Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296NOMINAL INDEXGoyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284NG v. SG & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 286IRCON INTERNATIONAL v. PIONEER FABRICATORS, FAO(COMM) 200/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 287M/s Ernst...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296
NOMINAL INDEX
Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284
NG v. SG & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285
BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 286
IRCON INTERNATIONAL v. PIONEER FABRICATORS, FAO(COMM) 200/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 287
M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 288
SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 289
AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 290
SONU@BILLA v. STATE, THROUGH SHO, PS PASCHIM VIHAR EAST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 291
ABOOBACKER E. v. National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 292
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 293
MS. M PROSECUTRIX v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 294
RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 295
Rashtriya Transport Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296
REPORTS
Case Title: Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party who is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, can be impleaded as a necessary party in the arbitration proceedings.
The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain further ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting the application for impleadment of parties in the arbitral proceedings, does not constitute an ‘interim award’ under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it does not decide any substantive question of law or deal with the merits of the case.
Right To Residence In Matrimonial Home Includes Right To Safe And Healthy Living: Delhi High Court
Title: NG v. SG & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to residence in a matrimonial home under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also includes the right to safe and healthy living.
While issuing notice on a wife’s plea challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in a civil case relating to matrimonial dispute, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said:
“…. it goes without saying that the right to residence in a matrimonial home, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also would subsume within itself, the definition of “right to safe and healthy living” too. Hence, requiring interference by this Court.”
Title: BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 286
The Delhi High Court has observed that the officers of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Mark must practice due application of mind while rendering decisions and that template or “cut-paste” orders must be discouraged and cannot sustain.
While pulling up an Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs for passing a “mechanical order” while refusing an application for grant of patent, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed:
“Reasoning through a speaking order is a vital aspect of the principles of natural justice and is of utmost importance, which needs to be underscored. If the patent office’s orders lack proper reasoning, it may be difficult for the applicant to identify the grounds for appeal. The legal proposition that an order of such kind should be supported by reasons, needs no reiteration.”
Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL v. PIONEER FABRICATORS, FAO(COMM) 200/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 287
The Delhi High Court has held that the location of the Facilitation Council administering arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 would remain the ‘Venue’ of arbitration when the parties have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a Court situated in a different place.
The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Anoop Jairam Bhambhani held that by virtue of the provisions of the MSMED Act, only the procedure of constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is obliterated and the same does not eclipse the agreement between the parties of foisting exclusive jurisdiction on a particular Court.
Case Title: M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 288
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the services provided by M/s Ernst and Young Limited (India), the Indian Branch Office of UK based company, M/s Ernst & Young Limited (E&Y Ltd), to overseas EY Entities, is not an “intermediary service”.
The Court thus set aside the orders passed by the GST Authorities where it had rejected Ernst and Young’s application seeking refund of input tax credit (ITC) with respect to the services exported by it, on the ground that it was an intermediary.
Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Satyendar Jain In Money Laundering Case
Title: SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 289
Denying bail to Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case, the Delhi High Court on Thursday said that witness statements show that the Aam Aadmi Party leader is the “conceptualizer, visualizer and executor” of the entire operation. The court also said he is an influential person having the potential to tamper with evidence.
In the order running into 46 pages, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that Satyendar Jain, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain failed to meet the twin conditions provided under section 45 of PMLA and the conditions laid down under section 439 of Cr.P.C. and thus, are not entitled for bail.
The AAP leader has been in custody since May 30 last year. His bail application was dismissed by the trial court on November 17, 2022. Notice on his bail plea was issued by High Court in December last year. Order was reserved on the bail pleas on March 22.
Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 290
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to hold a stakeholder consultation for making films disabled-friendly for visually and hearing impaired individuals and to ensure implementation of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting along with other relevant Ministries to hold the consultation with film producers, OTT platforms operating in India, television broadcasters, association of theatre owners, organizations consisting of disabled persons, distributors of films and any other stakeholder it may consider appropriate.
Title: SONU@BILLA v. STATE, THROUGH SHO, PS PASCHIM VIHAR EAST
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 291
The Delhi High Court has observed that if a man peeps inside the washroom when a woman is taking bath, it will amount to invasion of her privacy and also attract the offence of voyeurism.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that taking bath in a bathroom by any person, whether a male or a female, is essentially a “private act” as it is taking place inside the four walls of the bathroom.
“It cannot be denied that a woman taking bath inside a closed bathroom will reasonably expect that her privacy was not invaded and she was not being seen or watched by anyone as she is behind closed walls behind a curtain. The act of a perpetrator peeping inside the said bathroom will certainly be regarded as invasion of her privacy,” the court said.
Title: ABOOBACKER E. v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 292
The Delhi High Court permitted former chairman of Popular Front of India (PFI) E Abubacker to withdraw his appeal challenging the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking bail on medical grounds.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted liberty to Abubacker to approach the trial court seeking appropriate relief in view of the fact that chargesheet has been filed by National Investigating Agency (NIA).
Delhi High Court Quashes Service Tax Demand of Rs. 56.61 Crores Against MTNL
Case Title: Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 293
The Delhi High Court has quashed the service tax demand of Rs. 56.61 crores against Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL).
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that MTNL had received the compensation during the financial year 2015-16, which was prior to May 14, 2016, i.e., the date on which the Finance Act, 2016, came into force and Clause (j) was introduced in Section 66E of the Act. Thus, the surrender of any right to use the spectrum by MTNL prior to the said date would not be chargeable to service tax.
Mere Apprehension Of Victim No Ground To Transfer Rape Case From Male Judge: Delhi High Court
Title: MS. M PROSECUTRIX v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 294
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere apprehension of a victim is no ground to transfer a rape case to special courts designated to deal with POCSO cases or those presided by a woman judge.
Justice Anish Dayal observed that such a situation would create a precedent which would open floodgates where all rape cases would be required to be transferred to special POCSO courts or to woman judges.
Title: RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 295
The Delhi High Court has directed the national capital government to take steps to ensure clean and hygienic milk is provided to the citizens and that cattle do not feed on plastic or garbage in the national capital
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the cattle feeding on garbage or plastic can have a detrimental effect on the quality of milk and a deleterious effect on the people who consume it.
Case Title: Rashtriya Transport Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296
The Delhi High Court has held that it would be open for a person found in the custody of goods to produce the relevant information in its possession with respect to the goods within a reasonable time on being required to do so by the Commissioner.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that none of the authorities have even examined whether the documents produced by the appellant established the ownership of the goods in question.