Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: July 11 To July 17, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662

M/S. SPML Infra Ltd. versus M/S. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634

META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 635

DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 636

Fresenius Medical Care Dialysis Service India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerry Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 637

Pratyush Prasanna v. State NCT of Delhi and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 638

Mrs. Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 639

JA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD v. MS SITHARA ENTERTAINMENT & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 640

ANIL KUMAR TALAN v. STATE (GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 641

SHRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 642

Nishant Chawla v. TDSAT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 643

SMT. SHASHI SEHDEV v. SH. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 644

Triveni Healthcure Private Ltd v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 645

Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 646

National Research Development Corporation and Anr. versus Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 647

Swastik Pipe Ltd. versus Dimple Verma 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 648

DLF HOMES RAJAPURA PVT. LTD v. LATE O.P. MEHTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 649

ALOK TRIPATHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 650

BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS v. RAMA ARORA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 651

Vishwanath Kumar & Ors. v. National Testing Agency & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 652

SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 653

SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 654

NEHA SAINI AND ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 655

Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 656

Madan Lal Suryawanshi v. Tara Devi (now deceased through its LRs) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 657

VEENA JOSHI v. CPIO,CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 658

Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Rajesh Kumar Pasricha 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 659

MS. X v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 660

DILIP KUMAR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 661

JAMSHED ADIL KHAN & ANR. v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662

1. Section 8 Application Should Be Filed Within Time Available For Filing Written Statement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. SPML Infra Ltd. versus M/S. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634

The Delhi High Court has ruled that if a party fails to file an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for referring the parties to arbitration within the time available for filing the first statement on the substance of the dispute, which would include a written statement in the context of a suit, the party would forfeit its right to apply under Section 8(1) of the A&C Act.

The Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that the amendment to Section 8 of the A&C Act by the 2015 Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act cannot be considered in isolation, in view of the fact that the Parliament has also enacted the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which came into force on the same date as the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.

The Court observed that by virtue of the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Commercial Courts Act, the Parliament has curtailed the outer time limit for filing a written statement in a commercial suit. The Court added that the said amendments were made to ensure expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes.

2. Trademark Infringement Suit By Meta: Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Use Of 'Facebake', Other Facebook Formative Trademarks

Case Title: META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 635

In a trademark infringement suit filed by Meta (formerly known as Facebook), the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained the use of marks namely 'facebake' and 'facecake', Facebook marks, Facebook Visual Presentation and any other 'Facebook‟ formative trademarks of the social media giant.

Justice Navin Chawla also awarded nominal damages of Rs.50,000 in favour of Meta Platforms Inc. and against the defendants. The Court also directed the defendants to pay cost of the suit to Meta.

Meta moved the Court after being aggrieved over the adoption of the mark "Facebake" by the defendant no.1, namely Noufel Malol, which was allegedly mimicking the visual presentation by copying the colour scheme, font, commercial impression, and overall look and feel of Facebook, and thus was intentionally trading off the significant goodwill established in "Facebook‟ marks.

3. Delhi High Court Restrains Husband From Pursuing Matrimonial Case In Canada During Pendency Of Divorce Petition Filed By Wife In India

Case Title: DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 636

The Delhi High Court has taken a serious view of a case wherein the Husband deliberately avoided service in the divorce proceedings filed by his wife in India, refused to appear before the Court here and filed a separate divorce case in Canadian Court.

Justice Amit Bansal passed an interim injunction against the husband restraining him from proceeding with the divorce suit filed by him before the Canadian Court.

4. Subrogation Deed Does Not Terminate The Right Of The Assured To Initiate Arbitration Against The Wrongdoer: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Fresenius Medical Care Dialysis Service India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerry Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 637

The Delhi High Court has held that arbitration can be invoked by the insured even after entering into a subrogation-cum-assignment agreement with an insurance company.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that subrogation does not put an end to the right of the assured to initiate legal proceedings against the wrongdoer, it merely allows the insurer to step into the shoes of the insured to recover the damages.

5. Delhi High Court Closes Pleas Seeking Dignified Burial/ Cremation Of Dead Bodies Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

Case Title: Pratyush Prasanna v. State NCT of Delhi and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 638

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday disposed of a batch of petitions filed amid the surge in cases relating to COVID-19, seeking directions for dignified burial or cremation of dead bodies.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the detailed status report filed by the local bodies, indicating the steps taken for increasing the number of crematoriums and burial grounds in the city.

The Court noted that as per the status report, while the pandemic like situation is not in existence anymore, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has not received any complaint of any kind in respect of lack of facility to cremate or bury an individual.

6. Candidates Wearing Kara/ Kirpan Must Be Given Advance Notice To Reach Exam Centre One Hour Before Reporting Time: Delhi High Court Tells DSSSB

Case Title: Mrs. Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 639

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to ensure that an adequate notice is given to candidates desirous of wearing a kara or kirpan, regarding the additional requirement for them to reach the examination centre one hour before the reporting time. The court directed that the notice must be given well in advance so that no undue hardship is caused to them.

Justice Rekha Palli directed thus while dealing with a plea challenging denial of entry to a Sikh woman, for an exam being conducted by DSSSB, for the reason of her wearing kara.

"It is expected that not only the DSSSB but all other recruiting agencies who conduct similar examinations will take appropriate steps in this regard well before the conduct of the examinations," the Court added.

7. 'Copyright Owners Have Right To Dub Cinema' : Delhi High Court Vacates Stay On Hindi Dub Of Telugu Movie "Bheemla Nayak"

CASE TITLE: JA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD v. MS SITHARA ENTERTAINMENT & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 640

The Delhi High Court recently vacated its earlier ex-parte injunction order against M/s Sithara Entertainment which barred it from releasing the Hindi-dubbed version of its Telugu remake of the Malayalam film "Ayyappanum Koshiyum". A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, while vacating the earlier order, held that the owners of copyright in a cinematographic work will have the right to both sub-title and dub their work.

"...by the operation of law, Defendant No. 1 in its own right as a copyright owner has a right to dub the Telugu film in any language including Hindi and Plaintiff cannot assert any right to restrain Defendant No. 1 from dubbing the Telugu film in Hindi", the Court observed.

The plaintiff JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, in this suit, had sought for permanent injunction restraining defendants from dubbing the Telugu film "Bheemla Nayak" in Hindi as the plaintiffs have the right for Hindi remake of the Malayalam original.

8. [Matrimonial Disputes] Allowing Fabricated Omnibus Allegations Against Entire Family May Lead To Further Misuse Of Process Of Law: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ANIL KUMAR TALAN v. STATE (GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 641

The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing fabricated allegations against the entire family in matrimonial disputes may lead to further misuse of process of law.

"If false implication by fabricated omnibus allegations against entire family in the course of matrimonial disputes and differences, is allowed, it may lead to further misuse of the process of law and assume serious proportions," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed.

The Court made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to father of a married woman in an FIR registered under sec. 182, 192, 195, 203, 389, 420, 469, 470, 471, 500, 120B and 34 of IPC.

9. Central Govt Has Taken Steps To Bring De-Notified Nomadic Tribes Into Mainstream Of The Country: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 642

The Delhi High Court has observed that steps have been taken by the Central Government to bring the de-notified nomadic tribes into the mainstream of the Country.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions to make proper scheme and its implementation so that the each and every member of the de-notified nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India.

It was the case of the petitioner that the members of the de-notified Nomadic Tribes, Semi-Nomadic Tribes and Nomadic Tribes like Banjare, GadiaLuhar, Bawaria, Nat, Kalbelia, Bopa, Sikligar, Singiwal,Kuchbanda, Kalander etc. were being neglected and had not been properly brought into the mainstream.

10. [Disparity In Pay Scale] Classification Based On Mode Of Recruitment, Qualification & Merit Not Unreasonable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nishant Chawla v. TDSAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 643

The Delhi High Court has held that whereas the "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is a constitutional goal, however, there is no absolute application of the principle by default, within or across organisations/ departments.

A single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that organisations as well as the government have the liberty to set different pay scale, where they make a reasonable, valid and intelligible classification for employees placed at similar grades and work profiles.

"(There are) several considerations to be borne in mind while deciding the issue of parity between two posts, whether in the same organisation or across different organisations/ departments. There is definitely no mathematical application of the principle of parity and "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and it is the Courts of the country that have laid down various factors for deciding the question of parity amongst different designations," the bench observed.

11. [Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC] Recall Applications Can't Be Allowed Merely For Filling Lacuna In Cross-Examination: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: SMT. SHASHI SEHDEV v. SH. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 644

The Delhi High Court has held that recall applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC cannot be allowed merely for filling lacuna in cross-examination by engaging a new counsel.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar further held that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution was intended to be used sparingly for keeping subordinate courts within bounds and not for correcting mere errors.

12. Start-Ups Can't Seek Relaxation Of Tender Conditions As A Matter Of Right, Especially In Field Of Healthcare: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Triveni Healthcure Private Ltd v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 645

The Delhi High Court has held that a Start-up company cannot claim relaxation in tender processes as a matter of right, especially in certain fields like health care that require past experience and other qualifications.

While dismissing a writ petition filed by a start-up supplier against Delhi govt's Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital, a division bench of Chief Justice SC Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held,

"The executive instruction does not make it mandatory for any establishment to relax the condition in respect of turnover and prior experience/ EMD as the word "may" has been used in the policy Circular dated 10.03.2016."

The executive instruction was issued by the Centre in March 2016, titled 'Relaxation of Norms for Startups and Micro & Small Enterprises in Public Procurement on Prior Experience – Prior Turnover Criteria.'

13. S.7 Family Courts Act | Circumstances Arising Out Of Marital Relationship May Include Not Only Husband & Wife But Also Parents-In-Law: Delhi HC

Case Title: Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 646

The Delhi High Court has held that the words "circumstances arising out of marital relationship" used in reference to filing of suit for injunction under Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would include not only the husband and wife but may also include the parents-in-law.

A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar made it clear that what is to be seen is not the relationship between the parties but whether the circumstances in which the suit is filed arose out of a matrimonial relationship.

If the answer to the aforesaid is in the affirmative, then the provision would apply and the Family Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with such applications for injunction.

14. Even If The Principal Agreement Is Non-Existent, The Arbitration Clause Would Still Apply: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Research Development Corporation and Anr. versus Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 647

The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the principal agreement is non-existent, the arbitration clause contained therein would still apply.

The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that since the issue of limitation and arbitrability was not conclusive against the party, the issue was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.

The petitioner National Research Development Corporation and the respondent Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited entered into a 'Programme Aimed at Technological Self Reliance' Scheme (PATSER Agreement), for development of a GPS. Under the said PATSER Agreement, the respondent was provided financial assistance for the development of the GPS. In terms of the PATSER Agreement, a Royalty Agreement was also entered into between the parties, which provided for details regarding the payment obligations of the respondent. 

15. Arbitration Clause Contained In A Tax Invoice Is Binding: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Swastik Pipe Ltd. versus Dimple Verma

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 648

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a tax invoice is binding between the parties.

Noting that the opposite party had earlier received similar tax invoices, against which it had made payments, the Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao ruled that the party could not disown the clear stipulation contained in the tax invoice with regard to any dispute being referred to arbitration.

Certain goods were purchased by the respondent Dimple Verma from the petitioner Swastik Pipe Ltd. on a running account basis. On the basis of tax invoices issued by the petitioner, part payments were subsequently made by the respondent. After the respondent failed to clear the dues, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the terms and conditions of the tax invoice. The petitioner filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

16. [Order XXII Rule 3 CPC] Delay In Filing Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs Must Be Sufficiently Explained: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE- DLF HOMES RAJAPURA PVT. LTD v. LATE O.P. MEHTA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 649

The Delhi High Court has held that applications under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of legal heirs, or under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code for setting aside abatement of proceedings must be considered liberally. However, the delay in moving such applications must be sufficiently justified.

A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar further stated that any such delay must meet the threshold requirement which an application seeking condonation of delay is required to meet.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that a consumer case was preferred by the respondents against the petitioner herein before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The consumer case was filed as a joint consumer complaint, and was stated to have been preferred in a representative capacity for the benefit of entire class of persons having the same interest.

17. Duty Of Legal Services Authorities To Ensure That Opportunities To Secure Justice Are Not Denied To Any Individual For Any Reason: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ALOK TRIPATHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 650

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is the duty of legal services authorities to ensure that opportunities to secure justice are not denied to any individual for any reason whatsoever.

"The principal objective of these Legal Services Authorities is to provide free and efficient legal representation to those sections of the society that are unable to access the same on account of socio-economic," a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.

The Court was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by a lawyer on the panel of Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC), seeking direction on the State to provide with the scanned copy or hard copy of the FIR, Chargesheet, evidence or other trial court records of the Under Trial Prisoners (UTPs) on a request or application made in that regard.

18. Document Admitted Or Denied By Witness During Cross Examination Cannot Be Returned, Has To Be Necessarily Placed On Court File: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS v. RAMA ARORA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 651

The Delhi High Court has observed that if a document produced during cross-examination of a witness is admitted or denied by the said witness, such a document cannot be returned and has to be necessarily placed on the Court file.

Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the civil suit under Section 151 of CPC for allowing them to place on record additional documents.

It was the case of the plaintiffs that during the recording of evidence of the defendant witness, the plaintiffs had presented the 'returned envelope' in front of the witness to verify those addresses. However, the Local Commissioner refused to entertain or put those envelopes on record.

19. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone NEET-UG 2022; Asks "How Can 15 Students Seek Rescheduling Of Exam?"

Title: Vishwanath Kumar & Ors. v. National Testing Agency & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 652

The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by 15 students seeking to postpone the NEET-UG 2022 exam to be held on July 17.

"This is totally a misconceived petition. It's just because these are students, the court will not be harsh. Had it been anyone else, this would have been dismissed with costs", a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula orally said while concluding the hearing.

"The pressure can only be eased by self study, not by the manner you are doing this. I wish the students all the best", Justice Narula said.

At the outset, the bench asked the petitioners why they are approaching the Court now, when the schedule of the exam was known in April 2022.

The petitioners' counsel submitted that the admit cards were only issued recently and that the petitioners had been pursuing representations before various authorities.

"How can 15 students ask for rescheduling of the exam? Such petitions should be discouraged", Justice Narula said.

20. Domain Name Registrars Must Create Mechanism For Trademark Owners To Seek Cancellation/ Transfer Of Objectionable Domain Names: Delhi High Court

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 653

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) must create a mechanism by which any trademark owner who has an objection to the registration granted to any domain name, can approach the said DNR and seek cancellation or transfer of the same.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that the same ought to be fairly considered through the mechanism which ought to be independent and impartial, for eg., through an Ombudsman.

"If the cancellation/suspension/transfer as sought is not agreed to through the said mechanism, then the IP owner can avail of its remedies in accordance with law," the Court observed.

21. If Party Seeking Possession Of Immovable Property Is Aware About Sale In Favour Of A Third Party, It Must Implead The Latter As An Objector: Delhi HC

CASE TITLE: SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 654

With respect to a decree for the possession of immovable property, the Delhi High Court has held that if the Decree Holders are aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors, they must implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them.

A single judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed,

"The manner in which the Decree Holders took possession of the properties from the Objectors was ex facie unlawful. The Decree Holders were aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors and also the possession of the Objectors in the aforesaid portions of the suit property. Despite this knowledge, the Decree Holders did not implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them. Even after the decree was passed, no legal notice was served on the Objectors to vacate the property, nor were they made parties in the execution proceedings and straightaway they were dispossessed from the portions of the suit property, of which they had been in a settled occupation for a long period of time."

22. Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Application For Judgment On Admission Can't Be Disposed Of In Laconic Fashion, Reasoning In Order Must: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NEHA SAINI AND ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 655

"An application under Order XII rule 6 cannot be disposed of in such a laconic fashion. There has to be some modicum of reasoning in the order, meeting the grounds in the application," the Delhi High Court has observed.

Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure states that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

23. If Tender Conditions/ Award Of Contract Is In Public Interest, Court Can't Interfere Even If Procedural Aberration/ Error In Assessment Made Out: Delhi HC

Case Title: Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 656

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while exercising the power of judicial review in matters relating to tenders conditions or award of contracts, Courts must be slow in interfering with the decisions, unless they are perverse.

"If the decision relating to terms or award of contract is bona fide and in public interest, Courts shall not exercise its power of judicial review to interfere, even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tender is made out," a division bench comprising Chief Justice SC Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held.

The observation comes in a writ petition filed by the Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association seeking to quash the Notice Inviting Tenders (NITs) issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited and BSES Rajdhani Power Limited for award of Electricity Distribution Network.

24. Can't Interfere With Discretionary Order Condoning Delay In Supervisory Jurisdiction U/Art 227 Unless There Is Total Non-Application Of Mind: Delhi HC

Case Title: Madan Lal Suryawanshi v. Tara Devi (now deceased through its LRs)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 657

The Delhi High Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution does not ordinarily warrant interference with the discretionary exercise of power by trial courts in condoning delay.

A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed,

" It is only where, therefore, there is complete non-application of mind in condoning delay which is inexorable, or where no reasons for condonation of delay are forthcoming in the order passed by the Court below, that an Article 227 Court would ordinarily interfere."

25. RTI Act | Right To 'Inspection Of Work' Of Any Public Authority U/S 2(j) Does Not Include 'Inspection Of Property': Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: VEENA JOSHI v. CPIO,CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 658

The Delhi High Court has held that the words "inspection of work" under Section 2(j) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 does not include "inspection of property" under its ambit.

Section 2(j) stipulates that right to information means the right to information accessible under the Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; etc.

A single judge bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that as such, the word "work" under the aforementioned Section is to be read in conjunction with the expressions "documents" and "records" and not property.

26. Prima Facie Case Alone Does Not Entitle A Party To Relief Under Section 17 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Rajesh Kumar Pasricha

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 659

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a prima facie case alone does not entitle a party to relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that there were highly disputed questions of fact involved in the dispute relating to the interpretation of the agreement between the parties. Holding that the possible extent of the claim likely to be awarded to the claimant vide the arbitral award cannot be a foregone conclusion, the Court set aside the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the counter-claimant to secure a certain amount in an application filed under Section 17 of the A&C Act by the claimant for interim measures.

27. Unmarried Woman Pregnant Out Of Consensual Relationship Cannot Seek Termination Of Pregnancy After 20 Weeks: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MS. X v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 660

Refusing interim relief to a 25 year old unmarried woman seeking termination of her pregnancy of 23 weeks and 5 days, the Delhi High Court has observed that an unmarried woman, whose pregnancy arises out of a consensual relationship, is clearly not covered by any of the Clauses under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003.

The petitioner's pregnancy would complete 24 weeks on 18th of this month.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:

"As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, stands, and this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot go beyond the Statute. Granting interim relief now would amount to allowing the writ petition itself."

28. Courts Can't Enter Into Merits Of Selection Process Unless Selection Committee Has Been Malafide Or In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: DILIP KUMAR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 661

The Delhi High Court has held that it is not within the domain of the Courts, sitting in judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and in the expert domain of a Selection Committee.

A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela observed that it cannot act as an Appellate Authority and substitute its own opinion where the Competent Authority as well as the experts comprising the Search and Selection Committee, who are competent to decide the eligibility and suitability for a given post, have carried out the exercise in due compliance with the relevant statutes.

29. Police Officer Cannot Summon A Person For Investigation From Outside Territorial Limits Of His Station Or Adjoining Station: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: JAMSHED ADIL KHAN & ANR. v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662

The Delhi High Court has held that as per Section 160 CrPC, for the purposes of investigation, a police officer cannot summon a person situated outside the territorial limits of his police station or at most the territorial limits of his adjoining police station.

The provision empowers Police officers to require attendance of witnesses.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Poonam A. Bamba observed, " From the plain reading of the sub-section (1) of Section 160 Cr.P.C, it is evident that for the purposes of investigation, a police officer can require attendance of a person situated within the limits of his own police station or that of the adjoining police station and not someone who is situated beyond the said territorial limits."