Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 21 To November 27, 2022

Citations [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1094 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1124]

NOMINAL INDEX

Vidhur Bhardwaj versus Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1094

Kapil Goel v. Ram Dulare Yadav 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1095

FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1096

M/s Hetampuria Tax Fab versus M/s Daksh Enterprises 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1097

JOSHINI TULI v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1098

Bimal Kothari Versus Assistant Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1099

SACHIN AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1100

Hero Fincorp. Limited versus Techno Trexim (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1101

RMSI Private Limited Versus NaFAC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1102

Hans Raj Jain v. PMO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1103

DINESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1104

AJIT KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

STATE v. MOHD. JAVED NASIR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

Tahir Hussain v. ED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

PVR Limited versus Imperia Wishfield Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

Rana Kapoor v. ED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

AMITABH BACHCHAN v. RAJAT NAGI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

HARNAM SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. vs SUJAY KUMAR & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

Michelle Camilleri & Anr. v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

DS CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS LIMITED vs NIRMALA GUPTA AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

R.K. TARUN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

Jagran Prakashan Limited vs Telegram FZ LLC & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

ATEET BANSAL v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT LTD vs DISH TV INDIA LTD & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

EMEKA EMMANUEL vs THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

MUFG Bank Versus CIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

GUNEET BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

Title: HARDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

1. Extension Of Limitation For Section 34 Application, Is Not Contingent On Merits Of Section 33 Application: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vidhur Bhardwaj versus Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1094

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the benefit of extension of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), by virtue of an application filed under Section 33, for correction and interpretation of award, would not apply solely to the parties making the request under Section 33.

The single bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the issue whether the limitation for filing a Section 34 application would run from the date of disposal of the application under Section 33 or from the date of receipt of the award, is not contingent upon the arbitral tribunal's decision on the application filed under Section 33.

2. Non-Participation Of Defendant Is Good For Compliance Of Sec 12-A Of The Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kapil Goel v. Ram Dulare Yadav

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1095

The High Court of Delhi has held that the failure of the defendant to participate in the Pre-Institution Mediation suffice the requirement of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the consent of the plaintiff for instituting the pre-suit meditation would be irrelevant if the defendant refuses to participate to take part in the proceedings.

The Court held that the only requirement for the plaintiff is to institute the mediation and the consequent Non-Starter Report with an observation that both the parties are not interested in pursing the mediation would not mean that the requirement of Section 12-A is not satisfied.

3. Delhi High Court Rejects Future Group's Plea Seeking Termination of Arbitration Proceedings With Amazon Before SIAC

Title: FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1096

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by Future Group challenging an order passed by Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) rejecting its plea seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings with e-commerce giant Amazon.

Justice C Hari Shankar clarified that the court had not expressed any opinion on merits and controversy between the parties. The court said that the arbitration proceedings may continue uninfluenced by any of the findings.

The court observed that mere fact that there is no statutory provision under which the aggrieved litigant can challenge the interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal, is not sufficient to regard the litigant as remediless against the same.

4. Acceptance Of Goods Does Not Constitute Acceptance To Arbitration Clause, Unilaterally Included In Delivery Challan: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Hetampuria Tax Fab versus M/s Daksh Enterprises

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1097

The Delhi High Court has ruled that unilaterally including a clause in the Delivery Challan would not constitute an arbitration agreement between the parties merely because the opposite party had accepted the delivery of goods and had signed the Delivery Challan certifying the acceptance of goods.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that in order to constitute an arbitration agreement, there must be a consensus between the parties. Therefore, the Court ruled that an arbitration agreement cannot come into existence by a party unilaterally issuing a Delivery Challan and the opposite party accepting delivery of the goods.

5. 'Publicity Interest Litigation, Why Should We Doubt Police?': Delhi HC Dismisses PIL Seeking CBI Probe In Shraddha Murder Case

Title: JOSHINI TULI v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1098

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking transfer of probe in the Shraddha Walkar murder case from Delhi Police to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court also said it will impose a cost on the petitioner.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the case filed by a lawyer is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation".

The court also orally remarked that the petitioner was a stranger to the matter and had filed the PIL "for obvious reasons."

6. Physical verification of business premises; GST dept failed to issue notice : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bimal Kothari Versus Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1099

The Delhi High Court has held that the GST department failed to issue the notice to the person who must be present at the time of physical verification of business premises.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the verification report, though generated, has not been uploaded, as required, in Form GST REG-30 on the common portal.

7. 'No Vested Right Of Infinite Chances To Complete MBBS Degree': Delhi HC Upholds NMC Regulation Capping Number Of Attempts To 4 In First Year

Title: SACHIN AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1100

Upholding the regulation issued by National Medical Commission (NMC) limiting the number of attempts for candidates to pass their first year (first professional examination) in MBBS course to four, the Delhi High Court has said that there cannot be a right to attempt an examination any number of times.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a batch of pleas filed by candidates who had exhausted the limit but still could not succeed.

In light of the said regulation, the candidates were prohibited from writing the exams again. The candidates thus sought another chance on the ground that they had suffered immensely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

8. Challenge Under Section 17 Of The SARFAESI Act Against Action Taken By Secured Creditor, Would Not Bar Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hero Fincorp. Limited versus Techno Trexim (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1101

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that arbitration proceedings and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) can go hand in hand.

The single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that even if a party intended to take action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), to challenge the action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI, that would not bar the initiation of arbitration proceedings by the secured creditor.

9. Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order Passed Without Issuing Draft Assessment Order

Case Title: RMSI Private Limited Versus NaFAC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1102

The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice or a draft assessment order which has been mandated under Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla has directed the department to issue a show-cause notice within four weeks.

10. PM Modi's Suit Auction: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against CIC's Refusal To Impose Penalty For Belated Supply Of Information

Title: Hans Raj Jain v. PMO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1103

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea against an order passed by Chief Information Commission (CIC) refusing to impose penalty on a CPIO for providing belated information in response to an RTI application related to auction of a suit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Calling the plea moved by one Hans Raj Jain as misconceived, Justice Yashwant Varma observed that the petitioner failed to establish a case which would have warranted the CIC to impose the penalty.

11. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Pay Over ₹16 Lakh To Senior Judge As Reimbursement For COVID-19 Treatment

Title: DINESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1104

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to pay over Rs. 16 lakhs to a senior judicial officer, who is an Additional District Judge in Saket Courts, as reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him for his COVID-19 treatment last year.

ADJ Dinesh Kumar was admitted in the city's PSRI Hospital between April 22 to June 7, 2021 after contracting COVID-19 during the second wave. He remained there on a ventilator for three weeks. While he had to pay Rs. 24,02,380 to the hospital, the government reimbursed only Rs.7,08,500 on the ground that the hospital had ignored the charges fixed by it for treatment of patients suffering from COVID-19.

12. Judicial Strictures Must Be Passed With Utmost Circumspection, Criticism May Have Devastating Effect On Professional Career Of Officers: Delhi High Court

Title: AJIT KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

Emphasizing that judicial strictures need to be passed with utmost circumspection, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that such orders are bound to have an "everlasting affect" on the reputation of the person against whom such remarks are made.

Observing that every word forming part of a judicial order forms a permanent record, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that judicial restraint as warranted by law and judicial proceedings is one of the qualities of a judicial officer.

13. 'Caesar's Wife Must Be Above Suspicion': Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of RBI Employee

Title: VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

Referring to the famous phrase - Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, the Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of an employee of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) who was accused of pilfering cancelled notes in 2005.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that a bank employee or an officer must perform the duty with absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty, so that the confidence of the public or depositors is not lost in the bank.

"As goes the popular saying – "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion". It is settled law that honesty of integrity of employees/officers working in the banks who are dealing with public money must be paramount," the court said.

14. Victim's Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Disclosing Offence Of Rape Sufficient To Frame Charges Under 376 IPC : Delhi High Court

Title: STATE v. MOHD. JAVED NASIR & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

The Delhi High Court has said a victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC disclosing the offence of rape shall be sufficient to frame charges against the accused under section 376 of Indian Penal Code.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said an accused should not merely be discharged in a rape case because the prosecutrix has not stated about the same in her FIR or during MLC.

"This is so because in offences like rape where only the victim is the witness in majority of the cases, the statement made by victim should be looked at from a considerate and liberal perspective at the time of framing charges. A statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. disclosing the offence of rape shall be sufficient to frame charges under Section 376 of IPC," the court said.

15. Delhi Riots: High Court Rejects Tahir Hussain's Plea Against Framing Of Charges In Money Laundering Case

Title: Tahir Hussain v. ED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain challenging charges framed against him in a money laundering case registered in connection with the North East Delhi riots of 2020.

Justice Anu Malhotra observed that the alleged commission of a conspiracy "even for the purpose of GST violation in order to avail money" through criminal conspiracy for using proceeds of crime to commit 2020 riots and to cause unrest, prima facie falls within the ambit of commission of a scheduled offence under PMLA.

"Apparently thus, the agreement to enter into an agreement to commit a crime, falls within the ambit of Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 falling thus, within the ambit of a scheduled offence," the court added.

16. Rights Under An Agreement Are Superseded By A Subsequent One? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PVR Limited versus Imperia Wishfield Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the arbitration clause relates to the resolution of disputes between the parties and not the performance of the contract and thus, the arbitration agreement survives even if the contract comes to an end.

The single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the issue whether the rights of parties under an agreement are superseded by a subsequent agreement or not, is itself an arbitrable issue which can be examined by the arbitrator. The Court ruled that the question whether an agreement containing an arbitration clause has been novated by another agreement, cannot be adjudicated at the time of considering a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

17. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Yes Bank's Former MD Rana Kapoor In Money Laundering Case

Title: Rana Kapoor v. ED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to Yes Bank co-founder Rana Kapoor in a money laundering case being probed by Enforcement Directorate with regard to the alleged wrongful loss of around Rs 466.51 Crores to the bank.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain allowed the bail plea filed by Rana.

An ECIR was registered against Gautam Thapar, M/s. Avantha Realty Ltd., M/s. Oyster Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and others, alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery for diversion and misappropriation of public money during the period 2017 to 2019, thereby causing losses to the tune of Rs. 466.51 Crores to Yes Bank.

18. Fake KBC Lottery, Frauds: Delhi High Court Prohibits Unauthorised Use Of Amitabh Bachchan's Photos, Voice & Other Attributes

Title: AMITABH BACHCHAN v. RAJAT NAGI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

The Delhi High Court has granted ad interim ex parte injunction in favour of veteran actor Amitabh Bachchan in a suit filed by him for protection of his publicity rights against the fake Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) lottery scam and other online frauds where his photo and voice are being misused to deceive the public.

Justice Navin Chawla observed that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the actor and against the defendants, who are various individuals and entities, allegedly violating Bachchan's personality rights.

"….I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants," the court said.

19. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Ensure Strict Compliance Of Anti-Manual Scavenging Law

Title: HARNAM SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of statutory provisions contained in Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 Act and the Rules framed under the enactment.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Delhi government to keep in mind various recommendations submitted by the Delhi Commission for Safai Karamcharis (DCSK) from time to time and take a decision within 60 days of any such recommendation being made.

The court passed the direction while disposing of a public interest litigation moved by Harnam Singh, a social activist and former Chairman of DCSK, raising concern in respect of conditions and facilities provided to various sanitation workers in the national capital.

20. As Google Ireland Refuses To Disclose Youtube User's Information Without GDPR Compliance, Delhi High Court Asks Centre About Data Protection Laws

Title: GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. vs SUJAY KUMAR & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

In a case filed by Amul for removal of the "defamatory content" targeting it on social media and video-sharing site Youtube, Google LLC has told the Delhi High Court that it cannot disclose the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of a Youtube user whose details are stored with Google Ireland.

With Google Ireland also refusing to disclose the information without following "of a legal process through Irish Courts or by way of a Letters Rogatory through the Government", the high court has sought a response from the union government on the issue.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the order dated November 21 asked a counsel representing the Centre to obtain instructions regarding existence of any 'Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty' between India and Ireland, and also regarding any recent developments on data protection laws in India.

21. Delhi High Court Paves Way For Inter Country Adoption By Foreign Couple, Orders Expeditious Completion Of Legal Formalities

Title: Michelle Camilleri & Anr. v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

Paving way for an inter country adoption by a foreign couple, the Delhi High Court on Friday directed the authorities to expeditiously conclude all legal formalities relating to adoption of a minor child with special needs, who was found abandoned in October 2019 in a cremation ground.

Justice Yashwant Varma observed that the child must be placed in the warmth of a loving family and a home enabling her to find her place in the world in the years to come.

"It is important to bear in mind that the bonds of family are not forged merely by blood but bonded by the love and care that we extend to those around us. The Court shudders at even imagining the first waking hours of Child "S" as she entered this world. Her fate thus cannot be left to the vagaries of litigation or to competing forces which seek to stake a claim upon her very existence and life, her body and soul. The Court notes that the process of adoption has stretched over three years already," the court said.

22. 'Pelse' Or 'Plus++' May Deceive Consumers, Delhi High Court Orders Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Pulse Candy In Trademark Infringement Case

Title: DS CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS LIMITED vs NIRMALA GUPTA AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

The Delhi High Court has passed a permanent injunction restraining a manufacturer from selling fruit candies with names like Pelse or Plus++ after the Dharampal Satyapal Group, which produces the famous Pulse Candy, in a suit said that such adoption of similar names by the defendants amounts to infringement.

Justice Navin Chawla also held the plaintiff DS Confectionery Products Limited entitled to damages of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. The court said the trade marks adopted by the defendants are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.

"Mere addition of the sign "++" or deletion of the alphabet "E" from the mark of the plaintiff, in my opinion, is not sufficient to bring about a distinction in the two marks, as the same would remain phonetically similar. Similarly, replacement of the alphabet "U" by "E" in the mark PELSE by the defendants would also not bring about sufficient distinction between the mark of the plaintiff and the defendants to answer the test of deceptive similarity of the two marks," said the court.

23. Fill Vacancies In Consumer Forums, Submit Report On Infrastructure Requirements Of DCDRCs, State Commission: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions for improvement of infrastructure and filling up of vacancies in State and district consumer forums.

Noting that a total of 24 posts for various categories are vacant in the district forums, Justice Pratibha M Singh directed that the same be filled up within a period of four weeks after the lifting of Model Code of Conduct in Delhi, where municipal elections are scheduled.

The court said the stenographers, who are well-versed in English language, be posted at the district forums as well as State Commission within two weeks, adding that thereafter the currently working Hindi stenographers shall be repatriated.

"It is also made clear that in future, it shall be ensured that the stenographers who are posted in the DCDRCs and State Commission, shall be those who are duly qualified in English shorthand and typing, so that the work of such fora is not impeded in any manner," the court said.

24. POCSO Act | Sexual Harassment Of A Child Is A Cognizable And Non-Bailable Offence: Delhi High Court

Title: R.K. TARUN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

The Delhi High Court has ruled that sexual harassment of a child, which is punishable under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the offence would fall within the scope of the second category of Part II of Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The said category states that if the offence is punishable with imprisonment of three years and upwards but not more than seven years, then it will be a cognizable and non-bailable offence and will be triable by a judicial magistrate of first class.

25. Delhi High Court Orders Telegram Messenger To Disclose Identity Of Users Sharing Dainik Jagran's ePaper

Title: Jagran Prakashan Limited vs Telegram FZ LLC & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

The Delhi High Court has directed the instant messaging app Telegram to comply with a 2020 order directing it to disclose the basic subscriber information of the users who unauthorisedly upload and share ePaper of Dainik Jagran newspaper in PDF in their channels.

Justice Navin Chawla took note of the submission that the issue regarding disclosure of identity of users by Telegram is no longer res integra and has been settled by a co-ordinate bench in Neetu Singh and Another v. Telegram FZ LLC and Others.

"In view of the above, the defendant no.1 shall comply with the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2020 within a period of three weeks from today. The information may be disclosed by the defendant no. 1 in a sealed cover," Justice Chawla said in the order dated November 23. 

26. High Court Directs Delhi Police To Take Action Against 'Prostitution Rings' Operating 'Under Garb Of Massage Parlours'

Title: ATEET BANSAL v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to ensure that all steps are taken to prevent prostitution rings from being operated "under the garb of massage parlours".

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation filed by one Ateet Bansal against the operation of "sex rackets or illegal flesh trade" in the national capital.

Bansal argued that sex racket businesses operating under the garb of massage parlours pose a serious threat to the safety and dignity of women. He submitted that authorities have failed to act on his complaints.

The bench took note of the Delhi Police's affidavit stating that necessary action is taken whenever an information or complaint is received regarding prostitution rackets operating under the garb of massage parlours.

27. Prasar Bharati Cannot Encrypt DD Sports: Delhi High Court, Dismisses Amazon's Plea Against Broadcast Of India-New Zealand Cricket Series On Dish TV

Title: AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT LTD vs DISH TV INDIA LTD & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

Upholding an interim order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, the Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that Prasar Bharti cannot encrypt the contents of DD Sports as long as it remains in the list of Free-to-air channels which are required to be compulsorily carried by all cable operators.

Justice Yashwant Varma said DD Sports has been made FTA by the government in exercise of powers conferred by Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and it continues to remain included in the notification dated September 06, 2013.

"Thus, even if the content in question be one which was acquired by Prasar Bharati under Section 12(3)(c) of the [Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act]1990 Act, as long as the same is aired on the DD Sports platform, it would be subject to the power that the Union Government may exercise under Section 8 of the 1995 Act," said the court.

28. NDPS Act | Recovery Made Without Compliance Of Section 50 Cannot Be Sustained: Delhi High Court While Granting Bail To Foreigner

Title: EMEKA EMMANUEL vs THE STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

Granting bail to a Nigerian in a drugs case after nearly four years of custody, the Delhi High Court has said that any recovery made without compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act "itself cannot be sustained" and no reliance can be placed on it.

"Since the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been met in the first instance, the recovery itself is under doubt. Any recovery made without compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act itself cannot be sustained," said Justice Jasmeet Singh in the order.

The court further said since the "fountainhead of the recovery" itself is missing, "I am of the view that no reliance can be placed on the recovery made from the applicant".

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has clearly opined that in case Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not complied with, the applicant is entitled to bail," Justice Singh said.

29. DTVSV Act Is A Remedial Statute; Neither A Taxing Statute Nor Amnesty Act: Delhi High Court

Title: MUFG Bank Versus CIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

The Delhi High Court has held that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) is neither a taxing statute nor an amnesty act. It is a remedial or beneficial statute.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that any ambiguity in a taxing statute ensures the benefit of the assessee, but any ambiguity in the amnesty act or exemption clause in an exemption notification has to be construed in favor of the revenue. The amnesty or exemption has to be given only to those assesses who demonstrate that they satisfy all the conditions precedent for availing of the amnesty or exemption.

30. Section 138 NI Act | Infirmity In Cheque Return Memo Does Not Render Entire Trial As Nullity: Delhi High Court

Title: GUNEET BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

The Delhi High Court has held that any infirmity in the cheque return memo does not render the entire trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as nullity.

Observing that cheque return memo is a memo informing the payee and its banker about the dishonour of a cheque, Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said if the said cheque return memo is not bearing any official stamp of the bank, it does not render the same as invalid or illegal.

31. NDPS Act | Non-Compliance Of Section 41 No Ground For Granting Bail, Rigours Of Section 37 Still Have To Be Met : Delhi High Court

Title: HARDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

The Delhi High Court has said that the question whether non-compliance of Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the process of arrest, search and seizure vitiates the trial is to be seen at the stage of trial and cannot have any bearing on grant of bail.

The court said though the authorities cannot ignore statutory rigours of the provisions especially when it causes serious prejudice to the accused, the apex court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana has said the provision of Section 41 is a discretionary measure. The Supreme Court in the 2009 ruling had said "these provisions should be taken as a discretionary measure which should check the misuse of the Act rather than providing an escape to the hardened drug peddlers."

Justice Jasmeet Singh further observed that non-compliance of Section 41 of the enactment will not absolve the accused from the rigours of Section 37, which imposes strict conditions on grant of bail.