Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: April 4 To April 10, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 297

NOMINAL INDEX

Sacheerome Advanced Technologies (SAT) versus NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NECI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266

RANA AYYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 267

LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 268

DR NAND KISHORE GARG v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 269

IRCON International Limited v. GPT-Rahee JV 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 270

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Teracom Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 271

India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (ITDC) versus Bougainvillea Multipex & Entertainment Centre Pvt Ltd (BMEL) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 272

Mother Sparsh Baby Care Pvt Ltd v. Aayush Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 273

M/S KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (COAL SALES) LTD. v. MMTC LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 274

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. PREM BHUTANI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 275

Kirti Lata v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 276

Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 277

Vijay Kumar Munjal V. Pawan Kumar Munjal 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 278

SHALEN BHARDWAJ (ADVOCATE) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 279

Mahavir Prasad Gupta versus Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 280

SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. UNFADING OPC PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 281

GIAN CHAND BANSIWAL v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 282

AMAN VACHAR v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 283

MAMTA v. RISHIPAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 284

Glocaledge Consultants Pvt Ltd versus Rec Power Distribution Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 285

V. P. SINGH @ VIJENDER PAL SINGH v. STATE AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 286

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Union Of India And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 287

Dr. Vidyottma Jha v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 288

American Express India Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 289

Ajay Singh v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 290

Virtual Perception Opc Pvt Ltd versus Panasonic India Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 291

Shailendra Kumar Yadav V State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 292

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited versus Naveen Kachru Proprieter of M/S South Delhi Motorcycle & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 293

CIT (E) Versus India HIV Aids Alliance 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 294

SHIVAM SONI v. STATE(GNCTD) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 295

ANNIE GURMEHER KAUR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 296

Ecogreen Energy Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 297

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK

1. Challenge Against Arbitrator Appointment, Can't Be Under Section 14 Of The A&C Act ; Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sacheerome Advanced Technologies (SAT) versus NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NECI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not provide a separate remedy to the parties to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator, notwithstanding the provisions under Section 13 of the Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a party can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator only according to the procedure set out in Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and that a petition under Section 14(1) could not be filed to challenge the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal on the grounds mentioned under Section 12(3) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator.

2. "Devoid Of Merits, Infringing Her Right To Travel Abroad & Freedom Of Speech & Expression": Delhi High Court Quashes LOC Against Journalist Rana Ayyub

Title: RANA AYYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 267

The Delhi High Court has quashed the look out circular issued by the Enforcement Directorate against journalist Rana Ayyub on the ground of it being devoid of merits as well as for infringing her human right to travel abroad and freedom of speech and expression.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure.

"An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC," the Court said.

3. "Reputation & Goodwill Well Established": Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order In Favour Of 'AAJ TAK' In Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 268

Observing that the reputation and goodwill in the name and mark 'AAJ TAK' is well established, the Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order in favour of the news channel in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against various entities.

The order was passed by Justice Pratibha M Singh as John Doe since the owner name of the impugned domain names is hidden.

The suit was filed by Living Media India Limited which had registered the mark 'AAJ TAK'. According to the plaintiffs, the mark 'AAJ TAK' was a well-known mark which is used extensively on social media. The Plaintiffs had created various accounts, profiles and handles on social media and content sharing platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc. wherein millions of people subscribe to them.

4. High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Delhi Chief Secretary Vijay Dev As Election Commissioner Of Municipal Corporations

Case Title: DR NAND KISHORE GARG v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 269

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the decision to appoint of Delhi Chief Secretary Vijay Kumar Dev as the Election Commissioner of Municipal Corporations.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla also refused to issue guidelines for appointment of election commissioners in the future. It observed that this relief sought by the Petitioner falls within the domain of the government, and it is not for the courts to frame the law on appointment of officers.

The petition was filed by former BJP MLA Nand Kishore Garg. He had challenged the notification dated November 25, 2021 issued by the Delhi government for appointment of Dev, presently serving as Delhi Chief Secretary, as the Election Commissioner of MCDs from April 21, 2022.

5. No Claim Certificate (NCC) Must Be Examined In The Context Of Relevant Documents And The Covering Letter Under Which It Is Issued: Delhi HC

Case Title: IRCON International Limited v. GPT-Rahee JV

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 270

The High Court of Delhi has observed that a No Claim Certificate (NCC) shall be examined along with the covering letter in which it is sent and that mere issuance of the NCC by the Claimant shall not ipso facto entail the extinguishment of all the claims.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru further held that while adjudicating an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the Court must be mindful of the fact the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and strict rules of evidence are not applicable in arbitration and the tribunal enjoys considerable discretion to take a view on the quality and sufficiency of the evidence.

6. Performance Security Cannot Be Retained After Acknowledgement Of Due Performance : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Teracom Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 271

The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no principle in law whereby a party could be permitted to retain the Performance Security after it had acknowledged due performance of a contract.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru upheld the award of an Arbitral Tribunal directing BSNL to refund the amount recovered by it from invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee, since no claim regarding failure to perform obligations under the Contract was made by it.

7. 'As Is Where Is' In A License Agreement Does Not Absolve The Contracting Parties To Make A Minimal Disclosure: Delhi High Court

Case Title: India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (ITDC) versus Bougainvillea Multipex & Entertainment Centre Pvt Ltd (BMEL)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 272

The Delhi High Court has upheld the award of an Arbitral Tribunal that stipulating the condition of 'as is where is basis' in a License Agreement does not absolve the contracting parties to make a disclosure about the licensed premises, which is otherwise not evident on visual inspection.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru ruled that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal and that the Court was not required to reappreciate every material or piece of evidence that was placed before the Arbitral Tribunal.

8. Party Applying For Registration Of A Particular Trademark Estopped From Claiming That It Is A 'Descriptive' Mark: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mother Sparsh Baby Care Pvt Ltd v. Aayush Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 273

The Delhi High Court recently confirmed the ex-parte injunction granted in favour of "Plant Powered", an entity involved in sale and distribution of baby care and personal care products, in a trademark infringement suit.

The Court rejected the contention of the Defendant, also said to be using the name 'Plant Powered' as a trading style for identical goods, that the impugned term is a descriptive mark and there can be no monopoly over the same.

9. No Distinction Between Decree Or Awards Where Amounts Are In Foreign Currencies For Purposes Of Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Title: M/S KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (COAL SALES) LTD. v. MMTC LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 274

The Delhi High Court has observed that for the purposes of enforcement of arbitral award, no distinction can be made between decree or awards where amounts are decreed or awarded in foreign currencies on the basis of the nationality of the disputing parties.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru was dealing with a plea filed by a Decree Holder under sec. 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to enforce an Arbitral Award dated 07.01.2017.

The issue before the Court was regarding the rate of conversion of foreign exchange to be applied for determining the amount required to satisfy the Arbitral Award to the extent of the amount awarded in foreign currency (US Dollars).

10. Framing Of Charges | Investigation Into Offence & Elaborate Appreciation Of Evidence Discouraged, Only Prima Facie Material Significant: Delhi HC

Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. PREM BHUTANI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 275

The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required and is rather discouraged at the stage of framing of charges and that only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that as per the requirement of Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC, the Judge shall consider whether sufficient grounds exist or not and that such consideration shall be supported by material on record.

"The Judge need not be satisfied on the question of whether the trial, when conducted, will lead to the conviction or acquittal of the accused, but the consideration needs to be whether the accused is to be sent for trial at the first instance or not, based on the material on record. An investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required, and is rather discouraged, at the stage of framing of charges and only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant," the Court said.

11. 'No Vested Right, Will Open Floodgates': Delhi High Court Dismisses Tennis Player's Appeal For Participating In Deaflympics As Substitute Player

Case Title: Kirti Lata v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 276

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by a specially-abled tennis player, seeking to participate as a substitute player in the upcoming Deaflympics to be held at Brazil in May 2022.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navneet Chawla observed that there is no vested right in the Appellant to claim that she should form part of the contingent that will take part in the event. It was of the opinion that if any mandamus in this regard is issued by the Court, it will open floodgates and similarly placed athletes will approach the Court seeking similar reliefs.

The Court further observed that it is open to the Respondent, Sports Authority of India, to take decision on the number of athletes to be selected to take part in the event, as the applicable Rules merely prescribe the "maximum" limit, and not minimum.

12. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Mandatory Aadhar Requirement For Availing Ration Under National Food Security Act

Case Title: Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 277

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar card to avail free ration under the National Food Security Act, 2013.

" Supreme Court has said that if you wish to avail of state largess, you can be required to have Aadhar cards," the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed at the outset.

It further said that from a combined reading of the judgment in Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India and the Aadhaar Act, it is clear that Aadhaar can be made mandatory to avail welfare schemes.

13. Trademark Disputes That Purely Arise Out Of Contractual Rights And Obligations Are Arbitrable: Delhi HC

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Munjal V. Pawan Kumar Munjal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 278

The High Court of Delhi has observed that all the disputes that arise out of the Trade Marks Agreement are not outside the scope of arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru clarified that disputes that purely deal with the interpretation of the terms of a trademark agreement and are not related to the grant or registration of the trademarks can be decided in arbitration.

The Court further clarified that unless it is a dispute relating to registration of trademarks, there is no legal requirement of raising the same before the Registrar of Trade Marks or the IP Division of the High Court and the disputes that purely arise out of contractual rights and obligations under a Trade Mark agreement can be adjudicated in arbitration.

14. Obligation To Ensure Compliance Of COVID-19 Protocols Must Be Adhered To More Strictly By Those Charged With Enforcement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHALEN BHARDWAJ (ADVOCATE) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 279

The Delhi High Court has said that the obligation to ensure compliance of COVID-19 protocols must be adhered to even more strictly by those who are charged with its enforcement, Delhi Police in particular, who must therefore lead by example.

Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a plea moved by Advocate Shalen Bhardwaj seeking directions for taking legal action against the Delhi police officials for violating the Covid-19 guidelines on duty and not implementing the Covid-19 guidelines despite issuance of circulars by Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Disaster Management Authority.

15. 1994 Arbitration Reference, 2021 Award, Becomes Rule Of The Court Under Arbitration Act, 1940 In 2022

Case Title: Mahavir Prasad Gupta versus Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 280

One of the long pending Arbitration proceedings have come to a logical conclusion by making the arbitral award 'the rule of the Court' under the old Arbitration Act, 1940.

The Delhi High Court had made the arbitration reference way back in 1994, but the arbitral proceedings took an inordinately long time to complete with the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal being changed a number of times and finally the award was passed in the year 2021. And finally, the Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has made the arbitral award the rule of the Court as per the requirement of Arbitration Act, 1940.

16. Dream 11 Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction Against "Satta Dream 11"

Case Title: SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. UNFADING OPC PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 281

The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by "Dream 11", a fantasy sports platform, against "Satta Dream 11".

Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the defendant from using the mark SattaDream11 or any deceptively similar variant as the trademark, trade name or domain name amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs' 'Dream11' trademark or passing off, till the next date of hearing.

The Court also directed Godaddy.com LLC to suspend access to the domain name www.sattadream11.com, within a period of one week.

17. Suit Can Be Rejected Without Trial Where Pleadings Disclose Proceedings Are Time Barred: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GIAN CHAND BANSIWAL v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 282

The Delhi High Court has observed that where the pleadings of the plaintiff disclose that a suit is barred by time, there is no fetter on the trial Court rejecting the suit on that ground, without subjecting it to trial.

Justice C Hari Shankar rejected the contention of the Appellant (original plaintiff) that limitation being a mixed question of fact and law, ought to have been decided only consequent to trial.

The Bench was dealing with a matter concerning the dispute relating to a passage way which, according to the appellant, was the only mode for ingress and egress to the property owned by him as well as to other adjoining plots.

By reason of construction of a brick wall, the passage way, according to the appellant, was blocked, as a result of which there is no access to his entry gate.

18. Delhi HC Strikes Down MEA's Decision Requiring Judges Of Supreme Court, High Courts To Seek Political Clearance For Private Visits Abroad

Case Title: AMAN VACHAR v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 283

The Delhi High Court has struck down an office memorandum dated July 13, 2021 issued by Ministry of External Affairs, to the extent that it required the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to seek political clearance for private visits abroad.

"Insofar as the instant O.M. dated 13.07.2021 requires judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to seek political clearance for private foreign visits, it is uncalled for, given the high offices they are holding, especially given the fact that nothing has changed since the 2011 guidelines were issued," a division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh held.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by petitioner in person, Aman Vachar, who contended that the condition to require judges of Constitutional Courts to seek political clearance qua private visits to foreign countries, infringes not only their right of privacy but also, in a sense, degrades or diminishes the high office that they hold.

19. Order XI CPC | Application For Leave To Serve Interrogatories Need Not Be Decided Ex-Parte, Court Can Issue Notice On Opposite Party: Delhi HC

Case Title: MAMTA v. RISHIPAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 284

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no proscription in law, either statutory or precedential, inhibiting a court from issuing notice on an application filed under Order XI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to serve interrogatories on the opposite party, before deciding whether to grant, or refuse to grant, leave.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the right to serve interrogatories is not absolute, serving of interrogatories on the opposite party can only be by leave of Court.

" The sequitur would, therefore, be that the opposite party could oppose the grant of such leave, " the Court said.

20. Filing A Complaint With An Unrelated Government Office Does Not Constitute A Notice Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act, 1996: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Glocaledge Consultants Pvt Ltd versus Rec Power Distribution Company Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 285

The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely filing a complaint with an unrelated government office expressing one's grievance does not constitute a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that though it is a trite law that all contentious disputes are to be addressed by the Arbitration Tribunal, however in cases where there was no doubt that the claims raised were barred by limitation, the Court would decline to appoint an arbitrator.

21. "NOC Given By Complainant & Fact That She Turned Hostile Does Not Waive Off Offence Alleged": Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Rape FIR

Case Title: V. P. SINGH @ VIJENDER PAL SINGH v. STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 286

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered with the allegations of rape, observing that the NOC given by the complainant and the fact that she had turned hostile does not waive off the offence as alleged by the her.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that by simply entering into a compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or that the allegations leveled by the complainant regarding the alleged offence lost its gravity by any means.

"Act of rape is not an act against individual but this is an offence against the society," the Court said.

22. Breach Of Contract U/S 74 Not Applicable At Pre-Formation Stage: Delhi High Court Directs State To Refund ₹20 Crore Forfeited Amount

Case Title: The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Union Of India And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 287

The Delhi High Court has allowed a writ petition seeking refund of bid security paid by Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) and dismissed the state's allegation of breach of contract at pre-formation stage.

In this single bench judgment, Justice Yashwant Varma held that the state's (respondent) action of forfeiture of the bid security, having no basis in any clause of the request for proposal (RFP) but merely being on the basis of certain communication during the pre-bid stage, was wholly unjustified. The respondent had invited bids for selecting a developer cum operator for a proposed a five-star hotel to be built at the International Exhibition cum Convention Centre, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi by way of the RFP.

23. "Country Will Go Bankrupt": Delhi High Court Refuses To Order Rs. 1 Crore Compensation For Covid-19 Deaths

Case Title: Dr. Vidyottma Jha v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 288

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass orders for payment of Rs. 1 crore as ex-gratia compensation to families of those who have died due to Covid-19 or due to post Covid infections within one month of recovering.

"The entire country will go bankrupt," the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla remarked at the outset. It further noted that there is already a policy in place with respect to payment of compensation to the victims' families and the same has been approved by the Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 539/2021.

24. Income Tax Dept. To Decide On Rectification Application Filed By American Express, Grant Refund If Any: Delhi High Court

Case Title: American Express India Private Limited Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 289

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has directed the income tax department to decide on the rectification application filed by American Express and grant a refund, if any, along with the interest.

The petitioner/assessee sought the direction from the respondents/department to pass orders disposing of the rectification applications for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2017-18, 2006-07 (FBT) and 2007-08 (FBT) filed by the assessee. As a result, a grant refund of Rs. 45.60 crore, including applicable interest, should be made under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act of 1961.

25. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To SpiceJet Promoter Ajay Singh In Fraud Case

Case Title: Ajay Singh v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 290

The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to SpiceJet Promoter Ajay Singh in an alleged fraud case relating to transfer of airline's shares to some individuals.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta pronounced the order after hearing counsel appearing on behalf of Singh, Delhi Police and the complainant. While listing the matter for hearing on May 24, the court directed Singh to join investigation.

Singh was denied anticipatory bail by a city Court here last month observing that there was no sufficient ground for granting relief to him given the overall facts of the case and gravity of offence alleged.

26. Petition Under Article 227, Against The Interim Orders Of Arbitral Tribunal, Based On Violation Of Legal Provisions Can't Be Allowed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Virtual Perception Opc Pvt Ltd versus Panasonic India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 291

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be allowed against an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting a plea raised under Section 16(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, on the ground that the Tribunal had violated the applicable legal provisions.

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that such an expansive reading would open the doors of the Court under Article 227 against virtually any procedural order of the Arbitral Tribunal, adding that Article 227 cannot be used to correct every order of an Arbitral Tribunal, even if it is found to be erroneous.

27. Sex On Basis Of "Genuine Promise" To Marry That Didn't Fructify Not Rape: Delhi High Court

Case Title : Shailendra Kumar Yadav V State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 292

The Delhi High Court has observed that a "genuine promise" to marry that did not materialise in future cannot be said to be false, and therefore doesn't amount to rape.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed,

" If it is found that the promise of marriage was genuine and that the marriage failed to fructify due to external circumstances, then the promise cannot be said to be false, and consent as per Section 90 IPC is not vitiated."

The facts of the case are that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were engaged and fixed to get married to each other. However, due to some problems at the end of the prosecutrix's family, the marriage was postponed. Later on, due to some arguments between the prosecutrix and the petitioner, the marriage could not take place. The prosecutrix then filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 376(2)(n) IPC against the Petitioner.

28. Section 10 Of CPC Does Not Lay An Embargo In Proceeding With Arbitration During Pendency Of Insolvency Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Limited versus Naveen Kachru Proprieter of M/S South Delhi Motorcycle & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 293

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not lay an embargo in proceeding with arbitral proceedings during the pendency of insolvency proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that the issues involved in the insolvency proceedings and the issue involved in the arbitral proceedings were completely different and therefore the embargo of Section 10 of CPC does not apply.

29. Charitable Institution Can't Be Denied Income Tax Exemption For Collecting Service Charges From Its Donors To Defray Administrative Cost: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT (E) Versus India HIV Aids Alliance

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 294

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that charitable institutions cannot be denied income tax exemption for collecting service charges from their donors to defray administrative costs.

The appellant/ department has challenged the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in which exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was allowed to the assessee, India HIV Aids Alliance, when the actual work of the assessee was to receive and simply transfer grants to other NGOs and the assessee was found to be charging service charges from its donors in various forms, like management fees, etc., for the execution of projects.

30. Visually Impaired Litigants Entitled To Receive Court Documents In Their Preferred Means Of Communication/ Braille Script: Delhi High Court

CaseTitle: SHIVAM SONI v. STATE(GNCTD)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 295

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to make necessary arrangements for providing the court documents in a readable language to visually impaired in all cases wherever the circumstances so warrant.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the right to access to justice includes the right to receive documents to which the parties are legally entitled in the language and means of communication decipherable by them.

31. "Wholly Arbitrary": High Court Quashes Delhi University's Circular Not Considering Revaluation Result For Award Of Gold Medals

Case Title: ANNIE GURMEHER KAUR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 296

The Delhi High Court has quashed a circular of the Delhi University in so far as it does not take into consideration the revaluation result for award of gold medals and prizes to students.

Calling it wholly arbitrary, Justice Rekha Palli set aside the circular dated 6th March 2014 which stated that award of Gold Medals and Prizes should be considered only in cases who passed the examination on the basis of original result declared by the University, adding that neither revaluation nor improvement will be taken into consideration.

The plea was filed by student who had taken admission in a college affiliated by the Delhi University in the year 2017 in B.A. (Hons.) (Economics) course.

32. Rules Of Arbitral Institution Do Not Determine The Place Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ecogreen Energy Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 297

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court has held that the rules of arbitral institution would not determine the place of the arbitration and only the Courts at the place of arbitration proceedings will have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for the appointment of an arbitrator.

The parties entered into a Concession Agreement for the "Implementation of Regional Integrated Solid Waste Management Project for 16 Urban Local Bodies".

Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the said agreement and the respondent terminated the agreement and also enchased the bank guarantee issued by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner issued the notice invoking arbitration to the respondent and asked the respondent to appoint its nominee arbitrator.