Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: April 18 To April 23, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 333 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 360

NOMINAL INDEX

Case Title: Asifa v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 333

Case Title: RISHU AGGARWAL v. MOHIT GOYAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 334

Case Title: Neha Pudil v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 335

Title: SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 336

Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. SATBIR BHARDWAJ & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 337

Case Title: INDRA PASRICHA v. DEEPIKA CHAUHAN & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 338

Case Title: KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 339

Case Title: RAJA BERWA & ORS v. STATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 340

Case title: M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 341

Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 342

Case Title: SHRI KUSUM LATA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 343

Case Title: DR. MANOJ BAJPAI v. MS SEEMA JASSAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 344

Case Title: X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 345

Case Title: APURV SHANKAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 346

Case Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Watcon Water Specialists Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 347

Case Title: DR S S CHAHAR v. SH D K SARRAF & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 348

Case Title: SHILPA SINGH v. VIKAS KHANNA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 349

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 350

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus M/S Abhijeet Angul Sambalpur Toll Road Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 351

Case Title: SOURABH GUGNANI & ORS v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 352

Case Title: BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD v. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 353

Case Title: ASHUTOSH SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 354

Case Title: NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR v. OM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 355

Case Title: SUMANDEEP VIDYAPEETH, AN INSTITUTE DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 356

Case Title: VISTRAT REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASIAN HOTELS NORTH LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 357

Case Title: VEENA GARG v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 358

Case Title: MR BHAVANISHANKAR H SHARMA THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH SATISH KUMAR TIWARI v. SRS PRIVATE INVESTMENT POWAI LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR ROHIT DAVE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 359

Case Title: ULTIMATE INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED v. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 360

1. Jahangirpuri Violence: Delhi High Court Orders Production Of Juvenile Accused Before Juvenile Justice Board

Case Title: Asifa v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 333

The Delhi High Court has ordered the production before a juvenile justice board, of an accused claiming to be a juvenile aged 16 years, arrested in connection with the clashes that broke out last week in city's Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.

The juvenile accused was sent to one day police custody remand here by a Duty Magistrate of Rohini Courts recently.

A bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar was dealing with a habeas corpus plea filed by a woman, asserting that her minor brother in law was kept in unlawful detention without proper disclosure of his age, despite being 16 years only.

2. Denial Of Conjugal Relationship Ground For Divorce But Not 'Exceptional Hardship' To Waive Cooling Off Period U/S 14 Hindu Marriage Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: RISHU AGGARWAL v. MOHIT GOYAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 334

The Delhi High Court has held that though denial of conjugal relationship is a ground for divorce and tantamounts to cruelty, the same cannot be said to amount to "exceptional hardship" under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

Section 14 prescribes a mandatory 1 year waiting period from the date of marriage, before filing for divorce. A proviso to this Section states that the 1 year period may be waived off on the ground that the case is one of "exceptional hardship" to the petitioner or of "exceptional depravity" on the part of the respondent.

A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the denial of sex by one spouse to the other, or by both of them to each other may certainly constitute "hardship", but it cannot be said to be "exceptional hardship".

3. Delhi High Court Tells Centre To Explore Possibility Of Physically Disabled Candidates Being Able To Pursue Some Disciplines Of Medical Education

Case Title: Neha Pudil v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 335

The Delhi High Court has directed the National Medical Commission to explore, in consultation with Central Government, the possibility of physically disabled candidates being able to pursue some disciplines of medical education with the advancement of science and technology, in the next six months.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla disposed of a plea of a medical aspirant, with disability namely amputation of thumb, index finger and part of middle finger of right hand, who had secured provisional admission in the Maulana Azad Medical College in MBBS course.

She was aggrieved with a disability certificate, issued to her by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, pegging her disability at 45%.

4. Aaj Tak Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction Against 'AAJ TAK GURGAON'

Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. SATBIR BHARDWAJ & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 337

The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by news channel "AAJ TAK", a part of India Today Group, against "AAJ TAK GURGAON".

Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the defendants to use the trademark 'AAJ TAK' in relation to any goods or services including their print, digital newspaper, publication, website, social media and content sharing platforms including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, and any other location on the internet, till the next date of hearing.

The Court also directed that the domain name registration of the impugned domain name 'aajtakgurgaon.com' be suspended.

5. Third Party Not Absolved From Contempt If They Are Informed That Their Conduct Amounts To Violation Of Court Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INDRA PASRICHA v. DEEPIKA CHAUHAN & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 338

The Delhi High Court has observed that disobedience of an order of the Court, if permitted, will result in striking at the root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based.

Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of an effective legal system and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been primarily legislated to prevent interference in the course of administration of justice.

"It is, therefore, well settled that though broadly a person who is not a party to the proceedings cannot be proceeded against for violation of the order, but a third party cannot seek to absolve themselves if they are informed about the fact that their conduct amounts to a violation of the Court order and that despite the information, they choose to wilfully flout the mandate of the Court. If such a conduct is permitted, then it will encourage subversion of judicial orders, which are to be properly understood and complied with," the Court observed.

6. What Is The Special Role That A Family Judge Is Obliged To Discharge As Distinct From General Role Of An Adjudicator? Delhi High Court Answers

Case Title: KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 339

The Delhi High Court has enumerated various principles highlighting the special role that a Family Judge is obligated to discharge as distinct from the general role of an adjudicator.

In the 54-page judgment, Justice Yashwant Varma also touched upon the essential qualities of a judge or adjudicator and the tests as propounded by the Indian judiciary in relation to an apprehension of bias.

While the Court noted that the family jurisprudence has progressed over time, it said that the Family Judge is no longer viewed as one who is to act in the capacity of a mere "fault finder".

7. FIR For Non-Compoundable Offences Can Be Quashed In Matrimonial Disputes If Court Satisfied That Parties Settled Disputes Amicably: Delhi HC

Case Title: RAJA BERWA & ORS v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 340

The Delhi High Court has observed that FIR or complaints can be quashed even in respect of non-compoundable offences pertaining to matrimonial disputes if the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled their disputes amicably, without any pressure.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed thus:

"Even in non- compoundable offences pertaining to the matrimonial disputes, if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, FIRs or complaints or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed."

The Court quashed an FIR registered under sec. 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2 (wife) got married to each other on 20th April, 2003 but due to some temperamental differences between them, they started living separately since May, 2005. There was a girl child born out of their wedlock, who was now major.

8. Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere In Former CBI Head M Nageswara Rao's Plea For Restoration Of His Twitter Blue Tick

Case title - M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 341

The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere in a writ plea filed by former Central Bureau of Investigation head and Retired IPS Officer M. Nageswara Rao seeking restoration of his Twitter Blue Tick.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma however disposed of Rao's writ plea by giving him the liberty to reapply for verification. It may be noted that Rao had moved to the Delhi HC with his writ plea submitting that his account on Twitter did contain a blue tick, but the same was removed in March 2022.

During the course of the hearing, the Court noted that vide communication dated 22 March 2022, Twitter had apprised the petitioner that his account could not be verified since he had failed to confirm his email and phone number. In its communication, the social media platform had also left it open to the petitioner to reapply for verification.

9. Subordinate Court Can't Assume Jurisdiction Under Contempt Of Courts Act: Delhi HC Sets Aside Trial Court Order Issuing Show Cause To CBI Director

Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 342

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Trial Court order issuing show cause notice to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to explain why not a reference of Contempt of Court be made by him against the respective officers of the agency for the purported non-compliance of judicial orders.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that it was "outrightly illegal" for the Special CBI Judge of the Rouse Avenue Court to issue the said order.

" A subordinate court on its own cannot assume jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act and issue show cause notice as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated," the Bench observed.

10. "Strong Suspicion Of Planned Syndicate Selling & Buying Children": Delhi High Court Upholds Charges Framed Against Medical Professional

Case Title: SHRI KUSUM LATA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 343

The Delhi High Court has recently upheld charges framed against a woman, a medical professional, under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, finding a "strong suspicion" of a planned syndicate for selling and buying of children.

Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Trial Court order which had framed charges under sec. 120B read with sec. 363 and 370 of IPC as well as sec. 80 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

11. Litigant Seeking Adjournments From Trial Court Can't Invoke High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction U/Art 227 For Expeditious Proceedings: Delhi HC

Case Title: DR. MANOJ BAJPAI v. MS SEEMA JASSAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 344

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not permissible for a litigant to seek adjournments before a Trial Court and thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking expeditious proceedings.

Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a petition seeking a direction to the Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, to decide expeditiously, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for decreeing the suit on admissions.

At the outset, the Court noted that out of the five occasions on which the matter was listed before the Trial Court for hearing of arguments on the application, dates were taken by the petitioner on two occasions.

12. Daughter Living With Grandparents Does Not Absolve Father's Responsibility To Provide Maintenance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 345

The Delhi High Court has observed that a father cannot deny his responsibility to maintain his wife and daughter even if he has to take care of his parents. It thus upheld a Family Court order directing him to give maintenance to the wife and daughter.

A Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna added that merely because the daughter is living with her maternal grandparents, it cannot be said that the father stands absolved of his responsibility towards his child.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a husband challenging the order passed by a Family Court dated 21st February, 2022 directing him to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife and daughter under sec. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

13. 50% Marks In Science In Intermediate Exam Necessary For Foreign Qualified MBBS To Appear In Screening Test & Get Registered In India: Delhi HC

Case Title: APURV SHANKAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 346

The Delhi High Court has observed that in view of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, a foreign qualified MBBS is necessarily required to obtain 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology to be eligible for appearing in Screening Test and get registered as a medical practitioner in India.

Justice Kameswar Rao observed:

"It is clear that in view of the provisions of the IMC Act, 1956, read with the regulations made there under, the petitioner was necessarily required to be eligible for admission to an MBBS course in India, i.e., he should have possessed 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together for him to be issued the Eligibility Certificate to sit in the Screening Test. The petitioner, admittedly having only 47.83% marks in the three subjects, was ineligible for admission to an MBBS course in India, and as such, could not have been issued the Eligibility Certificate to enable him to sit in the Screening Test"

14. Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Award Interest On Interest: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Watcon Water Specialists Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 347

The High Court of Delhi has observed that the arbitral tribunal cannot award interest on the amount of interest already granted in the award. It held that pendente lite interest on the amount of awarded interest amounts to awarding of interest on interest.

The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru has held that when the arbitrator has awarded interest on a substantive claim, allowing interest on the awarded interest is not permissible under the law.

The Court reiterated that construction of the terms of the contract falls purely within the domain of the arbitrator and the scope of S.34 is very narrow and the court does not sit in appeal over the award. The possibility of having another view is not a ground to set aside the award.

15. Individual Cannot Stall Entire Functioning Of A Board Because Majority Differs From His View: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DR S S CHAHAR v. SH D K SARRAF & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 348

"An individual cannot try to stall the entire functioning of the Board by stating that the decision taken by the Board are against his views because the majority differs from his view," the Delhi High Court has recently observed.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a contempt petition filed by a Member (Legal) of the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board constituted under the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.

In 2009, a Public Interest Litigation was filed challenging the illegal and arbitrary manner in which the Board, which was represented by the Central Government, was being run by the Chairman.

16. Order Of Restraint Against Husband Under Domestic Violence Act Does Not Preclude Family Court From Making Arrangement For Child Visitation: Delhi HC

Case Title: SHILPA SINGH v. VIKAS KHANNA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 349

The Delhi High Court has observed that the ambit and extent of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Family Courts Act, 1984, being two competing statutes, must be harmoniously construed so as to avoid a situation of repugnancy and conflict.

Justice Yashwant Varma relied on a 2017 judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar and another v. Charu Makin wherein it was observed that "The Act of 1984 was specially meant for establishment of special Courts so that matters referred in explanation to Section 7 of the Act can be dealt by the special Courts established for that purpose whereas the object of enactment of the Act of 2005 was to protect the woman from being victim of the domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society."

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a wife challenging an order dated 2nd April 2022 passed by the Family Judge granting visitation rights albeit supervised and in the concerned Court complex.

17. "No Right To Occupy Place Of Vending Round The Clock": Delhi HC Refuses Impleadment Of Street Vendors In Suo Moto PIL Over Encroachments In Okhla

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 350

The Delhi High Court has rejected an application moved by a group of street vendors, seeking impleadment in the suo moto public interest litigation initiated over the issue of illegal constructions and encroachments of public land in city's Okhla industrial area.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that as per Supreme Court's orders, a vendor has no right to occupy the place of vending round the clock or to keep his articles at the place of vending continuously.

" In the garb of vending, you can't set up a stall, keep you goods, lock it everyday and encroach on the area. You can't do that!" it remarked orally.

18. Right Of A Party To File Counter Claims Exists Independently Of Any Liberty Granted To It By The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus M/S Abhijeet Angul Sambalpur Toll Road Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 351

The Delhi High Court has ruled that any matter on which the Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass a final award can also be the subject of an interim award made by it, and the same can be challenged before the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that the right of a party to file counter claims before the Arbitral Tribunal exists independently of any liberty granted to it by the Arbitral Tribunal.

19. Criminal Justice Machinery Should Not Be Kept In Limbo, Trial Can't Remain Stayed Due To Non-Availability Of Counsel: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SOURABH GUGNANI & ORS v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 352

The Delhi High Court has observed that the criminal justice machinery should not be kept in limbo and that the proceedings before the Trial Court cannot remain stayed because of the non-availability of the counsel.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 29th January, 2013 in the FIR registered under sec. 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prayed for an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel appearing in the matter was travelling abroad and thus, was not able to appear before the Court.

20. Disparaging Advertisements: Delhi High Court Directs Parle To Modify Two Ads In Trademark Infringement Suit By Britannia Cookies

Case Title: BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD v. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 353

In relief to Britannia which runs the product range Good Day Butter Cookies, the Delhi High Court has directed Parle Biscuits to take down two of its advertisements, disparaging the former's products.

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed Parle to ensure that it modifies the ads within 2 weeks by blurring the image of cookies displayed by them, which is similar to those sold and marketed by Britannia.

" Defendants shall ensure that within two weeks from now, the impugned Advertisement No.2 and Advertisement No.3 shall be modified with the blurred image of the cookie and the currently used cookie image would be no longer visible in the said advertisements on any online platforms from 1st May, 2022, onwards, " the order stated.

21. Delhi High Court Grants Relief To OBC Candidate Seeking Admission In DU Based On Non-Creamy Layer Certificate Issued In 2018

Case Title: ASHUTOSH SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 354

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University to grant admission to a LLM candidate for the academic year of 2021-22 belonging to the Non Creamy Layer of the Other Backward Castes (OBC category), being aggrieved by University's action in rejecting his candidature in the 'Spot Admission' round on account of the caste certificate.

The caste certificate submitted by the petitioner alongwith his application did not belong to the current financial year. The petitioner had thus impugned the University's action of not giving him anytime to submit the requisite certificate.

Justice Rekha Palli allowed the plea and directed that the petitioner will be permitted to appear in the 1st semester exams along with the exams for subsequent semesters as per the practice being followed by the University.

22. State Govt Can't Cause Impediment In Process Of NCTE To Grant/ Refuse Recognition To Institutes Upon Satisfaction Of Norms: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR v. OM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 355

The Delhi High Court has observed that while it is for the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to grant or refuse recognition to the institutes upon satisfaction of all the norms laid down, the State Government, though is to be consulted, cannot cause an impediment in such process.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla added that even at the stage of grant of affiliation, the State Government or affiliating body cannot undermine the position of the NCTE and refuse to grant affiliation to the institution on the very same grounds, that have already been scrutinized by, and otherwise fall within the domain of NCTE.

23. Need Of The Hour To Encourage Institutes With Necessary Infrastructure For Running Ayurvedic Medical Colleges: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SUMANDEEP VIDYAPEETH, AN INSTITUTE DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 356

Noting that the country has been staunchly promoting the Ayurvedic system of medicine after the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, the Delhi High Court has said that it is the need of the hour to encourage institutes which possess the necessary infrastructure for running ayurvedic medical colleges, to contribute to the bigger goal of strengthening the infrastructure of this system of medicine in the country.

Justice Rekha Palli made the observation while allowing a plea filed Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, an Institute Deemed to be University, desirous of starting a new Ayurvedic Medical College with 100 seats in the undergraduate (UG) programme Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery for the Academic Year 2021- 2022.

24. Issue Whether Third Party Is Required To Be Impleaded In Proceedings Is For Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VISTRAT REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASIAN HOTELS NORTH LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 357

The Delhi High Court has observed that the issue as to whether any third party is required to be impleaded in the proceedings is covered by the Doctrine of Competence-Competence and that it will be for the Arbitrator to decide the said issue.

Justice Mukta Gupta observed thus:

"Therefore, once a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in the absence of a third party to the agreement or that third party is required to be impleaded in the proceedings, is covered by the Doctrine of Competence-Competence and it will be for the Arbitrator to decide the said issue."

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

25. Bidder Can't Seek For Deviation From Tender Document Which Has Been Accepted On His Own Accord: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VEENA GARG v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 358

The Delhi High Court has observed that when participating in the tender, a bidder cannot seek for deviation from the tender document which has been accepted on his own accord.

Justice Subramonium Prasad added that it goes against contractual obligations steeped in accepting such a tender, and therefore, violates the principles under Article 14 of the Constitution with respect to other bidders.

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking directions on the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to refund the amount retained by them to the Petitioner along with interest of 18% p.a. from the date of deposit.

26. S.14 Arbitration Act Does Not Confer Power On Court To Expunge Any Part Of Arbitral Tribunal's Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MR BHAVANISHANKAR H SHARMA THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH SATISH KUMAR TIWARI v. SRS PRIVATE INVESTMENT POWAI LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR ROHIT DAVE & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 359

The Delhi High Court has observed that a petition filed under sec. 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not confer any power on the Court to expunge any part of the order of the Arbitral Tribunal.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a plea filed under sec. 14(2) read with sec. 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and also for expunging the adverse and prejudicial remarks contained in order dated October 5, 2021 of the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Respondent party had filed the subject claim before the Arbitral Tribunal on March 23, 2021 of the value of approximately Rs. 248 cores besides interest.

27. Assessee Not Immune From Penalty U/S 270AA Income Tax Act Where Proceedings Initiated For Misreporting Of Income: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ULTIMATE INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED v. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 360

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is only in cases where proceedings for levy of penalty have been initiated on account of alleged "misreporting of income" that an assessee is prohibited from applying and availing the benefit of immunity from penalty and prosecution under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea challenging the order dated 26th March, 2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi under sec. 270A for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

28. Domain Name Registrars Are "Intermediaries" Under Information Technology Act: Delhi High Court

Title: SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 336

The Delhi High Court has held that the Domain Name Registrars are "intermediaries", within the meaning of sec. 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a suit filed by Snapdeal Private Limited regarding "SNAPDEAL trade mark". Defendants 1 to 32 were Domain Name Registrars who provide domain names for parties who may seek to register their respective websites under such domain names. Defendant 33 was the Department of Telecommunications and Defendant 34 is the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI).