Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 388 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 424NOMINAL INDEXCase Title: V K VERMA v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 388 Case Title: OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT. LTD. v. PARVEEN JUNEJA & ORS. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 389 Case Title: DR. SANJIV GUPTA & ANR. v. SH. S.S. VERMA Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 390 Case Title: KV SAGAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR. Citation:...
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 388 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 424
NOMINAL INDEX
Case Title: V K VERMA v. CBI
2022 LiveLaw (Del) 388
Case Title: OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT. LTD. v. PARVEEN JUNEJA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 389
Case Title: DR. SANJIV GUPTA & ANR. v. SH. S.S. VERMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 390
Case Title: KV SAGAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 391
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 392
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 393
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR v. KISHAN SARRAF & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 394
Case Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 395
Case Title: ZAKIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 396
Case Title: AMIT KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 397
Case Title: DHL INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. DLH EXPRESS SERVICES PRIVATE LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 398
Case Title: LUCINA LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 399
Case Title: THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2- AGRA v. MADHUR MITTAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 400
Case Title: M/S. MOVIE TIMES CINEPLEX PVT. LTD. v. M/S. MRG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 401
Case Title: Ankit Kaul Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 022 LiveLaw (Del) 402
Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 403
Case Title: DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 404
Case Title: SIRONA HYGIENE PRIVATE LIMITED v. PARULBEN NAVNATH CHOTHANI TRADING AS SHIV ENTERPRISE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 405
Case Title: M/S GARG BUILDERS THROUGH SHRI MOHINDER PAL GARG v. HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD. AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 406
Case Title: BABLU TIWARI @ JATA SHANKAR TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 407
Case Title: SUCHIT GUPTA v. GAURAV SAINI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 408
Case Title: SATISH SACHIV BABA v. CPWD (M.R.D.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 409
Case Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus DIPALI SANTOSH RAO & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 410
Case Title: M/s Maspar Industries Private Limited & Ors. versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax TDS & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 411
Case Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC & ORS. v. VEGAMOVIES.RUN & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 412
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD & ANR. versus UNILEVERR1.IN & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 413
Case Title: ANISH DAS TALUKDAR (MINOR) THROUGH MS. SASMITA DAS TALUKDAR (LEGAL GARDINAN AND MOTHER) AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 414
Case Title: K RAJAPANDIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 415
Title: Vemika Verma and Others v. University of Delhi and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 416
Case Title: TOSHIAKI AIBA AS THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA v. VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 417
Case Title: PCJ SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(1) DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 418
Case Title: Director General Central Reserve Police Force versus Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Del) 419
Case Title: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. IJM Corporation Berhad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 420
Case Title: Manish Aggarwal and Anr v. RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 421
Case Title: KINRI DHIR versus VEER SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 422
Case Title: Union of India versus Indian Agro Marketing Co Operative Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 423
Case Title: RAKESH @DIWAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 424
1. Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not Meant To Test The Waters Of What Might Happen In The Trial: Delhi High Court
Case Title: V K VERMA v. CBI
2022 LiveLaw (Del) 388
Delhi High Court recently observed that revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial.
The observation came from Justice Chandra Dhari Singh who also said that the revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below:
"The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record." court said.
2. S.11 Arbitration & Conciliation Act | Not Necessary To Go Into Merits Of Claim/ Counter-Claim For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT. LTD. v. PARVEEN JUNEJA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, High Court is not to go into the merits of the claim or the counter-claim, if any, of the parties.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that the High Court has to examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and there are any disputes unless ex-facie it is apparent from the record that the disputes are a mere deadwood.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Oyo Hotels and Homes Private Limited seeking reference of disputes to a Sole Arbitrator under a Lease Deed dated 23.10.2019.
3. Registration Of Family Arrangement Necessary Only If Terms Are Reduced Into Writing, Not Where Arrangement Is Oral: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DR. SANJIV GUPTA & ANR. v. SH. S.S. VERMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court has observed that registration is not necessary where family arrangement is oral and that the same is necessary only if the terms of the arrangement are reduced into writing.\
"It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable" Justice Najmi Waziri reiterated.
4. Re-Agitation Of Same Issue Is Gross Abuse Of Court Process: Delhi HC Imposes 10K Cost On Litigant Seeking Transfer Of Investigation To CBI
Case Title: KV SAGAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on a litigant seeking transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) despite a similar plea being dismissed as withdrawn by the Court on earlier occasion.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with a plea seeking transfer of investigation of FIR to C.B.I. A similar criminal writ petition with identical prayer was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court vide order dated March 22, 2022.
The facts of the case were that the petitioner had purchased a pair of shoes from Woodland. Since the shoes were found to be defective, an online complaint was made. After lot of communications, the pair of shoes was taken back for repairs. The petitioner did not receive any response from the shoe company and, as such, a complaint was filed but FIR was not registered.
5. 'Not Uncommon To Shift Graves When They Obstruct Development': Delhi HC On Waqf Board's Appeal Seeking Stay On Transfer Of Burial Ground To ITBP
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain an intra-court appeal preferred by the Delhi Waqf Board, challenging a single judge order refusing to stay Centre's decision of transferring a portion of its purported property, said to be in use as a burial ground, to the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla rejected the contention raised by the appellant that irreparable loss will be caused if the transfer is not stayed, inasmuch as the land in question was being used as a burial ground.
The bench further said that since the impugned order is only an interim order, it is not inclined to interfere with the same, especially in view of the fact that the rights of the Appellant have been "sufficiently protected".
6. Delhi High Court Extends Interim Order Allowing Reopening Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz Till October 14
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 393
The Delhi High Court this week allowed reopening of five floors, including Ground floor as well as four floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz till October 14.
Justice Jasmeet Singh extended the operation of the interim order dated April 1, 2022 wherein the mosque was allowed to reopen for offering of prayers during the Ramzan month.
The said interim order shall continue to remain in force till October 14, the next date of hearing.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020.
This comes in a plea filed by Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020. The Court's permission was in continuation of its previous order dated March 16, 2022 wherein four floors of the masjid premises were allowed to remain open on Shab e-Barat.
7. Condonation Of Delay | Indolence Beyond A Point Results In Forfeiture Of Right To Secure Justice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR v. KISHAN SARRAF & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 394
In the context of condonation of delay, the Delhi High Court has observed that indolence, beyond a point, results in forfeiture of the right to secure justice.
Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the appeal challenging the impugned order dated 30th November, 2015, which was initially challenged before the High Court after nearly three years in 2018.
The Court said that there was no explanation as to why the plea was filed in 2018 after three years of the passing of the impugned order.
"There being no reasonable explanation for the delay in preferring the present appeal, and learned Counsel being unable to assist the court in this regard, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and non-prosecution," the Court said.
It added "Indolence, beyond a point, results in forfeiture of the right to secure justice. The process of the court cannot be held at ransom, awaiting the convenience of the appellant."
8. "Husband & Wife Two Pillars Of Family, Whole House Crashes Down If One Gets Weak": Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce Granted In Wife's Favour
Case Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 395
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Family Court granting divorce in favour of the wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 observing that the wife had well established the ground of mental cruelty by the husband.
The Family Court had granted divorce to the respondent wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the HMA solely relying on ground of mental cruelty.
While upholding the same, a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed thus:
"Husband and wife are two pillars of the family. Together they can deal with any situation, balancing the family in all circumstances. If one pillar gets weak or breaks, the whole house crashes down. The pillars can withstand all the abuses together, the moment one pillar gets weak or deteriorates, it becomes difficult to hold the house together. When one pillar gives up, and puts all the burden on the other pillar, then it cannot be expected that one pillar will single handedly hold the house together."
9. Failure To Supply Of "Legible Copies" Of Documents Relied Upon Despite Request By Detenu Renders Detention Order Illegal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ZAKIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 396
The Delhi High Court has observed that a detention order passed by the Detaining Authority based on "illegible" copies of documents suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed.
It added that a further failure and non-supply of legible copies of all documents to the Detenu, despite request and representation, renders the order of detention illegal and bad in law.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar allowed the petitions filed by two detenus namely Zakir Khan and Sanjeev Kumar praying for quashing of detention orders dated November 26, 2021 issued under sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
10. Chhatrasal Stadium Murder: Delhi HC Refuses To Transfer Trial From Rohini Court, Directs Witnesses To Seek Recording Of Evidence Through Virtual Mode
Case Title: AMIT KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 397
The Delhi High Court has directed the prosecution witnesses in relation to the Chhatrasal Stadium murder case to approach city's Rohini Court seeking recording of their evidence through virtual mode.
The case relates to the death of former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankhar. Wrestler Sushil Kumar is one of the accused in the matter.
Justice Jasmeet Singh disposed of a plea filed by victims and prosecution witnesses in the case who alleged being beaten mercilessly by more than 20 gangsters of various gangs of the city when the alleged incident took place, which resulted into death of one of victims namely Sagar Dhankar.
The plea had therefore sought transfer of trial in the case from Rohini Court to some other district court in the interest of safety of the victims and prosecution witnesses for a fair and impartial trial as also an 'in-camera' day-to-day hearing in the matter.
11. DHL International Courier: Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of Infringing Mark 'DLH'
Case Title: DHL INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. DLH EXPRESS SERVICES PRIVATE LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 398
Delhi High Court recently granted permanent injunction in favour of DHL International, a well recognized courier service company, against DLH Express services, holding that the two trademarks are identical and deal in similar services.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed:
"Considering the fact that the Defendant has already changed the name DLH and the use of the impugned mark has also been stopped, this is a fit case for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, by way of summary judgment. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the paragraphs 61(a) to 61(c)."
The Plaintiff - DHL International GmbH, a German company had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, trade dress, dilution and tarnishment, passing off, damages etc., against the Defendant - DLH Express Services Private Ltd. It was claimed that DHL is a distinctive logo and trade dress, which was initially adopted in 1969, has evolved over the year.
12. Party Can't Exhaust Alternate Remedy In SC Before Approaching HC U/Art. 227; There Can Be No Appeal From 'Caesar' To 'Mark Antony': Delhi HC
Case Title: LUCINA LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court has observed that a party cannot be directed to exhaust the alternate remedy available before the Supreme Court before approaching the High Courts under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
Referring to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Justice C Hari Shankar said:
"There can be no appeal from Caesar to Mark Antony."
The Court was dealing with a matter concerning a complaint filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the petitioner Lucina Land Development Ltd. and others by 51 allotees of flats in a project titled Indiabulls Greens Panvel.
13. ITAT Final Arbiter Of Facts, Its Order Can Be Interfered With Only If There Is Substantial Question Of Law, Manifest Illegality/ Perversity: Delhi HC
Case Title: THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2- AGRA v. MADHUR MITTAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 400
Observing that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is the final arbiter of the facts, the Delhi High Court has observed that the High Court can interfere with its order only if there is substantial question of law or there is manifest illegality or it suffers from perversity.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with an appeal challenging the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by ITAT. The appellant had stated that the assessee had filed return of income for assessment year 2008-09 declaring an income of Rs.2,82,271 under sec. 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
On 28.09.2010, search and seizure operation under sec. 132 of the Act was carried out in Triveni Group and a search warrant under sec. 132 (1) of the Act was issued and executed in the name of the assessee as well. The assessee belonged to the Triveni Group. A notice under sec 153A of the Act was also issued to the assessee.
14. Factual/ Legal Errors In Arbitral Award Falling Short Of Perversity Do Not Merit Interference U/S 34 Or 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. MOVIE TIMES CINEPLEX PVT. LTD. v. M/S. MRG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 401
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Arbitrator or Tribunal is the final arbiter on facts as well as in law, and even errors, factual or legal, which stop short of perversity, do not merit interference under sec. 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was dealing with an appeal under sec. 37 of the Act challenging the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Single Judge of High Court which had dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under sec. 34 of the Act seeking setting aside of the arbitration award dated 01.06.2016.
Movie Times had filed a suit against the respondents seeking injunction and recovery of rent against the respondents in respect of the leased premises. The same was disposed of vide order dated 07.10.2009, directing Movie Times to take recourse to arbitration, resulting in the appointment of the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, who passed the Arbitral award dated 01.06.2016 in relation to the disputes in respect of the Lease deed.
15. Non Filing Of Response Due To Technical Glitch In E-Filing Portal: Delhi High Court Quashes The Order And Directs Fresh Hearing
Case Title: Ankit Kaul Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 022 LiveLaw (Del) 402
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the taxpayer could not file a response under the Faceless Scheme due to a technical glitch in the e-filing portal.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the ex-parte order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The department passed the order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act without taking the written submission of the petitioner on record.
16. Trees Only Hope Of Environmental Redemption In Commercialized Cities, Must Not Be Cut Needlessly: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 403
The Delhi High Court has observed that trees hold out as welcome and assuring living entities of hope, sanity, environmental redemption and even companionship and that they must not be allowed to be cut needlessly or wantonly.
Justice Najmi Waziri observed thus:
"In this capital city with its ever-bourgeoning populating, the cacophony of voices and rampant commercialization of every other street – robbing the residents of the familiar ambience of their residential neighbourhood, the ever-increasing motor-vehicular traffic, the choking air-pollution and the ever-creeping concretization, trees hold out as welcome and assuring living entities of hope, sanity, environmental redemption and even companionship."
17. "Defamatory": Delhi High Court Directs Twitter To Take Down 5 More Tweets Posted By Historian Audrey Truschke Against Vikram Sampath
Case Title: DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 404
The Delhi High Court has directed micro blogging site Twitter to take down five more tweets posted by historian Audrey Truschke against historian Dr. Vikram Sampath over alleged plagiarism with respect to his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Justice Amit Bansal was of the view that the tweets in question were defamatory in nature and that there was a link posted in the said tweets to the letters, the publication of which was injuncted by the Court vide orders dated 18th February, 2022 and 24th February, 2022.
The Court was dealing with an application filed on behalf of Sampath under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a direction for taking down of further defamatory tweets posted by Truschke on Twitter.
18. Sale Of Counterfeit Products Has Become Prolific On Internet, Needs To Be Arrested To Protect Customers, Trademark Owners: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SIRONA HYGIENE PRIVATE LIMITED v. PARULBEN NAVNATH CHOTHANI TRADING AS SHIV ENTERPRISE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 405
The Delhi High Court has observed that the sale of counterfeit or knock-off products has become prolific on the internet, which needs to be arrested in order to protect the owners of the trade marks as also the customers who purchase such products.
Justice Pratibha M Singh made the aforesaid observation while dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited against M/s Parulben Navnath Chothani, trading as Shiv Enterprise.
Three e-commerce websites namely Snapdeal, Meesho and Amazon, through their companies were arrayed as Defendant No. 2, 3, and 4 respectively whereas Defendant No. 5 was a John Doe defendant.
19. What Are The Basic Principles Relating To Bank Guarantees, Their Invocation & Interdiction? Delhi High Court Answers
Case Title: M/S GARG BUILDERS THROUGH SHRI MOHINDER PAL GARG v. HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD. AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 406
The Delhi High Court has settled down the basic principles relating to bank guarantees, their invocation and the interdiction of such invocation.
While observing that commercial contracts often contain clauses requiring the contractor to furnish bank guarantees, Justice C Hari Shankar said that such bank guarantees are either bank guarantees provided towards security for having been awarded the contract, or performance bank guarantees to guarantee performance of the contract, though, on occasion, other bank guarantees such as bank guarantees towards mobilization advance etc. may also be required to be provided.
The Court added that the contract, in such cases, also provides for the circumstances in which the bank guarantees could be invoked, as well as the purpose for requiring the bank guarantees to be provided in the first place.
20. Accused Can't Claim De Novo Trial As A Matter Of Right Unless Claim Of Counsel's Ineffectiveness Is Proved To Satisfaction Of Court: Delhi HC
Case Title: BABLU TIWARI @ JATA SHANKAR TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 407
The Delhi High Court has observed that an accused cannot, as a matter of right claim de novo trial, except where he is able to show and prove his claim of ineffectiveness of counsel's assistance and his representation falling below an objective standard of reasonableness, to the satisfaction of the court.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that such a relief is to be granted sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, where it appears prima facie that the apprehension of the defendant is sincere and bonafide and the defence counsel has utterly failed to build any defence owing to his incompetence.
The facts of the case are that an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 02.09.2016 under sec. 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 alleging that on 31.08.2016, when the prosecutrix was returning from tuition, an unknown male person touched the breasts of the prosecutrix and attempted to flee.
21. Needless Hypersensitivity Not Expected Of Judicial Officers, Should Maintain Composure & Poise: Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹5 Lacs Cost
Case Title: SUCHIT GUPTA v. GAURAV SAINI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 408
Observing that needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers who are expected at all times to maintain composure and poise, the Delhi High Court has set aside Rs. 5 lacs cost imposed by a Additional Rent Controller with a 'word of advice'.
Unequivocally expressing its discomfiture at the manner in which the order was passed, Justice C Hari Shankar said:
"In order that the career of the learned ARC, who appears to be a fairly young Judicial Officer, is not prejudiced, I deem it appropriate to close this matter by setting aside the impugned order insofar as it imposes costs of ₹ 5 lacs to the petitioner, with a word of advice to the learned ARC to ensure that, in future, a great degree of temperance is exhibited by him in discharge of his judicial functions."
"Unwarranted and needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers, who are expected, at all times to maintain composure and poise, befitting the office they hold."
22. Acquittal On Failure To Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt Does Not Oust Disciplinary Proceedings Where Test Is Preponderance Of Probabilities: Delhi HC
Case Title: SATISH SACHIV BABA v. CPWD (M.R.D.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 409
The Delhi High Court has observed that an acquittal in criminal proceedings in which the guilt of a person has to be held to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, does not preclude the disciplinary proceedings in which the charges of misconduct have to be established on a preponderance of probabilities.
Justice Anu Malhotra observed that mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not prevent the management to proceed with the departmental proceedings against an employee.
"…the acquittal in criminal proceedings in which the guilt of a person has to be held to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, does not preclude the disciplinary proceedings in which the charges of misconduct have to be established on a preponderance of probabilities to continue and to consequentially result into a penalty inclusive of a penalty of termination of service in the event of an employee having been held to have violated the service rules," the Court observed.
23. Relief For HT Media: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Interim Injunction Against Infringing Website Hindustan Times Marathi
Case Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus DIPALI SANTOSH RAO & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 410
The Delhi High Court recently granted ex-parte interim injunction in favour of HT Media Limited which runs news publications in various languages in the name Hindustan Times, against a party using a deceptively similar logo and domain name.
Justice Jyoti Singh observed:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
The Plaintiff company operates with the domain names "hindustantimes.com" and "marathi.hindustantimes.com".
It has moved the High Court seeking injunction against domain name/ website "hindustantimesmarathi.com" primarily engaged in publishing, hosting, communicating, etc. news, articles, stories, columns, etc. in Hindi and Marathi to Indian readers and viewers, said to be using a deceptively identical logo to the plaintiff's name.
24. Delhi High Court Upholds Order Of Revenue Department Imposing Enhanced Compounding Charges On Subsequent Offences
Case Title: M/s Maspar Industries Private Limited & Ors. versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax TDS & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 411
The Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the revenue department imposing enhanced compounding charges on subsequent applications for compounding of offences relating to late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that compounding of offences cannot be taken as a matter of right and it is for the law and authorities to determine as to what kind of offences should be compounded and under what conditions. The Court added that there is a rationale behind imposing a higher rate for subsequent offences as the revenue department wants to incentivize compliance.
The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) had compounded the offence pertaining to late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) committed by the petitioner M/s Maspar Industries Private Limited. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Chief Commissioner.
25. Copyright Infringement: Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of 12 Websites Illegally Streaming Content Of Universal City Studios
Case Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC & ORS. v. VEGAMOVIES.RUN & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 412
In a matter relating to copyright infringement, the Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 12 websites which were illegally streaming, hosting and making available to public the original content of Universal City Studios LLC, without its authorization.
Observing that Universal City Studios LLC had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the 12 websites from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public or communicating to the public any cinematograph work or content in relation to which Plaintiffs had a Copyright.
The Court also directed Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) to take immediate steps and issue requisite Notifications, calling upon various internet and telecom service providers registered under them to block the said websites.
26. Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Interim Injunction In Favour Of Hindustan Unilever, Orders Blocking Of 5 Rogue Websites
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD & ANR. versus UNILEVERR1.IN & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court recently granted ex parte interim injunction in favour of FMCG giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and against 5 rogue websites including "Unilever1.in" on ground that their trademark and website domain is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.
The injunction was granted by Justice Jyoti Singh:
"Having heard learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
The application was preferred by the Plaintiff- Hindustan Unilever under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
27. "Sport Is Suffering": Delhi High Court Appoints Court Commissioner For Conducting Elections To Executive Committee Of Taekwondo Federation Of India
Case Title: ANISH DAS TALUKDAR (MINOR) THROUGH MS. SASMITA DAS TALUKDAR (LEGAL GARDINAN AND MOTHER) AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 414
The Delhi High Court has appointed a Court Commissioner-cum-Returning Officer for the purpose of conducting elections for the executive committee of the Taekwondo Federation of India.
Observing that the sport of Taekwondo was suffering and the genuine Taekwondo players were not getting the opportunity to represent the country, Justice Rekha Palli said:
"It would, therefore, be in the interest of the sport to direct holding of fresh elections to the executive committee of the Taekwondo Federation of India so as to enable the Union of India to take expeditious steps for recognizing a suitable federation as the National Sports Federation for the sport of Taekwondo."
The Court thus appointed retired Justice Sistani as the Court Commissioner-cum- Returning Officer for holding the elections to the executive committee, while adding that the elections will be held within a period of two months.
28. Object Of Bail Merely To Secure Attendance: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Law Student In Rash Driving Case
Case Title: K RAJAPANDIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 415
The Delhi High Court has observed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and is not to be withheld as a punishment.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that though the possibility of evidence being tampered or the witnesses being influenced has also to be kept in perspective, however, one single circumstance, cannot be treated as a universal validity or necessarily justifying the grant of refusal of bail which is largely influenced with the nature/seriousness of offence.
The Court thus granted bail to a 19 year old law student who was languishing in jail for a period of about two months, noting that the investigation was over, his custodial interrogation was not required and the chargesheet was also filed.
29. High Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi University's Decision Of Holding Upcoming Examinations In Physical Mode
Title: Vemika Verma and Others v. University of Delhi and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the decision of the Delhi University of holding the upcoming even semester examinations in May 2022 in the physical mode.
Justice Rekha Palli, who was of the opinion that it was not the stage to issue any directions, however granted liberty to the petitioners, who were students of the Delhi University, to approach the Court in case of further change in circumstances.
Accordingly, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.
The plea had challenged a notice issued by the University dated February 11, 2022 whereby it was decided that the May examination of even semester will be held in physical mode.
30. Foreign Creditors Can't Be Treated Differently From Domestic Creditors In Modern Times Of Globalization: Delhi High Court
Case Title: TOSHIAKI AIBA AS THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA v. VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 417
"In the modern times of globalization, foreign creditors cannot be treated differently from domestic creditors," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Amit Bansal observed thus while dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on behalf of the applicant (defendant no.2) seeking rejection of the plaint.
31. Re-Assessment Notice Issued To Wrong Assessee: Delhi High Court Directs National Faceless Assessment Centre To Be More Cautious
Case Title: PCJ SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(1) DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 418
The Delhi High Court has directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) be more cautious while passing the Assessment Orders.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also directed Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to ensure that any glaring mistakes do not occur in the future.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the assessment order dated 30th March, 2022 passed by National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi under sec. 147 read with sec. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and demand notice dated 30th March, 2022.
The counsel for the petitioner had stated that the facts and figures mentioned in the impugned assessment order dated 30th March, 2022 did not pertain to the petitioner.
32. Inordinate And Unexplained Delay In Rendering Arbitral Award Is Against Public Policy Of India: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Director General Central Reserve Police Force versus Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Del) 419
The Delhi High Court has ruled that inordinate and unexplained delay in rendering the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India and is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that award of damages arbitrarily and without any basis also falls foul of the public policy of India.
The petitioner Director General of Central Reserve Police Force floated a tender inviting bids. The respondent Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd. submitted its bid and was declared successful. Thereafter, the parties entered into an agreement. After certain disputes arose between the parties, the respondent invoked the agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act before the Delhi High Court for appointment of an arbitrator. A sole arbitrator was appointed by the Court to adjudicate the disputes under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The arbitrator passed an award in favour of the respondent, along with costs and interest. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act against the arbitral award before the Delhi High Court.
33. If The Contract Is Extended By The Employer, It Cannot Be Allowed To Reduce The Period Of The Extension Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
Case Title: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. IJM Corporation Berhad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 420
The High Court of Delhi has held that when the employer has granted the contractor an extension of time for a specified period, it cannot turn around to contend that the extension was only provisional and it is allowed to reassess or reduce the number of days by which the execution of the contract was executed.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjiv Sachdeva has held that once the period of the contract has been extended by the employer, it cannot be allowed to retrospectively reduce the period of the extension.
34. The Weak Financial Condition Of A Party Cannot Be The Sole Ground To Deposit Security Or Bank Guarantee: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Manish Aggarwal and Anr v. RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 421
The High Court of Delhi has held that the weak financial condition of a party cannot be the sole ground to direct the party to deposit a security or bank guarantee to secure the amount involved in the arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held merely because a party is in financial distress, it cannot be the sole ground to direct it to deposit the security when the other party has failed to satisfy the arbitral tribunal that it has a prima facie case in its favour and that the party against whom such relief is sought is trying to transfer or dispose of its assets from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to obstruct or delay the enforcement of the award.
The Court held that the purpose of Section 17 of the A&C Act is not to securitise an unsecured and indeterminate sum, therefore, the tribunal would not allow an application for direction to a party to furnish security unless the party claiming such a relief satisfies the arbitrator that it is likely to succeed in arbitration and the other party is transferring its assets intending to render the award unenforceable.
35. Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Review Of Order Giving Visitation Rights To Father Only If He Resided In Same Building As That Of Child
Case Title: KINRI DHIR versus VEER SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 422
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a review petition seeking to challenge an order giving visitation rights to father only if he resided in the same building.
Justice Kameswar Rao observed:
"In any case, this Court, while modifying the impugned order of the Trial Court dated October 28, 2021, had noted the fact that the minor child is of tender age of less than three years and it is no denial to the fact that ultimately while giving visitation rights, it is the interest of the child, which is paramount. I see no reason to entertain the petition, the same is dismissed."
This Review Petition was filed by the respondent/applicant seeking review of the order dated March 24, 2022 whereby this Court granted him visitation rights to the minor child, subject to the respondent/applicant residing in the same property. He informed the Court that he had also filed an SLP previously before the Supreme Court challenging the order to the extent of the condition i.e. allowing visitation only when he's living in the same property.
36. Arbitrator Terminating The Arbitral Proceedings Under Section 25(A) Of The A&C Act, Challenge Maintainable Under Article 227 Of The Constitution Of India: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union of India versus Indian Agro Marketing Co Operative Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 423
The Delhi High Court has ruled that since no alternate remedy is available to the claimant to challenge the order of the arbitrator terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), hence, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the said order of the arbitrator is ex facie maintainable.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar reiterated that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to recall the order passed by it under Section 25(a) of the A&C Act terminating the arbitral proceedings.
37. Convict Under POCSO Act Not Barred From Seeking Parole, Discretion Vested In Competent Authority To Grant It Under 'Special Circumstances': Delhi HC
Case Title: RAKESH @DIWAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 424
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not barred from seeking parole, as discretion has been vested in the Competent Authority to grant parole to such a convict under "special circumstances".
Justice Asha Menon added that while there is no doubt true that the Legal Services Authorities at all levels endeavour to provide excellent legal assistance to those in prison, however, to deny the convict an opportunity to engage with other counsel to enable him to make up his mind freely, as to whom he would wish to engage, would violate his constitutional rights to legal representation.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking release of the petitioner on parole for a period of eight weeks on the grounds of filing Special Leave Petition.