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 264
“A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged,” the Delhi High Court said on Thursday while upholding a judicial officer's dismissal from service for allegedly accepting a "favour" from a "stranger".
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while refusing to reduce a major penalty of dismissal of service imposed on the judicial officer.
“The post of a Judicial Officer is a coveted one with responsibilities attached to it. A Judicial Officer is expected to be unceremonious and not take things in an easy manner. A Judicial Officer is expected to be more prudent. At the end of the day 'A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged',” the court said.
Title: MASTER PRATHAM SINGH LATWAL v. GURU GOBIND SINGH GOVT HOSPITAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 265
The Delhi High Court has directed the government to release a sum of Rs. three lakh ex-gratia payment to a two-year-old who lost his vision after premature birth at Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital.
"This Court observes that the newly born child has turned blind due to various unfortunate circumstances," said the court.
The minor was born on June 28, 2020, as a premature child in the 29th week of gestation. However, he got completely blind as the Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening which was to be conducted within four weeks of his birth was not conducted in time, his family said.
Title: VIJENDER GUPTA v. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 266
The Delhi High Court permitted BJP MLA Vijender Gupta to attend the Delhi Legislative Assembly on Monday, the last day of the budget session till remainder of the session and directed him to maintain the dignity of the House.
Justice Prathiba M Singh disposed of Gupta’s plea challenging the motion passed by Assembly suspending him from attending the sittings of the House for one year till the next Budget Session.
His suspension came into effect on March 21.
Case Title: M/S Balaji Exim Versus Commissioner, CGST
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 267
The Delhi High Court has held that allegations of availing of fake credit cannot be a ground for rejecting the refund applications unless it is established that the petitioner has not received the goods or paid for them.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner would be entitled to the refund of the ITC on goods that have been exported by it. They directed that the respondents process the petitioner’s applications for refund of the ITC including cess.
Delhi High Court Cautions PMLA Adjudicating Authority About Passing ‘Templated Orders’
Title: STATE BANK OF INDIA v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ,ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 268
The Delhi High Court has cautioned the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) about passing “templated orders” and said that using “identical templated paragraphs” must be avoided.
“Use of identical templated paragraphs could reflect as non-application of mind by the Authority concerned and hence ought to be avoided. The Adjudicating Authority is cautioned about passing such templated orders,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
The court was hearing a plea moved by State Bank of India challenging an attachment order passed by Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) dated December 22, 2021.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. ARVIND M KAPOOR AND ANR & other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 269
Observing that disclosure of confidential information in anti-dumping proceedings can have a significant impact on country’s economic interest and trade relations, the Delhi High Court has said that same cannot be sought or subjected to disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that when the Anti-Dumping Rules themselves provide an exception to disclosure of information in view of the nature of anti-dumping proceedings, the court cannot allow the RTI applicant to “bypass such a barrier.”
“The entire purpose of having a complete and self-sufficient scheme for disclosure of confidential information under the Anti-Dumping Rules would be defeated if persons who are participating in anti-dumping investigation are permitted to tangentially seek information under the RTI Act,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Restrains Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India From Using ‘ICAI’ Acronym
Title: THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA v. THE INSTITUTE OF COST ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 270
The Delhi High Court has restrained Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India from using “ICAI” acronym, a trademark which stands registered in favour of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, for the institution or services provided by it.
Justice C Hari Shankar also directed Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India to remove ICAI acronym from all existing web pages and other physical or virtual representations in which it is used, within three months.
The court was hearing a suit filed by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India seeking an injunction against Institute of Cost Accountants of India from using the ICAI mark.
Case Title: INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. v. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 271
The Delhi High Court has held that recourse to Section 34(4) of the A&C Act cannot be taken to permit the arbitral tribunal to consider the material evidence which it earlier failed to consider.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that Section 34(4) of the A&C Act empowers the Court deciding an application under Section 34(1) of the Act to adjourn the challenge proceedings and remit the matter back to the arbitral tribunal to allow it to eliminate the ground of the challenge, however, this power can only be exercised to allow the tribunal to provide for gaps in the reasoning or cure any other curable defect, however, it does not extend to allow the tribunal to give a new finding or a fresh decision.
Title: State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 272
While framing charges of rioting and unlawful assembly against Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in 2019 Jamia violence case, the Delhi High Court has observed that protest by violent means can never be part of democracy.
“Though, in a democracy, there can be no question of dissent being suppressed or fundamental right of freedom of expression by peaceful means being infringed, however, at the same time, there is no place of violent collective action to register one’s anguish against ideological differences or resistance to a Government policy,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
Perusing the video of the protest on record, the court said that the acts of resistance being presented as normal by the accused persons were not peaceful resistance but violent protest which had turned into riots.
Case Title: NTPC Ltd vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 273
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a party has filed an application seeking to update/revise its counter claims before the Arbitral Tribunal, intending to primarily alter/change the amount of the counter-claims, the said application was, in effect, an application for amendment of the counter-claims, even though it was termed as an ‘updation application’.
The bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao was dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the Arbitral Tribunal’s order where it had rejected the party’s application seeking updation/revision of its counter claims on the ground that the same was filed belatedly.
Case Title: Azad @ Gourav vs. State of GNCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 274
The Delhi High Court has ruled that although the Call Detail Records (CDRs) may be an important and effective piece of evidence, which may facilitate and assist courts in ascertaining the presence of different participants in commission of an offence, the same can only be taken as supporting or a corroborative piece of evidence, and conviction cannot be made solely on basis of the CDR data.
While setting aside the conviction of an accused for the offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that the CDRs relied on by the prosecution only proved that the accused were present near the place of occurrence on the day of the incident. However, the CDRs did not prove that the said accused actually participated in the commission of the offence, the court held.
Title: THE WIRE THROUGH ITS EDITOR & ANR. v. AMITA SINGH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 275
The Delhi High Court quashed a summoning order issued by a trial court in 2017 against The Wire’s Editor and Deputy Editor in a criminal defamation case filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Amita Singh.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani quashed the order passed by a metropolitan court on January 07, 2017, summoning The Wire’s Editor Siddharth Bhatia and Deputy Editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha in Singh’s criminal complaint.
Title: DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 276
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the salaries and other Operation & Maintenance (O&M) expenses to be borne by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation will not be attached in case of its failure to pay dues to Reliance Infra-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) under the 2017 arbitral award.
Justice Yashwant Varma was hearing a petition moved by DMRC seeking review of an earlier decision on the execution petition filed by DAMEPL.
It was DMRC’s case that the attachment of its statutory expenses will result in immediate stoppage of the entire metro network in National Capital Region and cause inconvenience to more than 50 Lakh commuters.
Title: INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD versus TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON (PUBL)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 277
Observing that the new technology has blurred national boundaries and given a boost to the international trade as well as infringement, the Delhi High Court has said that global doctrinal interdependence — referring to foreign Court decisions, is an effective and practical way of facilitating harmonization of basic principles of laws, especially when there is nothing contrary in the national laws.
In its decision on the appeals against a single judge decision that held Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson's eight suit patents prima facie valid and further ruled that Intex Technologies (India) Limited has prima facie infringed Ericsson's patent, the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said rapid developments in the technology have posed unprecedented challenges to intellectual property laws.
Title: VIVO MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 278
Hearing the plea moved by Vivo India against the order of Enforcement Directorate to debit freeze its bank accounts, the Delhi High Court has directed Chinese smartphone manufacturer to pursue its appellate remedies before the Appellate Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that Vivo India has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal last month against the order passed by Adjudicating Authority confirming the debit freeze order.
Case Title: OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 279
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Revenue Department’s order withholding a refund of over Rs. 33 Crores due to OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd, while directing the department to reconsider OYO’s representations seeking disbursal of the refund amount, bearing in mind the provisions of Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that despite OYO receiving a refund intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, it was wholly unjust and inequitable for the Assessing Officer to withhold the refund amount due to it, merely on the ground that a scrutiny notice had been issued to OYO.