Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134 - 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150]

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150

NOMINAL INDEX

VINAY KHURANA v. SHWETA KHURANA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134

DR. SANJIV BANSAL v. DR. MANISH BANSAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 135

GOPALA KRISHNA MOOTHA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 136

JOHRINA BEGUM v. SUKHBIR SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 137

SUMER SINGH SALMAN v. VIKRAM SINGH & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 138

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. & ORS. v. 123MOVIESHUB.TC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 139

VIPIN SEHRAWAT v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SDMC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 140

NIPUN MIGLANI v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 141

MOHD FAROOQ v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 142

DR MOHAMMAD AJAZUR RAHMAN v. UNION OR INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 143

DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 144

THARVINDER SINGH & ORS v. VIRESH CHOPRA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 145

JAYABRATA BOSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 146

SUNDER SINGH BHATI v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 147

AFROZNISHA v. DELHI WAKF BOARD & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 148

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 149

KLJ ORGANIC LTD v. Ltd. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150

SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS/ORDERS THIS WEEK

1. What Is The Scope Of Judicial Separation & Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? Delhi High Court Explains

Case Title: VINAY KHURANA v. SHWETA KHURANA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134

The Delhi High Court has explained the scope of Judicial Separation and Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the scope of the two concepts is qualitatively different and that Judicial separation is a completely different relief that the aggrieved spouse may seek against the other, under sec. 10 of the Act.

"Thus, the aggrieved spouse may, instead of seeking the relief of divorce, seek a decree of judicial separation on the same grounds on which he/she may seek divorce. The law gives an option to the aggrieved spouse/petitioner to seek either of the two reliefs," the Court said.

2. Contempt Of Court | Seeking Legal Redressal Cannot Tantamount To Interference Or Obstruction To Course Of Justice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DR. SANJIV BANSAL v. DR. MANISH BANSAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 135

The Delhi High Court has observed that seeking legal redressal cannot tantamount to interference or obstruction to the course of justice in relation to contempt of Court.

Justice Asha Menon was dealing with a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from writing, circulating, speaking, publishing or making any demeaning remark or material against it or engaging in any conduct which causes mental pain and agony to the Plaintiff.

The suit also sought damages of Rs. 3 Crores. It also sought directions on the Defendant to withdraw the alleged ex-facie demeaning, derogatory, false and wrong allegations made against the Plaintiff in the suit.

3. Delhi High Court Reiterates Factors To Be Considered Before Making A Person Vicariously Liable For Offences By Company Under S.138 NI Act

Case Title: GOPALA KRISHNA MOOTHA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 136

The Delhi High Court has reiterated the various necessary factors to be kept in mind before making a person vicariously liable for offences committed by a company under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court dismissed a plea seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner also sought to quash an order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to him.

The respondent No.2 in the petition had filed a complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court alleging that he was appointed as the CFO of the India Ahead News Private Ltd. which is engaged in the business of running a TV news channel.

It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and the accused No.2, who was the son of the petitioner, were the directors of India Ahead News Pvt. Ltd. and that they were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company had been running the TV channel and actively controlling all the operations of the company.

4. Jurisdiction Under Art. 227 To Be Exercised Sparingly When Challenge Is To Orders Of Rent Controller & Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JOHRINA BEGUM v. SUKHBIR SINGH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 137

The Delhi High Court has observed that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised by the High Court when the challenge is to the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal.

Justice Prateek Jalan added that where orders have been passed on consideration of the materials placed before the Rent Controller and the Tribunal, the High Court would not be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 assailing an order dated 18.11.2021, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rent Control Tribunal of the Rohini Courts.

5. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Delhi High Court Reiterates Principles To Be Applied While Deciding Application For Deletion From Array Of Parties

Case Title: Sumer Singh Salkan v. Vikram Singh Mann & Ors., CM (M) 37/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 138

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated the principles that are to be applied by the Court while deciding an application for deletion from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.

Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC empowers the Court to delete or add parties to the suit.

The present petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside of the order whereby an application filed on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant no. 7 in original suit) seeking deletion from the array of parties was allowed.

6. Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of 34 Rogue Websites Indulging In Online Piracy By Streaming Content Of Universal, Netflix, Disney Etc

Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. & ORS. v. 123MOVIESHUB.TC & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 139

The Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 34 rogue websites indulging in online piracy by streaming streaming content of Universal City Studios LLC., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Netflix Studios, LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation and Disney Enterprises, Inc, through illegal means.

Justice Asha Menon directed the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue notifications calling upon the telecom service providers registered under them to disable access into India of the said websites within 36 hours.

The Court also directed the Internet Service Providers to block access to the rogue websites.

7. One Individual Can't Hold Two Birth Certificates, Identity Is Established Not Only By Name & Parentage But Also By Date Of Birth: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VIPIN SEHRAWAT v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SDMC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 140

The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual cannot be permitted to hold two birth certificates, reasoning that the identity of a person is established not only by name and parentage but also by date of birth.

"Continuance of two birth certificates containing two different dates of birth would imply that one individual can pose as two different individuals; which error cannot be permitted to perpetuate," Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed.

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of South Delhi Municipal Corporation to cancel the birth certificate of the petitioner issued on September 24, 2013.

8. 'Pre-Planned Well-Designed Fraud With Union Of India': Delhi HC Imposes ₹1L Cost On Plea Against Seizure Of Luxury Car For Evading Import Duty

Case Title: Nipun Miglani v. Intelligence Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 141

The Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 1 lakh while dismissing a petition challenging the seizure of a luxury car and subsequent proceedings under the Customs Act, over non-payment of import duty.

Noting that the petitioner had violated the conditions of duty-free import and had also allegedly forged the bill of entry, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh orally remarked,

" This an absolutely pre-planned, well designed import and a fraud with Union of India. Fraud with a sovereign body is a criminal offence. It cannot be viewed lightly."

9. CAA-NRC Protest Site At Shaheen Bagh Allegedly Being Converted Into Unauthorized Memorial: Delhi HC Asks Authorities To Decide Representation

Case Title: Mohd. Farooq v State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 142

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL alleging that the CAA-NRC protest site at city's Shaheen Bagh area is illegally being converted into a memorial, with a direction to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation and other concerned authorities to look into the petitioner's grievance.

The plea was filed by one Mohd. Farooq, a resident of Shaheen Bagh area in Jamia Nagar, alleging that MLA Amanatullah Khan and councillor Abdul Wazid Khan are the main key persons who are raising illegal and unauthorized construction by grabbing government land and constructing a memorial, in the garb of establishing a park.

It is further alleged that the private Respondent is using MLA Local Area Development Funds for this purpose, thus propagating corruption during discharging his duties.

10. 'Enactment Of Law Is Sovereign Function': Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea For Implementation Of Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014

Case Title: Dr. Mohammad Ajazur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 143

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction upon the Parliament to bring into force the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.

At the outset, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that enactment of law and bringing it into force are sovereign functions to be performed by the Parliament or the State Legislature under the Constitution, as the case may be. Hence, no direction, much less a writ of mandamus can be issued in this regard by the Courts.

The petitioner, Dr. Mohammad Ajazur Rahman, represented by Advocate Payal Bahl had submitted that the Act was passed by the Parliament in 2014, almost eight years ago. However, it is yet to be brought into force. Bahl added that the Act provides a framework to investigate corruption and misuse of power by public servants while protecting the whistle blowers. Hence, its implementation is imperative.

11. Delhi High Court Directs Twitter To Take Down Tweets Of Historian Audrey Truschke Against Vikram Sampath

Case Title: DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 144

The Delhi High Court has directed micro blogging site Twitter to take down some of the tweets made by historian Audrey Truschke against historian Dr. Vikram Sampath over allegations of plagiarism against him with respect to his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

Justice Amit Bansal was hearing an application filed in the suit filed by Sampath against Audrey Truschke and other persons over a letter sent by them to Royal Historical Society raising allegations of plagiarism against him with respect to a journal publication and his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and some alleged defamatory tweets made pursuant thereto.

The suit stated that Historian Audrey Truschke and other persons namely Ananya Chakravarti and Rohit Chopra wrote the letter dated February 11 to Royal Historical Society in London raising serious allegations of plagiarism.

12. Order VI Rule 18 CPC | If Plaint Is Not Amended Within Given Time, It Cannot Be Amended Thereafter: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Tharvinder Singh & Ors v. Viresh Chopra & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 145

The Delhi High Court recently held that once an application for amendment of plaint is allowed, the same has to be amended within the given time frame.

Referring to Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, Justice Pratibha M. Singh noted that if the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, it cannot be amended thereafter.

" It is the settled position in law that once an application for amendment is allowed, in terms of the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 CPC, the plaint has to be amended. If the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter, as also confirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, " the Court said.

13. HRA Rules Applicable To All Central Govt Institutions/ PSUs & Autonomous Bodies Including IGNOU: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jayabrata Bose v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 146

The Delhi High Court recently held that Central Government Institutions/ PSUs and Autonomous Bodies other than those explicitly mentioned under the HRA General Rules and Orders are also covered under the Rules.

The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Talwant Singh and Rajiv Shakhdher in a case where a contention was raised that Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) is neither the department of the Central Government nor State Government, nor an autonomous body/ undertaking, nor a semi-government organization for the purposes of HRA Rules.

Thus, the petitioner, a government employee challenging an order of its employer for recovery of HRA on the ground that his wife was already receiving HRA from IGNOU and he is thus barred under Rule 5(c)(iii).

14. Mere Vague Belief That Accused May Thwart Investigation Cannot Be A Ground To Prolong The Incarceration: Delhi High Court

Title: SUNDER SINGH BHATI v. THE STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 147

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the accused.

Justice Subramonium Prasad added that if there is no apprehension of interference in administration of justice in a criminal trial by an accused, then the Court should be circumspect while considering depriving the accused of their personal liberty.

"Therefore, the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial; this object is, thus, neither punitive nor preventative, and a person who has not been convicted should only be kept in custody if there are reasons to believe that they might flee from justice or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses," the Court added.

15. "Delhi Wakf Board Facing Various Constraints In Functioning": High Court Seeks Delhi Govt's Response On Notifying New CEO, Grant In Aid

Title: AFROZNISHA v. DELHI WAKF BOARD & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 148

Noting that the Delhi Wakf Board was facing various constraints in it's functioning, the High Court recently sought response from the Delhi Government on the aspect of new CEO of the Board which was yet to be notified and also the grant in aid which was not released by the Government yet.

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Delhi Government to file a status report and posted the matter for reporting compliance on 27th April, 2022.

The two factors on which the Court sought the status report are as under:

- No no fully functioning CEO for the Wakf Board. Though, an officer was appointed as the CEO, he has now been transferred to another area, and the new CEO is yet to be notified.

- The grant-in-aid for the Wakf Board has not been released by the GNCTD, and there is acute shortage of funds.

16. Information From Property Dealers Or Websites Not Cogent Evidence On Adequacy Of Rent For Invoking Section 13(2)(B) Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Versus Hamdard National Foundation (India)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 149

A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, held that in the absence of an independent inquiry, the revenue authorities cannot solely rely on the opinion of property broker firms and websites to determine the adequacy of rent received for invoking section 13(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Assessee Foundation received voluntary and corpus donations from Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) in a particular assessment year. Also, the Assessee had let out its property to the Wakf under a Lease Agreement. The Assessing Officer (AO), relying upon enquiry made from estate agents and information gathered from websites, held that the property was let out by the Assessee to the Wakf at a much lower rate than the market rate and therefore invoked the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act, adding the donations to the taxable income of the Assessee. 

The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)). The ITAT allowed the appeal in favour of the Assessee, directing deletion of additions made by the AO. The revenue authorities filed an appeal before the High Court against the impugned order.

17. Delhi High Court Excludes Time Spent Prosecuting Tax Appeal Before An Authority Without Jurisdiction, Rules Revision Petition Not Time Barred

Case Title: KLJ Organic Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150

A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, excluded the time spent in prosecuting a tax appeal before an authority devoid of jurisdiction in computing the limitation period for filing a revision petition under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Assessee filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) (CIT (IT)) dismissing Assessee's Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of limitation. The Assessee also sought a direction from the court to the CIT (IT) to consider Assessee's Revision Petition on merits after condoning the delay in filing the petition.

IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES

1. Marital Rape: Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment In Petitions Challenging Exception To Sec. 375 IPC

The Delhi High Court this week reserved it's judgment in a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar reserved the order while asking the counsel for the parties to file their respective written submissions and convinience compilations by March 2, if any.

2. "Citizens Should Not Suffer Due To Callous Disregard Of Environment Protection Rules": Delhi HC Expresses Dismay Over Victimization Of Trees

The Delhi High Court has expressed its dismay over the issue of victimization of trees in city's Chittaranjan Park area, while observing that the citizens of the city should not suffer due to the callous disregard of rules and orders by authorities, which are put in place in order to protect the environment.

Justice Najmir Waziri was dealing with a contempt petition raising the issue of laying down of pipelines or cable lines being undertaken by BSES Rajhdhani Power Limited on Bipin Chandra Pal Marg and nearby areas at Chittaranjan Park, which had damaged the roots of the standing trees, especially within one meter radius of the Trees.

The plea moved through Advocates Aditya N Prasad and Dhriti Chhabra stated that the aforesaid action was in violation of various orders of the High Court as well as the National Green Tribunal which mandated leaving of one meter kutcha space around trees while undertaking any construction activity.

The plea added that the competent authorities regarding implementation of laws pertaining to preservation of Trees, in complete subjugation of their statutory responsibilities, had abetted the said work.Looking for legal news and events.

3. Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment In Alapan Bandyopadhyay's Plea Challenging CAT's Order Transferring His Case To Delhi From Kolkata

The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment in the plea filed by Former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay, challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which had transferred his petition filed before the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh heard Advocate Kartikey Bhatt for Bandyopadhyay and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Respondent- Union of India. It has also granted liberty to both the sides to file further written submissions in the matter, latest by tomorrow.

In his plea filed through Advocate Kunal Mimani, Bandyopadhyay states that the impugned order was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play as he was not even granted a right to file its written objections to the Transfer Petition.

4. "Status Report Neither Here Nor There": High Court Questions Delhi Police Probing Death Of Man Forced To Sing National Anthem During Delhi Riots

The Delhi High Court has questioned the the city Police over its investigation into an incident where a man, 23 year old Faizan, was forced to sing the national anthem during the Delhi riots that erupted in the year 2020.

The incident relates to a video that had gone viral wherein Faizan could be seen allegedly being beaten by the police while being forced to sing the national anthem and 'Vande Mataram'.

Remarking that the status report filed by the Delhi Police was neither here nor there, Justice Mukta Gupta quizzed the police over confusion and discrepancies with regards to increase in the number of injuries in the MLC which was prepared prior to the deceased's detention in police custody and the post mortem report.

The Court questioned the Police that while the MLC recorded only three injuries, the same were increased to a number of twenty injuries in the post mortem report.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Kismatun, Faizan's mother, seeking a SIT probe into her son's death, who along with four other Muslim men, was seen in the video. Kismatun claims in her plea that the police had illegally detained her son and denied him critical health care as a result of which he succumbed to injuries on February 26, 2020.

5. Opening Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz Will Have To Be In Terms Of DDMA Order: Centre Informs Delhi High Court

The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that the aspect of opening of Masjid in city's Nizamuddin Markaz will have to be done in terms of the order passed by the Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA).

Justice Mukta Gupta was dealing with an application filed in the petition moved by the Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020.

The said application was filed by the Wafq Board seeking reopening of Masjid in the Nizamuddin Markaz commonly known as Masjid Bangle Wali owing to the upcoming festival of Shab e-Barat next month.

The Court had in November last year ordered for a joint inspection to be carried out at the Nizamuddin Markaz for the purpose of demarcation of the three areas namely the religious place (Masjid) where people offer namaz, the place where congregation take place and the residential area which has a hostel.