Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42NOMINAL INDEXVIRENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17 DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 18 Apollo Tyres Limited versus Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 19 CA NITESH PARASHAR v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ICAI &...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42
NOMINAL INDEX
VIRENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 18
Apollo Tyres Limited versus Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 19
CA NITESH PARASHAR v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ICAI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 20
Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. versus UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 21
Mahendra Kumar Verma versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 22
ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 23
ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 24
VP v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 25
Sandeep v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 26
M/s Diamond Entertainment Technologies Private Limited & Ors. versus Religare Finvest Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 27
MANISH KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 28
PAWAN KUMAR AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 29
Machine Tools Aids India versus M/s. GNC Infra LLP & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 30
Sushil Ansal v. ENDEMOL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 31
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation versus Joint Venture Of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 32
Communication Components Antenna Inc. versus Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 33
M/s Liberty Footwear Company versus M/s Liberty International 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 34
EHRAZ ZAFAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 35
MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 36
Capital Food Private Limited versus Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 37
Anil Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 38
DR. U.S. AWASTHI v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY PMLA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 39
IKRA KHAN v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 40
SMT KAMESHWARI DEVI & ANR. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 41
RAJO v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42
Title: VIRENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 92 (i) of the Air Force Act, 1950 which allows deduction from the pay and allowance of Air Force personnel for maintenance of the wife and their children.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar also upheld an office order issued by Air Force on February 6, 2013 providing the procedure for grant, modification or cessation of maintenance allowance to the wife and the children of such personnel.
Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 18
The Delhi High Court observed that the advertisement industry thrives on creativity and freedom of expression and would loathe a government dictated regulation, adding that not many industries enjoy a self- regulated regime.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Dabur India seeking to restrain the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) from creating impediments in the broadcast of its advertisement regarding the health nutrition drink ‘Vita’.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Limited versus Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 19
In a case relating the alleged copying of the tread pattern of tyres, the Delhi High Court has ruled that registration of a tread pattern, which is nearly identical to the suit pattern, as a design would not ipso facto operate to disentitle it from being regarded as a “trade mark” within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
"At the highest, the matter would be one of trial, in which it would have to be examined whether the tread pattern which was registered as a design was identical or nearly identical to the suit pattern," Justice C. Hari Shankar said in an order.
The court was dealing with the argument that whether Apollo Tyres Limited, which has filed a suit against Pioneer Trading Corporation accusing it of violating a 2018 settlement agreement, deserves to be non-suited on the ground that it had applied for registration of the suit pattern as a design under Section 5 of the Designs Act.
Title: CA NITESH PARASHAR v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ICAI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 20
Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has observed that the complaint of sexual harassment and inquiry proceeding cannot be quashed merely because internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to complete inquiry within the time-frame of 90 days mentioned under section 11(4) of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
“Needless to say, that such complaints containing allegations of sexual harassment deserves to be treated with a certain amount of seriousness and responsibility and accordingly, the same have to be inquired into and taken to their logical conclusion for it is both in the interest of the complainant as well as the person against whom the allegations of sexual harassment have been levelled,” Justice Vikas Mahajan said.
Observing that section 11(4) of the Act cannot be said to be mandatory, the court referred to the decision of Tripura High Court in Vinay Kumar Rai v. Union of India and Ors. wherein it was observed that the time limit provided under the provision cannot be seen as a terminal point beyond which the inquiry cannot be continued.
Case Title: Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. versus UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court has said that promotion under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme of Central Health Services cannot be made in a mechanical manner without considering the employee’s grading in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR).
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said there can be no upgradation of post solely on basis of the number of years of service completed by the employee, de hors the Recruitment Rules and other provisions governing promotion in services.
The court passed the judgement on a petition challenging a decision passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners are members of the Central Health Services, who upon their selection by the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) were appointed in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Grade of Assistant Professor (Teaching Sub-Cadre), in the Department of Pathology, Lady Hardinge Medical College. They were promoted to the Post of Associate Professor in 2001 and 2002.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Verma versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 22
The Delhi High Court has ruled that reimbursement of medical expenses under Central Government (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 cannot be denied on the ground that the hospital charged an amount in excess of the approved rates, in a case where the patient is referred to such hospital.
Expressing dismay at how a petition seeking reimbursement of only Rs 51, 824 remained pending for past 16 years and was vehemently contested by Delhi government, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said the beneficiary employee cannot faulted or penalised to pay the excess amount that was charged from him by the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, when he in the first instance did not even choose the hospital but was referred there.
Title: ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has ordered that no coercive steps be taken against private unaided schools if the qualifications of their Managers are not in accordance with the circulars issued by Delhi Government’s Directorate of Education (DoE) on November 24, 2004 and November 17, 2022.
Justice Prathiba M Singh in the interim order said that any action may impact lakhs of students in the schools, while listing the matter for hearing on May 18.
The court said in so far as schools, whose schemes of management were approved prior to 2004, are concerned and no further approval is being sought by them in respect of the schemes of management, the Managers who are already functioning or who are appointed by these schools shall not be disturbed.
Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 24
The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking constitution of an independent and "politically neutral body" for implementation of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act to avoid misuse of law by the executive.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad pronounced the decision. The plea was moved by the Association for Democratic Reforms and Dr. E.A.S. Sarma, former Secretary to the Government of India in 2015.
Observing that the power to set up a committee or tribunal is purely a policy decision, the court said the mere possibility that a statute will not be administered adequately is not a ground for the statute to be invalidated or for the court to supplement its wisdom with the legislature’s.
Title: VP v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 25
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no bar to file anticipatory bail under section 438 (4) of CrPC in an FIR registered under section 376(3) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the alleged incident happened prior to introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a father accused of raping her minor daughter when she was 15 years of age. While the alleged incident happened in the year 2017, the FIR was filed last year.
Title: Sandeep v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 26
Delhi High Court told the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consider combining other subjects with the law courses to increase diversity of knowledge in the legal field.
“You could consider giving combination courses like biology with law, physics or chemistry with law. Those courses are not there in India. How will you have people who will be well qualified to deal with challenging issues which courts are facing now?” Justice Prathiba M Singh told Advocate Preet Pal Singh, who was appearing for BCI.
Asking the BCI to revisit its present structure of offering 3 years and 5 years of LLB programmes and offer more combination courses, the court said that it is important to have law courses with other subjects included so that people with more diverse backgrounds can be legal professionals.
Court Has No Jurisdiction To Review Order Passed Under Section 11 of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Diamond Entertainment Technologies Private Limited & Ors. versus Religare Finvest Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 27
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that orders passed in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C) cannot be reviewed since there is no provision of review contained in the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing a review petition filed against the arbitral reference made under Section 11, held that in view of the decision of Apex Court in M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt Ltd versus Hero Fincorp Ltd. (2017), disputes covered under the SARFAESI Act in respect of which proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are initiated, can be referred to arbitration.
Title: MANISH KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 28
The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that the Police Commissioner is personally monitoring the registration of FIRs regarding misbehaviour and harassment of women in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was also informed by the government that whenever any instance of misbehaviour on woman is brought to the notice of the Delhi Police, FIR is registered promptly in the matter.
The court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking direction for ensuring that all DTC buses and other public transport buses in the national capital are installed with CCTV cameras and other security features.
Title: PAWAN KUMAR AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 29
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall be applicable for all the personnel of Central Armed Police Forces and directed the Centre to issue necessary orders within eight weeks.
The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in its decision on a batch of 82 petitions seeking quashing of orders denying the benefit of OPS to personnel of CRPF, BSF, CISF and ITBP, said the notification dated 22.12.2003 as well as OM dated 17.02.2020 granting the benefit of Old Pension Scheme "shall be applicable in rem."
The court said Notification dated 22.12.2003 for New Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) shows that in Para (i) it has been categorically mentioned that 'the system would be mandatory for all new recruits to the central Government service from 1st of January 2004 (except the armed forces in the first stage)'.
Case Title: Machine Tools Aids India versus M/s. GNC Infra LLP & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 30
The Delhi High Court has directed the civil courts to incorporate the endorsement that “defendant should file his written statement of defence within 30 days from the date of service/receipt of summons” while issuing summons to the defendant in a commercial suit.
“The Registrar of this Court is directed to transmit copies of this order to the learned District & Sessions Judge (HQ) as well as District & Sessions Judge of all other districts in order to pass necessary orders to make the endorsement as stipulated in Para 35 of this judgment a mandatory part of the summons to be issued under Order V Rule 5 CPC, 1908 in cases pertaining to Commercial Suits as a necessary requirement," Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
Title: Sushil Ansal v. ENDEMOL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 31
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea moved by real estate baron Sushil Ansal seeking an ad interim stay on the release of upcoming Netflix series ‘Trial By Fire' which is based on the Uphaar fire tragedy. The series is scheduled to be released on January 13.
Justice Yashwant Varma refused to grant interim relief to Ansal in his suit which seeks permanent and mandatory injunction against the series and a restraint of further publication and circulation of the book titled ‘Trial By Fire- The tragic tale of the Uphaar Tragedy’.
The book has been authored by Neelam Krishnamoorthy and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, who lost their two minor children in the 1997 fire incident. Neelam is also chairperson of the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, which has led a long struggle in the case against Sushil Ansal and his brother Gopal Ansal.
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation versus Joint Venture Of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 32
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) does not cease to be an application merely because the applicant has not complied with certain procedural requirements.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that filing an affidavit in support of an application and the statement of truth by way of an affidavit, are procedural requirements. In absence of these requirements, the application cannot be treated as non est, the Court said.
Is Order XXV Rule 1(1) CPC Mandatory? Delhi High Court Larger Bench To Decide
Case Title: Communication Components Antenna Inc. versus Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 33
The Delhi High Court has referred the issue relating to the interpretation of Order XXV Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to a larger bench.
Observing that appears to be a "clear inconsistency" in the views expressed by different coordinate benches of the high court on whether the proviso to Order XXV Rule 1(1) of CPC is mandatory in nature or whether the court has a discretion while deciding an application under Order XXV Rule 1(1), the court said “as a matter of judicial propriety, the present matter may be referred to a larger Bench of this Court, so that an authoritative judgment may be passed by the Court on the interpretation of Order XXV Rule 1(1) of the CPC”.
Case Title: M/s Liberty Footwear Company versus M/s Liberty International
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 34
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that disputes relating to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem are arbitrable. Thus, the bench of Justice Navin Chawla concluded that the dispute whether a partner can use the partnership firm’s trade mark for his own sole proprietorship concern, can be referred to arbitration.
The Court further ruled that merely because a Statute specifies which Civil Court is to adjudicate a dispute, is not enough to infer the implicit non-arbitrability of such dispute.
Title: EHRAZ ZAFAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 35
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation alleging gender discrimination by the Delhi Government in promotion of Vice Principals to the post of Principals in government-aided schools.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that in case any female Vice Principal is ignored of promotion on the basis of gender bias, such an individual is certainly at the liberty to file appropriate legal proceedings.
After making some submissions, the plea was withdrawn from court.
Title: MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 36
The Delhi High Court has summoned Delhi Government’s Inspector General of Registration after expressing concern that a large volume of land and property records went missing from a Sub-Registrar office.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue of the Delhi Government to join the court proceedings on February 8, the next date of hearing.
The court observed that the function of the Sub-Registrars is for registering various documents relating to assets of the citizens and the same cannot be treated in a “cavalier and negligent manner.”
Case Title: Capital Food Private Limited versus Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 37
Refusing to grant an interim injunction in favour of Capital Foods against use of the mark ‘Schezwan Chutney’ by Radiant Indus Chem for its products, the Delhi High Court has said that the mark is a descriptive term.
Justice Navin Chawla said that extensive use of the mark ‘Schezwan Chutney’ or ‘Szechuan Chutney’ by other manufacturers indicates that the industry recognizes the mark as a description of the product.
“In the present case, in my prima facie opinion, the combination of the two words does not take away the descriptive nature of the words as they still continue to describe the nature and quality of the product in question. In fact, it is together that they become descriptive,” said the court.
Delhi High Court Directs CARA To Issue NOC To NRI Couple For 2011 Adoption
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 38
Directing CARA to issue an NOC within 30 days to an NRI couple for adoption of a child, the Delhi High Court in a ruling said the application being prior to the coming into force of Adoption Regulations, 2022, the "adoption would not be strictly required to be dealt with in the procedure prescribed in the said Regulations."
"The Court finds that in the present case the adoption dates back to 2011 and the application seeking NOC was filed much before the Regulations came into force on 23rd September, 2022. The Regulations have been notified and current applications, would require verification by the District Magistrate," said the court.
Title: DR. U.S. AWASTHI v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY PMLA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 39
The Delhi High Court has observed that an application for cross-examination filed before the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an integral part of the adjudication process and not alien to the proceedings under Section 8 of the enactment. The court also said cross-examination need not be permitted in every case.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that any interim or procedural orders passed as part of the adjudication process would be “orders under this Act” as stipulated under Section 26. The provision states that the Director or any person aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
The court, however, said that not every appeal against such order would be liable to be entertained and that it is for the Appellate Tribunal to decide as to whether an appeal ought to be entertained at all.
Title: IKRA KHAN v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 40
Questioning AJK Mass Communication Research Centre's action of conducting a “qualitative assessment” after declaration of results of the interview in a PhD programme, the Delhi High Court has said that it “hopes and expects” that Jamia Millia Islamia will conduct admissions strictly as per the procedure laid down under its academic ordinance and regulations.
Denying relief to a candidate aggrieved by denial of admission to Ph.D. programme in AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the practice of making such deliberations after award of marks for the interview is contrary to scheme of admission process contemplated under “Ordinance No. 9 (IX), Part I of Ordinances and Regulation (Academic).”
“Court is unable to appreciate why after awarding marks and announcement of results, further assessment was undertaken. Interview is the only time during the entire admission process that merit and suitability of both, candidates and their proposal, are evaluated and assessed,” the court said.
Title: SMT KAMESHWARI DEVI & ANR. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 41
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to keep in mind the fact as to whether any insurance amount has been received while awarding compensation to the victims or dependents in case of death or grievous injuries.
“In future, whenever the DSLSA considers cases of compensation in the case of death or grievous injuries, the fact as to whether any amount has been received from the Insurance Company, or not, would be borne in mind while awarding the compensation to the victims or the dependents thereof,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: RAJO v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board to consider accepting applications of constructions workers six months before they become eligible for receiving the pension.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that since the Building and Other Construction Workers, Act 1996 and Rules are silent regarding the time period during which pension must be sanctioned to the workers after they attain the age of 60 years, it would save a lot of inconvenience to them if they are permitted to submit their applications six months prior to their becoming eligible for receiving pension.
“The respondent Board is, therefore, directed to consider accepting applications of the constructions workers six months before they become eligible for receiving pension so that once they reach the age of superannuation, their pension can be sanctioned, at the earliest, without any further delay,” the court said.