NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706FIROZ AHMAD v. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663 Glitter Overseas and Ors. v. MMTC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 664 Rahul Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 665 KRANTI ARORA v. DIGJAM LTD & O.P. KHAITAN (HUF) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 666 Chithra N...
NOMINAL INDEX
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706
FIROZ AHMAD v. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663
Glitter Overseas and Ors. v. MMTC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 664
Rahul Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 665
KRANTI ARORA v. DIGJAM LTD & O.P. KHAITAN (HUF) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 666
Chithra N & Ors. v. AIIMS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 667
SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 668
Court on its own motion v. DGCA & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 669
ABHISHEK RAY v. R. PAUL AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 670
Sunil Bhatia Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 671
PRADEEP KUMAR v. SMT BHAWANA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 672
MR. NEERAJ BHASIN v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 673
SARVAN KUMAR ALIAS KISHAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 674
DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 675
PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 676
SANDEEP WALIA v. MONIKA UPPAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 677
KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS THROUGH REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 678
VISHESH TANEJA v. REETA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 679
National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 680
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 681
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 682
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 683
MS X THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 684
VIPUL AGGARWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 685
SMT USHA RANI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 686
HARJI ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 687
RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. HIS EXCELLENCY LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 688
TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 689
NITIN REKHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 690
MS. M VICTIM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 691
Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equipments Litd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 692
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 694
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 versus M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 695
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 696
JAGBIR v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 697
HINA & ANR. v. THE STATE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 698
NOVI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. W1.123MOVIES11.COM & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 699
SATYANARAIN KHANDELWAL v. PREM ARORA And other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 700
UNITED SIKHS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 701
HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT v. SHRI BRAHM SHAKTI PRINCE BEVERAGES PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 702
KUSHAL ANAND v. MANDHIR SACHDEVA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 703
JINDAL KUMAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 704
NATCO PHARMA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 705
Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 73-1 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706
1. High Court Cannot Exercise Jurisdiction Under Article 227 To Monitor Progress Of Cases Before Fora Below: Delhi HC
Case Title: FIROZ AHMAD v. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663
The Delhi High Court has observed that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by High Courts to monitor the progress of cases before lower courts.
"It is not possible for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to monitor the progress of cases before the fora below," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 seeking a direction to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to decide a case expeditiously, preferably on day-to-day basis and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
2. The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Glitter Overseas and Ors. v. MMTC Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 664
The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High CourtThe High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the challenge to an arbitral award is dismissed by the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not mean that the court has concurred with the view of the arbitral tribunal.
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru the Court held that merely because a different view was taken in another arbitration and the challenge against the award was dismissed by the Court would not mean that the Court had concurred with the view of the tribunal. The decision of the Court not to interfere with the award cannot be held to be a binding precedent as the court has not decided the questions of law and facts on the merit of the case but merely dismissed the challenge because of the grounds under Section 34 were not met.
3. SpiceJet Mishaps: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking To Stop Company's Flying Services, Says DGCA Competent To Take Action
Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 665
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation raising safety concerns and seeking to stop flying services of Spice Jet Limited, in view of recent flight mishaps in the past two months.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"The Aircraft Act provides for a very robust mechanism in respect of the aviation industry and this Court cannot stop an airline to operate in the Country based upon the averments made in the PIL."
Moved by Advocate Rahul Bhardwaj, the plea had referred to seven incidents, three in May, two in June and two in the month of July wherein many of the Spice Jet flights encountered mishaps.
4. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Plaintiff Being 'Dominus Litis' Can't Be Compelled To Fight A Person Against Whom He Does Not Claim Any Relief: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: KRANTI ARORA v. DIGJAM LTD & O.P. KHAITAN (HUF)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the plaintiff in a suit, being 'dominus litis', cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief.
A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Sudhir Kumar Jain observed,
"Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance."
5. MSc Nursing Admissions | AIIMS Can't Prescribe Eligibility Criteria That Nullifies Recognition Granted By Indian Nursing Council: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Chithra N & Ors. v. AIIMS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 667
The Delhi High Court has held that there is no rational basis behind the classification created by AIIMS among candidates aspiring for admission into its M.Sc. (Nursing) course, merely on the basis of the mode of learning their graduate course.
It noted that the degrees of candidates who have undertaken B.Sc. (Post Basic) through distance mode are recognized by UGC as well as the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and that they have the requisite eligibility qualification for seeking admission to M.Sc. (Nursing) at AIIMS.
It held that the AIIMS Act cannot be expanded to include the power to override or disregard the qualification recognized by INC.
6. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Stop Jailed Legislators From Voting In Presidential Election 2022
Case Title: SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 668
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking deletion of names of the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) who are languishing in jail due to some pending cases or those decided against them so that they do not participate in the voting process for the Presidential Election 2022, scheduled for today.
While dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjeev Narula said that he will be passing an appropriate order later.
The plea was filed by one Satvir Singh, a 70 years old self employed carpenter, who had furnished a Nomination Form for conducting elections for the post of President. The same was however rejected by the Election Commission of India.
7. Delhi High Court Asks DGCA To Periodically Review Guidelines Concerning Wearing Of Face Masks In Flights
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. DGCA & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 669
The Delhi High Court has asked the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to periodically review its guidelines concerning wearing of face masks in flights, while also adhering to the guidelines issued by the Government of India on COVID-19 protocols.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of an application filed by Bridging The Gap Foundation through Advocate Somnath Bharti seeking impleadment in a a suo moto case registered by the High Court following the experience of Justice C. Hari Shankar while taking an inland flight.
It was noticed that the norms are not being implemented on ground with the seriousness with which they are framed.
8. Delhi High Court Decrees Copyright Ownership Suit Filed By TV Music Composer Abhishek Ray Against Showtime Events
CASE TITLE: ABHISHEK RAY v. R. PAUL AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 670
The Delhi High Court has held that the original producer, lyricist and composer of a music album is entitled to a decree of declaration to that effect.
A single judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh thus granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of TV music composer Abhishek Ray, claiming rights over music album 'Kamasutra - Moods of Love'.
Ray had approached the High Court against Showtimes Events (India) Pvt. Ltd., run by defendants R. Paul and Michael Menezes.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff was the original composer, lyricist, producer and author of various songs contained in the album 'Kamasutra- Moods of Love'. The defendants approached the Plaintiff and agreed to produce an international musical incorporating the music compositions contained in the plaintiff's album.
9. Bhushan Steel Case: Delhi High Courts Grant Bail To CA For Alleged Negligence In Stock Audit
Case Title: Sunil Bhatia Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 671
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a chartered accountant for alleged negligence in stock audit.
The single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the ex-promoters/directors and similarly situated chartered accountants have been granted bail, so there is no reason why the applicant should be treated any differently.
The applicant is a senior citizen and a chartered accountant by profession. The applicant has filed an application seeking a grant of bail.
The allegation against the applicant was that he was a chartered accountant and one of the partners at ASRN & Associates failed to perform his duty independently and diligently by not verifying the stock in transit. The applicant is accused of being in collusion with the office bearers of M/s Bhushan Steel Limited.
10. Denial Of Maintenance To Estranged Wife & Child Is Worst Offence From Humanitarian Perspective: Delhi High Court Imposes 20K Cost On Husband
Case Title: PRADEEP KUMAR v. SMT BHAWANA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 672
"To deny maintenance to an estranged wife and child is the worst offence, even from a humanitarian perspective," the Delhi High Court has observed on Monday.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dismissing with a cost of Rs. 20,000 a petition filed by a husband challenging Trial Court order directing him to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 as a consolidated amount towards interim maintenance to the wife and child till the disposal of the matrimonial matter.
"The malafide intentions of an estranged husband is to depress his income as much as possible, for sadistic pleasure, of seeing the agony of someone, who has no choice, but to be dependent on him, may be dictated by egoistic propensity to also possibly teach his wife a lesson for not falling in line with whatever be his dictates. Matrimonial relationships can come to an end for a variety of reasons including ego clashes. It is time that there is a change in the attitude when litigation is filed by one spouse against the other," the Court observed.
11. Senior Citizen May Claim Right Of Exclusive Residence Even If 'Right' Or 'Interest' Is Lower Than An Exclusive Ownership Right: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MR. NEERAJ BHASIN v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 673
The Delhi High Court has observed that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a senior citizen may claim a right of exclusive residence even though he or she may only be able to establish a "right" or "interest" in such property, even if such right or interest be lower than an exclusive ownership right.
"Ultimately, the authorities under the Act are obliged to take into consideration the mental and physical well-being and security of the senior citizens and pass appropriate orders of protection bearing in mind the predominant purpose of the Act," Justice Yashwant Varma added.
12. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Incarcerated For 7 Yrs Over Alleged Recovery Of 21 Kg 'Ganja'
Case Title: SARVAN KUMAR ALIAS KISHAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men who were incarcerated for about 7 years and 2 months for having been allegedly found in possession of 21 KGs of 'ganja'.
Justice Asha Menon noted that the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence was 10 years rigorous imprisonment whereas, both the men were incarcerated since 26th May, 2015 i.e. for 7 years and 2 months.
"A certain latitude is possible in the present case," the Court said while granting bail to Sarvan Kumar and Ranjeet Kumar in an FIR registered under sec. 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
13. Employee Not Entitled To Seek Permanency Or Regularisation Of Service If Continued On Ad Hoc Basis For Decades: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 675
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an employee will not be entitled to seek permanency or regularization of service even if he has continued on ad hoc basis for decades.
"It is also settled law that even if a Scheme has been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for decades, it would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation," Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed.
The Court was dealing with a plea concerning an advertisement issued by Delhi High Court dated My 25, 2011 inviting applications for filling up the positions of "System Officer" and "System Assistants" to be deployed in subordinate courts.
14. Coal Allocation Per Se Does Not Amount To "Proceeds Of Crime" Under PMLA: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 676
Observing that the allocation of coal cannot be viewed as proceeds of crime per se, the Delhi High Court has observed that only the gains that may be obtained from criminal activity which are concealed or projected to be untainted can form the subject matter of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Yashwant Varma was of the view that it cannot be said that the allocation of coal is property as contemplated under the Act.
"It is pertinent to note that the Act essentially seeks to confiscate properties and assets that may be derived or obtained from criminal activity and which may then be concealed. It is thus evident that it is only gains that may have been obtained by the utilization of the allocation which could have possibly been viewed as proceeds of crime," the Court said.
The Court also observed that the commission of a predicate offense is the precipitate step for initiation of proceedings under the Act and that the offense of money laundering must be tried and established separately.
15. S.125 CrPC | Parties Often Don't Disclose Their Actual Income, Maintenance May Be Granted Considering Their Status & Lifestyle: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SANDEEP WALIA v. MONIKA UPPAL
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 677
The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial disputes, it is seen that parties often don't disclose their actual income to the court, purportedly to avoid the liability of maintenance. Thus, it is open for the Court to determine maintenance based on their status and lifestyle.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed,
" Even experience shows that actual income is normally not disclosed by the parties. Under such circumstances, it is always safe to come to a realistic conclusion considering the status of the parties and their lifestyle etc."
The observation was made wherein the husband had challenged an order of the Family Court West, partly allowing his wife's application under Section 125 CrPC and granting Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance.
16. Threshold For Extending Exclusive Rights To Shape Of A Product Quite High In Trademark Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS THROUGH REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 678
The Delhi High Court has observed that in the law of trade marks, the threshold for extending exclusive rights to the shape of a product, is quite high.
"The shape by itself should immediately be identifiable with the source of the product. For trade mark registration of shape of a product, the same can only be granted if it has acquired a secondary meaning," Justice Pratibha M Singh added.
The Court was of the view that for trade mark registration of shape of a product, the same can only be granted if it has acquired a secondary meaning.
"Generally, the novel shape of a product which has aesthetic appeal is protectable under the law of designs, if the requisite conditions are satisfied. However, under the law of trade marks, the threshold for extending exclusive rights to the shape of a product, is quite high. The shape by itself should immediately be identifiable with the source of the product," it said.
17. S.125 CrPC | Object Of Maintenance Is To Compel Man To Perform Moral Obligation Which He Owes To Society Regarding Wife & Children: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VISHESH TANEJA v. REETA
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 679
The Delhi High Court has observed that the provision of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for maintenance, is intended to fulfil a social purpose and that its object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by a husband against a Family Court order whereby an application under sec. 125(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent wife, was partly allowed.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent were husband and wife. After their marriage, matrimonial disputes crept up and they started living separately.
18. Delhi High Court Stays Ban On Levy of Service Charge by Restaurants on Food Bills
Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 680
Delhi High Court has stayed CCPA guidelines that prohibited hotels and restaurants from levying service charges on bills.
The said regulations instituted by the CCPA for the prevention of unfair trade practices and protection of customer interest state that-
"...Service charge is being levied in addition to the total price of the food items mentioned in the menu and applicable taxes, often in the guise of some other fee or charge. It may be mentioned that a component of service is inherent in the price of food and beverages offered by the restaurant or hotel. Pricing of the product thus covers both the goods and services component. There is no restriction on hotels or restaurants to set the prices at which they want to offer food or beverages to consumers. Thus, placing an order involves consent to pay the prices of food items displayed in the menu along with applicable taxes. Charging anything other than the said amount would amount to unfair trade practice under the Act."
19. CPC Contemplates Execution Of A Foreign Decree And Not An Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The High Court of Delhi has held that remedy before the foreign arbitral tribunal would not be inefficacious when the bulk of the assets of a party are located in India as the interim order in a foreign-seated arbitration is not enforceable under the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula also held that an interim award passed in arbitration with seat in India is enforceable under Section 17(2) of the Act, however, there is no provision in the Act for the enforcement of an interim order passed in a foreign seated arbitration, therefore, any meaningful interim relief related to assets located in India can only be granted by Indian Courts.
The Court also observed that an application for interim relief qua the assets located in India would not be efficacious before the seat court as well as its order can also not be directly enforced under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It observed that CPC only contemplates execution of a foreign decree and not an order.
20. Application Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act For Pre-Award Relief Can Be Filed In A Court Where The Assets Of The Respondent Are Located: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 682
The High Court of Delhi has held that an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act for pre-award relief can also be filed before the Court where the assets of the respondent are located.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the Court for the purpose of Section 9 application in a foreign seated arbitration would be as provided under Section 47 of the A&C Act.
The Court held that not every disposal of an asset would justify the grant of interim measure. It further observed that financial condition alone cannot be the reason for attachment before the award.
21. Non Applicability Of Section 9 Of The A&C Act Can't Be Presumed If Parties Opted For Foreign-Seated Institutional Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, they cannot be presumed to have entered into an agreement to exclude the applicability of Section 9 of the A&C Act as provided under the proviso to Section 2(2) of the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula held that the words "an agreement to the contrary" appearing under Section 2(2) cannot be presumed or interpreted on the mere assertion of a party but the same must be clearly borne out of the agreement between the parties.
22. Forcing Pregnancy Would Permanently Scar Her Psyche: Delhi High Court Permits Minor Rape Survivor To Terminate 26 Weeks Pregnancy
CASE TITLE: MS X THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 684
The Delhi High Court has permitted a minor victim of sexual assault to terminate her pregnancy of 25 weeks and 6 days old pregnancy.
Justice Yashwant Varma, while noting that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act deals with pregnancies which may only extend upto 24 weeks, highlighted that in exceptional situations, the Court could invoke its extraordinary powers to permit for such termination, even when the provisions of the Act, when strictly construed, may not sanction the same.
"This Court is of the firm opinion that if the petitioner was forced to go through with the pregnancy despite the same having been caused on account of the incident of sexual assault, it would permanently scar her psyche and cause grave and irreparable injury to her mental health. The Court cannot visualize a more egregious invasion of her right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution."
23. Failure To File Income Tax Return | Prosecution U/S 276CC IT Act Not Permissible Without Previous Sanction Of Appropriate Authority: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: VIPUL AGGARWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 685
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 276-CC (Failure to furnish returns of income) of the Income Tax Act, except with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner/appropriate authority.
A single judge bench of Justice Asha Menon held,
" Since the law provides that without sanction u/s 278B of the IT Act, the Department cannot proceed against a person found liable to prosecute him for the offence under Section 276 CC of the IT Act, the present prosecution must fail qua the petitioner. In the absence of a specific sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, the learned ACMM could not have taken cognizance of the complaint against him and then framed charge against him. The edifice built without foundation must crumble. "
24. Reason Is The Soul Of Justice, Authority Exercising Judicial Or Administrative Powers Must Pass Speaking Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SMT USHA RANI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 686
Observing that reason is the soul of justice, the Delhi High Court has said that any order passed, whether in the exercise of judicial or administrative powers vested in the authority, must be speaking.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that an order disposing of an application necessarily requires recording of reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at in the order and failure to give reasons tantamount to denial of justice.
"In fact, the insistence on recording of reasons is meant to further the principles of natural justice, and specifically for ensuring that justice must not only be done but it also be seen to be done... Recording of reasons also operates as a legitimate restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative power by any authority and as such is a facilitator of Rule of Law," the Court said.
25. Mere Extension Of Bank Guarantee Does Not By Itself Extend Claim Period : Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: HARJI ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 687
The Delhi High Court has held that the invocation of a bank guarantee has to be done in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantee, or else, the invocation itself would be bad.
A single judge bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao further observed that where the terms of bank guarantee provide a period 90 days from the date of expiry of the defect liability period as provided in the contract, invocation of bank guarantee after expiry of such period is not permissible, merely on account of extension of bank guarantee.
26. High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Clean & Hygienic Milk Supply To Delhiites As A Fundamental Right
Case Title: RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. HIS EXCELLENCY LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking clean and hygienic supply of milk to Delhiites as a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was apprised by counsel appearing for the petitioner that the cattle in the city were dying on roads and were feeding on polythenes.
The plea, which had sought directions on the Court to advise the LG as well as Commissioner of Police for ensuring clean supply of milk, had claimed that the abandoned and pathetic condition of cattle was affecting the health of city residents for the reason of cattle feeding on contaminated polythene food and sewage water.
27. Broadcaster Must Bear In Mind Minimum Precautions While Airing Content Which May Disturb Sensibilities Of Prudent Viewers: Delhi High Court
Case Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 689
The Delhi High Court has observed that a professional broadcaster is expected to bear in mind the minimum precautions which must be exercised while broadcasting content which may cause distress and disturb the sensibilities of an "ordinary and prudent viewer".
Justice Yashwant Varma made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by TV Today Network Limited challenging an order issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in March this year imposing the penalty of warning under Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
The development related to a broadcast aired by the India Today channel in February last year showing an incident of an elephant being mercilessly beaten by its caretakers.
28. S.2(31) Companies Act 2013 Which Defines 'Deposit' Does Not Operate Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: NITIN REKHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 690
The Delhi High Court has held that there cannot be retrospective application of Section 2(31) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014.
A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that for issues that had arisen with respect to a share purchase agreement in 2010, the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules of 1975 shall be applicable.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner paid Rs. 40,00,000/- to the Directors of Respondent Company for issuance of shares in the said company. The Respondent failed to allot the shares as promised and returned the money to the Petitioners. It is alleged that the Respondent Company failed to repay the interest accrued on the amount in question as per Rule 17 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, which imposes a penal interest of 18% per annum on the deposits accepted by a private company from the public.
29. Judiciary Not Immune From Criticism But Action Must Be Taken When Based On Distorted Facts To Intentionally Lower Court's Dignity: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MS. M VICTIM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 691
While observing that Judiciary is not immune from criticism, the Delhi High Court has observed that such criticism cannot be based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments to intentionally lower its dignity and respect.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, who was dealing with an appeal raising allegations against Trial Court and High Court judges, issued notice to the counsel appearing for the appellant to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
"There is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but several Judges of this Court. This vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief. An unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing and unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court," the Court said.
30. The Arbitrator Cannot Award A Lumpsum Amount As Against Specified Claims Without Adjudicating The Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equipments Litd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The High Court of Delhi has held that an award wherein a lumpsum amount is awarded against the specified claims without adjudication of the claims is unsustainable.
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award a lumpsum amount against specified claims of a party merely to meet the ends of justice.
The Court also held that an application under Section 34(4) of the A&C Act would not be allowed to clarify the amount of damages when the same is not based on any calculation.
The Court further held that an arbitral tribunal cannot also summarily reject the counter-claim of a party merely because they are belated as long as they are raised within the limitation period.
31. Definition Of "Public Authority" Under RTI Act Has No Application In Service Dispute: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 694
The Delhi High Court has observed that the definition of 'public authority' as contained under sec. 2(h) of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has no application in a service matter.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with an application under sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved in regular second appeal pending before it.
The application, moved by on Rakesh Kumar Sharma, sought initiation of criminal proceedings against Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Private Limited, for committing perjury as per the averments made in its counter affidavit.
32. Explanation To Section 14A Of Income Tax Act Will Not Apply Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 versus M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Explanation to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, added vide the Finance Act, 2022, cannot be presumed to be retrospective in nature since it is clarificatory in nature and alters the law as it stood earlier.
The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. versus CIT (2005), the amendment to Section 14A, which is "for removal of doubts", cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even if such a language is used, since it alters and changes the law as it prevailed before.
33. No Section 40(a)(ia) Disallowance In Case Of Short Deduction Of TDS: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi High Court has held that no disallowance under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is called for in the case of a short deduction of TDS and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) has to be based on cogent material or reasoning by the Assessing Officer.
34. Merely Because Sexual Abuse Results In Tying Of Knot Between Victim & Accused Or Birth Of Child Does Not Mitigate Act Of Rape: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JAGBIR v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 697
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because an act of sexual abuse results in tying of knot between the victim and the accused or in birth of a child, it does not mitigate the act of rape. It added that the consent of a minor is immaterial and inconsequential in law.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that the act of claiming consent of the minor by accused, after luring such minor and entering into physical relationship, cannot be treated in a routine manner for the reason that rape is not only a crime against the victim but against the entire society which leaves little option for minor child "but to toe the line of the accused."
35. Lives Of Consenting Adults Living Together As Husband & Wife Cannot Be Interfered With By Third Parties, Their Families: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HINA & ANR. v. THE STATE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 698
"Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family," the Delhi High Court has recently observed.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela further added that the State is under a Constitutional obligation to protect its citizens especially in cases where the marriage is solemnized between two consenting adults irrespective of the caste or community.
"The Constitutional Courts under our framework are empowered to pass orders to protect the citizens specially in the cases of the nature to which the present dispute pertains. Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family. Our Constitution ensures it too. It is not only the duty of the State but also its machinery and the agencies which ensure law and order to ensure that no harm comes to the citizens of this country," the Court said.
36. Delhi High Court Closes Suit By Hotstar Against Rogue Websites Over Unauthorized Telecasting Of 'The Big Bull Film'
CASE TITLE: NOVI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. W1.123MOVIES11.COM & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 699
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a suit by Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., operating the online video streaming platform Hotstar, filed against various rogue websites apprehending illegal and unauthorized telecast of 'The Big Bull' film before its release last year.
While the movie was slated for theatrical release on 8th April, 2021, the suit was filed on 22nd March 2021 seeking an injunction blocking various rogue websites.
Justice Pratibha M Singh, who decreed the suit after observing that it has served the purpose, ordered thus:
"Considering the nature of the present suit that was intended to protect the Plaintiff's investment in the film 'The Big Bull' and to ensure that no unauthorised online telecast of the film takes place, the suit has served its purpose. All the rogue websites have been blocked and domain names have also been de-activated."
37. Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
Title: SATYANARAIN KHANDELWAL v. PREM ARORA And other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 700
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that it cannot be said that there is any lack of clarity or ambiguity in sec. 19 of the 2018 Amending Act which categorically states that its provisions will apply to cases relating to commercial disputes filed on or after the date of commencement of the Act, i.e. May 3, 2018.
38. Individual/Organization Seeking To Provide Legal Aid To Victim Can't Be Denied Meeting But They Shouldn't Create Law & Order Situation: Delhi HC
Case Title: UNITED SIKHS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 701
The Delhi High Court has observed that any individual or organization cannot be denied meeting with victim for providing necessary legal aid and assistance, if so required by the victim, to ensure delivery of justice and fair trial.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that the said proposition however comes with a caution that such meetings must not be used inappropriately for creating any "law and order" situation or arousing the emotions of a particular community in an adverse manner, thereby disturbing the public tranquillity or likely to cause breach of peace.
39. Delhi High Court Awards ₹30 Lakh Damages To Hungarian Company In Trademark Infringement Suit Over 'HELL' Energy Drink
CASE TITLE: HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT v. SHRI BRAHM SHAKTI PRINCE BEVERAGES PVT LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 702
The Delhi High Court on Thursday decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Hungarian company seeking protection of its trademark 'HELL' used for energy drinks. The court also directed the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.30 lakh to the Plaintiff as costs and damages.
The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the Defendants were using the mark 'HELLxxx' in respect of energy drinks. It was mentioned that a pervious suit was filed by the Plaintiff wherein the Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction. Two Local Commissioners were also appointed in the said matter who seized large amounts of infringing products from the premises of the Defendants. The parties had, thereafter, settled their disputes and had entered into a settlement agreement.
40. Article 227 Confers Supervisory Jurisdiction, High Court Cannot Consider Such Submissions That Were Not Raised Before Court Below: Delhi HC
CASE TITLE: KUSHAL ANAND v. MANDHIR SACHDEVA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 703
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Article 227 of the Indian Constitution does not confer appellate jurisdiction on the High Court. An implicit corollary is that the manner of exercise of its jurisdiction by the court or forum below cannot be gauged on the basis of submissions which were never advanced before it.
A single judge bench of Justice Hari Shankar observed that the power conferred on the High Court by Article 227 is a power of superintendence and not a power of judicial review.
41. Subjecting Citizen To Police Scrutiny, Verification Of Personal Docs Without Any Reason Serious Invasion Of Right To Privacy: Delhi High Court
Title: JINDAL KUMAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 704
The Delhi High Court has observed that subjecting a citizen to police scrutiny including verification of personal documents for no good reason would entail a serious invasion of his right to privacy.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by a complainant seeking directions on the Delhi Police to make enquiry for correct identification of private person, after both the parties indulged in a quarrel.
It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent in the kalandra proceedings was using different names and identities and therefore the police must fix his true identity.
The plea thus sought directions on the Delhi Police to make an enquiry in respect of Adhaar Cards, Voter Cards, Driving License and Pan Cards existing in the name of various names allegedly being used by the respondent individual.
42. Pre-Grant Opponent Cannot Be Kept In Dark About Developments In Examination Process Of Patent Application: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: NATCO PHARMA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 705
The Delhi High Court has held that the proceedings in a pre-grant opposition and simultaneous examination of a patent application cannot result in a situation where the pre-grant opponent is kept in dark about the developments taking place in the examination process of a patent application.
A single judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh observed,
"For example, when amendments are filed by the Applicant, an immediate decision ought to be taken on allowing or disallowing the amendment so that there is transparency and clarity as to what are the claims being considered by the Controller. A short and brief order should be passed in respect of the amendments which should be uploaded on the website of the Patent Office so that everyone concerned would know the decision on the amendment. In any event, if an amendment is being carried out during the pendency of a pre-grant opposition, the ruling on the amendment ought to be sent to the pre-grant opponent as well."
43. Tax payment Software Has To Be Tailor-Made According To The Legal Rights Of The Taxpayers: Delhi High Court
Title: Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 73-1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706
The Delhi High Court has held that the tax payment software has to be tailor-made according to the needs, aspirations, and legal rights of the taxpayers and not that the taxpayers' legal rights have to be tailor-made in accordance with the software being used by the Tax Department.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that as the petitioners have paid the taxes, they should be given credit for the challans paid on Form 3 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act (DTVSV Act). The order/communication rejecting credit of taxes deposited under the DTVSV on the hyper-technical ground that challans have been deposited under the minor head '200' instead of '400' is unfair, illegal, and contrary to the objective of enacting the DTVSV Act.