Citations [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1162 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1191]NOMINAL INDEXUnion of India v. Reliance Industries Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1162 M/S BANK OF BARODA & ANR vs MAHESH GUPTA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1163 SHIV VINAYAK GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1164 ADITI GOSWAMI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1165 SADIQ...
Citations [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1162 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1191]
NOMINAL INDEX
Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1162
M/S BANK OF BARODA & ANR vs MAHESH GUPTA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1163
SHIV VINAYAK GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1164
ADITI GOSWAMI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1165
SADIQ ALIAS SAHIL v. STATE OF NCT DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1166
NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY vs GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1167
Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1168
VINOD KUMAR v. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1169
Union of India v. RCCIVL-LITL (JV) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1170
Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt Ltd versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1171
ABHISHEK AGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1172
WORLD PHONE INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1173
MUKESH SHARMA vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1174
MANISH LENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1175
Brilltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1176
BRIJESH GUPTA vs SMT SAROJ GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1177
BAJRANG v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1178
MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT LTD MMT & ANR. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1179
Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1180
RAMESHWAR JHA v. THE PRINCIPAL RICHMOND GLOBAL SCHOOL & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1181
LAXMAN THAKUR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1183
C.A. SANJAY JAIN v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1184
PRAVEEN YADAV AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1185
PCIT Versus PEC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1186
Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1187
Always Remember Properties Private Limited versus Reliance Home Finance Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1188
Super Blastech Solutions v. Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1189
Geo Chem Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1190
RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1191
Case Title Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1162
The Delhi High Court has held a challenge to the mandate of the arbitrator on the ground of bias and a justifiable doubt with respect to the independence and impartiality cannot be raised under Section 14 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that Section 14 of the Act confers the power on the Court to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator and appoint a substitute arbitrator only in circumstances that fall within the 7th schedule of the Act that deals with de jure ineligibility of the arbitrator, however, ground of bias or justifiable ground as to the independence and impartiality falls within the 5th Schedule r/w Section 12(3) wherein only the tribunal can decide on the challenge.
The Court held that Section 12, 13 and 14 though appearing to constitute a composite statutory scheme dealing the challenge to and termination of the mandate of the arbitrator, however, they provide for separate causeways for a challenge that can be raised.
Title: M/S BANK OF BARODA & ANR vs MAHESH GUPTA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1163
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of compensation of over Rs 18 Lakh in favour of the kin of a man, who died as a result of the injuries suffered due to falling of a signboard on his head in 2011.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in the ruling considered the question regarding applicability of the defence of vis major or act of God and principle of res ipsa loquitur.
The court said the defence of act of God to ward off strict liability would not be available to the bank "since the hazard presented by a signboard coming off the facade of the building was a foreseeable event given the fact that Delhi experiences high-velocity winds, in May, each year".
Title: SHIV VINAYAK GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1164
The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Delhi Government to ensure compliance of Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019.
Ordering the authorities to conduct periodic checks in the localities, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also asked the Delhi Police to take steps to ensure that such e-cigarettes are not sold near and around schools and colleges in the national capital.
The court passed the order while refusing to entertain a public interest litigation seeking constitution of a court monitored committee to review the effective implementation of the statute.
CASE TITLE: ADITI GOSWAMI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1165
The Delhi High Court has held that in cases of organ transplant from a non-near relative, the difference in financial position of the donor and the recipient, by itself, cannot be a reason strong enough to establish a commercial element.
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation in a judgment allowing a petition seeking expeditious disposal of an application for kidney transplant.
"The Court is satisfied that there is no commercial transaction involved in the donation of the kidney in the case at hand. Accordingly, the application filed by the Petitioner before the Authorization Committee for transplant of the Donor's kidney to the Recipient is allowed subject to above conditions," said the court.
Title: SADIQ ALIAS SAHIL v. STATE OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1166
The Delhi High Court has rejected the fourth bail plea of a man accused of assaulting and pelting stones at police personnel during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Justice Poonam A. Bamba denied bail to one Sadiq alias Sahil who was arrested on April 14, 2020. His first bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn in September 2020. Thereafter, he was denied bail by High Court and trial court on September 14, 2021 and February 9, 2022 respectively.
The FIR was registered on February 25, 2020 on the basis of a complaint made by a constable alleging that a violent mob started pelting stones on the policemen on duty, thereby injuring more than 50 police personnel and death of Head Constable Ratan Lal.
Title: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY vs GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1167
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed Nokia's application seeking a direction to Chinese smartphone manufacturer Oppo for deposit of an amount with the court as "royalty" for alleged infringement of its patents in cellular technology.
Nokia owns three Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) which are stated to be necessary to make cellular systems 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G compliant. The Finnish multinational company last year filed a suit before the High Court accusing Oppo of infringing its patents.
Oppo in 2018 had obtained a license from Nokia for utilising its SEPs on payment of royalty at FRAND rates. The license expired in 2021 but, according to Nokia, Oppo continued to use its SEPs without renewal of the agreement or taking of any fresh license.
Title: Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1168
The Delhi High Court directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to call a meeting of all insurance companies to ensure that the products are designed for persons with disabilities so as to enable them to obtain health insurance coverage.
Observing that there is no doubt that persons with disabilities would be entitled to health insurance coverage and products may have to be designed for them, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:
"The IRDAI would accordingly call a meeting of all insurance companies to ensure that products are designed for persons with disabilities and other persons in terms of the circular dated 2 June 2020."
Title: VINOD KUMAR v. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1169
The Delhi High Court has said that posts on Facebook cannot be treated as determinative of a person's location at a particular point of time, at least by a court.
Justice C Hari Shankar made the observation while dealing with a case wherein the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in December 2020 had asked the Bar Council of India to take action against two lawyers for allegedly falsely seeking adjournment, through a proxy counsel, on the ground that they were in quarantine due to COVID-19. The lawyers represented a respondent before IPAB.
Opposing the adjournment request, the applicant before the IPAB had shown the Facebook page of one of the lawyers which purportedly showed his last activity at Marina beach in Chennai. Dismissing the adjournment application with cost of Rs 5000, the IPAB had observed that it has been falsely represented that the main counsel is in quarantine while it has been shown through Facebook posts that he is on a holiday.
Case Title: Union of India v. RCCIVL-LITL (JV)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1170
The Delhi High Court has held that the employer cannot withhold the performance bank guarantee after acknowledgement of the due performance of the contract by the contractor.
The bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that the employer cannot also withhold the performance bank guarantee merely for securing the amount of its counter-claims.
Case Title: Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt Ltd versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1171
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) would have no application to proceedings seeking enforcement of arbitral award.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma noted that execution application is neither an "arbitral proceeding" within the meaning of Section 42 of the A&C Act, nor is it a subsequent application arising out of the arbitration agreement and thus, the venue restriction provision contained in Section 42 would have no application to enforcement proceedings.
Title: ABHISHEK AGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1172
Dismissing a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Act, the Delhi High Court has said that mere involvement and support of the Centre does not by itself raise apprehension of bias and impartiality.
The provision provides for constitution of New Delhi International Arbitration Centre with following members: one retired judge of High Court or Supreme Court as Chairperson; two eminent persons and a representative of recognised body of commerce and industry appointed and chosen by the Central Government; Secretary of Department of Legal Affairs (Ministry of Law and Justice); one Financial Adviser nominated by Department of Expenditure (Ministry of Finance); and Chief Executive Officer.
The PIL filed by advocate Abhishek Kumar in 2020 argued that it was essential to insulate the DIAC from political and other influences to ensure its independence. Submitting that DIAC predominantly consists of employees of the central government, Kumar said such members cannot make a panel of Arbitrators, where one of the two litigants will be the Central Government itself.
Title: WORLD PHONE INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1173
The Delhi High Court has directed Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to expeditiously hold consultations with stakeholders for giving its recommendations to the union government on the proposed regulatory framework for Over-The-Top (OTT) services like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger.
"Considering the extensive prevalence and use of internet telephony, TRAI would expeditiously conduct this stakeholders' consultation and give its recommendations accordingly," Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order.
Title: MUKESH SHARMA vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1174
Rejecting a plea that had sought a direction for declaring the petitioner as the whistleblower of the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank scam, the Delhi High Court has said the person would have to have a basis in law to claim a reward in respect of the same.
"This Court, at best, can commend the Petitioner if he has played a role in unearthing the said scam, and for discharging his duty as a responsible citizen. No further reliefs can be granted by this Court beyond the said observation," said the court.
Title: MANISH LENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1175
The Delhi High Court has said that children with disabilities are entitled to basic facilities such as uniform, computer fee and transportation cost in Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
"Considering the recognition given to the rights of persons with disabilities, there can be no doubt that these facilities ought to be provided especially at Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools which are government schools present all over the country, in order to ensure that children with disabilities are not deprived of proper education," Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Invoking CIRP Would Not Make The Dispute Non-Arbitrable : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Brilltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1176
The Delhi High Court has held that the dispute would not become non-arbitrable merely because the petitioner, before filing the application for appointment of arbitrator, has filed a corporate insolvency application under Section 9 of the IBC. The Court rejected the argument that since the petitioner has filed insolvency application which can only be filed for admitted debt and there can be no arbitration for admitted debts.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that it is settled position of law that jurisdiction of NCLT can be invoked only in respect of determined debts, however, merely because a petition has been by the petitioner asserting that a definite amount is payable by the respondent, would not imply that the claimed amount has been admitted. The Court held that when the respondent has constantly denied its liability to pay, the claimed amount does not transfer into an admitted debt and petitioner can invoke arbitration for resolving the dispute.
Title: BRIJESH GUPTA vs SMT SAROJ GUPTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1177
Rejecting a review petition which challenged the court's interpretation of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis principles in a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has said they are intended to be exception to the applicability of an expression's normal etymological connotations in the statute.
Justice C. Hari Shankar said the principle of noscitur a sociis stipulates that a word is to be understood in the light of the company it keeps and the principle of ejusdum generis requires a specific word, which is found in the company of other words which constitutes a genus, to be also interpreted as belonging to the same genus.
Title: BAJRANG v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1178
The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere mistake of filing Income Tax Return (ITR) certificate instead of Income Certificate cannot lead to a situation where an eligible meritorious candidate is deprived of the scholarship, when the two documents prove "same parameters of income requirements".
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while directing the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to grant scholarship to a law student belonging to SC category under the "Central Sector Scholarship Scheme of Top Class Education for SC Students" within eight weeks.
Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT LTD MMT & ANR. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1179
The Delhi High Court has stayed the recovery of Rs. 223.48 crores of penalty imposed on MakeMyTrip by Competition Commission of India (CCI) for allegedly indulging in anti-competitive practices, subject to deposit of 10% of the total penalty amount, imposed by NCLAT as a condition while admitting its appeal.
MakeMyTrip had approached the NCLAT challenging the order passed by CCI. While the appeal was admitted by the appellate tribunal, it directed MakeMyTrip to deposit 10% of the penalty amount imposed by the CCI as a condition for the said admission.
Title: Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1180
While hearing a plea moved by the wife of a constable who was the first policeman to die on duty during the first wave of COVID-19, the High Court has said that the Delhi Government "ought not to resile from the clear announcement made" for ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1 crore and that the compensation due to the widow can no longer be delayed.
The petitioner was was expecting her child at the time when her husband, Amit Kumar, passed away while he was posted at city's Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital to ensure adherence to COVID-19 lockdown measures.
Justice Prathiba M Singh has asked the matter to be placed before a "Group of Ministers" as per Delhi Government's cabinet decision dated March 13, 2020.
Title: RAMESHWAR JHA v. THE PRINCIPAL RICHMOND GLOBAL SCHOOL & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1181
Observing that a "miserable state of affairs" is prevalent in the national capital as far as implementation of Right to Education Act, 2009 at elementary education level is concerned, the Delhi High Court on Friday directed all schools to ensure that no child belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) under the enactment is denied admission or treated with a conduct that is unwelcoming of them.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh issued a slew of directions, while disposing of a bunch of pleas concerning the issue of admissions of EWS children in the schools in Delhi. The court said it is important to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue directions for ensuring children belonging to EWS.
The petitioners had sought admission of students under the EWS category under Section 2(e) of the RTE Act in various private schools at the elementary level. The students were given letters by Delhi Government's Department of Education (DoE) confirming their admission in the schools under the RTE Act.
Title: LAXMAN THAKUR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
Granting bail to a man in a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Delhi High Court has said that the rigours of Section 37 of the enactment will not be applicable in cases where collection of contraband sample itself was faulty.
Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.
Justice Jasmeet Singh granted bail to one Laxman Thakur accused in an FIR registered under sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act. He alleged that the procedure adopted for collection of samples in the case was faulty and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).
Title: UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1183
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the observations made by a single judge while dismissing the plea moved by Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray against Election Commission of India (ECI)'s decision to freeze Shiv Sena's 'bow and arrow' party symbol.
The ECI on October 8 had directed both Thackeray and Eknath Shinde's faction to not use the name "Shiv Sena" or symbol "bow and arrow" till their rival claims for the official recognition is finally decided. For the recent Andheri East bypoll, the party factions were allotted different symbols.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Commission will proceed in accordance with the procedure followed by it while adjudicating a petition under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
Title: C.A. SANJAY JAIN v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1184
The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has the power to suo motu initiate disciplinary proceedings against its members and that a written complaint or allegation is not a sine qua non or prerequisite for taking action.
Justice Yashwant Varma observed that "information" under section 21 of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 would extend to any material or fact that may come to the notice of ICAI and from which it may derive knowledge.
"Viewed in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 21 does empower the Institute to proceed suo moto and unhindered by the absence of a written complaint or allegation that may be submitted. A written complaint or allegation in writing cannot, in any manner, be understood to be a pre-requisite or a sine qua non for the initiation of action under Section 21," the court said in its ruling running into 106 pages.
Title: PRAVEEN YADAV AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1185
Questioning the Ministry of Home Affairs's decision to confine House Rent Allowance (HRA) benefit only to Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBORs), the Delhi High Court has said that every personnel in the paramilitary forces shall be entitled to the benefit irrespective of the rank, as per their entitlement.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee has directed the Centre and other authorities to take necessary steps within six weeks, in consultation with Ministry of Home Affairs as well as Ministry of Finance, to grant HRA benefit to such personnel.
"We are unable to find any reason as to why officers belonging to the rank of Officers / Coy Commanders or PBROs, should not be granted similar benefit more so as the factum of their serving at far off locations has been recognized and it cannot be differentiated on cadre basis. We fail to understand why such policy decisions discriminating within the force should be permitted to continue, especially to the officers of the force who spend their lives serving the nation," the court said.
Case Title: PCIT Versus PEC Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1186
The Delhi High Court has allowed the deduction of expenses undertaken under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) endeavor under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the memorandum, which was published along with Finance (No. 2) Bill 2014, clearly indicated that the amendment would take effect from 01.04.2015 and, accordingly, would apply in relation to assessment year 2015-2016 and the subsequent years.
The department has assailed the ITAT's order allowing the deduction of expenses undertaken under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) endeavor under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Release Laptop, Computer, Documents, Seized By DGGI During Search
Case Title: Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1187
The Delhi High Court has refused to release laptops, computers, documents, and other things that were seized by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) during the search.
The single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has observed that the "documents, books, or things" can be retained for a maximum period of four and a half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of the erroneous refund.
Can Recall Section 11 A&C Act Order, If It Suffers From Patent And Manifest Error: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Always Remember Properties Private Limited versus Reliance Home Finance Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1188
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the power exercised by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is not merely an administrative function but a judicial power, and that the Court does not cease to be a Court of Record while exercising power under Section 11.
Thus, the bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that the High Court can recall the order passed by it under Section 11 of the A&C Act if it suffers from a patent and manifest error apparent on the face of the record.
Case Title: Super Blastech Solutions v. Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1189
The Delhi High Court of has held that a dispute arising out of an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), wherein no arbitration clause is present, can be referred to arbitration if these agreements were directly linked to the main agreement.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that dispute arising out of any subsequent agreement that arises out of the main agreement containing the arbitration clause can be referred to arbitration.
The Court further reiterated that the arbitration clause survives the termination of the main agreement, therefore, the arbitration clause would remain effective despite the termination principal agreement in which it is embedded.
Case Title: Geo Chem Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1190
The Delhi High Court has held that when the scope of arbitration clause is limited to quantum of damages only in the eventuality that the liability to pay is admitted by the insurance company, there can be no arbitration if the liability is denied.
The bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that the suggestions given by the Surveyor in its report, though of substantial evidentiary value, are not binding on the insurance company.
The Court also held that as per the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders‟ Interests) Regulations, 2017, the appointment of surveyor is a mandatory requirement and cannot be said to be an admission as to the liability to pay by the insurance company.
Title: RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1191
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by an ex-serviceman of Indian Army seeking appointment in a subsidiary company of Indian Railways, on the basis of the graduation certificate issued by the Army, as a Junior Assistant (Finance) under ex-Servicemen quota.
The ex-serviceman Raj Kumar's argument was that since he was having the experience of "working in Administration / Accounts / Finance / Budget / Logistics in the Army", he has the essential qualification for the post of Junior Assistant (Finance). The qualification sought for by RITES for the post was B.COM/BBA (Finance)/BMS (Finance).