Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 14 To November 20, 2022

Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 1078 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1093]

NOMINAL INDEX

IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1079

LT FOODS LIMITED v. SARASWATI TRADING COMPANY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1080

SHER SINGH @ RAJ BOHARA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

Tricolor Hotels Limited v. Dinesh Jain 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1082

Sandeep Singh versus Simran Sodhi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1083

UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1084

PCIT Versus PGF Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

COLLEGE OF APPLIED EDUCATION AND HEALTHSCIENCES v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1086

STAR INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR v. PIKASHOW APPLICATION AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

SUDHARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1088

STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. MOVIESGHAR.ART & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1089

Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. NTPC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1090

ABDUL MAJEED BABA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1091

ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOL v. DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) & ANOTHER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

Vikram Bhatnagar v. ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

1. Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Order Against IBIBO Group

Case Title: IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

The Delhi High Court has stayed the reassessment order against an online travel agent, IBIBO Group, and issued a notice to the income tax department.

"The Assessing Officer is permitted to pass the reassessment order, yet the same shall not be given effect to and shall be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court," the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ordered.

2. Pakistani Rooh Afza Removed From Amazon India, Delhi High Court Passes Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Hamdard Dawakhana

Case Title: HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1079

After ordering Amazon to remove the listings of Pakistan-manufactured Rooh Afza from its platform in India, the Delhi High Court has passed a permanent injunction in favour of Hamdard National Foundation (India) restraining various sellers from offering the infringing products.

Hamdard National Foundation and Hamdard Laboratories India (Hamdard Dawakhana) had earlier filed a suit against Amazon and some sellers which were offering the products of its Pakistani counterpart on the e-commerce site in India. Justice Prathiba M. Singh on September 5 had directed Amazon to remove the listings of infringing products from its Indian website within 48 hours and provide details of the sellers to Hamdard. 

3. Delhi HC Permanently Restrains Raipur Company From Selling Counterfeit 'Daawat' Products, Awards ₹25 Lakhs Damages To Basmati Rice Brand

Title: LT FOODS LIMITED v. SARASWATI TRADING COMPANY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1080

Permanently restraining a Raipur-based seller from manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'DAAWAT' branded products, the Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 25 lakhs as damages and costs in favour of the famous basmati rice brand manufacturer LT Foods Limited in a trademark infringement suit.

Justice Pratibha M Singh observed that Saraswati Trading Company, based in Chattisgarh's Raipur city, is using a "counterfeit packaging" identical to Daawat brand wherein it is selling Jawaphool Rice and portraying it as Basmati Rice.

"These are goods for human consumption. Considering the Plaintiff's reputation and the fact that 'DAAWAT' is a well-known mark in India, the suit is liable to be decreed," the court said.

4. Delhi HC Asks Registrar General To Expeditiously Explore Possibility Of Creating Software To Preserve Right To Default Bail

Title: SHER SINGH @ RAJ BOHARA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

The Delhi High Court has asked its Registrar General to expeditiously implement a 2018 verdict wherein he was requested to explore the possibility of creation of a database for district courts to ensure preservation of right of default bail of the accused.

Justice Anu Malhotra referred to the observations made in Arvind Kumar Saxena v. State wherein she had requested the Registrar General to create the database on various dates in relation to pending remand applications before the trial courts, the dates of arrest and by when the chargesheet is to be filed or has been filed.

The court in the 2018 verdict had observed that such a database or software would enable the trial courts to inform the accused appearing before them that they are entitled to the indefeasible right of default bail and may exercise the same if he or she is willing to furnish bail.

5. Period Of Limitation For The Appointment Of Substitute Arbitrator Begins On The Date Of His Recusal/Removal, Date Of Knowledge Is Irrelevant: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Tricolor Hotels Limited v. Dinesh Jain

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1082

The Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation for appointing a substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the A&C Act commences on the date of recusal/removal of the arbitrator and the date on which the fact of his removal/recusal comes to the knowledge of a party is irrelevant for the purpose of limitation.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that since Section 15 of the A&C Act does not contain any provision of limitation, therefore, the period of limitation would be 3 years as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. Doctrine Of Group Of Companies, Can't Implead Third Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sandeep Singh versus Simran Sodhi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1083

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Doctrine of Group of Companies cannot be applied to implead a non-signatory third party to arbitration, in a dispute arising between partners relating to the partnership business. The Court held that partnership in its very nature cannot be equated with a company to invoke the Doctrine of Group of Companies.

The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that if allegations raised against a party contain a criminal aspect of fraud, forgery or fabrication, which would result in penal consequences and criminal sanctions, the same cannot be referred to arbitration. The Court added that the same would be adjudicated by a Court of law, since it may result in conviction which is in the realm of public law.

7. Delhi High Court Dismisses Uddhav Thackeray's Plea Against ECI's Freezing Order On Shiv Sena Party Symbol

Title: UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1084

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea moved by Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray against Election Commission of India (ECI)'s decision to freeze Shiv Sena's 'bow and arrow' party symbol.

The ECI on October 8 directed both Thackeray and Eknath Shinde's faction to not use the name "Shiv Sena" or symbol "bow and arrow" till their rival claims for the official recognition is finally decided. For the recent Andheri East bypoll, the party factions were allotted different symbols.

While dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the ECI to adjudicate the pending dispute as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the interest of both the parties and also the public.

8. Addition/Disallowance Can't Be Made Merely On Assessee's Admission During Search: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus PGF Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

The Delhi High Court has held that the statement recorded during the course of the search, on a standalone basis, without any reference to material found during the search, would not empower the AO to make additions/disallowance merely on the assessee's admission.

"The Appellant-Revenue has not placed reliance on or even referred to any statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, 1961. No statement has been produced before this Court. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the issue does not arise for consideration unless it can be demonstrated by the Appellant-Revenue that the statements recorded under Section 132(4) disclose some incriminating material on the basis of which orders under Section 153A have been passed," the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.

9. NCTE Not Empowered To Impose Penalty, Cannot Exercise Function Of Regional Committees: Delhi High Court

Title: COLLEGE OF APPLIED EDUCATION AND HEALTHSCIENCES v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1086

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) cannot claim existence of any inherent or plenary powers, adding that a statutory authority cannot impose penalties without authority of law in absence of an express provision in the parent statute.

Observing that penalty is a statutory liability which must be provided in the legislation itself, Justice Sanjeev Narula said that except for initiation of penal action of withdrawal of recognition under section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, there is no other express penal provision specified in the statute.

10. Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of 'PikaShow' App In India, Says 'Large Amount' Of Copyrighted Content Being Streamed Illegally

Title: STAR INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR v. PIKASHOW APPLICATION AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

The Delhi High Court has ordered blocking of 'PikaShow' mobile application, observing that it is a "rogue app" which is intended "only to broadcast and stream illegal content."

Passing interim injunction against the application and its owners, Justice Pratibha M Singh directed Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue blocking orders against PikaShow app and all the domain names making it available, to ensure that it is blocked by all internet service providers (ISPs) across the country.

11. Electricity Is Essential Service, Cannot Be Denied Without Cogent, Lawful Reason: Delhi High Court

Title: SUDHARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1088

Observing that electricity is an essential service, the Delhi High Court has said that a person cannot be deprived of it without a cogent and lawful reason.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri in a judgment passed on Monday said that it is well-settled that even if disputes exist regarding the ownership of a property at which an electricity connection is sought, the concerned authorities cannot deprive the legal occupant of the same by insisting that a no objection certificate (NOC) be furnished from others, who also claim to be owners.

12. Delhi High Court Orders Suspension Of Over 700 Rogue Websites Accused Of Illegaly Streaming Film 'Bhuj: The Pride of India'

Title: STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. MOVIESGHAR.ART & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1089

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a total of 732 rogue websites from broadcasting and streaming the Ajay Devgn starrer movie "Bhuj: The Pride of India."

Directed by Bhuj Abhishek Dudhaiya, the film was released on August 13 last year. The movie relates to the Indo-Pak war of 1971 and has now been released on various online and OTT platforms.

Justice Pratibha M Singh decreed a suit filed last year by Star India Private Limited and Novi Digital Entertainment Private Limited against 42 rogue websites seeking that the websites be restrained permanently from communicating the film to the public.

13. Section 12(5) Of A&C Act Applies To Proceedings Commenced Before Or After The 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. NTPC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1090

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 12(5) that provides for grounds of ineligibility of arbitrator would apply regardless whether the notice of arbitration was given before or after the 2015 amendment came into force provided that the appointment was made on a date Section 12(5) was in force.

The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that in view of Section 12, independence and impartiality of arbitrator is a continuing requirement and any ineligible person acting as the arbitrator cannot continue merely because the arbitral proceedings began before the Section 12(5) came into force.

14. Delhi High Court Rejects JeM Militant's Plea For Transfer From Tihar To Srinagar Jail

Title: ABDUL MAJEED BABA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1091

The Delhi High Court has rejected the petition filed by a Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) militant Abdul Majeed Baba, who is serving life imprisonment in a UAPA case, for transfer from Tihar jail to his native state jail in Srinagar.

Justice Poonam Bamba however directed the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to ensure that requisite treatment and medical care be continued to be provided to Baba, who is 66 years old. Seeking transfer to Srinagar Central Jail, Baba had submitted that his health is deteriorating every day and his family members are unable to visit him from Kashmir.

Baba, a resident of Jammu & Kashmir, is lodged in a high risk ward in Central Jail, Tihar. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 123 of IPC and sections 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23 of UAPA. His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in February 2020.

15. Private Unaided Schools Have Substantial Autonomy, Rule Prescribing Fine Of Five Paise Per Day For Late Fee Not Applicable To Them: Delhi High Court

Title: ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOL v. DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) & ANOTHER

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Rule 166 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 which entitles a school to charge a student with a fine of five paise for every day for delay in payment of fees after the tenth day of the month, is not applicable to private unaided schools.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that Chapter XIII of the Rules are applicable only in relation to aided schools and not to private unaided schools. Chapter XIII of the Rules is divided in three parts — Part A (144-155, fees and other charges in aided schools), Part B (157-170, fee concessions) and Part C (Pupil's Fund Advisory Committee).

16. Assessment order passed against the dead person without bringing on record legal heirs is Void: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vikram Bhatnagar v. ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed against the dead person without bringing on record all his legal representatives is void.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the death of the assessee was duly communicated by his legal heirs. The ITR also duly disclosed that it was filed by the legal representative. However, due to a lack of knowledge of the facts on the record, the scrutiny proceedings were wrongfully conducted in the name of the deceased assessee without bringing all of his legal heirs to the record as required by law.