Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part IV [Citations 901 - 1216]

Medeor Hospital Ltd. Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

DR RAVI M NAIR & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. v. MARUTI METALS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

DR. ZAFARUL ISLAM KHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

KMA Caterers v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. General Manager Northern Railways 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

BRIJ MOHAN SEHGAL v. PANKAJ SANGHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1033

SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1034

ANIL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

Samata Party v. ECI & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1036

Saurabh Bhardwaj v. Delhi Police & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1037

Vinod Kumar v. State and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

SUMIT DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

FDC LIMITED v. NILRISE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

Babu Khan vs Union Of India & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL v. UOI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

Sotkon SP SLU v. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

M/S. M.M. TRADERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

Srishtii Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. SDMC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

M/s Sequoia Fitness and Sports Technology Pvt. Ltd. versus GD Goenka Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

Commissioner of Income Tax versus Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

SUJATA CHAUDHRI v. SWARUPA GHOSH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

Axis Trusteeship Services Limited v. Brij Bhushan Singhal & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

MANISH GUPTA vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

ASHU & ORS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

SAROJINI NAGAR JHUGGI JHOPRI VIKAS SAMITI v. SHRI SURESH KUMAR & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

SUNITA v. PREMWATI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. A U Small Finance Bank Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

Bharat Foundry and Engineering Works v. Intec Capital Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

Pratap Singh vs The State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

AMARJEET SHARMA v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

VIPIN SINGH v. STATE AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

NEHA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

Deepak Kapoor Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

VIVEK PURWAR AND ANR. v. HARI RAM AND SONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

Hariom v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1068

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

SHER MOHAMMAD v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (SDMC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

SURESH KUMAR v. CP & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

RAJIV CHAKRABORTY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF EIEL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

DHANALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

AK vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PCIT Versus PGF Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vikram Bhatnagar v. ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

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

Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

RK vs State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

DELHI WAQF BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS vs ASMITA SACHIN WAMAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Virat Saxena 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

NEETU SINGH vs TELEGRAM FZ LLC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

ITC LIMITED vs CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

SHISHRAM AS GUARDIAN OF MR. KAWAL vs BAL BHAVAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

Javed vs State NCT Of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HONBLE LG OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

Web Overseas Limited versus Universal Industrial Plants Manufacturing Company Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

RAMESH KAUSHIK v. STATE OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

Rahul Jain v. Atul Jain, ARB. P. 539 of 2017 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

SUSHIL KR. JAIN( ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1147

SHWETA v. GNCTD AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1148

Spectrum Power Generation Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

PCIT Versus Simon India Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1152

Ram Kumar v. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. FAO (COMM.) 60 of 2021. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1153

SANJAY PANDEY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1154

JOLLY SINGH v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1157

UMESH BABU vs JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1158

POWER INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1159

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Khanna Paper Mills Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1161

Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1162

M/S BANK OF BARODA & ANR vs MAHESH GUPTA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

SHIV VINAYAK GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1164

ADITI GOSWAMI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

SADIQ ALIAS SAHIL v. STATE OF NCT DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1166

NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY vs GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1167

Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

VINOD KUMAR v. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

Union of India v. RCCIVL-LITL (JV) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1170

Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt Ltd versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1171

ABHISHEK AGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

WORLD PHONE INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1173

MUKESH SHARMA vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1174

MANISH LENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1175

Brilltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1176

BRIJESH GUPTA vs SMT SAROJ GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1177

BAJRANG v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1178

MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT LTD MMT & ANR. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1179

Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1180

RAMESHWAR JHA v. THE PRINCIPAL RICHMOND GLOBAL SCHOOL & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1181

LAXMAN THAKUR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1182

UDDHAV THACKERAY v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1183

C.A. SANJAY JAIN v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1184

PRAVEEN YADAV AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1185

PCIT Versus PEC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1186

Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

Always Remember Properties Private Limited versus Reliance Home Finance Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1188

Super Blastech Solutions v. Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1189

Geo Chem Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1190

RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1191

INDIAN PILOTS GUILD & ANR v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1192

Umesh v. State (and other connected matters) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1193

VIJAY AGRAWAL THROUGH PAROKAR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1194

PRAVEEN GARG v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1195

AADESH KUMAR AND ORS. v. SH. AMIT SINGLA AND ANR. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1196

Gorang Gupta v. GOVT. OF NCT & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1197

RANAJIT ROY v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1198

SUCHITA SHRIVASTAVA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1199

GULAM MAHABUB v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1200

MAN MOHAN PATNAIK v. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL INDIA PVT.LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1201

D.S. CHEWING PRODUCT LLP & ORS. v. FOOD SAFETY OFFICER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1202

AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1203

HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR v. SADAR LABORATORIES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1204

Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. The Cabinet Secretary Government of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1205

ReNew Hans Urja Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1206

Rajinder Kumar Versus State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1207

M/s. Vallabh Textiles Versus Senior Intelligence Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1208

DLF Ltd. versus IL&FS Engineering and Construction Company 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1209

Welspun One Logistics Parks Fund I versus Mohit Verma & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1210

STATE v. DENIS JAUREGUL MENDIZABAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1211

National Highways Authority of India v. Lucknow Sitapur Expressway Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1212

ZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LTD. v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1213

YOGESH PARIHAR v. DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1214

PCIT Versus Pawa Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1215

SIDDHARTH RAO v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1216

Admission of Appeals As A Condition Precedent To Be Eligible For Settlement Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Is Contrary To Law: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Medeor Hospital Ltd. Versus PCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) FAQ No. 59 of Circular No.21/2020 dated December 4, 2020, which contemplates admission of appeal before the filing of declaration as a condition precedent for the appeal to be treated as pending and eligible for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSV Act) is contrary to law.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that Section 10 of the VSV Act gives power to the CBDT to issue directions, yet Section 10 is similar to Section 119 of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the CBDT under Section 10 of the VSV Act cannot issue circulars adverse to the assessee.

Homoeopathy Effective But Expert Bodies Like ICMR Best Judge Of Medical Protocol In Pandemic: Delhi High Court

Title: DR RAVI M NAIR & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

Dismissing a public interest litigation seeking directions for permitting homoeopathic treatment of mild COVID-19 cases, the Delhi High Court Tuesday said expert bodies like Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) are the best judge to decide and accord approval in respect of medical protocol.

"It is not for the Courts to comment upon the medical protocols and the guidelines framed on the subject which are, in fact, issued after great research on the subject," the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Observing that COVID-19 infections have almost come to an end, the court said it does not find any reason to allow the relief prayed for by two homeopathic physicians, seeking directions for allowing treatment of mild COVID-19 cases with Homeopathic medicines alone and for severe cases to critical cases, as add-on therapy with allopathic medicine in hospitals, if desired by the patient.

Delhi High Court Orders Delisting Of Cookware With 'Amul' Name From Online Platforms

Title: GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. v. MARUTI METALS & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

The Delhi High Court has ordered delisting of the cookware, being sold by a businessman under 'Amul' name, from the e-commerce platforms in a trademark infringement suit filed by the manufacturers of popular dairy brand Amul.

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed Maruti Metals, the cookware and pressure cooker manufacturer, to write to the e-commerce platforms selling its products for removal of its listings.

The suit was filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited seeking permanent injunction against Maruti Metals from manufacturing and selling its products under their well known trademark 'AMUL', claiming that the same was deceptively similar to their registered trademark, which is in use for milk and other products since 1958.

Increase In Salary Of Statutory Body's Office Bearers A Policy Decision, Courts Should Not Interfere Unless Manifestly Arbitrary: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. ZAFARUL ISLAM KHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

The Delhi High Court has observed that increase in salaries of office bearers of a Commission is a policy decision of the State and the courts should refrain from interfering with the same unless it is found to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Dr. Zafarul Islam Khan, former Chairman of Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC), for retrospective implementation of a notification dated 09.06.2021 regarding increase in salary and allowances of the Chairperson and office bearers of the DMC. A single bench had earlier dismissed his petition.

Arbitration Proceedings Against IRCTC; Delhi High Court Rejects Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator

Case Title: KMA Caterers v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

The High Court of Delhi has held that the designation of Zonal Offices as the 'venue' of arbitration would not make it the 'seat' of arbitration when the meaningful dealings related to the contract happened at the Headquarters of a party.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that venue would not become the seat when the tender documents, the process of award of tender, licence fees, signature and execution of the agreement and the jurisdiction of Court all happens to be on a place other than the venue.

The Court further held that the procedure for appointing the sole arbitrator from the panel of arbitrators maintained by the Employer would be hit by Section 12(5) of the Act.

A Party Cannot Be Made To Nominate Its Arbitrator From A Narrow Panel Of 4 Arbitrators Consisting Of Retired Officers Of The Other Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. General Manager Northern Railways

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel of arbitrator with only four names to choose from does not satisfy the concept of neutrality of arbitrators. It held that a narrow panel comprising of retired employees of a party creates a reasonable apprehension of bias and partiality.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the contractor cannot be made to choose its nominee arbitrator from a panel of only four names and that too when the final choice of appointing its nominee arbitrator is vested on the Employer.

The Court held that an arbitrator clause, whereby the contractor is made to choose two names from a panel of four arbitrators and the final authority of choosing the nominee arbitrator from the two names given is vested on the employer, is invalid in law. It further held that the names on the panel should not be the employees or ex-employees of one of the parties.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Action Against Former Director Prosecution, Says Transfer Orders Won't Attract Criminal Consequences

Title: BRIJ MOHAN SEHGAL v. PANKAJ SANGHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1033

The Delhi High Court has observed that the competent authority's decision to order transfers and postings of employees would not attract criminal consequences under the Indian Penal Code.

"The transfers and postings even if thought to be arbitrary by the Competent Authority would not attract criminal consequences under Sections 166, 405 or Section 409 of IPC. An arbitrary act may not necessarily amount to a criminal offence punishable under Indian Penal Code," said the court.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observations in her judgment upholding the orders passed by an Additional Sessions Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case filed by Brij Mohan Sehgal, a Public Prosecutor in Delhi's Directorate of Prosecution against former Director of Prosecution, Pankaj Sanghi.

'Unfortunate Trend': Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Builders Resorting To Dilatory Tactics, Defrauding Homebuyers

Title: SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1034

Highlighting the issued faced by various homebuyers in the country, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that it is an "unfortunate trend" that builders often resort to dilatory tactics, defraud homebuyers by selling units to multiple individuals, delay the execution of projects, and execute projects without requisite sanctions.

"Invariably most of such builders also undergo insolvency. The greatest loss is incurred by innocent homebuyers who are not only forced to embroil themselves in litigation but are also divested of their hard-earned savings," said the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.

'Cannot Claim Protection For Supplying False Information': Delhi High Court Rejects BSF Constable's Plea Against Dismissal For Non-Disclosure Of FIR

Title: ANIL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

The Delhi High Court has upheld a dismissal order passed against a man, who was appointed as a constable in the Border Security Force (BSF), over "non-disclosure and wrong disclosure" of an FIR registered against him when he was a minor.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said the petitioner had been giving false information since the very beginning — when he filled the form at the time of applying for the post in BSF, when he was yet to commence his training and thereafter once again when he gave a reply to the show cause notice after joining.

The court said it finds it extremely hard to believe that he was unaware of the FIR or the proceedings emanating therefrom as he certainly would have been a party to those at every stage.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Samata Party's Appeal Against Allotment of 'Flaming Torch' To Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena

Title: Samata Party v. ECI & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1036

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Samata Party challenging a single judge order which last month rejected its plea against allotment of flaming torch symbol to Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena by Election Commission of India (ECI) for the Andheri East bypoll in Maharashtra.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea after hearing the counsel appearing for Samata Party as well as the ECI.

Delhi High Court Closes PIL On Vandalism Outside CM Kejriwal's Residence, Directs Police To Ensure Implementation Of Security Measures

Case Title: Saurabh Bhardwaj v. Delhi Police & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1037

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation filed by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Saurabh Bhardwaj seeking an SIT investigation into the incident of attack and vandalism outside the official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on March 30.

Bhardwaj had alleged that the violence was done by "goons of the Bharatiya Janata Party" under the garb of protest.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was informed by Bhardwaj's counsel that the grievances raised in the plea stand satisfied in view of the assurances given by the Delhi Police in various status reports submitted before the court.

Delhi High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Three Men Who Raped Minor In 2011, Rejects Prayer For Remission

Title: Vinod Kumar v. State and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to three men for raping a minor girl in 2011. The class X student, who was first raped by a relative, was subsequently raped by two strangers, who had offered her help when she was walking on road after escaping from her relative's house.

A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal dismissed the appeals filed by the three men, who were convicted on December 15, 2018 and were awarded life sentences.

While one of the convicts (relative of the minor girl) was convicted under Sections 366, 376 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, the other two persons were convicted under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 34 of the Code.

Employer's Right To Utilize Employee's Services On Promotion Can't Be Curtailed By General Guidelines On Routine Transfers: Delhi High Court

Title: SUMIT DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right of an employer to utilize the services of an employee upon promotion cannot be curtailed by general guidelines issued for regulating annual or routine transfers.

Justice Rekha Palli also accepted the argument that even if the transfer of an employee, who is in a transferable job, is in violation of executive guidelines, court must not normally interfere with such transfer unless a ground of mala fide is made out.

The court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by one Sumit Dagar who had joined the Airport Authority of India (AAI) on July 18, 2011 as a Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control). He was holding a post of Assistant Manager before his promotion in July this year.

Test For Comparing Trademarks Of Medicinal Products Far Stricter As Any Confusion Would Result In Public Injury: Delhi High Court

Title: FDC LIMITED v. NILRISE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

The Delhi High Court has said that the test for comparison of two trademarks related to medicinal products needs to be far stricter than the one applied to other goods, as any confusion in the same would result in public injury.

Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while granting ad interim injunction in favour of FDC Limited, a pharmaceutical company, in its trademark infringement suit against Nilrise Pharmaceutical Limited, seeking protection of its registered mark "ZIPOD".

Each Individual With Paranoid Schizophrenia Has To Be Dealt With Differently: Delhi High Court, Sets Aside Compulsory Retirement Of RPSF Constable

Title: Babu Khan vs Union Of India & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

Directing the authorities to reinstate a Constable of Railway Protection Special Force who was compulsorily retired in 2014, the Delhi High Court on Thursday said people with Paranoid Schizophrenia by and large are neither harmful to people nor a threat to the society.

The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said each individual suffering from the illness has to be dealt with differently "just like each doctor prescribes different medicines to different patients suffering from similar disease(s)".

"But, yes, they may, in a fit of rage, be a danger for some time. Those again depend upon the conditions, situations and surroundings prevalent then and most of all the gravity of the illness involved and may not, by and large, be present in all cases," said the court.

Are Philatelic Exhibits Like Postage Stamps 'Antiquities' Under Antiquities And Art Treasures Act? Delhi High Court Answers

Title: AJAY KUMAR MITTAL v. UOI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

The Delhi High Court has held that philatelic exhibits of postage stamps, fiscal stamps, envelopes, stamp papers and other such documents, are "antiquities" within the meaning of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

Noting that philately is a hobby of the "discerning connoisseur" who appreciates the intrinsic value of vintage stamps and other such documents, Justice C Hari Shankar observed that such exhibits are articles, objects or things of historical interest within the meaning of section 2(1)(a)(I)(iv) of the Act.

The said provision defines antiquity as any article, object or thing of historical interest.

"In fact, though a select group of collectors may take the trouble to collect such exhibits, their inherent and intrinsic historical value far transcends the covers of the albums that such collectors may maintain. They are, therefore, ex facie ―antiquities within the meaning of Section 2(1) (a)(I)(iv)," the court said.

Patent Infringement: Delhi High Court Says Garbage Bins Installed In Gujarat's Gandhinagar In Violation Of Interim Injunction

Case Title: Sotkon SP SLU v. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

The Delhi High Court has said that a Mumbai-based company is prima facie guilty of contempt for continuing to supply garbage bins to Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation, in violation of an interim injunction granted by it last year in favour of Sotkon, an international waste management company.

Hearing a patent infringement suit filed by Sotkon last year, the court in the interim order had restrained the defendant Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited from infringing Sotkon's registered patent, after the global company had argued that the Mumbai-based company misused the photographs of its products, drawings and illustrations from the its brochure and also copied the technical specifications of its products while submitting a bid in response to a tender notice floated by the Gandhinagar municipal body in 2020 for installation of smart underground bins.

Consumers Must Know Whether Fruit Or Vegetable Ripened Artificially: Delhi High Court Asks FSSAI To Frame Guidelines

Title: M/S. M.M. TRADERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

The Delhi High Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to consider framing a regime whereby fruits and vegetables which are ripened artificially by using ethylene gas or other artificial ripeners should have a "necessary indication" placed on it.

A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju asked the FSSAI to draw up a broad framework which takes into account all kinds of artificial ripeners so that the consumer is made aware of the fact that the fruit or vegetable has been ripened artificially.

The counsel representing FSSAI told the court that the matter will be deliberated upon and the guidelines will be placed before the court.

Delhi High Court Condones Delay In Payments Under VSV Due To Covid and Death Of Managing Director

Case Title: Srishtii Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

The Delhi High Court, while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has condoned the delay in payments under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) due to COVID and the death of the managing director of the company.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the power to condone the delay with regard to delay in payment is not vested with the departmental authorities, yet this Court, under its inherent powers in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass any order necessary to remedy the injustice.

Use Of Word 'Mediation' In Arbitration Clause Is Immaterial, Clause Does Not Lose Its Character : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. SDMC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

The Delhi High Court has held that nomenclature of an arbitration clause is immaterial when all the elements are present.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that an arbitration clause would not loose its character merely because the word 'mediation' has been used as its nomenclature. It held that, in construction of a contractual clause, the Court should be guided by the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than by the nomenclature employed. The Court expounded on the essential elements of an arbitration clause.

Arbitration Agreement "Exists" Only When It Is Enforceable In Law And Meets The Statutory Requirements Of A&C Act And Contract Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Sequoia Fitness and Sports Technology Pvt. Ltd. versus GD Goenka Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a mere exchange of communication is not sufficient to show that the parties are at ad idem with respect to an arbitration agreement, when none of the correspondence exchanged between the parties made any reference to an agreement containing an arbitration clause.

The Single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that the petitioner had failed to show any positive act of the opposite party, depicting acceptance of the terms of the agreement containing an arbitration clause.

Expenses Towards Advertisement, Brokerage And Commission, Incurred By A Real Estate Developer; Deductible As Revenue Expenditure: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax versus Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

The Delhi High Court has ruled that advertisement expenses, Software Developing Charges, and expenses towards brokerage and commission, incurred by a real estate developer, are in the nature of general administration cost and selling cost, as classified by the Guidance Note issued by the ICAI. Thus, they qualify for deduction as revenue expenditure.

The bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the dispute involving the year of deduction, which was sought to be postponed by the revenue department, was revenue neutral, having no tax affect and that it did not put the revenue department at any disadvantageous position.

'Higher Standards Of Probity Expected From IPR Lawyers': Delhi High Court Restrains Kolkata Law Firm From Using Identical Logo

Title: SUJATA CHAUDHRI v. SWARUPA GHOSH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

The Delhi High Court has said that there is a duty cast upon the legal professionals, particularly Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) lawyers, to ensure that they do not imitate or adopt a name or logo already used by others offering similar services.

"This Court is of the opinion that higher standards of probity would be expected, from lawyers and legal professionals especially IPR lawyers, inasmuch as there is a duty cast upon them to ensure that they do not imitate or adopt a name or logo which is already in existence or in use by another person or entity, offering similar services," Justice Pratibha M Singh said.

The court made the observations in its interim order in a suit filed by a Delhi-based IP lawyer Sujata Chaudhri, the proprietor and founder of a IP law firm Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys. Chaudhri has sued Swarupa Ghosh, a Kolkata-based lawyer, for adopting an almost identical logo for her chamb

Interim Moratorium Under Section 96 IBC Is Limited To Particular Guarantor, Will Not Protect Other Personal Co-Guarantors Of Same Debt: Delhi HC

Case Title: Axis Trusteeship Services Limited v. Brij Bhushan Singhal & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

The Delhi High Court recently held that the interim moratorium under section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) is specific to all debts of a particular debtor and will not be applicable to other personal co-guarantors.

Delhi High Court Rejects Sci-Hub Founder's Application Seeking Withdrawal Of Admission Accepting Copyright Ownership Of Publishers

Title: ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

The Delhi High Court has rejected Alexandra Elbakyan's application seeking withdrawal of an earlier admission accepting the copyright ownership of publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society in an ongoing lawsuit.

Elbakyan is the founder of the shadow library website Sci Hub and had made the admission in her written statement to the suit filed by major publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley India, Wiley Periodicals and American Chemical Society. In their suit against online repositories Sci-Hub and Libgen, the publishers have said the websites indulge in online piracy by making their literary work available to the public for free.

Rejecting the application seeking amendment in the written statement, Justice Navin Chawla said the amendment is not in nature of a clarification or an explanation to the admission made in the written statement but seeks a complete withdrawal of the said admission.

Forums Under Senior Citizens Act Not Required To Give Categorical Findings On Civil Rights: Delhi High Court

Title: MANISH GUPTA vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

The Delhi High Court has said that forums created under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are "neither obliged nor placed under a duty" to render categorical findings with respect to the civil rights which are claimed by parties.

"The primordial consideration of those proceedings is to safeguard the interest of the senior citizens and to ensure that they are not harassed or ill-treated in their twilight years," said Justice Yashwant Varma.

Candidates Belonging To Reserved Categories In Any State, UT Entitled To Reservation In Delhi Subordinate Services: Delhi High Court

Title: ASHU & ORS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

The Delhi High Court has held that all the candidates belonging to reserved categories as notified by a Presidential Order in any state or union territory would be entitled to reservation benefit in Delhi subordinate services.

"If a candidate is able to furnish a certificate of belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – which may otherwise be issued only by the competent authority where such a candidate is ordinarily resident – he cannot be denied the benefit of reservation as specified under the Notification."

Delhi High Court Awards ₹20 Lakh To Louis Vuitton In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Club Factory

Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 20 lakhs costs in favour of French luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton Malletier in its trademark infringement suit against Club Factory, a China-based e-shopping website which was banned in India in 2021.

Though the suit was decreed on March 24 when a permanent injunction was granted against the Chinese website and now it was listed for ex-parte evidence in respect of the relief of damages, Louis Vuitton's counsel on November 03 told the court that "owing to certain sensitivity", the plaintiff only wishes to press for costs in the matter.

The luxury brand placed on record the bill of costs and claimed Rs.32,29,416.

Provision Of Appeal Under Contempt of Courts Act Is Extremely Limited And Regulated: Delhi High Court

Title: SAROJINI NAGAR JHUGGI JHOPRI VIKAS SAMITI v. SHRI SURESH KUMAR & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

Observing that the provision of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is extremely limited and regulated, the Delhi High Court last week said the maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 is dependent upon a contemnor being guilty or punished under the law and in no other case.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said an order rejecting a petition for contempt is not open to challenge as an appeal lies only when the court has exercised the power to hold a contemnor guilty.

"In other words, denial of an order not holding a contemnor guilty or punishing a contemnor, is not appealable under Section 19 of the Act," said the court, adding that for an appeal to be maintainable under Section 19 of the Act there has to be a definite finding against a contemnor, or else there cannot be any right to appeal.

Court Can Compel Lawyer To Conclude Cross Examination On Same Day Only In Rarest Circumstances: Delhi High Court

Title: SUNITA v. PREMWATI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

The Delhi High Court has said that a court cannot compel a lawyer to conclude cross examination on the very day it starts, except in rarest of circumstances.

"While it is open to a Court to jettison irrelevant and immaterial questions, if asked by Counsel, nonetheless, save and except in the rarest of circumstances, the Court cannot compel a Counsel to conclude cross-examination on the very day when it starts," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

When Financial Institution Is A 'Borrower' It Can't Invoke Arbitration Under Section 11 Of SARFAESI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. A U Small Finance Bank Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

The High Court of Delhi has held that a borrower which also happens to be a financial institution cannot resort to arbitration provided under Section 11 of SARFAESI Act.

The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that Section 11 of SARFAESI Act provides for remedy by way of arbitration only in cases of inter se dispute between the financial institution but does not cover a simple lender-borrower dispute, even if the borrower is a financial institution.

Circumstances Mentioned Under Schedules V Do Not Per Se Render The Arbitrator Ineligible: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Foundry and Engineering Works v. Intec Capital Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

The High Court of Delhi has held that unlike Schedule VII, the circumstances mentioned under the Vth Schedule do not per se render an arbitrator ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator unless it is established that the arbitrator's neutrality was indeed compromised.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that merely because an Arbitrator has been appointed in more than two arbitral proceedings between the parties/their affiliates, the Award cannot be set aside, until a concrete foundation is laid down for doubting the independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator.

'Khad' Cannot Solely Be Interpreted To Mean Drugs: Delhi High Court, Grants Bail To Fertilizer Seller In NDPS Case

Title: Pratap Singh vs The State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, observing that 'Khad' cannot be solely interpreted to mean drugs or contraband.

"The applicant is in the business of fertilizers and hence the use of word 'Khad' is neither unusual nor strange. I have reasonable ground to believe that he is not guilty of the offence," said Justice Jasmeet Singh in the order dated October 3.

The court made the observation while granting bail to Pratap Singh, who was in custody in the case since March 09 last year.

Home Secretary, DG CRPF Will Be Personally Liable For Contempt If Head Constable Recruitment Not Completed Within 8 Months: Delhi High Court

Title: SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

The Delhi High Court has said the Home Secretary and Director General of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) will be personally liable for contempt if they fail to complete the recruitment process for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) within a period of eight weeks.

The court on March 08 had directed the CRPF to act upon a communication issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, regarding the filling-up of vacant posts in the central government ministries or departments, within six weeks.

Section 167 CrPC | '15 Days' Time Limit & Reasoned Order' For Remand Are Requirements Only During Pendency Of Investigation: Delhi High Court

Title: AMARJEET SHARMA v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

Observing that the right of default bail is finished or extinguished the moment chargesheet is filed within the period prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Delhi High Court has ruled that any irregularity or illegality in the remand order is not a "statutorily sanctioned reason" for grant of default bail.

"A reading of the provisions under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. nowhere carves out the principle to indicate that the accused would be entitled for bail for any reason whatsoever apart from any other reason then stipulated under the proviso (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C," said the court.

The court said the language of sub-Section 3 of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is unambiguous and, therefore, has to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense.

Accused Must Not Be Forced To Face POCSO Trial If Victim Was Major: Delhi HC Asks UIDAI To Furnish Prosecutrix's DoB Record

Title: VIPIN SINGH v. STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

Hearing a bail plea of a rape accused, who is also facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Delhi High Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to furnish details of the victim's date of birth as per the records relating to her Aadhar card.

The court passed the order after the accused claimed that the prosecutrix, as per the copy of Aadhar card in his possession, was major on the alleged date of incident. The claim was opposed by the State.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the investigating agency as well as the Special Court during the course of trial have a duty to ascertain or determine and satisfy itself to the age of the victim considering the fact that trial under provisions of POCSO Act places presumption and existence of mental state under Section 29 and 30 of the Act.

Armed Forces Best Judge Of Their Standards For Selection, Court Can't Interfere; Except In Grave Circumstances: Delhi High Court

Title: NEHA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Armed Forces and Para Military Forces are the best judges to set their own standards for selection as per their own discretion and the same merits no interference by a court of law, unless there is some "grave exceptional circumstances."

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by a boxer, who had applied for the post of Head Constable (General Duty) in CISF under sports quota, but was later declared as medically unfit due to obesity. The plea was moved challenging the result given by Review Medical Examination and all subsequent proceedings regarding appointment.

'Sensitivity And Law Must Be Balanced; One Is Dealing With Humans, Not Mere Files': Delhi High Court While Granting Parole To Murder Convict

Title: KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

"Sensitivity and compassion balanced with rules, regulations and law needs to be maintained by any Court as one is dealing with humans and not mere files and orders," the Delhi High Court has observed while granting parole of 45 days to a murder convict.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted relief to Kundan Singh, who is serving life sentence in the Tihar Jail. Singh, who is a native of Uttarakhand, was convicted in January 2014 for murdering his friend Vipin Kumar, whose head, hands and legs below the knee had been chopped off and thrown away in a jungle near Lado Sarai bus stand in August 2007. The high court in 2015 upheld Singh's conviction. The Supreme Court also dismissed his SLP in July 2019.

Reassessment Notice Based On Error Resulting From Oversight Of AO Is Not Valid: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Deepak Kapoor Versus PCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

The Delhi High Court has held that the reassessment notice based on an error resulting from the oversight of the assessing officer is not valid.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. Income Tax Officer, in which it was held that where the Income Tax Officer has all the material before him and has framed the original assessment, it is not open for him to take recourse to Section 147(a) of the Act to remedy the error resulting from his oversight.

The court has observed that it was impermissible for the AO to seek a reopening of the assessment to review its decision regarding the fair market value of the property or deduction on account paid by the assessee to his sisters or the expenses incurred by him.

'Large Pendency, Lack Of Uniform Method Of Prioritization': Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Expeditious Disposal Of Cases In Consumer Forums

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

Taking note of the large pendency and lack of a uniform method for prioritisation of cases in the district consumer forums, the Delhi High Court has issued directions for ensuring expeditious disposal of the consumer matters

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Registrars of concerned district forums to start listing final matters, where evidence has been concluded, for hearing at 2:30 PM on a daily basis, with effect from November 14.

The matters shall be listed in a chronological manner starting from the oldest cases first, the court said, adding that an advance publication shall be made in the cause list so that the lawyers and litigants are duly informed.

Mere Advertising Of Products In Delhi Does Not Create Jurisdiction For Trial Courts To Entertain Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court

Title: VIVEK PURWAR AND ANR. v. HARI RAM AND SONS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the defendant advertised its products during the course of business in the national capital, cannot mean that the trial court here would have jurisdiction to entertain a plaintiff's suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while setting aside a decree passed by Additional District Judge of Tis Hazari Courts in a suit filed by manufacturer of sweets and namkeens restraining two individuals from using the plaintiff's trademark 'HARI RAM AND SONS & HR LOGO'.

The suit was filed by proprietors of M/s. Hari Ram and Sons alleging that the defendants adopted the same trademark for similar business.

Delhi High Court Directs Tata Power To Provide Electricity Connections To Pakistani Hindu Migrants Within One Month

Case Title: Hariom v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1068

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) to provide electricity connections to Pakistani Hindu migrants, who are residing in the city's Adarsh Nagar area, within a period of 30 days.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for including Aadhaar card and long-term visa as a sufficient proof in respect of occupancy of the premises, to enable them to apply for electricity connections.

The power company was earlier demanding proof of ownership of land to supply electricity to them. The migrants are allegedly living on land belonging to the defence ministry.

Appeal Against Orders Of Patent Office Would Lie Before High Court In Whose Jurisdiction Appropriate Office Is Located: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that after the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, appeals challenging the order of the Patent Office would lie before the concerned High Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the "appropriate office" from where the patent application originates, as being the "situs of the said application."

Justice Pratibha M Singh observed that in such appeals, the concept of cause of action cannot be pleaded to vest jurisdiction in other High Courts i.e., other than the one in the territorial jurisdiction of which the appropriate office is located.

City Bursting At The Seams, Unauthorised Constructions Can't Be Allowed To Stand In Perpetuity: Delhi High Court

Title: SHER MOHAMMAD v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (SDMC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

The Delhi High Court has said that unauthorized constructions are a bane to "orderly development" of the city, which is bursting at its seams, and they cannot be allowed to continue to stand in perpetuity.

Justice C Hari Shankar made the observation while dismissing a Delhi resident Sher Mohammad's plea challenging an order passed by Principal District & Sessions Judge on September 14.

Vide the impugned order, the trial court had rejected Mohammad's appeal against an order of the Appellate Tribunal of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Litigant Challenging Justice Chandrachud's Appointment As CJI

Title: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of newly sworn-in Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad called it a "publicity interest litigation"

The petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari in the PIL argued that the appointment of Justice Chandrachud was made in violation of the provisions of the constitution. He prayed for an immediate stay on Justice Chandrachud's appointment.

Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order In The Name Of A Non-Existing Entity

Case Title: Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment order in the name of a non-existing entity.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that not only was the notice issued in the name of the transferor company but the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, as well as the notice under Section 148, have been issued on the PAN of the transferor company.

The Aureole Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Transferor Company) was merged with M/s. Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited (Transferee Company). After the amalgamation order passed by the High Court, the company stood dissolved without winding up. There was no obligation or scope under the law for any income tax returns to be filed by Aureole Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Policeman Caught With Foreign Currency At Airport: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal, Says Lawbreaker Cops Must Be Dealt With Iron Hands

Title: SURESH KUMAR v. CP & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police head constable who was caught with 75 dirhams while on duty of checking passengers' passports at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in 1996, observing that the police officers who break law must be "dealt with iron hands."

Calling it an "open and shut case", a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said possession of foreign currency in head constable's pocket at the time of surprise check along with statements of witnesses "clearly establishes misconduct committed by him."

Does Moratorium Under IBC Take Away ED's Power To Order Attachment Of Property Under PMLA? Delhi High Court Says No

Title: RAJIV CHAKRABORTY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF EIEL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

Observing that assets, which may have been obtained by the commission of a scheduled offense cannot be accorded exemption or immunity from the rigours of the PMLA, the Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that provisions of the money laundering Act are not subservient to the moratorium provision comprised in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006.

"Acceptance of such a contention would not only run contrary to the legislative policy but also undermine the efforts of the legislature to combat the offense of money laundering. In fact if Section 14 were to be interpreted in the manner as suggested by the petitioner, it would deprive the authorities charged with implementing the provisions of the PMLA of an essential weapon in their quest to confiscate proceeds of crime," said the court.

Arbitrator Gets Jurisdiction Only With Respect To 'Notified' Claims; Delay/ Failure to Certify Claim as 'Notified', Does Not Operate As Waiver: Delhi High Court

Case Title: L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitrator gets the jurisdiction only with respect to the claims which are 'notified' by the specified authority, as provided in the arbitration clause, and that if the claims are not notified, they will not form the subject matter of arbitration.

The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the procedure of forwarding a panel of names to the other contracting party, to choose its nominee arbitrator from amongst them, is no longer a valid procedure.

The Court added that in the absence of a free choice given to a party, to choose the arbitrator from a broad and diversified panel, there was a possibility of apprehension of bias arising in its mind, which would defeat the purpose of arbitration.

Rising Need Of Qualified Doctors In India: Delhi High Court Slams NMC For Violating Norms, Presenting 'False Facts' To Deny College Relief

Title: DHANALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

Emphasising on the growing need of qualified doctors in the country, the Delhi High Court has observed that deserving medical colleges must not be unfairly denied the opportunity to contribute in enhancing the strength of medical professionals.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that augmentation of medical infrastructure is crucial, and hence, the role of regulatory bodies like National Medical Commission (NMC) is "unquestionably significant."

"The authorisation procedure must indeed be strictly adhered to ensure that there is no decline in the quality of medical education. However, at the same time, deserving colleges must not be unfairly denied the opportunity to contribute in enhancing the strength of medical professionals," the court said.

POCSO Act Meant To Protect Minors From Sexual Abuse, Not Criminalize Consensual Romantic Relationships Of Young Adults: Delhi HC

Title: AK vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

The Delhi High Court has said that the intention of The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was to protect the children from sexual abuse and not criminalise consensual romantic relationships of young adults.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said the factum of a consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail.

Delhi High Court Stays Reassessment Order Against IBIBO Group

Case Title: IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1079

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

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

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

Title: LT FOODS LIMITED v. SARASWATI TRADING COMPANY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1080

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Tricolor Hotels Limited v. Dinesh Jain

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1082

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

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

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

Case Title: Sandeep Singh versus Simran Sodhi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1083

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1084

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

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

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

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

Case Title: PCIT Versus PGF Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1086

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1088

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1089

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1090

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1091

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

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

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

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

Case Title: Vikram Bhatnagar v. ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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."

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Notice Under Section 148 Of Income Tax Act Against A Struck-Off Company Valid, In View Of Subsequent Order Of NCLT Restoring The Company: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed by NCLT under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, directing restoration of a struck off company, will have the effect of placing the company in the same position as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies. Thus, the Court held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued against a Company on the date it stood dissolved as a consequence of being struck off, was valid in view of the subsequent order passed by the NCLT.

The bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the continuing liability of a struck-off Company envisaged under Section 250, is in addition to Section 248(7) of the Companies Act, which provides that the liability of every director or manager of a company dissolved as a result of being struck off, shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved.

Ad Wars: Delhi High Court Sends Parle, Britannia To Mediation, Restrains Re-Publishing Of Print Adverts Against Parle-G

Title: PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

The Delhi High Court has referred Parle Products Private Limited and Britannia Industries to its Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolution of the dispute over alleged disparaging advertisements of Britannia Milk Bikis against Parle-G biscuits.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed that while the settlement is explored between the parties, the two print advertisements of Britannia shall not be re-published.

The court said a perusal of the two print advertisements clearly shows that the use of the terms such as 'G-NAHI', 'Adhura poshan' clearly make a reference to Parle-G biscuits.

18 Years After Murder Conviction, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Life Sentence As Ossification Test Reveals Convict Was Minor On Date Of Incident

Title: RK vs State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

In a case dating back to 1999, the Delhi High Court has set aside the life sentence of a murder convict after he took the plea of juvenility during the pendency of his appeal. The ossification test revealed that his age was between 10 to 20 years old on the day of incident.

"Considering the fact that the upper age limit cannot be taken to the detriment of the appellant and as per the lower limit, the appellant was a minor at the time of alleged incident, he is entitled to the benefit of juvenility. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/452 IPC as noted above. Maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the said offences, which is not being challenged on merits before this Court, the order on sentence is set aside," said the court.

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Police To Handover Keys Of Markaz Nizamuddin To Maulana Saad

Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

Rejecting Delhi Police's stand regarding the continuing restrictions at Tablighi Jamaat headquarter in Nizamuddin since March 2020, the Delhi High Court on Monday asked the police to handover the keys of Markaz Nizamuddin to Maulana Saad.

In March this year, the court had permitted holding of prayers on five floors of the mosque during the month of Ramzan. In May, the high court permitted the mosque management to allow public entry beyond the month of Ramzan, for the first time since March 2020. The relief was limited to offering of prayers. However, the attached madrasa and hostel continued to remain closed.

Justice Jasmeet Singh on Monday said that the keys would have to be handed over to the person from whom they were taken. "You have taken the possession from some person. You return the possession to that person. I am not adjudicating an FIR for title of property, that is not issue before me," said the court.

RTI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes CIC Order Asking MEA To Disclose Passport Details Of 'Estranged' Husband To Wife

Title: MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS vs ASMITA SACHIN WAMAN

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission by which the Ministry of External Affairs had been directed to disclose under the RTI Act the details relating to the passport and marriage certificate, address proof, ID proof and other related documents of an estranged husband to his wife.

Justice Yashwant Varma said the the question related to the disclosures under RTI Act with respect to a passport or any other personal identification document of a third party is no longer res integra.

Use Of Domain Name 'dream11.bet' Amounts To Infringement, Passing Off: Delhi HC Grants Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Dream11

Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Virat Saxena

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

The Delhi High Court recently passed a summary judgment in favour of the Dream11 parent company Sporta Technologies Private Limited against a person who was operating the domain name 'www.dream11.bet' allegedly as a gambling website.

Justice Navin Chawla said the plaintiffs have been able to prove that they are the registered proprietor of the 'Dream11 Marks' and that the domain name adopted by the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and is clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of their marks.

After Delhi High Court Ruling, Telegram Discloses Names, Phone Numbers & IP Addresses Of Users Accused Of Sharing Infringing Material

Title: NEETU SINGH vs TELEGRAM FZ LLC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

Complying with the August 30 ruling that held that courts in India can direct a messaging app to disclose the information of infringers, Telegram has disclosed the admin names, phone numbers and IP Addresses of the channels which are accused of unauthorised sharing of the study material prepared by Campus Private Limited and its teacher Neetu Singh for various competitive examinations.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the order dated November 24 said the names of admins, the phone numbers and IP addresses of some of the channels as are available with Telegram have been supplied.

"Let copy of the said data be supplied to ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs with the clear direction that neither the Plaintiffs nor their counsel shall disclose the said data to any third party, except for the purposes of the present proceedings. To this end, disclosure to the governmental authorities/police is permissible," said the court.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Bukhara' A Well-Known Trademark, Says ITC Restaurant 'Intrinsically' Connected To Indian Cuisine

Title: ITC LIMITED vs CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

The Delhi High Court has declared ITC Limited's 'Bukhara' as a well known trademark under Section 2(zg) read with Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act and directed the Registrar to add it to the list of well-known trademarks upon completion of requisite formalities.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the judgment said that certain trademarks or names attaining the status of well-known marks have been acknowledged and recognised by courts in India for the last two-three decades.

"Illustratively, marks such as 'APPLE', 'WHIRLPOOL', 'BENZ' etc., have been recognised as 'well-known' marks even before the said marks were actually used on a commercial scale in India. The said concept of according recognition for 'well-known' marks was finally incorporated statutorily in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, thus strengthening the recognition granted to such mark," Justice Singh said.

High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Consider Career Counselling Programmes For Class XI, XII Students For Informed Choice Of Subjects

Title: SHISHRAM AS GUARDIAN OF MR. KAWAL vs BAL BHAVAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

Observing that career guidance of students in Class XI and XII is crucial, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to consider having a system for career counselling of the students to ensure that an informed decision is taken by them regarding their subject choices

Justice Sanjeev Narula in a ruling observed that it is essential that students are counselled in the decision-making process, and asked the authorities to step-in to ensure that there is an appropriate system of counselling or career guidance programmes in schools to assist students.

"If students are made aware of admission policies of different universities, it could only help them in making an informed decision regarding their subject choices. Mr. Unmukt Gera, counsel for GNCTD, states that such systems must be in place, although he is unable to readily cite the same. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to GNCTD/ DoE to examine this issue in consultation with experts in the field and in case, any lacunae is required to be filled-in, they may do so by issuing appropriate directions to schools," the court said.

16-Yr-Old's Consent Immaterial: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To 23-Yr-Old Married Man, Says Facts Specially Disentitle Him From Bail In POCSO Case

Title: Javed vs State NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

Reiterating that a minor's consent is immaterial in the eyes of law, the Delhi High Court recently denied bail to a 23-year-old man in a POCSO case, who is accused of allegedly raping a 16-year-old minor, observing that his age and the fact that he was already married, disentitle him from getting bail.

Justice Jasmeet Singh also took note of the submission that the accused had got date of birth of the complainant changed in the Aadhaar card to show her as major.

"The conduct of the applicant of getting the date of birth changed in the Aadhar card of the complainant is a serious offence. It seems that the applicant wanted to take advantage by getting the Date of Birth on the Aadhar Card changed so that when the applicant established physical relationship with the complainant, she was not a minor," the court said.

Title: SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to sanction the posts of 987 special educators for catering to the needs of 5,625 special children studying in various Kendriya Vidyalayas.

"In order to enable the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to appoint 987 special educators, eight weeks' time is granted to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and to the Union of India to sanction the post of 987 special educators," a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Evolving Transparent, Hassle-Free Process For EWS Admissions In Private Schools: Delhi Govt To High Court

Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HONBLE LG OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that it is evolving a transparent, uniform and hassle-free admission process for children under economically weaker section (EWS) category in private unaided recognized schools.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was also told that a portal has been developed displaying the number of vacancies, and that the parents can apply online for the vacancies available under the admission quota.

Time Spent On Application Under Section 8 Of A&C Act, Not Excludable For Computation Of Limitation For Counter Claim: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Web Overseas Limited versus Universal Industrial Plants Manufacturing Company Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in a suit filed by a party, the time spent by the opposite party in pursuing its application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be excluded for the purpose of computation of the limitation period for filing the counter-claims by the opposite party before the Arbitral Tribunal.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that the benefit of Section 14 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is available only to the plaintiff who has been prosecuting civil proceedings against the defendant, and not to the defendant who is resisting a claim.

The Court added that filing of an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act cannot be construed as a party pursuing his claim before a Court so as to avail the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.

NCLT Cannot Assume Power To Declare IBC Provisions, 2016 Regulations As Illegal Or Ultra Vires: Delhi High Court

Title: INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot assume the power to declare as illegal or ultra vires any of the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 or Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

Justice Pratibha M Singh said that the jurisdiction to deal with the validity and legality of the Regulations framed under the IBC is not conferred upon the NCLT.

Delhi High Court Halts Manufacture Of 'Rallies' Bicycles By Ludhiana Firms In Trademark Infringement Suit By Accell Group Subsidiary

Title: SWISS BIKE VERTRJEBS GMBH SUBSIDIARY OF ACCELL GROUP v. IMPERIAL CYCLE MEG. CO. (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

The Delhi High Court has directed two Ludhiana-based firms to cease fresh manufacturing of 'Rallies' bicycles after a subsidiary of Switzerland based Accell Group alleged trademark infringement in relation to similar products being manufactured by it under 'Raleigh' mark.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also directed the entities - Imperial Cycle Mfg. Co. and Rocket Cycles Private Limited, to shut down their website www.ralliesbikes.com, within a period of one week.

The court was dealing with a suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs GMBH against the two Punjab-based entities seeking permanent injunction for restraining them from infringing its trademark 'RALEIGH' used for bicycles, cycles or bikes.

Delhi High Court Awards Over ₹2 Crore Damages To Adobe In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Habitual Cyber-Squatter

Case Title: ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

The Delhi High Court has awarded over two crores as damages in favour of Adobe, a US-based multinational computer software company, while decreeing its suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ADOBE' by one Namase Patel.

The cyber squatter is accused of registering confusingly similar domain names in respect of computer software and other IT related services.

Justice C Hari Shankar permanently restrained Namase Patel and any other person associated with him from registering any domain names which incorporate or use the trademarks "ADOBE", "PHOTOSHOP" or "SPARK" in a manner which could result in infringement of Adobe's marks.

Trial Court Record Lost, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Conviction 19 Years After Verdict

Title: RAMESH KAUSHIK v. STATE OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

Over 19 years after the appeal was admitted, the Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to a man in 2003 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder — as the trial court record could not be found or re-constructed despite repeated efforts.

Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed the appeal filed by one Ramesh Kaushik challenging the conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court in October 2003.

"I am of the view that in order to affirm the conviction of the appellant, the perusal of the Trial Court Record is the essential element of hearing of the appeal. Every appellant has a right to satisfy the Appellate Court that the material evidence available on record did not justify his conviction and this is a valuable right which cannot be denied to an appellant," said the court.

Export Proceeds Not Remitted Within Time; Duty Drawback To Be Recovered: Delhi High Court

Case Title: R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

The Delhi High Court has held that the exporter is otherwise not entitled to duty drawback and, if already paid, is liable to be reimbursed because the buyer did not send any export proceeds within the required time frame.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that since the amount that is lying credited to the petitioner's account, concededly, represents a part of the duty drawback sanctioned in favor of the petitioner against 20 shipping bills, no such direction can be issued that would ultimately result in the petitioner getting access to the funds.

Requirement Of Notice Of Arbitration Is Not A Mere Technicality: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rahul Jain v. Atul Jain, ARB. P. 539 of 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

The High Court of Delhi has held that a notice of arbitration is sine qua non for commencing an arbitral proceeding and invalidity of invocation goes to the very root of the matter and hits the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain applications arising out of the arbitration proceedings.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that requirement of a notice of arbitration is not a mere technicality and its non-compliance cannot be ignored merely because the instrument was a family settlement agreement.

The Court also held that the finding of the Court, regarding the non-existence of the arbitration agreement, made on an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act would be final and binding on the parties if remains unchallenged before the filing of the petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act.

Telegram Shares User Information In Second Copyright Infringement Case, Delhi High Court Says Its Disclosure To Police Permissible

Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

Nearly a week after it disclosed before Delhi High Court the admin names, phone numbers and IP Addresses of users accused of sharing copyrighted study material in a suit filed by a teacher, Telegram has again shared in sealed cover the identity details of more users who have been accused by India Today Group of infringing its trademarks and copyrights.

In the order dated November 29, Justice Amit Bansal recorded that pursuant to the order passed by the court on October 18, Telegram "has placed on record the identity/Basic Subscribers Information of the defendants in a sealed cover".

The court ordered that the data filed on behalf of Telegram be provided in a sealed cover to the counsels for the plaintiff "with a clear direction that neither the plaintiffs nor the counsels shall disclose the said data to any third party, except for the purposes of the present proceedings."

Mother's Choice & Quality Of Unborn Child's Life Deciding Factors For Final Decision: Delhi High Court On Termination Of Pregnancy With Fetal Abnormalities

Title: MRS. X v. GNCTD & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

The Delhi High Court this week ruled that ultimate choice in the pregnancy cases involving fetal abnormalities is of the mother and emphasised that the medical boards in such cases must give qualitative reports.

Justice Singh said the opinion of the medical board in such cases of termination of pregnancy is of considerable importance for the assistance of the courts.

"Such opinions cannot be sketchy and fragmented. They ought to be comprehensive in nature," said the judge.

The court further said that in such cases, speediness coupled with qualitative reports is of utmost importance.

"There ought to be some standard factors on which the opinion should be given by the board to whom such cases are referred. Such factors ought include medical condition of the fetus. While giving the scientific or medical terminologies, some explanation in laypersons terms as to the effect of such condition ought to be mentioned. Alternatively, medical literature could be an annexed with opinion."

High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Deportation Of African Nationals Allegedly Living Without Valid Visa Or Passport In Delhi

Title: SUSHIL KR. JAIN( ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking immediate deportation of people from Africa, Bangladesh and other foreign nationals allegedly living without a valid visa or passport in the national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed as withdrawn a plea filed by Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain. The plea also claimed the foreign nationals are living as tenants in Delhi without any proper verification.

Delhi High Court Directs Registry To Issue Practice Directions For Arraying Workman As First Respondent In Pleas Challenging Labour Court Orders

Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1147

The Delhi High Court has directed its Registry to ensure that the petitioners array the workman as first respondent in the petitions assailing the order or award passed by labour courts or any other statutory authority, where the workman is a contesting respondent so that he or she is easily able to locate the writ petition in the cause list.

The direction was issued by Justice Rekha Palli on the judicial side while hearing petitions filed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation against recovery certificates issued in favour of the workmen by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.

Justice Palli said that when the writ petitions assailing the awards or orders passed by the labour court are filed by the management including the municipal corporation, the Delhi government is impleaded as first respondent and the workmen are generally impleaded as respondent two or three. The court said due to such practice, the title of the petitions assailing different awards becomes identical and it causes confusion to the workmen.

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against First Year Law Student Who Appeared As Proxy Counsel Before Trial Court

Title: SHWETA v. GNCTD AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1148

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a first year law student who appeared before a Metropolitan Magistrate as a proxy counsel on instructions from a lawyer for taking adjournment in two cases.

Observing that the law student, who was interning with an advocate, was either confused or unable to handle the situation, Justice Anish Dayal said:

"It is evident that a law student should not appear as a proxy counsel or counsel in any matter before any court of law, prior to being properly enrolled by a Bar Council and being admitted to the Bar."

The court quashed the FIR registered under sections 419 (punishment for cheating by personation) and 209 (dishonestly making false claim in court) of the Indian Penal Code.

An Issue As To Which Party Would Bear The GST Expenses Under The Agreement Is Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Spectrum Power Generation Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited, ARB. P. 746 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

The High Court of Delhi has held that an issue that purely relates to the inter se liability of the parties regarding the burden of GST is not related to the taxing power of the State, therefore, the same is arbitrable.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that a dispute surmised on the Pricing Clause in an agreement wherein the inter se liabilities of the parties regarding the payment of taxes are given can be referred to arbitration.

The Court held that in situations where "debatable and disputed facts" arise or in respect of "good reasonable arguable cases", the Court should force parties to raise the same before the Arbitral Tribunal which has the primary jurisdiction to decide all disputes including jurisdictional challenges which may be raised including with respect to non-arbitrability.

High Court Cannot Review The Order Passed Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kush Raj Bhatia v. M/S DLF Power & Services Ltd. ARB. P 869/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1150

The High Court of Delhi has held that the High Courts cannot review an order passed under Section 11 of the A&C Act as the Act does not contain any provision for review.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that power of review is not an inherent power but the creation of a statute, therefore, it cannot be exercised absence of a provision. The Court held that unlike the Supreme Court which by virtue of Article 137 enjoys the inherent power of review, there is no such power conferred on a High Court.

The Court held that once an application for the appointment of the arbitrator has been heard and rejected, the same cannot be re-opened by an indirect method i.e., review petition.

Landlord Can't Be Made To Suffer Indefinitely For Tenant's Misconduct: Delhi High Court Orders De-Sealing Of Property In Child Labour Case

Title: FARIDA BEGUM vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1151

Observing that the landlord cannot be made to suffer indefinitely due to misconduct of the tenant, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to de-seal a property which was sealed last year after it was found that the tenant had engaged children for his tailoring business.

Justice Prathiba. M Singh said the petitioner is merely the landlady of the subject property and one of her sources of income is its rent.

"She cannot be made to suffer indefinitely due to misconduct of the tenant. Moreover, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the tenant has not paid even up-to-date rent, and the landlady has already suffered immensely. There are no allegations against the Petitioner of having been complicit in any manner with the tenant," said the court.

Delhi High Court Allows Income Tax Deduction On Loss On Forward Cover Purchase Contracts For Foreign Exchange

Case Title: PCIT Versus Simon India Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1152

The Delhi High Court has held that reinstatement of year-end losses on forward cover purchase contracts is allowable in spite of the fact that the forward contracts have not been closed.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakharu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while upholding the findings of the tribunal, held that the loss on account of forward contracts cannot be considered speculative.

Disclosure By The Arbitrator Is Not A Discretionary But A Mandatory Requirement, Non-Disclosure Vitiates The Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ram Kumar v. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. FAO (COMM.) 60 of 2021.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1153

The High Court of Delhi has held that disclosure by the arbitrator under Section 12 r/w 6th Schedule of the A&C Act is not a discretionary but a mandatory requirement. The Court held that the failure of the arbitrator to disclose a fact that might give rise to a justifiable doubt as to his impartiality vitiates the arbitral proceedings as well as the consequent award.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan set aside an arbitral award passed without the arbitrator making the necessary disclosure. The Court held that disclosure is a necessary safeguard to ensure the integrity and efficacy of arbitration, therefore, the same cannot be an option but an obligation.

The Court held that the onus of disclosing the necessary information is on the arbitrator itself and a party cannot be precluded from challenging the award on the ground that it did not raise any such challenge before the arbitrator itself.

Tapping Phone Lines Or Recording Calls Without Consent Violates Right To Privacy: Delhi High Court, Grants Bail To Former Mumbai Police Chief

Title: SANJAY PANDEY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1154

The Delhi High has ruled that tapping phone lines or recording calls without the concerned individual's consent is a breach of privacy as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"I am prima facie of the view that tapping phone lines or recording calls without consent is a breach of privacy. The right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution demands that phone calls not be recorded. Only with consent of the individuals concerned, can such activity be carried out otherwise it will amount to breach of the fundamental right to privacy," Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

The court made the observations while granting bail to Sanjay Pandey, the former Mumbai Police Commissioner, in a money laundering case related to the alleged illegal phone tapping of employees by National Stock Exchange (NSE).

ISEC Services Private Limited, an entity which had entered into a contract with NSE for analysing data and evaluating cyber vulnerabilities, was allegedly also asked by the NSE in 2009 to analyse the pre-recorded calls of its employees. This was purportedly done to "identify and isolate suspicious calls bearing on the issue of data and information security and cyber and process vulnerability".

Ensure Completion Of Project For Installing Panic Buttons, Tracking System In DTC And Cluster Buses: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: ANTI-CORRUPTION COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MOHD KAMRAN KHAN v. STATE & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1155

The High Court has directed Delhi Government to ensure completion of its project for installing panic buttons and Automatic Vehicle Location Tracking System (AVLTS) in all DTC and cluster buses plying in the national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the task must be completed within a time-frame which has been decided as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the Delhi Government and contractor.

The court passed the direction while disposing of a public interest litigation filed in 2019 seeking direction for making arrangements for protection of travellers in the buses from crimes like snatching, theft and eve teasing.

Section 173(8) CrPC Gives Unfettered Right To Investigating Agency For 'Further' Probe, No Restrictions Exist: Delhi High Court

Title: SRI DESARAJU VENUGOPAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1156

The Delhi High Court has said Section 173(8) CrPC gives an "unfettered right" to the investigation agency for further investigation "with no conditions" and it cannot be restricted since such restrictions do not exist in the statute.

"The Statute does not limit the right to investigate under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. only till the trial begun," said Justice Yogesh Khanna.

Section 173(8) of the Code states that further investigation can be done in respect of an offence wherein a police report or chargesheet has been forwarded to the Magistrate.

Justice Khanna said it is not mandatory to take prior permission from the Magistrate for 'further' investigation even after the filing of the charge sheet as it is the statutory right of the police. The material collected in further investigation cannot be rejected merely because it has been filed at the stage of trial, said the court.

Police Can't Transfer FIR Citing Territorial Jurisdiction After Magistrate's Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC: Delhi High Court

Title: JOLLY SINGH v. THE STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1157

The Delhi High Court has ruled that once a magistrate passes an order under Section 156 (3) CrPC directing registration of FIR on a complaint, it is not open for the police to raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction.

Quashing an order passed by an Additional Commissioner of Police whereby the investigation in an FIR alleging abduction was transferred to from Delhi's Model Town police station to Uttar Pradesh's Greater Noida, Justice Jasmeet Singh said:

"Once the order has been passed by the magistrate directing investigation, it is not open to the police to raise objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. In fact, in the present case, the Addl. Commissioner of Police has transferred investigation from Delhi to Greater Noida, U.P. This is tantamount to reviewing the order of MM which only a superior court has the authority to do".

Classic And Textbook Example Of Prejudice': Delhi High Court Raps JNU For Refusing To Relieve Officer For Deputation To Mozambique

Title: UMESH BABU vs JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1158

The Delhi High Court has directed the Jawaharlal Nehru University to forthwith issue a relieving order to enable an employee of the varsity to proceed on a short-term deputation with Indian Council for Cultural Relations in Mozambique.

The petitioner Umesh Babu had applied for deputation of 11 months as Teacher Indian Culture at ICCR's Cultural Centre and successfully cleared the interview for it in November 2021. He was issued an offer of appointment in April 2022. However, his employer JNU refused to issue him a relieving order on the ground of pendency of an inquiry into alleged fraudulent LTC claims.

Justice Jyoti Singh said it is a matter of record that the Inquiry Officer has rendered a finding that charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved and has absolved him in the case alleging violation of Rule 3 of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 16 of CCS (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 and provisions of CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965, as well as other Rules governing the terms and conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the University.

Plea Says NCLAT Considers Only Physical Filing For Computing Limitation, Delhi High Court Asks Tribunal To Consider Prevalent Position On E-Filing

Title: POWER INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1159

The Delhi High Court has asked the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to consider the prevalent position with regard to e-filing of documents across courts and tribunals in the country, while disposing of a petition which sought quashing of the order that requires physical filing of documents before the tribunal for the purpose of computation of limitation.

As per an office order issued by NCLAT on October 21, it is mandatory for lawyers and parties to file case documents in hard copy along with e-filing receipt. It further states that the period of limitation shall be computed from the date of presentation of appeals i.e. physical filing.

"Suffice it to observe that the prevalent position with regards to e-filing of documents across Courts and Tribunals in the country, encouraging e-filing, which may become the norm in the future, would duly be taken into consideration by the Tribunal," Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

Rare Diseases: Delhi High Court Calls For Plan To Publicize Crowdfunding Platform Among Top Companies, PSUs For CSR Contributions

Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1160

The Delhi High Court has called for preparation of a plan to publicize the crowdfunding platform, which has been setup under the national policy for rare diseases, among top private companies and public sector undertakings (PSUs) for receiving their contributions under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a clutch of petitions concerning children suffering from rare diseases like Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), Hunter's syndrome. The pleas seek directions to provide them free of cost treatment, which is otherwise very expensive.

Noting that the court had directed setting up of a crowdfunding platform by the Centre under National Rare Diseases Policy on March 23, 2021, Justice Singh said:

"The said crowdfunding platform is operational, however, it appears that the same requires to be publicized in order to attract funding from the general public and corporate entities as also PSUs."

Signing A Blank Discharge Voucher Indicates That A Party Was Acting Under Pressure And Compulsion: Delhi High Court

Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited v. Khanna Paper Mills Limited, O.M.P. (COMM) 496/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1161

The High Court of Delhi has held that the fact that a party signed on a blank Discharge Voucher indicates that it was acting under pressure and compulsion and did not sign the document out of free will.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a discharge voucher signed out of economic duress and compulsion would not extinguish the legitimate claims of a party and it would be open to the party to claim the remaining amount.

The Court also held that the non-supply of documents on which the amount as given under the discharge voucher is based also indicates that it was not signed out of free will.

Challenge Relating To The Bias Of An Arbitrator Cannot Be Raised Under Section 14 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1162

The Delhi High Court has held a challenge to the mandate of the arbitrator on the ground of bias and a justifiable doubt with respect to the independence and impartiality cannot be raised under Section 14 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that Section 14 of the Act confers the power on the Court to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator and appoint a substitute arbitrator only in circumstances that fall within the 7th schedule of the Act that deals with de jure ineligibility of the arbitrator, however, ground of bias or justifiable ground as to the independence and impartiality falls within the 5th Schedule r/w Section 12(3) wherein only the tribunal can decide on the challenge.

The Court held that Section 12, 13 and 14 though appearing to constitute a composite statutory scheme dealing the challenge to and termination of the mandate of the arbitrator, however, they provide for separate causeways for a challenge that can be raised.

Falling Of Signboard A Foreseeable Event Given Delhi's Geographical Location, Defence Of Act Of God Can't Be Sustained: High Court

Title: M/S BANK OF BARODA & ANR vs MAHESH GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

The Delhi High Court has ordered release of compensation of over Rs 18 Lakh in favour of the kin of a man, who died as a result of the injuries suffered due to falling of a signboard on his head in 2011.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in the ruling considered the question regarding applicability of the defence of vis major or act of God and principle of res ipsa loquitur.

The court said the defence of act of God to ward off strict liability would not be available to the bank "since the hazard presented by a signboard coming off the facade of the building was a foreseeable event given the fact that Delhi experiences high-velocity winds, in May, each year".

Also Read: Are Signboards Advertisements? Delhi High Court Says If They Convey Nature Of Business Via Name, They Could Fall Under Section 143 DMC Act

Ensure Compliance Of Law Prohibiting Manufacture, Sale Of E-Cigarettes; Conduct Periodic Checks: High Court Directs Delhi Govt

Title: SHIV VINAYAK GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1164

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Delhi Government to ensure compliance of Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019.

Ordering the authorities to conduct periodic checks in the localities, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also asked the Delhi Police to take steps to ensure that such e-cigarettes are not sold near and around schools and colleges in the national capital.

The court passed the order while refusing to entertain a public interest litigation seeking constitution of a court monitored committee to review the effective implementation of the statute.

Difference In Financial Position Of Donor And Recipient In Organ Transplant Cases Not Strong Enough Reason To Establish Commercial Element: Delhi HC

CASE TITLE: ADITI GOSWAMI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

The Delhi High Court has held that in cases of organ transplant from a non-near relative, the difference in financial position of the donor and the recipient, by itself, cannot be a reason strong enough to establish a commercial element.

Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation in a judgment allowing a petition seeking expeditious disposal of an application for kidney transplant.

"The Court is satisfied that there is no commercial transaction involved in the donation of the kidney in the case at hand. Accordingly, the application filed by the Petitioner before the Authorization Committee for transplant of the Donor's kidney to the Recipient is allowed subject to above conditions," said the court.

Delhi High Court Rejects Fourth Bail Plea Of Man Accused Of Pelting Stones At Police During Northeast Delhi Riots

Title: SADIQ ALIAS SAHIL v. STATE OF NCT DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1166

The Delhi High Court has rejected the fourth bail plea of a man accused of assaulting and pelting stones at police personnel during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Justice Poonam A. Bamba denied bail to one Sadiq alias Sahil who was arrested on April 14, 2020. His first bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn in September 2020. Thereafter, he was denied bail by High Court and trial court on September 14, 2021 and February 9, 2022 respectively.

The FIR was registered on February 25, 2020 on the basis of a complaint made by a constable alleging that a violent mob started pelting stones on the policemen on duty, thereby injuring more than 50 police personnel and death of Head Constable Ratan Lal.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Nokia's Plea Seeking Deposit Of 'Royalty' By Oppo For Alleged Infringement Of Cellular Technology Patents

Title: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY vs GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1167

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed Nokia's application seeking a direction to Chinese smartphone manufacturer Oppo for deposit of an amount with the court as "royalty" for alleged infringement of its patents in cellular technology.

Nokia owns three Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) which are stated to be necessary to make cellular systems 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G compliant. The Finnish multinational company last year filed a suit before the High Court accusing Oppo of infringing its patents.

Oppo in 2018 had obtained a license from Nokia for utilising its SEPs on payment of royalty at FRAND rates. The license expired in 2021 but, according to Nokia, Oppo continued to use its SEPs without renewal of the agreement or taking of any fresh license.

Hold Meeting With Insurance Companies, Ensure Products Are Designed For Persons With Disabilities: Delhi High Court To IRDAI

Title: Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

The Delhi High Court directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to call a meeting of all insurance companies to ensure that the products are designed for persons with disabilities so as to enable them to obtain health insurance coverage.

Observing that there is no doubt that persons with disabilities would be entitled to health insurance coverage and products may have to be designed for them, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:

"The IRDAI would accordingly call a meeting of all insurance companies to ensure that products are designed for persons with disabilities and other persons in terms of the circular dated 2 June 2020."

In Quarantine Or On Marina Beach? Delhi High Court Says FB Posts Can't Be Treated As Determinative Of A Person's Location, Grants Relief To Lawyer

Title: VINOD KUMAR v. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

The Delhi High Court has said that posts on Facebook cannot be treated as determinative of a person's location at a particular point of time, at least by a court.

Justice C Hari Shankar made the observation while dealing with a case wherein the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in December 2020 had asked the Bar Council of India to take action against two lawyers for allegedly falsely seeking adjournment, through a proxy counsel, on the ground that they were in quarantine due to COVID-19. The lawyers represented a respondent before IPAB.

Opposing the adjournment request, the applicant before the IPAB had shown the Facebook page of one of the lawyers which purportedly showed his last activity at Marina beach in Chennai. Dismissing the adjournment application with cost of Rs 5000, the IPAB had observed that it has been falsely represented that the main counsel is in quarantine while it has been shown through Facebook posts that he is on a holiday.

Employer Cannot Retain Performance Bank Guarantee After Acknowledging Of Due Performance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India v. RCCIVL-LITL (JV)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1170

The Delhi High Court has held that the employer cannot withhold the performance bank guarantee after acknowledgement of the due performance of the contract by the contractor.

The bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that the employer cannot also withhold the performance bank guarantee merely for securing the amount of its counter-claims.

Venue Restriction Provision Contained In Section 42 of A&C Act, Not Applicable To Proceedings Seeking Enforcement Of Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt Ltd versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1171

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) would have no application to proceedings seeking enforcement of arbitral award.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma noted that execution application is neither an "arbitral proceeding" within the meaning of Section 42 of the A&C Act, nor is it a subsequent application arising out of the arbitration agreement and thus, the venue restriction provision contained in Section 42 would have no application to enforcement proceedings.

'Urgent Need Of A Credible Institutional Arbitration Centre In India': Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Alleging Bias In Composition Of DIAC

Title: ABHISHEK AGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

Dismissing a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Act, the Delhi High Court has said that mere involvement and support of the Centre does not by itself raise apprehension of bias and impartiality.

The provision provides for constitution of New Delhi International Arbitration Centre with following members: one retired judge of High Court or Supreme Court as Chairperson; two eminent persons and a representative of recognised body of commerce and industry appointed and chosen by the Central Government; Secretary of Department of Legal Affairs (Ministry of Law and Justice); one Financial Adviser nominated by Department of Expenditure (Ministry of Finance); and Chief Executive Officer.

The PIL filed by advocate Abhishek Kumar in 2020 argued that it was essential to insulate the DIAC from political and other influences to ensure its independence. Submitting that DIAC predominantly consists of employees of the central government, Kumar said such members cannot make a panel of Arbitrators, where one of the two litigants will be the Central Government itself.

Expedite Consultations With Stakeholders On Regulatory Framework For OTT Communication Apps Like WhatsApp: Delhi High Court To TRAI

Title: WORLD PHONE INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1173

The Delhi High Court has directed Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to expeditiously hold consultations with stakeholders for giving its recommendations to the union government on the proposed regulatory framework for Over-The-Top (OTT) services like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger.

"Considering the extensive prevalence and use of internet telephony, TRAI would expeditiously conduct this stakeholders' consultation and give its recommendations accordingly," Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order.

'Can Only Commend If He Has Played A Role': Delhi High Court To Litigant Who Wanted To Be Declared Whistleblower Of PMC Bank Scam

Title: MUKESH SHARMA vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1174

Rejecting a plea that had sought a direction for declaring the petitioner as the whistleblower of the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank scam, the Delhi High Court has said the person would have to have a basis in law to claim a reward in respect of the same.

"This Court, at best, can commend the Petitioner if he has played a role in unearthing the said scam, and for discharging his duty as a responsible citizen. No further reliefs can be granted by this Court beyond the said observation," said the court.

Children With Disabilities Entitled To Facilities Like Uniform, Computer Fee & Transportation In Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools: Delhi High Court

Title: MANISH LENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1175

The Delhi High Court has said that children with disabilities are entitled to basic facilities such as uniform, computer fee and transportation cost in Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

"Considering the recognition given to the rights of persons with disabilities, there can be no doubt that these facilities ought to be provided especially at Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools which are government schools present all over the country, in order to ensure that children with disabilities are not deprived of proper education," Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

Invoking CIRP Would Not Make The Dispute Non-Arbitrable : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Brilltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1176

The Delhi High Court has held that the dispute would not become non-arbitrable merely because the petitioner, before filing the application for appointment of arbitrator, has filed a corporate insolvency application under Section 9 of the IBC. The Court rejected the argument that since the petitioner has filed insolvency application which can only be filed for admitted debt and there can be no arbitration for admitted debts.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that it is settled position of law that jurisdiction of NCLT can be invoked only in respect of determined debts, however, merely because a petition has been by the petitioner asserting that a definite amount is payable by the respondent, would not imply that the claimed amount has been admitted. The Court held that when the respondent has constantly denied its liability to pay, the claimed amount does not transfer into an admitted debt and petitioner can invoke arbitration for resolving the dispute.

Delhi High Court Says Principle of 'Noscitur a Sociis' Doesn't Apply Only Where Word's Meaning Is Uncertain

Title: BRIJESH GUPTA vs SMT SAROJ GUPTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1177

Rejecting a review petition which challenged the court's interpretation of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis principles in a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has said they are intended to be exception to the applicability of an expression's normal etymological connotations in the statute.

Justice C. Hari Shankar said the principle of noscitur a sociis stipulates that a word is to be understood in the light of the company it keeps and the principle of ejusdum generis requires a specific word, which is found in the company of other words which constitutes a genus, to be also interpreted as belonging to the same genus.

Filing Of ITR Instead Of Income Certificate Cannot Deprive Eligible Meritorious Candidate Of Scholarship: Delhi High Court

Title: BAJRANG v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1178

The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere mistake of filing Income Tax Return (ITR) certificate instead of Income Certificate cannot lead to a situation where an eligible meritorious candidate is deprived of the scholarship, when the two documents prove "same parameters of income requirements".

Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while directing the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to grant scholarship to a law student belonging to SC category under the "Central Sector Scholarship Scheme of Top Class Education for SC Students" within eight weeks.

Delhi High Court Stays Recovery Of Over ₹223 Crores Penalty Imposed On MakeMyTrip By CCI, Subject To Depositing Of 10% Of Total Amount

Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PVT LTD MMT & ANR. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1179

The Delhi High Court has stayed the recovery of Rs. 223.48 crores of penalty imposed on MakeMyTrip by Competition Commission of India (CCI) for allegedly indulging in anti-competitive practices, subject to deposit of 10% of the total penalty amount, imposed by NCLAT as a condition while admitting its appeal.

MakeMyTrip had approached the NCLAT challenging the order passed by CCI. While the appeal was admitted by the appellate tribunal, it directed MakeMyTrip to deposit 10% of the penalty amount imposed by the CCI as a condition for the said admission.

'Delhi Govt Ought Not Resile From Clear Announcement Of 1 Crore Ex-Gratia': High Court On Plea Of Constable's Wife Who Died Of COVID-19

Title: Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1180

While hearing a plea moved by the wife of a constable who was the first policeman to die on duty during the first wave of COVID-19, the High Court has said that the Delhi Government "ought not to resile from the clear announcement made" for ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1 crore and that the compensation due to the widow can no longer be delayed.

The petitioner was was expecting her child at the time when her husband, Amit Kumar, passed away while he was posted at city's Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital to ensure adherence to COVID-19 lockdown measures.

Justice Prathiba M Singh has asked the matter to be placed before a "Group of Ministers" as per Delhi Government's cabinet decision dated March 13, 2020.

Miserable State Of Affairs Prevalent In Delhi At Elementary Education Level: High Court Directs Schools To Ensure Admissions Under EWS Quota

Title: RAMESHWAR JHA v. THE PRINCIPAL RICHMOND GLOBAL SCHOOL & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1181

Observing that a "miserable state of affairs" is prevalent in the national capital as far as implementation of Right to Education Act, 2009 at elementary education level is concerned, the Delhi High Court on Friday directed all schools to ensure that no child belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) under the enactment is denied admission or treated with a conduct that is unwelcoming of them.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh issued a slew of directions, while disposing of a bunch of pleas concerning the issue of admissions of EWS children in the schools in Delhi. The court said it is important to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue directions for ensuring children belonging to EWS.

The petitioners had sought admission of students under the EWS category under Section 2(e) of the RTE Act in various private schools at the elementary level. The students were given letters by Delhi Government's Department of Education (DoE) confirming their admission in the schools under the RTE Act.

Rigours Of Section 37 NDPS Act Not Applicable In Cases Where Collection Of Contraband Sample Itself Faulty: Delhi High Court

Title: LAXMAN THAKUR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1182

Granting bail to a man in a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Delhi High Court has said that the rigours of Section 37 of the enactment will not be applicable in cases where collection of contraband sample itself was faulty.

Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.

Justice Jasmeet Singh granted bail to one Laxman Thakur accused in an FIR registered under sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act. He alleged that the procedure adopted for collection of samples in the case was faulty and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).

Delhi High Court Says ECI Free To Proceed On Shiv Sena Row, Refuses To Interfere With Single Judge Order On Uddhav Thackeray's Plea

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1183

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the observations made by a single judge while dismissing the plea moved by Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray against Election Commission of India (ECI)'s decision to freeze Shiv Sena's 'bow and arrow' party symbol.

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

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Commission will proceed in accordance with the procedure followed by it while adjudicating a petition under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

ICAI Can Suo Motu Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against Its Members, Written Complaint Not Sine Qua Non For Taking Action: Delhi High Court

Title: C.A. SANJAY JAIN v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1184

The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has the power to suo motu initiate disciplinary proceedings against its members and that a written complaint or allegation is not a sine qua non or prerequisite for taking action.

Justice Yashwant Varma observed that "information" under section 21 of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 would extend to any material or fact that may come to the notice of ICAI and from which it may derive knowledge.

"Viewed in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 21 does empower the Institute to proceed suo moto and unhindered by the absence of a written complaint or allegation that may be submitted. A written complaint or allegation in writing cannot, in any manner, be understood to be a pre-requisite or a sine qua non for the initiation of action under Section 21," the court said in its ruling running into 106 pages.

All Personnel Of Paramilitary Forces Entitled To HRA Irrespective Of Rank; Existing Policy Discriminatory: Delhi High Court

Title: PRAVEEN YADAV AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1185

Questioning the Ministry of Home Affairs's decision to confine House Rent Allowance (HRA) benefit only to Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBORs), the Delhi High Court has said that every personnel in the paramilitary forces shall be entitled to the benefit irrespective of the rank, as per their entitlement.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee has directed the Centre and other authorities to take necessary steps within six weeks, in consultation with Ministry of Home Affairs as well as Ministry of Finance, to grant HRA benefit to such personnel.

"We are unable to find any reason as to why officers belonging to the rank of Officers / Coy Commanders or PBROs, should not be granted similar benefit more so as the factum of their serving at far off locations has been recognized and it cannot be differentiated on cadre basis. We fail to understand why such policy decisions discriminating within the force should be permitted to continue, especially to the officers of the force who spend their lives serving the nation," the court said.

Delhi High Court Allows Deduction Of Expenses Undertaken Under the CSR Endeavour u/s 37 Of The Income Tax Act

Case Title: PCIT Versus PEC Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1186

The Delhi High Court has allowed the deduction of expenses undertaken under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) endeavor under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the memorandum, which was published along with Finance (No. 2) Bill 2014, clearly indicated that the amendment would take effect from 01.04.2015 and, accordingly, would apply in relation to assessment year 2015-2016 and the subsequent years.

The department has assailed the ITAT's order allowing the deduction of expenses undertaken under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) endeavor under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Release Laptop, Computer, Documents, Seized By DGGI During Search

Case Title: Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

The Delhi High Court has refused to release laptops, computers, documents, and other things that were seized by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) during the search.

The single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has observed that the "documents, books, or things" can be retained for a maximum period of four and a half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of the erroneous refund.

Can Recall Section 11 A&C Act Order, If It Suffers From Patent And Manifest Error: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Always Remember Properties Private Limited versus Reliance Home Finance Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1188

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the power exercised by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is not merely an administrative function but a judicial power, and that the Court does not cease to be a Court of Record while exercising power under Section 11.

Thus, the bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that the High Court can recall the order passed by it under Section 11 of the A&C Act if it suffers from a patent and manifest error apparent on the face of the record.

MOU Terminating The Main Agreement Containing The Arbitration Clause Can Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Super Blastech Solutions v. Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1189

The Delhi High Court of has held that a dispute arising out of an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), wherein no arbitration clause is present, can be referred to arbitration if these agreements were directly linked to the main agreement.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that dispute arising out of any subsequent agreement that arises out of the main agreement containing the arbitration clause can be referred to arbitration.

The Court further reiterated that the arbitration clause survives the termination of the main agreement, therefore, the arbitration clause would remain effective despite the termination principal agreement in which it is embedded.

Arbitration Clause Is Limited To Quantum Of Damages, Termination Of Proceedings Is Valid : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Geo Chem Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1190

The Delhi High Court has held that when the scope of arbitration clause is limited to quantum of damages only in the eventuality that the liability to pay is admitted by the insurance company, there can be no arbitration if the liability is denied.

The bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that the suggestions given by the Surveyor in its report, though of substantial evidentiary value, are not binding on the insurance company.

The Court also held that as per the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders‟ Interests) Regulations, 2017, the appointment of surveyor is a mandatory requirement and cannot be said to be an admission as to the liability to pay by the insurance company.

Some Working Knowledge Of Accounts & Finance Doesn't Make Army's Graduation Certificate Equivalent To Specialised Qualification: Delhi High Court

Title: RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1191

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by an ex-serviceman of Indian Army seeking appointment in a subsidiary company of Indian Railways, on the basis of the graduation certificate issued by the Army, as a Junior Assistant (Finance) under ex-Servicemen quota.

The ex-serviceman Raj Kumar's argument was that since he was having the experience of "working in Administration / Accounts / Finance / Budget / Logistics in the Army", he has the essential qualification for the post of Junior Assistant (Finance). The qualification sought for by RITES for the post was B.COM/BBA (Finance)/BMS (Finance).

Testing Of Aviation Personnel For Psychoactive Substances Essential, No Impediment In Implementing Civil Aviation Requirements: Delhi High Court

Title: INDIAN PILOTS GUILD & ANR v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1192

The Delhi High Court has observed that testing of aviation personnel, including pilots, cabin crews and Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs), for psychoactive substances is essential, considering the nature of services being rendered by them.

Justice Prathiba M Singh gave nod to the implementation of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation on January 31 for detecting any behavioural, cognitive and physiological changes due to use of such substances by aviation personnel.

"After perusing CAR as also after hearing parties and their counsels, it is clear that the testing of personnel for psychoactive substances is essential, considering the nature of services being rendered," the court said.

Limitation Period Won't Come In Way Of Moving Applications For Compensation To Victims Of Sexual Offences: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Umesh v. State (and other connected matters)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1193

Directing Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to move applications on behalf of the victims of sexual offences for compensation in the cases registered between 2012 to 2017, the Delhi High Court has clarified that there will be no requirement to file a separate application for condonation of delay to seek compensation in such cases.

Observing that since no limitation for filing an application for compensation is provided under Section 357(A) of the Cr.PC or Section 33 of the POCSO Act, such a provision under the Part-II of the Delhi Victims' Compensation Scheme (DVCS)-2018 cannot be used or invoked in a hyper- technical manner to defeat the rights of the victim for whose assistance and support the entire Scheme has been formulated.

Interim Bail On Medical Grounds Shouldn't Be An Option Only When Prisoner Is On Deathbed: Delhi High Court

Title: VIJAY AGRAWAL THROUGH PAROKAR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1194

Observing that a prisoner suffering from serious health ailments should be given an opportunity to undergo adequate medical treatment, the Delhi High Court has said that the discretion of granting interim bail on medical grounds may not be exercised only at a stage when the person is breathing last or is in the position that he may not survive.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said howsoever serious the offence may be, the health condition of a human being is paramount. The court said the health concern of a person has to be taken care of by the State and keenly watched by the judiciary.

High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Rule 9(2) Of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules

Title: PRAVEEN GARG v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1195

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the recently-amended Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.

"In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, we are unable to accept that Rule 9(2) of the Rules, as set out above, falls foul of Article 233 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, Rule 9(2) of the Rules is in conformity with the decision in the case of Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik & Ors," said the court.

Under the Rule 9 (2), a candidate "must have been continuously practising as an advocate for not less than seven years as on the last date of receipt of applications" for recruitment of judicial officers.

'Contributed To Society In Most Unprecedented Times Of COVID-19': High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Clear Dues Of Ad Hoc Auxiliary Nurse Midwives

Title: AADESH KUMAR AND ORS. v. SH. AMIT SINGLA AND ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1196

The High Court has directed the Delhi Government to pay salaries and other dues to the Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs), who were engaged for a short term last year for COVID vaccination centres in the national capital.

Justice Jyoti Singh ordered that the payments shall be released by the Delhi Government within a period of six weeks.

"It needs no overemphasis that discharging the functions of ANMs, Petitioners have contributed to a large extent to the society in the most testing and unprecedented times of COVID-19 and it would be travesty of justice if they were deprived of their emoluments for the period they served the Respondents and the society," the court said.

Not Court's Duty To Monitor Public Urination, Spitting: Delhi High Court Junks PIL Seeking Prohibition On Affixing Of Photos Of Deities On Walls

Title: Gorang Gupta v. GOVT. OF NCT & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1197

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation moved by a lawyer against the practice of affixing sacred images of gods on walls as a measure to prevent public urination, spitting and throwing garbage.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that it is not the duty of a constitutional court to regulate and monitor the movement of each citizen to see whether one indulges in public urination, spitting and littering.

"The concern raised by the petitioner would be better addressed by civic bodies and not by this Court," it said.

'Long-Term Effects Of Childhood Sexual Harassment Insurmountable': Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Teacher Accused Of Molestation

Title: RANAJIT ROY v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1198

While dealing with matters relating to sexual harassment of school going children, paramount consideration is to be given to the well-being of the child whose mental psyche is vulnerable, impressionable and in a developing stage, the Delhi High Court has observed.

The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said long-term effects of childhood sexual harassment are at many times insurmountable.

"An act of sexual harassment, therefore, has the potential to cause mental trauma to the child and may dictate their thought process for the years to come. It can have the effect of hindering the normal social growth of the child and lead to various psychosocial problems which could require psychological intervention."

Delhi High Court Directs RBI To Reconsider Its Policy Of Excluding Pregnancy Complications Cases From Grant Of Advance Sick Leave

Title: SUCHITA SHRIVASTAVA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1199

Hearing a plea moved by a female employee of Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Delhi High Court has directed the regulatory body to reconsider its master circular which excludes the cases of medical complications arising due to pregnancy from grant of advance sick leave to the employees.

Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a plea moved by an Assistant Manager of RBI seeking a direction that the issues or complications arising out of pregnancy be treated as covered under para 6.5 of the Master Circular issued by the regulatory body on July 1, 2020 01.07.2020.

The plea also sought direction for grant of advance sick leave to her as per para 6.5 with consequential benefits of salary and allowances after adjusting her absence for the period of her leave.

Govt Hospitals Have To Treat All Citizens Irrespective Of Place Of Residence, Can't Insist On Voter ID: Delhi High Court

Title: GULAM MAHABUB v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1200

Hearing a Bihar resident's plea alleging that Lok Nayak Hospital (LNJP) was providing facility of free MRI test only to the residents of national capital, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that the government hospitals have to treat all the citizens, irrespective of their place of residence.

Emphasising that the hospitals cannot insist on voter IDs of citizens, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that citizens, who come from outside, cannot be stopped from seeking treatment.

The court also noted that in one of its earlier judgments, it has been held that medical treatment has to be given to all citizens without any consideration to their place of residence.

Merely Being Signatory To A Cheque Does Not Make A Person Guilty Of Offence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: MAN MOHAN PATNAIK v. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL INDIA PVT.LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1201

The Delhi High Court has said that prima facie, merely being a signatory to a cheque does not, in itself, make a person guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Observing that the offence is triggered at the stage when a cheque is returned unpaid by the bank for insufficiency of funds, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said:

"For guilt to be imputed to an officer of a company, at the very least, the officer should have been responsible for the business and affairs of the company and for honouring the cheque on the date that the cheque was returned unpaid."

Prosecution Cannot Be Initiated Under Food Safety and Standards Act For Lack Of Labelling On Chewing Tobacco Product By Manufacturer: Delhi High Court

Title: D.S. CHEWING PRODUCT LLP & ORS. v. FOOD SAFETY OFFICER

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1202

The Delhi High Court has observed that a prosecution cannot be initiated under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 for any lack on part of the manufacturer in labelling a chewing tobacco product.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that such a prosecution will have to be dealt as per the provisions of Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 and section 20 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 or any other law applicable therein.

"Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled position of law, when the product in question is admittedly chewing tobacco, application of FSSA, 2006 is ruled out," the court added.

Delhi High Court Initiates Criminal Contempt Proceedings After Vigilance Inquiry Finds IPAB Order Placed On Record Is Fake

Title: AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1203

The Delhi High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against defendants in a suit after the Registrar (Vigilance)'s inquiry revealed that they placed a fabricated Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order on record as part of a compilation of documents handed over to the court during a hearing last month.

Justice Jyoti Singh said any person who takes recourse to deflect the course of judicial proceedings and interferes with administration of justice, must be dealt with a heavy hand. There is a wealth of judicial precedents that filing of forged and fabricated documents in a court to obtain relief is interference with administration of justice, said the court.

'Rooh Afza' Trademark Has Acquired Immense Goodwill, Requires High Degree Of Protection: Delhi High Court In Suit Against 'Dil Afza' Sharbat

Title: HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR v. SADAR LABORATORIES PVT LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1204

The Delhi High Court has observed that the mark "Rooh Afza" has acquired immense goodwill and has served as the "source identifier" for the sharbat being manufactured by Hamdard National Foundation (India) and Hamdard Dawakhana for over a century.

Observing that "Rooh Afza" mark requires a high degree of protection and it is essential to ensure that the competitors keep a safe distance from it, a division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan restrained Sadar Laboratories Private Limited from manufacturing and selling any product under the trademark "DIL AFZA" till the disposal of the trademark infringement suit filed by the former.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Carrying Of Kirpans In Domestic Flights

Case Title: Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. The Cabinet Secretary Government of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1205

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging notifications that allow Sikh passengers to carry Kirpans of specific measurements on person in domestic flights.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that that Explanation I of Article 25 of the Constitution of India clarifies that wearing and carrying of Kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

" Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court, the Circular bearing No.14/2005 dated 15.04.2005 and the Impugned Notification dated 04.03.2022 which is under challenge in the instant PIL, and also keeping in mind the Explanation - I to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of giving exemption for carrying Kirpan to Sikh passengers vide the abovementioned Circular and Impugned Notification has been arrived at by the Government after due deliberations," the court observed.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection Against Retrospective Denial Of Concessional Rate Of Customs Duty To Solar Units

Case Title: ReNew Hans Urja Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1206

The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection against the retrospective denial of the vested right of the benefit of concessional rate of duty under project import regulations granted to solar power developers.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju have directed the customs authorities to refrain from taking any precipitative steps at the time of import of goods pursuant to the registration of contracts under the Project Import Regulations, 1986.

Age At The Time Of Commission Of Offence Has To Be Taken And Not When The Proceedings Initiated: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Versus State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1207

The Delhi High Court upheld the prosecution for an undisclosed foreign bank account, observing that the age at the time of the offense must be taken into account, not when the proceedings were initiated.

The single judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pradip Burman vs. Income Tax Office, in which it was held that Circular/Instruction No. 5051 dated 07.02.1991 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) does not bar the initiation of prosecution for those who have attained the age of 70 years.

Tax deposited During Search Not Voluntary: Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Return Rs.1.80 Crores With Interest

Case Title: M/s. Vallabh Textiles Versus Senior Intelligence Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1208

The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to return the amount of Rs. 1.80 crores along with 6% interest as the recovery of tax made during the search was not voluntary.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that no recovery of tax should be made during search, inspection, or investigation unless it is voluntary.

The petitioner/assessee is in the business of trading in ready-made garments (RMG) and is also engaged in selling these very goods on behalf of third parties in the domestic market on a commission basis.

Moratorium Under Companies Act, 2013, Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DLF Ltd. versus IL&FS Engineering and Construction Company

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1209

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the moratorium granted by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), staying the institution of suits and proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, after the resolution process is initiated against it under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, is akin to an order of moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Thus, in view of the moratorium issued by the NCLAT, the Corporate Debtor cannot be referred to arbitration.

The bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao was dealing with an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration.

Dispute Between Parties Under A "Non-Binding Term Sheet" Can Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Welspun One Logistics Parks Fund I versus Mohit Verma & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1210

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute between the parties under an agreement titled as a "Non-Binding Term Sheet", can be referred to arbitration, holding that the Arbitration Clause contained in the said agreement was binding between the parties.

The bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed that though the nomenclature of the agreement was "Non-Binding Term Sheet", the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement was specifically made binding on the parties. It held that whether the other covenants of the Term Sheet were non-enforceable, is not to be considered by the Court at the stage of considering an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

NDPS Act | Accused's Refusal To Get A Search Conducted Under Section 50 Would Be Vitiated If He Misunderstands Questions Put To Him: Delhi HC

Title: STATE v. DENIS JAUREGUL MENDIZABAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1211

The Delhi High Court has observed that refusal by an accused to get a search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate under section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would be vitiated if he misunderstands, misinterprets or even due to miscommunication of the questions put to him.

Justice Anish Dayal observed that the requirements of section 50 being mandatory in nature, are in consonance with the right of an accused to know of his legal rights.

"The compliance of such requirements should therefore, be complete and not left in doubt. A mandatory requirement by definition, has to be complied with in toto, in its full letter and spirit, and not as a halfway measure or in a patchy, perfunctory manner or deficient manner," the court said.

Order Rejecting Application For Impleading Third Party Is Not An Interim Arbitration Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Lucknow Sitapur Expressway Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1212

The Delhi High Court has held that an order of the tribunal rejecting the application for impleading a party to arbitration is not an interim award but merely a procedural order, therefore, the same cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that an arbitral tribunal, during the continuance of arbitral proceedings, passes many orders and for an order to fall within the rubric of interim award it has to necessarily have certain features. The Court held that for an order to be understood as an award, it has to be decision on the merits of the dispute that conclusively determines a substantive claim, issue or question that exists between the parties.

Advertiser Must Have Freedom To Make Ads With Generic Comparison, Can't Be Objected To Unless Representation Is Absolutely Misleading: Delhi HC

Title: ZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LTD. v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1213

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an advertiser ought to have the freedom to make advertisements with generic comparison highlighting features of its own product and that an objection to it cannot be raised unless representation being made is absolutely false or misleading.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that mere allusions, in the absence of a decipherable comparison, would not be sufficient to make out a case of generic disparagement.

Students Resorting To Unfair Means In Exams Cannot Build This Nation, Must Be Dealt With Heavy Hand: Delhi High Court

Title: YOGESH PARIHAR v. DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1214

The Delhi High Court has observed that students who resort to unfair means in examinations and get away with it cannot build this nation and must be dealt with a heavy hand.

"Persons using unfair means to steal march over students who work hard to prove their worth has to be dealt with a heavy hand. Students, who resort to unfair means and get away with it, cannot build this nation. They cannot be dealt with leniently and they should be made to learn a lesson not to adopt unfair means in their life," a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.

Compensation On Cancellation Of Leasehold Rights Over A Plot, Capital Receipt: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Pawa Infrastructure (P) Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1215

The Delhi High Court has held that the leasehold rights held by the assessee in the plot were a capital asset and that the compensation received by the assessee from the Government of Goa on the cancellation of the plot was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that if an agreement for the transfer of rights in an immovable property is not performed by the transferor, the transferee is entitled to compensation as he/she is deprived of the price of escalation. Therefore, the character of the payment received as compensation by the transferee bears the character of a capital receipt. The payment of interest in the facts of the present case is compensatory in nature and, therefore, does not bear the character of a revenue receipt.