Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: March 7 To March 13, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 172 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201

NOMINAL INDEX

Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 172

Mujeeb Ur Rehman v. Registrar General, Delhi HC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 173

Kurz India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174

Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi Versus Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 176

Kailash Gahlot Vs. Vijender Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 177

BHAGWATI TRANSFORMER CORP. AND ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 178

SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY v. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 179

DEVINA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 180

PURAN CHAND GUPTA & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 181

SHRI ASHOK PANWAR & ANR v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 182

AMARJEET SINGH DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 183

Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Versus Gracemac Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184

DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 185

CAPT SIMRANJIT SINGH SAMBHI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 186

DIGAMBER JAIN MAHILA ASHRAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 187

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 Versus M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 188

ROSHAN LATA ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 189

Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 190

NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 191

X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 192

Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 193

Amit Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 194

La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195

ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 196

AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. v. LAMINA SUSPENSION PRODUCTS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 197

MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 198

ANJANI GUPTA v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 199

DHRITIMAN RAY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 200

DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. DR. KRATI MEHROTRA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201

JUDGMENTS/ ORDERS

1. Delhi High Court Dismisses Alapan Bandyopadhyay's Plea Challenging CAT's Order Transferring His Case To Delhi From Kolkata

Case Title: Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 172

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea filed by Former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay, challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which had transferred his petition filed before the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh while pronouncing the order today observed that it sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the disciplinary proceedings including competence of the Central Government to issue charge sheet.

2. "Considering Issue On Administrative Side": Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking To Adopt 'Virtual Hearings' As A Norm

Case Title: Mujeeb Ur Rehman v. Registrar General, Delhi HC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 173

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking to adopt virtual court hearings as a norm across all the Courts in the national capital.

The petitioner, Mujeeb Ur Rehman, stated that virtual court hearings are extremely convenient and time saving, hence, the Court should consider adopting it as a norm in all district courts as well as the High Court.

However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that the issue is being considered at the administrative side and thus, it sees no reason to entertain the PIL at this stage

3. "Considering Issue On Administrative Side": Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking To Adopt 'Virtual Hearings' As A Norm

Case Title: Kurz India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that the reason to believe was invalid, had no rational nexus to the belief for escapement of income and there was no fresh material on record to initiate reassessment proceedings.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has opined that the reasoning "the contingent liability has been claimed as revenue expense" is contrary to the concept of contingent liability which is only required to be disclosed by way of a note in accordance with the requirement of applicable Accounting Standards.

4. Application For Compounding Of Offence Under Section 276CC Income Tax Act Cannot Be Rejected If Conviction Is Set Aside By The Special Judge:Delhi HC

Case Title : Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175

A Bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, has ruled that an application seeking compounding of the offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be rejected on the ground that the Assessee had not been acquitted of the criminal charges, if his conviction with respect to the given offence has been set aside by the Special Judge, CBI.

The Assessee had filed an application before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CCIT(A)) seeking compounding of offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said application was rejected by the CCIT (A) on the ground of expiry of limitation period and the conviction of the Assessee by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi.

Thereafter, the Assessee had filed an appeal against the order of the ACMM before the Special Judge, CBI who had set aside the conviction order and had directed the ACMM to consider the fresh documents filed by the Assessee and pass a fresh order. Simultaneously, the Assessee had filed an application before the CCIT (A) seeking review of the order rejecting the application for compounding of offence, which was rejected by the CCIT (A) on the ground that the conviction of the Assessee was still open for adjudication and that he had not been acquitted of the criminal charges.

The Assessee had filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against the impugned order of the CCIT (A) rejecting the review application.

5. Application For Compounding Of Offence Under Section 276CC Income Tax Act Cannot Be Rejected If Conviction Is Set Aside By The Special Judge:Delhi HC

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi Versus Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 176

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in an appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 there can be no interference with the finding of fact if it involves re-appreciation of the evidence.

The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, held that if a particular receipt has been disclosed in the income and expenditure account, the same cannot be considered as unaccounted income in the hands of the Assessee and be subject to proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.

6. 'Opposition Has Right To Question Govt Actions': Delhi HC Refuses Temporary Injunction In AAP Minister Kailash Gahlot's Defamation Plea Against BJP MLA

Case Title: Kailash Gahlot Vs. Vijender Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 177

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot, who sued BJP MLA Vijender Gupta for allegedly making defamatory remarks about him over procurement of 1,000 low-floor buses.

Gupta had alleged that Gahlot had committed corruption in awarding the tender for maintenance of DTC buses to Tata Motors and JBM Auto Ltd and was aware of the entire terms and conditions of the tender, however, he chose to object to the said tender only after it was awarded.

Following this, Gahlot moved the High Court seeking damages of Rs. 5 crores for defaming him and causing loss to his reputation. Apart from this, mandatory injunction was also sought to immediately delete all the defamatory posts made against him on Twitter and Facebook.

7. 'Opposition Has Right To Question Govt Actions': Delhi HC Refuses Temporary Injunction In AAP Minister Kailash Gahlot's Defamation Plea Against BJP MLA

Case Title: BHAGWATI TRANSFORMER CORP. AND ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 178

The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the order passed by Excise Department of the Delhi Government, prohibiting discounts on MRP of liquor by retail licensees in the national capital.

Justice V Kameswar Rao pronounced the order on interim applications filed by L7Z liqour licensees in the city.

The Single Judge heard at length Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sajan Poovayya for the Petitioners. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rahul Mehra appeared for the Delhi government on advance notice.

The petition is filed in the backdrop of the new Delhi Excise Policy approved in June last year by the Delhi government for the year 2021-2022. This policy sets out the framework for various aspects pertaining to the liquor business.

8. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Pharmacy Council of India's Moratorium On Opening Of New Pharmacy Colleges For Five Years

Case Title: SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY v. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 179

Dealing with a batch of 88 petitions, the Delhi High Court has set aside the imposition of a moratorium issued by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) on opening of new pharmacy colleges for a period of five years with effect from the academic year 2020-21.

A single judge bench of Justice Prateek Jalan was dealing with the petitions challenging communications dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 addressed by the PCI to State Governments and Union Territory Administrations.

Vide impugned letter dated 17.07.2019, the decision of imposition of moratorium was communicated by PCI taken at its meeting held on 09.04.2019. The said letter dated 09.09.2019 conveyed the resolution providing certain exemptions to the aforesaid moratorium.

9. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Pharmacy Council of India's Moratorium On Opening Of New Pharmacy Colleges For Five Years

Case Title: DEVINA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 180

The Delhi High Court has ordered for postponement of the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2022, as also the date of receiving of applications, while dealing with a plea challenging the upper age limit (of 32 years) for appearing in the exam.

A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a petition filed by a practicing advocate namely Devina Sharma, intending to appear in the examination.

Sharma sought relaxation in the upper age limit for the exam. While the last date of submission of application was March 20, the preliminary exam was scheduled for March 27.

10. Society Free Of Caste Based Discrimination Will Remain A Distant Dream Unless SC ST Act Provisions Are Enforced In True Letter & Spirit: Delhi HC

Case Title: PURAN CHAND GUPTA & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 181

The Delhi High Court has observed that unless the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are enforced in their true letter and spirit and the legislative intent underlying the Act is manifested, the vision of a society free of caste-based discrimination will only remain a distant dream.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed praying for quashing of an FIR bearing registered under sections 3(1)(r) and (3)(1)(s) of the Act.

Touching upon the legislative intent behind the SC ST Act, the Court said the object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied their civil rights.

"Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out whenever a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations, and harassment," the Court said.

11. Mere Pendency Of Title Suit No Ground To Disentitle Person From Obtaining Electricity Connection When In Possession Of Property: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHRI ASHOK PANWAR & ANR v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 182

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere pendency of a Title Suit would not be a ground to disentitle a person from obtaining an electricity connection in their name, particularly, in view of the fact that such person is in possession of the subject property.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a plea seeking a direction to BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to grant a fresh electricity connection in the name of either of the two petitioners at a shop in property in question.

12. Employee In Transferable Job Has No Vested Right To Remain Posted At One Place, Courts Should Not Readily Interfere With Transfer Order: Delhi 

Case Title: AMARJEET SINGH DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 183

Emphasising that an employee in a transferable job has no vested right to remain posted at one place, the Delhi High Court has said that Courts should not readily interfere with the transfer order which is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.

A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla added that if the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government or its subordinate Authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to the public interest.

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking to set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.

13. Amount Received Under Distribution Agreement Of Computer Software Not 'Royalty' If No Right To Transfer Copyright: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Versus Gracemac Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an amount received under a distribution agreement with respect to a computer software did not amount to 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the agreement does not create a right to transfer the copyright with respect to it.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, had observed that in view of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited versus the Commissioner of Income Tax (2021), the said issue was no longer res integra.

14. "Complete Impersonation": Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order For Blocking Websites Illegally Using 'DABUR' Trademark

Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 185

Granting interim relief to Dabur India Limited, the Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of certain websites (John Doe) illegally using 'DABUR' domain name. "The attempt is to not merely infringe and pass off, but to indulge in complete impersonation," it observed.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that DABUR India Limited made out a prima facie case for the grant of ex-parte injunction and the balance of convenience was also in it's favour.

"Irreparable loss would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ex-parte injunction is not passed in favour of the Plaintiff. The loss to the public is also incalculable," the Court said.

The order is John Doe since the owner name of the impugned domain names is hidden.

15. "Process Of Law Being Used As A Tool For Settling Personal Scores": Delhi High Court Quashes Rape FIR

Case Title: CAPT SIMRANJIT SINGH SAMBHI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 186

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered by a woman alleging rape by a man at multiple occasions after noting that the prosecutrix was in a long term relationship of four years with him and that the FIR was only filed after the said relationship ended on hostile terms.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Section 376(2) (n), 354, 354A of Indian Penal Code.

In the complaint, the woman stated that she was in a relationship with the Petitioner for three years and when she was told by the Petitioner that he was a divorcee, she was shocked. It was stated that the Petitioner had promised to marry her while he was in a relationship with someone else and that he went to her house, abused and assaulted her.

16. CPC | Amendments To Pleadings Must Be Sought Within A Reasonable Time, Not To Stall Trial Itself: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DIGAMBER JAIN MAHILA ASHRAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 187

The Delhi High Court has observed that the amendments to pleadings must be sought by the party concerned within a reasonable time and should not sought to be introduced so as to stall the trial itself.

Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a plea challenging the order dated 13 February 2019 in terms of which the Estate Officer had rejected the applications made by the petitioners for amendment and for the issuance of interrogatories.

The Estate Officer was ceased of proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 19711. The proceedings started after the cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents on 11 January 2001. 

17. Appeal U/S 260A Of Income Tax Act Can't Be Entertained Except On The Ground Of Perversity/Lack Of Evidence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 Versus M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 188

The Delhi High Court bench consisting of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh has dismissed the appeal against the deletion of income tax addition for share or bogus purchases or cash deposits and held that appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act cannot be entertained by High Court except on the grounds of perversity or for the complete lack of evidence.

The appellant/department challenged the order of ITAT on the grounds that ITAT has failed to take into account the true import and effect of the statement made by an accommodation entry provider who had denied having made any investment in the assessee. The statement pointed in the direction that the money which had ostensibly been invested in the assessee in the form of share capital or share premium were unaccounted funds of the assessee routed through accommodation entry providers.

18. Delhi High Court Orders Videographed Autopsy Of India's Palestine Envoy Mukul Arya On Mother's Plea Alleging Foul Play

Case Title: ROSHAN LATA ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 189

A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court to immediately constitute a panel of doctors from the AIIMS hospital for conducting a Post Mortem and Autopsy on IFS Mukul Arya, India's representative to Palestine who was found dead in his office premises in Ramallah last week.

Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for the Central Government, on instructions, informed the Court that the Ministry of External Affairs will faciliate the autopsy to be conducted at AIIMS as prayed for by the family.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the prayer to conduct autopsy of the deceased's body and ordered that the autopsy be videographed.

The plea was thus disposed off with liberty to the petitioner approach the court again in case of any grievance.

19. Delhi High Court Directs DMRC To Pay Decretal Amount Of Over Rs 6K Crores To DAMEPL In 2 Instalments By May 31, 2022

Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 190

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to pay the decreetal amount to Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) in latter's plea seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017 in two installments by May 31, 2022.

The Court directed that part-payment must be paid within two weeks.

DAMEPL submitted that the the gross decreetal sum along with interest up to 14.02.2022 computed in accordance with the arbitral award is Rs. 8009.38 crores. Out of the said amount, only a sum of Rs. 1678.42 crores has been paid so far by DMRC. Thereby, as on 14.02.2022, the remaining decreetal amount payable with interest is Rs.6330.96 crores [Rs.8009.38 crores - Rs. 1,678.42 crores].

20. Kalkaji Temple Redevelopment: Delhi High Court Asks State To Consider Providing Alternate Accommodation To Evicted Jhuggi Dwellers

Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 191

The Delhi High Court has observed that wherein a land is being used for public purposes, if occupants of jhuggis or slums are evicted, it is the State's objective to provide them alternative accommodation after conduct of requisite surveys and collection of data.

Justice Pratibha M Singh reiterated the said observation while dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple.

While the Court had earlier clarified that none of the occupants who are in illegal occupation of the temple premises can remain in possession, it noted that there were some jhuggi dwellers and Dharamshala occupants who had not vacated the said premises.

21. "Wife Filed Unsubstantiated Criminal Complaint Against Husband, His Family Causing Immense Mental Cruelty": Delhi HC Dissolves Marriage

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 192

The Delhi High Court has dissolved marriage between a couple living separately for 12 years taking note of the fact that the wife had filed an unsubstantiated criminal complaint against the husband and his family members which caused them immense mental cruelty and agony.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Bench was of the view that there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties and that the marriage was irretrievably broken down. It also noted that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the matrimonial bond and the insistence to continue the relationship would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties.

22. Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Middleman Christian Michel In AgustaWestland Case

Case Title: Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 193

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail applications filed by Christian James Michel, facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with Augusta Westland case. The bail pleas were moved in July last year.

Justice Manoj Ohri pronounced the order today after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph for Michel, Advocate DP Singh for CBI and ASG SV Raju for the ED. Detailed order is yet to be uploaded.

The CBI has opposed Michel's bail saying that he is a British national not having roots in India, and is at flight risk. It was also stated that he acted as a middleman, received money pursuant to certain contracts concerning the scam, and is not cooperating in the investigation.

23. 'What About Those Who Commit Offences At Advance Age?': Delhi HC Refuses To Entertain PIL For Premature Release Of Old Aged Prisoners

Case Title: Amit Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 194

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking premature release of old aged and infirm prisoners in terms of recommendations made by Mulla Committee (1980-83) and the Model Prison Manual (2003).

While expressing disinclination to even issue notice in the matter, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna remarked,

" This is a policy decision. People sometimes commit offences at an advance age, what about them? They have to remain in prisons."

The plea was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, stating that the aforesaid recommendations were made in larger perspective of the prisoners' welfare, keeping in view the overall objective of protecting the society and rehabilitating the offenders. They make provision for specialized treatment of women, old aged and infirm prisoners compatible with dignity of life. However, such recommendations are not implemented by Delhi Jails.

24. Challan Can Be Rectified To Correct Bonafide Errors: Delhi High Court Directs VAT Dept. To Allow Changes in Tax Period

Case Title: : La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195

The Delhi High Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to allow rectification of bonafide errors in the tax period of the challan.

The petitioner submitted that in respect of the second quarter of 2015-2016, i.e., from 1.07.2015 to 30.09.2015, the petitioner filed its returns on 31.03.2017. The VAT liability for the period was Rs. 7,87,038/-whereas the liability under the CST Act was Rs. 37,381/-. The petitioner deposited Rs. 10,44,118 towards DVAT and Rs. 37,381 towards CST through challans, and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 2,58,912 was deposited in excess for the second quarter of 2015-2016.

25. West Bengal Coal Scam Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, His Wife Seeking Quashing Of Summons

Case Title: ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 196

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea by All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife seeking quashing of summons issued to them by Enforcement Directorate in connection with West Bengal coal scam case.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar also dismissed the plea by Banerjee's wife Rujira Banerjee assailing the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate against her in the money laundering case and the Trial Court order taking cognizance of the said complaint. The plea also assailed the subsequent issuance of summons against her for physical appearance.

The CBI had registered an FIR in respect to alleged offences of illegal mining and theft of coal from the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Ltd committed in the state of West Bengal by certain individuals. Pursuant to this, ED has registered an ECIR in the Head Investigative Unit located in New Delhi.

26. 'Prima Facie Infringement Of Common Law Rights': Delhi HC Grants Ex-Parte Injunction In Trademark Infringement Suit By 'VOLVO'

Case Title: AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. v. LAMINA SUSPENSION PRODUCTS LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 197

Granting interim relief to owners of registered trademarks 'VOLVO' and 'FMX', the Delhi High Court has restrained Lamina Suspension Products Limited from using the the said trademarks or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar to it, in relation to leaf springs and other parts used in the heavy vehicles or other goods or services, including on its websites, social media accounts and other third party websites.

Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction to the plaintiffs who offered a wide spectrum of transportation related products and services with a strong foothold in luxury buses and related services.

27. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe In DMRC-DAMEPL Agreement For Allegedly Siphoning Off Public Money

Case Title: MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 198

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a 2008 agreement between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) alleging siphoning off public money.

Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain was dealing with a plea filed by Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma seeking a direction to CBI to register an FIR under Sections 409, 420, 120B of IPC read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to investigate and prosecute the accused persons for allegedly siphoning off the public money under the garb of illegal and void ab initio agreement dated 25th August, 2008.

28. Prima Facie Appreciation Of Evidence & Application Of Judicial Mind Must For Summoning Order To Be Just And Legal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ANJANI GUPTA v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 199

The Delhi High Court has observed that while issuing summons, a prima facie appreciation of evidence coupled with application of judicial mind needs to be carried out for a summoning order to be just and legal.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC against the impugned order dated 17th March, 2018 passed in a Revision Petition arising out of Summoning Order dated 20th June, 2015 passed in a case registered under Section 380 of IPC.

The marriage between the Petitioner and the son of the Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30th January, 1990 and the relationship between the couple was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time.

29. High Court Directs Delhi University To Devise Mechanism For Issuance Of Attested Marksheet Manually To Students In Urgent Need

Case Title: DHRITIMAN RAY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 200

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University to put in place a mechanism so that in case of any urgency, a student can write an email to the concerned Dean of Examinations who shall then consider the said request and issue the attested marksheet or transcript manually within a period of 5 working days.

Justice Pratibha M Singh issued a slew of other directions in a bunch of pleas filed by students of the University of Delhi studying various courses who graduated in the year 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

The petitions were filed in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic with a grievance that the petitioners were unable to get original degree certificates and transcripts issued from the University. The Petitioners had approached the Court as there was an unreasonable delay in the issuance of the transcripts and the degree certificates.

30. Woman Entitled To Maternity Benefits As Long As Conception Occurs Before Tenure Of Contract Executed Between Her & Employer Expires: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. DR. KRATI MEHROTRA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201

The Delhi High Court has observed that as long as conception occurs before the tenure of the contract executed between a woman-employee and her employer expires, she should be entitled to maternity benefits as provided under Maternity Benefits 1961 Act.

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh observed that the Act seeks to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for given periods before and after child-birth, and, in particular, endeavours to provide for maternity benefit.

"Clearly, the provisions of the 1961 Act seek to invest a woman with a statutory right to take maternity leave and seek payment for the period that she is absent from duty on account of her pregnancy, albeit in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 Act," the Bench said.