Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100NOMINAL INDEXNational Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 802Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 803WASIM AHMAD & ORS. v. GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR....
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100
NOMINAL INDEX
National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801
Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 803
WASIM AHMAD & ORS. v. GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 804
DR. S. JAITLEY & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 805
THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY v. THE VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 806
PCIT Versus Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 808
NIPUN SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 809
SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 810
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. v. AJIO ONLINE SHOPPING PVT LTD AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 811
Captain Arvind Kathpalia v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 812
Aphv India Investco. Private Limited Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813
M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 814
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED vs FAST CURE PHARMA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 815
M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 816
SANGHI BROS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. vs KAMLENDRA SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 817
TEK CHAND v. STATE OF U P & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 818
Amazon Web Services India Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 819
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820
FIROZ AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 821
Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 822
ANITA SANTIAGO v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 823
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 824
PALLAVIMOHANALIASPALLAVIMENON v. RAGHU MENON 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 825
SILICA UDYOG INDIA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 826
MALINI CHAUDHRI v. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 827
Rajat Kapoor v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 828
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 829
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 830
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 831
SANTOSH BHUTANI & ANR v. SAVITRI DEVI THROUGH LRs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 832
Sarika Patel v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 833
GOPAL RAI v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 834
SIDHARTHA EXTENSION POCKET C RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 835
Ashok Kumar Rajdev & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Directorate of Vigilance & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 836
MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 837
Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 838
Sandhya Gupta & Anr v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 839
RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840
DIKSHIKA MEENA vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 841
DD Global Capital v. S E Investment Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 842
Prince Singh v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 843
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. MR. AMAR SINGH BHALLA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 844
MUSKAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 845
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 846
Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 847
MOHD. AMIR JAVED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 848
Sagar & Ors v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 849
IRSHAD ALI v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 850
MD IMRAN AHMAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 851
RD v. VD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 852
PEPSICO INC. & ANR. v. PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 853
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 854
D v. AK 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 855
ACHAL RANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 856
Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 857
HEMANT JAIN & ANR. vs STATE (GNCTD) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 858
AHIRE AJINKYA SHANKAR v. INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 859
ASHISH BHALLA v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 860
Harish Kumar Gautam v. University of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 861
RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 862
GNCTD v. Sashank Yadav 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 863
VIKAS THAKUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 864
RAJAN & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 865
J v. ND 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 866
DELHI WAQF BOARD v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 867
FAROOQ v. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 868
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. ASHOK KUMAR RAJDEV & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 869
Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 870
S Rajadurai v. State & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 871
JRA INFRATECH v. ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 872
Vivek Khanna v. OYO Apartments Investment LLP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 873
GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 874
KOMAL GUPTA v. AMRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 875
Rahul Gupta v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 876
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 877
NADEEM MAJID OOMERBHOY vs SH. GAUTAM TANK AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 878
RAM KISHOR ARORA v. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 879
SUHAIL AHMAD THOKAR vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 880
UNION OF INDIA v. MS. KIRAN KANOJIA and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 881
CBI v. SHYAMAL GHOSH & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 882
RAJAN DEVI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 883
ASHOK SINGH BHADAURIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 884
UJJWAL SHORI (THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 885
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. Versus CIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 886
ROHAN PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS PALAM VILLAGE AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 887
MISS TANISHKA v. ANR v. GNCTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 888
THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST, INDIA v. HTTPS://BHAGAVATAM.IN/#GSC.TAB=0 & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 889
P v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 890
JOSEPH VARGHESE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 891
NAVEEN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 892
Raja v. State & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 893
Disha A Ravi v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 894
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 895
DEEPAK VERMA v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 896
AS v. NN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 897
KARTIKYA SWAMI & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 898
SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 899
OMID HUSSAIN KHIL @ UMED MILAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 900
Vinod Kumar vs G.N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 901
NHAI v. D.S. Toll Roads Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 902
DLF Limited v. PNB Housing Finance Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 903
RAHUL MAHAJAN v. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 904
SNV AVIATION PVT LTD & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 905
PADMAJA GARIKIPATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 906
S. DAYA SINGH LAHORIA AND ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 907
VBM MEDIZINTECHNIK GMBH vs GEETAN LUTHRA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 908
THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 909
STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. JIOLIVE.TV & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 910
GR Builders v. Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 911
Sarvesh v. AIIMS & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 912
JAINEMO PRIVATE LIMITED v. RAHUL SHAH AND OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 913
SP Singh Dhillon v. Delhi Capital Badminton Association & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 914
NHAI v. GMR Ambala Chandigarh Expressway Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 915
Jitendr Lala & Ors vs The State Of Delhi & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 916
PCIT Versus Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 917
ADITYA N PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 918
DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. MS DOMINICK PIZZA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 919
SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 920
Shelly Oberoi v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 922
Abhishek SIngh v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 923
Sudershan Kumar Bhayana (Deceased) v. Vinod Seth (Deceased) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 924
Harshita Gandhi v. Nimit Gandhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 925
SHRI RAMLEELA COMMITTE JANAKPURI & ANR. v. RISHU KANT SHARMA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 926
Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 928
PRASHANT REDDY T v. CPIO, UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 929
STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. YODESISERIAL.SU & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 930
AAKASH GOEL v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DELHI GOVT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 931
FRESH FRUIT FLOWERS AND VEGETABLES TRADERS ASSOCIATION v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 933
FIRASAT HUSSAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 934
BRIJ MOHAN v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 935
Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. Versus M/S Indian Trade Promotion Org. & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 937
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. AMIT LODHA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 939
SAURABH SHUKLA v. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 940
ANUBHAV KHAJURIA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 941
TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. PURO WELLNESS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 942
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V. DMRC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 943
Shambhu Synthetics Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 944
NEELAM KUMARI v. THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 945
Dr Akash Bhattacharya v. Delhi Disaster Management Authority through Chairperson Lt. Governor & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 946
HUMANS OF BOMBAY STORIES PVT. LTD. v. POI SOCIAL MEDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 947
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 948
MATA PRASAD AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 949
State v. Ariz Khan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 950
IOCL v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 951
M/S Asian Hotels Ltd. Versus CIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 952
BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 953
IOCL v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 954
BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 955
Zakir Hussain v. Sunshine Agrisystem Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 956
MASTER ADITYA VIKRAM KANSAGRA & ANR. v. PERRY KANSAGARA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 957
TIBRA COLLECTION v. FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 958
ACG AIRCRAFT LEASING IRELAND LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 959
PRABIR PURKAYASTHA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 960
Ajay Sagar Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 961
PCIT Versus M/S. Azure Retreat Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 962
MR. GUANGWEN KUANG @ ANDREW v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 963
Dr. Vivek Jain v. PrepLadder Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 964
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. AMAR BISCUIT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 965
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. PRECADO HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 966
Taleda Square Pvt Ltd v. Rail Land Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 967
M/s SVK Infrastructures v. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 968
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. KENDRIYA VIDVALAYA SANGTHAN & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 969
Centre for Policy Research v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 970
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 971
S v. State & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 972
TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. CAPITAL TV AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 973
AYUR UNITED CARE LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 974
MRS. D & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 975
PCIT Versus Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 976
Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 977
Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v. Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 978
Amit Sharma v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 979
Japan Patent Office v. Ms. A2Z Glass and Glazing Co. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 980
DR RAVIKANT CHAUHAN & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. & Other Connected Matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 981
Nayati Healthcare and Research NCR Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. through its Authorized Representative Sh. Satish Kumar Narula & Ors. v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs through its Standing Counsel & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 982
Berger Paints India Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 983
Red Bull AG v. Rohidas Popat Kapadnis & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 984
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Fantasy Sports MyFab11 Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 985
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 986
AMIT SAHNI v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 987
KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 988
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 989
Viacom18 Media Private Limited v. BiggBos.Live & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 990
Adarsh Kanojia v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 991
ASHISH MITTAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 992
Directorate of Enforcement v. Sh. Dev Inder Bhalla 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 993
New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Salman Khan & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 994
CIT Versus Deloitte Touche Tohmastu 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 995
Sinogas Management Pte Ltd Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 996
MRS B. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 997
SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 998
Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 999
M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. 9TH KILOMETER, MEX ESTATE, PATHANKOT ROAD, JALANDHAR v. VIKRAM SURI TRADING AS M/S ARMEX AUTO INDUSTRIES 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1001
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Abony Healthcare Limited through its Directors & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1002
Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v. Ashraf V 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
INDIAMART Intermesh Limited v. Mr. Sameer Samim Khan & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1004
SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
PINKI IRANI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1006
Modicare Limited v. Maa Adishakti Multi Trade Enterprises & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1007
ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1008
INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. QUESS CORP LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1009
Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1010
FSN E-COMMERCE VENTURES LTD & ANR. v. PINTU KUMAR YADAV & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1011
ASFIVE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1012
Dr. P. V. Vijayaraghavan & Ors v. Nityam Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1013
MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD. v. OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1014
SANGEETA WAHI v UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1015
Strix Ltd v. Maharaja Appliances Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
Wills John v. Delhi Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi Versus M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
KAVI VAIDWAN & ORS. v. DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. GOLA SIZZLERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
SMT. DEEPALI & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT LTD v. GREY MANTRA SOLUTIONS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ANR. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
Sakshi Rathore and Ors v. Union of India and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
WONDER BRICKS Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
TTK PRESTIGE LTD v. ARJUN RAM & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Dreamz11 and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
MD NEMAT ALI AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE AND OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FRANCHISEBYTE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
Rajeev Nambiar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
YUVRAJ FRANCIS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
Court on its own motion v. Naresh Sharma 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
Ajay Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1040
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1041
PCIT Versus Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1042
CIT Versus Indus Towers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. A B SUGARS LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1044
PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATEL TRADING AS RAKESH PHARMACEUTICALS v. SSS PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1046
ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. Dabico Airport Solutions Private Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1047
SATPAL SINGH v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1048
Vasudev Garg v. Embassay Commercial Project 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1049
SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1050
PCIT Versus M/S Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1052
AJEET SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1053
ASHOK AGARWAL v. UOI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1055
AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1056
POOJA V . SHAH v. BANK OF INDIA & Other Connected Matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1058
MOHD NASIM v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1059
Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1060
Seema v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1061
New Balance Athletics Inc. v. New Balance Immigration Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Parle Product Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
SUNITA KEJRIWAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
Juniper Hotels Private Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
Sushant Kaushik v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
SHANTANU v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079
ANR International Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081
BT (India) Private Limited Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082
National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083
Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084
ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085
Aryan Kumar (Minor) through Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087
S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088
NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
Viridian Development Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091
VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092
HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy's Hospitality Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093
GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094
MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095
Tata Steel Limited Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096
Indian Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association v. Director General of Foreign Trade 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097
Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098
ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100
Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801
The Delhi High Court has directed the members of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India to only use the term “Staff Contribution” for the amount being charged as “service charge” currently.
Justice Prathiba M Singh added that the amount being charged as “staff contribution” shall not be more than 10% of the total bill amount excluding the GST component.
Case Title: DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 802
The Delhi High Court has observed that indefinite suspension of an entity under the Union Ministry of Defence's 2016 guidelines for penalties in business dealing, without resort to the safeguards prescribed for banning, would not be permissible.
The guidelines were issued on November 21, 2016. They provide for suspension and debarment of suppliers for violation of defense procurement processes.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the suspension is a subset or species within debarment or banning and not an independent measure and that suspension cannot be read in isolation but has to be read as a part of the banning process.
Case Title: Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 803
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars the filing of a second appeal where a Single Judge had heard an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that the restraint on a further appeal shall operate notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent of a High Court or any other law for the time being in force.
Do Ten Pro Bono Cases: Delhi High Court To Lawyer While Quashing FIRs Lodged Against Him By Ex-Wife
Case Title: WASIM AHMAD & ORS. v. GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 804
The Delhi High Court recently directed a lawyer to do ten pro bono cases while quashing two FIRs registered against him by his former wife, after they amicably settled the disputes and got talaq.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma quashed the FIRs registered under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as under Section 354 IPC and 10 of the POCSO Act.
The cases were registered by the wife due to matrimonial disputes between her and the husband. After a settlement was entered between them, they were granted Talaq-E-Mubarat.
Case Title: DR. S. JAITLEY & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 805
The Delhi High Court has observed that courts should be flexible in embracing modern technology and allowing virtual appearance in criminal trials, provided they do not compromise the integrity or fairness of the trial.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that where the criminal trial can proceed effectively with the accused remaining present before the court through an alternative means such as vide-conferencing and representation by legal counsel, courts should be flexible in considering such prayers made by the accused.
Case Title: THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY v. THE VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 806
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because several Indians may have studied in the prestigious Princeton University in the United States would not amount to “use” by the American Ivy League college of its “Princeton” mark in India for providing its services in terms of the Trade Marks Act.
“ Reference to Indian students studying at Princeton, howsoever large the number, cannot amount to the plaintiff providing services, in India, under the PRINCETON mark. Opening of centres in the plaintiff-institution in the US, dealing with Indian subjects, Indian studies, or Indian cultural activities, too, does not reflect use, by the plaintiff, of the PRINCETON mark in India prior to 1991,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Case Title: Gopal Corporates LLP Versus Commissioner Delhi-East
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 807
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 8 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 (CTUT), which deals with the alteration in the number of operating packing machines.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that Rule 8 notes that in case a machine is added to the production capabilities existing in a factory, the number of operating packing machines for the month shall be deemed to be the maximum number of packing machines installed and existing on any day during that month.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 808
The Delhi High Court has held that undisclosed income taxed in the hands of flagship companies cannot be again subjected to tax in the hands of assessee companies.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that since the undisclosed income, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, had already been taxed in the hands of the flagship company Surya Food & Agro Ltd., it cannot be again subjected to tax in the hands of the respondents or assessee companies in the form of application of the income as their share capital.
Banks Can't Use Look Out Circulars As Measure To Recover Money From Creditors: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NIPUN SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 809
The Delhi High Court has observed that banks cannot use Look Out Circulars (LOCs) as a measure of recovering money from creditors just because they feel remedy available under law is not sufficient.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that LOC can be issued only when there are sufficient reasons. He added that if there is a condition precedent for issuance of such LOC, the same must be provided therein.
Case Title: SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 810
The Delhi High Court has observed that patent and trademark agents do not come within the ambit of the Bar Council of India or the Advocates' Act, 1961. Justice Prathiba M Singh added that there is no supervisory or regulatory authority over trademark and patent agents which appears to be the 'need of the hour'.
The bench thus sought to know the manner in which the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks intends to regulate or supervise the functioning of trademark and patent agents.
Case Title: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. v. AJIO ONLINE SHOPPING PVT LTD AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 811
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police's Cyber Cell to investigate “unscrupulous individuals” involved in “large scale operation” of collecting money under the name of fashion and lifestyle brand AJIO, by way of scratch coupons and prize money.
“….the Court is convinced that this appears to be a large-scale operation carried out by unscrupulous individuals with the intention of collecting money under the name of 'AJIO' and 'AJIO Online Shopping Private Limited'. The letters and the scratch cards, etc., are so convincing that any customer or recipient would be unable to distinguish between the Plaintiffs' (Ajio's) communications and those of the said entity or person,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Case Title: Captain Arvind Kathpalia v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 812
The Delhi High Court has said that a person cannot be subjected to double jeopardy by initiating criminal proceeding after he has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding on same allegations.
The case pertains to a pilot of Air India who was facing criminal proceeding for forgery even after the disciplinary case against him was closed by the department.
Overlooking Assesssee's Reply Demonstrates Non-Application Of Mind By The AO: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aphv India Investco. Private Limited Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813
The Delhi High Court has quashed the draft assessment orders, final assessment orders, and consequential demand on the grounds that the assessing officer inadvertently overlooked the email reply of the assessee, in which the assessee disclosed vital facts pertaining to its case.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the denial of sufficient time to respond was not just an abrogation of jus naturale but also infringed clause B(1) of the Standard Operating Procedure dated November 19, 2020, of the CBDT, according to which normally a response time of 15 days has to be given to the assessee in order to respond to the notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 814
The Delhi High Court has held that claims of a party cannot be referred to arbitration when the requirement to mandatorily notify such claims with the General Manger (GM) was not followed.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Court can conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out if the dispute is arbitrable in terms of the agreement and refuse arbitration when the claims are ex facie non-arbitrable.
Case Title: DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED vs FAST CURE PHARMA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 815
The Delhi High Court has ruled that High Courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the rectification petition seeking removal of trademark from the Register of Trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if the 'dynamic effect' of the impugned registration is felt within the High Court's jurisdiction by the person who has challenged the validity of the trade mark registration or has sought its removal.
Accordingly, the court said, the High Court dealing with a suit for infringement of Trademark would have the jurisdiction to entertain the rectification petition after the court comes to the conclusion that the plea of invalidity raised by the party under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act, is tenable.
Case Title: M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 816
The Delhi High Court has held that in cases where the contract stipulates arbitration solely in instances where the cumulative value of claims is below 20% of the contract value, the court would abstain from directing the parties towards arbitration if the claims surpass this specified cumulative value threshold.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Court can conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out if the dispute is arbitrable in terms of the agreement and refuse arbitration when the claims are ex facie non-arbitrable.
Case Title: SANGHI BROS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. vs KAMLENDRA SINGH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 817
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant decree of specific performance against a suit property after noting that the property had been sold to a third party during the pendency of the suit. The court said the said circumstance made it inequitable to grant and enforce the specific performance decree.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh reiterated that it is a settled law that specific performance is not granted by the Courts due to the various hardships which may be caused to the third party in case the specific performance is granted. The bench said that while exercising the discretion of granting specific performance, the court has to balance the interests of justice and equity for the parties involved and has to look into the probable consequences of granting such specific performance.
Case Title: TEK CHAND v. STATE OF U P & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 818
While upholding the acquittal of five accused persons in 2015 in a murder case registered way back in 1998, the Delhi High Court has cautioned the Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Police for conducting “terrible investigation.”
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that both the investigating agencies “mechanically investigated” the FIR which was registered in 1998 wherein the accused persons were acquitted in 2015 and thus, faced “ordeal of long trial and suffered loss of time, energy and reputation” which cannot be compensated in terms of money or otherwise.
Case Title: Amazon Web Services India Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus ITO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 819
The Delhi High Court has directed that AWS India withhold 8% of payments payable or paid to AWS USA and deposit the same with the income tax department.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the nature of the proceedings is confined to the withholding of tax and that the financial year 2022–23 is already over.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820
The Delhi High Court has said that a wife cannot be entitled to maintenance by the husband when she is highly qualified and has been earning even after her marriage, though she does not truthfully disclose her true income.
While upholding a family court order dismissing a wife's application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.”
Case Title: FIROZ AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 821
Applying law is not akin to solving a mathematical theorem, it cannot be done in isolation, the Delhi High Court has observed.
“As the people of the State are affected by these legal decisions, a rigid and mathematical application of the law may lead to disastrous outcomes. For instance, if a person is the sole provider for their family and serves as the head of the household, sending them to jail could result in severe hardship for their dependents. Therefore, such a strict approach would be considered cruel and impractical,” Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said.
Civil Services Exam 2023: Delhi High Court Admits Plea Seeking Publication Of Prelims Answer Key
Case Title: Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 822
The Delhi High Court has admitted the plea challenging the decision of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to publish the answer key of the preliminary examination of Civil Services Examination 2023 only after declaration of final result.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh pronounced the judgment on maintainability of the plea which has been moved by 17 civil services aspirants seeking publication of answer key before the entire process is completed. The court had reserved the verdict on August 02.
Stray Dogs Captured For Preparation Of G20 Summit Being Released As Per Law: MCD To Delhi High Court
Case Title: ANITA SANTIAGO v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 823
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has told the Delhi High Court that the process of releasing stray dogs that were captured during the preparation for G20 Summit has been initiated in strict adherence with law.
The G20 Summit was held in the national capital on September 9-10.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing a PIL moved by an animal activist highlighting the manner in which the stray dogs were captured in Delhi during special events like Independence Day, Republic Day and most recently, the G20 Summit.
Brand Names Are Specie Of The Trademark: Delhi High Court Allows Depreciation
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 824
The Delhi High Court has allowed the depreciation and held that the expression "trademark" under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in the appended Explanation 3(b) would clearly include brand names.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the definition of assets, as explained in the explanation, includes commercial rights of similar nature. Brand names certainly invest in the owner's commercial rights and, therefore, will fall within the scope of intangible assets, which are amenable to depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: PALLAVIMOHANALIASPALLAVIMENON v. RAGHU MENON
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 825
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against a judgment or order of the family court is 30 days.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that the delay in filing of such an appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1963, if sufficient cause is shown.
Case Title: SILICA UDYOG INDIA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 826
The Delhi High Court has upheld a restriction on LPG gas cylinder manufacturers, having common business ownership including sister companies, to quote only a single bid while applying in the tender floated by Hindustan Petroleum, Bharat Petroleum and Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the petitions moved by various vendors who were effectively barred from submitting bids separately through each of their manufacturing units.
Case Title: MALINI CHAUDHRI v. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 827
The Delhi High Court has observed that a divorced daughter is not a “dependent” under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased father.
“An unmarried or widowed daughter is recognized to have a claim in the estate of the deceased, but a “divorced daughter” does not feature in the category of dependents entitled to maintenance,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Case Title: Rajat Kapoor v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 828
The Delhi High Court has clarified that provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 that are relevant for the purpose of electric vehicles are applicable to them.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that insurance cover and wearing helmet or protective gear is mandatory for e-bikes and that electric vehicles will also be subjected to the requirement of registration and penal provisions in law, as applicable to other vehicles.
No Permission To Be Granted For Felling Of Trees To Construct Houses In Delhi: High Court
Case Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 829
The Delhi High Court has said that no permission shall be granted to anyone by the city authorities for felling of trees for construction of houses in the national capital.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that its earlier interim order, recording the Delhi Government's stand that no permission will be granted to any individual for felling of trees and that any permission required for important projects will be intimated to court, shall continue till October 06.
Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 830
Ruling in favour of Aaj Tak, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained various YouTube channels and social media handles from using marks that are deceptively similar and identical to the registered trademark of the news channel.
Justice C Hari Shankar passed the permanent injunction order in favour of Living Media India Limited which runs the news channel under the registered trademark “Aaj Tak.”
It was Aaj Tak's case that the YouTube channels and social media handles were violating its registered mark by using “Aaj Tak” mark and its various derivative forms illegally and unauthorisedly.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 831
The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband living with another woman, after long years of separation from his wife with no possibility of re-union during the pendency of the divorce petition, cannot disentitle him from seeking divorce on proven grounds of cruelty by the wife.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the allegations of cruelty made in criminal cases by the wife should be substantiated in divorce proceedings.
Title: SANTOSH BHUTANI & ANR v. SAVITRI DEVI THROUGH LRs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 832
The Delhi High Court has said that mere disability does not deprive an individual the constitutional right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
“Thus, it would be wholly retrograde, and in derogation of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 & 21, to deny the right of a person suffering from any disability, to carry on any trade or business,” Justice Sachin Datta observed.
Title: Sarika Patel v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 833
The Delhi High Court has asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to urgently take appropriate action on the “serious issue” of stray dog menace.
“…the issue of stray dog menace is a serious issue, which needs to be addressed with urgency by the concerned authority. Let a copy of this order be sent to Commissioner, MCD for taking appropriate action,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.
Case Title: GOPAL RAI v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Union Government has informed the Delhi High Court that political clearance has been granted for the foreign visit of Delhi's Environment Minister Gopal Rai for attending Columbia India Energy Dialogue in New York.
The programme is scheduled to be held in New York, United States of America on September 18.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told Justice Subramonium Prasad that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, political clearance was being granted for Rai's travel from September 15 to 21.
Title: SIDHARTHA EXTENSION POCKET C RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 835
The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected the concerns raised by certain residents from whose area a rapid metro rail would pass, observing that overarching public interest must take precedence over individual property rights.
The project in question is the Delhi-Meerut Regional Rapid Transport System, a semi-high-speed rail corridor, which will connect the cities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Meerut
Tiitle: Ashok Kumar Rajdev & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Directorate of Vigilance & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 836
The Delhi High Court has ordered that no coercive steps be taken by any authority against six PWD officials who have challenged the show cause notices issued to them by the Delhi Government's Vigilance department over alleged gross violations of rules in the renovation work undertaken at the official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that despite an undertaking given to the court by the city authorities that no coercive steps shall be taken against the officials, yet, steps were taken against them in the “teeth of the judicial order.”
Case Title: MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 837
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by news magazine Tehelka and its co-founder Aniruddha Bahal seeking review of an order directing them to pay Rs. 2 crores damages to a former Army officer Major General MS Ahluwalia in a defamation suit filed by the latter in 2002.
“There is no error apparent on the face of record nor has the applicants been able to highlight any error or mistake which can be corrected within the ambit of review,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 838
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused has a right to be released on default bail where the prosecution files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet within the statutory period.
Justice Amit Sharma said the fundamental right to personal life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and its co-relation with 167(2) of the CrPC has been clearly established by way of judicial precedents over the years.
Title: Sandhya Gupta & Anr v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 839
While quashing an FIR registered by a brother against her sister, who recently completed her graduation in law, the Delhi High Court directed her to provide her assistance to its Legal Services Committee for one month.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee quashed the case filed in 2019 against the sister as well as the mother wherein the brother accused them of falsification of documents in respect of a family dispute.
Title: RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840
The Delhi High Court has appointed its retired judge, Justice Najmi Waziri, as the Chairman for the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) to be held today.
The agenda for the meeting is for amendments in the ECI calendar, participation and funding for the 19th Asian Games being held from September 23, hiring of a PR agency, digitalisation of old records and status of cases pending before the court.
Case Title: DIKSHIKA MEENA vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 841
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of a Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) aspirant to appear in the forthcoming Civil Services (Main) Examination after her candidature was cancelled for uploading incorrect photograph and signature in the application form.
The petitioner, who had cleared the Preliminary Examination, claimed she had inadvertently uploaded her brother's photo and signature in her application form. She challenged the cancellation of her candidature before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The interim relief sought by her that she be permitted to appear in the Main Examination was rejected by the Tribunal.
Case Title: DD Global Capital v. S E Investment Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 842
The Delhi High Court has held that when earlier loan agreement liabilities are transferred through an agreement, the subsequent loan agreements' arbitration clauses become binding on the parties.
The bench of Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna reiterated that Section 12(5) inserted through the 2015 Amendment to the Act would not apply to an arbitration that had commenced before the amendment came into force. It held that an arbitration commences on the date when the notice of arbitration is issued.
Case Title: Prince Singh v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 843
The Delhi High Court on Monday passed an interim order and permitted the Delhi University to offer admissions in its newly introduced five-year integrated law courses on the basis of CLAT-UG 2023 score, only for the current academic year.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the interim order considering the fact that classes have already started for this academic year in all other universities.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. MR. AMAR SINGH BHALLA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 844
The Delhi High Court has sentenced a man to six months of simple imprisonment for failing to pay dues to the wife of his deceased driver and repeatedly flouting undertakings given to that effect to the court.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found the man guilty of committing contempt of court for wilfully disobeying his undertakings of making payment to the widow who had a minor daughter.
Right To Choose Life Partner Can't Be Affected By Faith Or Religion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MUSKAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 845
The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual's right to choose a life partner cannot be affected by matters of faith and religion and that the right to marry is an “incident of human liberty.”
Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that it is not for the State or the society or even the parents of the parties involved to, in any way, dictate the choice of life partner or curtail and limit such rights of an individual when it involves “two consenting adults.”
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 846
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to conduct training of the newly recruited public prosecutors in coordination with Delhi Judicial Academy.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that given the distinct role played by the Public Prosecutors, it must be ensured that the new appointees are adequately equipped to “shoulder the weighty responsibilities the post carries.”
Delhi High Court Directs VAT Dept. To Refund Rs. 6.62 Crores To Flipkart
Case Title: Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 847
The Delhi High Court has directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to refund Rs. 6.62 crore to Flipkart along with interest.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the VAT department has acted arbitrarily in making numerous adjustments post-May 31, 2015, thus illegally depriving the petitioner, Flipkart, of the refund as claimed. The various adjustments clearly appear to have been made even though objections before the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) had been duly lodged online by the petitioner. The department thus clearly appeared to have acted contrary to the clear mandate of Section 38 of the DVAT Act.
Case Title: MOHD. AMIR JAVED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 848
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man, Mohd. Amir Javed, booked under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, for allegedly planning terror activities in the country.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal said that there was a reasonable possibility that Javed was one of the links in the network of people who were cognizant of the plan to trigger terrorist activity by using bombs and explosives and causing loss of life.
Title: Sagar & Ors v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 849
While quashing an attempt to commit culpable homicide case after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed all 24 individuals involved in the matter to do “basic cleaning work” for three days at four police stations by dividing themselves in four groups.
“The said 24 persons shall be at liberty to decide amongst themselves as to the composition of each group of 6 persons and also the Police Station where each group shall undertake the aforesaid basic cleaning duty,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.
Title: IRSHAD ALI v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 850
The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to an accused in the murder case of Delhi Police's head constable Ratan Lal during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that there are chances that once out on bail, accused Irshad Ali may influence or threaten the witnesses and is likely to tamper with the evidence which can jeopardise and derail the proceedings thereby, “setting the clock back once again.”
Title: MD IMRAN AHMAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 851
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to not publish any job advertisement in its “Rozgar Bazaar portal” which is non-compliant with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula took note of Delhi Government's submission that steps are being taken to update the software portal so that not a single advertisement reflecting wages below the prescribed minimum wages would be uploaded.
Title: RD v. VD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 852
The Delhi High Court has ruled that constant rejection and non-acknowledgment of the husband in a marriage by his wife is a source of “great mental agony” for him.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by his wife. The couple got married in March 2011 and started living separated just after six months.
Case Title: PEPSICO INC. & ANR. v. PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 853
The Delhi High Court has restrained Parle from using the tagline “For The Bold” as predominant part of any advertising campaign for its “B Fizz” beverage in a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational chain PepsiCo.
Justice C Hari Shankar passed the interim order in PepsiCo's suit seeking a permanent injunction against Parle from using the tagline “For The Bold”. The suit is filed by PepsiCo Inc. and PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited.
Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 854
Observing that a child is the worst victim where there is acrimonious relationship between the parents, the Delhi High Court has said that a minor's age and the surrounding circumstances of the period of separation from a parent are relevant while considering his or her 'intelligent preference'.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while referring to Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which states that while appointing a guardian, court may consider preference of a minor in case he or she is old enough to form an “intelligent preference”
Title: D v. AK
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 855
The Delhi High Court has ruled that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for seeking divorce and that Family Courts must strictly restrict their considerations to the statutory provisions like those under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
While discussing the theory of breakdown of marriage, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for grant of divorce under the enactment.
Title: ACHAL RANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 856
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that in today's digital era, cyber-crimes are proliferating at an alarming rate and that such offences are neither bound by border restrictions due to their global reach, nor do they discriminate among their victims.
Observing that cyber-crimes target the elderly, young, businesses as well as the governments in the digital landscape, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “The consequences of cyber-crimes go beyond individual boundaries, impacting numerous unsuspecting victims.”
Title: Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 857
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor and restrained various entities from misusing his image, name, voice or other elements of his persona for monetary gains without his consent.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also restrained “other unknown persons” from disseminating various videos, links of which will be uploaded in the order, and directed that the same shall be taken down immediately by all internet service providers.
The court passed interim injunction order in Kapoor's suit seeking protection of his personality rights. The suit seeks to restrain various entities, including John Does, from violating his personality rights by using his name, acronym 'AK', nicknames like 'Lakhan', 'Mr. India ', 'Majnu Bhai' and phrase 'Jhakaas' and his voice and images, without his permission for commercial gain.
Case Title: HEMANT JAIN & ANR. vs STATE (GNCTD) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 858
The Delhi High Court, while quashing an FIR for forgery and cheating based on the settlement between the accused and the complainant, has directed the parties to pool in money and purchase uniform socks for the police personnel stationed at 6 police stations in Delhi.
The court has directed the parties to procure uniform socks worth Rs. 48,000 for the police officials posted at Keshavpuram, Bharat Nagar, Model Town, Ashok Vihar, Roop Nagar and Maurice Nagar police stations.
Title: AHIRE AJINKYA SHANKAR v. INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 859
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to an applicant whose candidature in the Indian Coast Guard was rejected due to the mismatch of surname in the caste certificate issued to him.
The mismatch prevailed in the name of the candidate and his father in the SC Certificate, due to the omission and addition of their surnames, respectively, with the names submitted in the application form.
Case Title: ASHISH BHALLA v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 860
The Delhi High Court has ruled that once an investigation has been initiated by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, a parallel investigation by a separate agency into the affairs of such a company is not permissible.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed so in view of the bar contained under Section 212(2) of the Act which states that where a case has been assigned by the Central Government to the SFIO, no other investigating agency shall proceed with the probe.
Title: Harish Kumar Gautam v. University of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 861
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi University to relax the upper age limit for undergraduate and postgraduate student candidates participating in Delhi University Student's Union for the current academic year.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that a one-time age relaxation has been granted for candidates as the elections were being held after a hiatus of three years due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Title: RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 862
The Delhi High Court has directed Meta and Telegram to suspend or deactivate the groups and channels illegally circulated content of latest film Jawan starring Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan.
Justice C Hari Shankar also directed the two platforms to provide the basic subscriber information and other details relating to the administrators of the groups or channels.
Title: GNCTD v. Sashank Yadav
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 863
The Delhi High Court has upheld a single judge order staying two circulars issued by the Delhi Government mandating furnishing of Aadhaar card of a child in the online process for admission in a private school in the national capital under the EWS or DG category.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the issue of obtaining sensitive personal details of a child, as observed by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy case, would have the potential of infringing their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: VIKAS THAKUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 864
The Delhi High Court has recently enunciated various principles to be followed by Magistrates while taking cognizance of offences, observing that the process cannot be a routine exercise.
“If there is such an order taking cognizance then the same would be perfunctory and not reflective of the Magistrate having applied his/her mind. The Magistrate cannot be mechanical in his approach. More so, whence at the end of the day, the Magistrate is setting into motion the judicial machinery against the alleged accused person as it inevitably involves their personal liberty and freedom,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.
Case Title: RAJAN & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 865
While quashing an FIR for attempt to commit culpable homicide and criminal intimidation based on settlement, the Delhi High Court has directed the parties to give 100 first aid kits to Delhi Police personnel deputed in five police stations.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed the three accused and the complainant to give the first aid kits in Ashok Vihar, Keshav Puram, Bharat Nagar, Adarsh Nagar and Model Town police stations within two weeks.
Case Title: J v. ND
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 866
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's misrepresentation about having 'sufficient means' to set up business cannot be said to be of the nature as would amount to 'fraud or concealment' of material fact entitling the husband to seek annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observations while dismissing a husband's appeal challenging a family court order dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud by the wife under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 867
The Delhi Development Authority has assured the Delhi High Court that no mosque, graveyard or legitimate properties owned by the Delhi Waqf Board will be demolished in Mehrauli Archaeological Park in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula took the statement on record and bound the DDA to the same.
Case Title: FAROOQ v. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 868
The Delhi Government has told the Delhi High Court that it will continue to take necessary steps to check and minimize plying of unauthorized stage carriages, including e-rickshaws, on the routes allotted to Gramin Sewa operators in the national capital.
Taking note of the assurance, Justice Prateek Jalan disposed of two petitions moved by drivers and operators of Rural Transport Vehicles plying on specific routes under the Gramin Sewa scheme.
Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. ASHOK KUMAR RAJDEV & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 869
The Delhi High Court has directed the six PWD officials to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for challenging the show cause notices issued to them by Delhi Government's Vigilance department over alleged gross violations of rules in renovation work undertaken at official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the petitions moved by the PWD officials before a single judge challenging the show cause notices was not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
Title: Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 870
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Cost Accountants cannot be treated at par with Chartered Accountants in matters of public employment.
The court remarked that Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant are not at all similarly placed and are governed by two independent statutes, and that it is for the employer to decide the qualifications for posts, keeping in view the nature of the job for which the advertisement has been issued.
Married Woman Can't Prosecute For Rape On False Pretext Of Marriage: Delhi High Court
Title: S Rajadurai v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 871
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a sexual relationship between two adults, who are legally married to other partners, cannot be considered an act for which legal protection is available.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that an unmarried woman who is induced into a sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage by someone, whom she believes to be legally eligible for marriage, may constitute an offence of rape. However, the court added, that when the victim herself is not legally eligible to marry someone else due to her existing marriage to another partner, she cannot claim to have been induced into a sexual relationship under false pretext of marriage.
Case Title: JRA INFRATECH v. ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 872
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a question as to whether the arbitration agreement is vitiated by fraud should be left to the wisdom of the arbitrator who will be free to decide the same on the basis of the evidence and the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act should not get into such a finding.
Justice Rekha Palli held that merely because a criminal complaint has been lodged against the petitioner for the alleged fraud is not a ground to refer the parties to arbitration when the dispute is squarely and undisputedly covered by the arbitration clause.
Case Title: Vivek Khanna v. OYO Apartments Investment LLP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 873
The Delhi High Court has held that the sum agreed by the parties as liquidated damages would not dispense with the requirement of proof by the party claiming liquidated damages that it actually suffered a loss.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that a sum ascertained as liquidated damages in the contract is not in the nature of penalty, but is a pre-estimate of loss estimated by the parties likely to be suffered by a party in the event of breach of contract by the other party. It held that Liquidated damages are not payable merely as a penalty for breach of contract, if no loss is suffered.
Case Title: GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 874
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, does not postulate a separate “reason to believe” for each property which stands attached under the provisional attachment order passed under Section 5(1) of the enactment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by M/S Gold Croft Properties Private Limited challenging the single judge's order which upheld the order of PMLA Adjudicating Authority disposing of its application seeking deferment of the proceedings before on the ground that the Bench suffered from “coram non-judice”.
Case Title: KOMAL GUPTA v. AMRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 875
The Delhi High Court has observed that family courts have to be a little liberal in family disputes and that the stringent test, as may be applicable to commercial disputes, cannot be applied in such cases.
Dealing with a case where a family court closed a wife's right to file her written statement in the divorce proceedings, Justice Navin Chawla said:
“It is to be remembered that closing of the right to file written statement would result in grave personal consequences to the party concerned. The approach of the learned Family Court, therefore, has to be guided by the object of the Family Court, rather than the technicality of law.”
Title: Rahul Gupta v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 876
The Delhi High Court has observed that filing a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court by a convict challenging the conviction constitutes a “special circumstance” for granting parole in terms of Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
“…this Court is of the opinion that the bar contained in Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute. The ground taken herein, i.e., filing on an SLP constitutes a 'special circumstance' in terms of the said rule,” Justice Amit Sharma said.
Family Courts Can't Compel Parties To Take Divorce If Not Mutually Acceptable: Delhi High Court
Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 877
The Delhi High Court has said that family courts cannot compel the parties to take divorce if not mutually acceptable and that their approach must be reconciliatory.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dismissing a husband's appeal against a family court order rejecting his contempt petition against the wife for not having abided by the MoU whereby they had agreed to take divorce by mutual consent.
Case Title: NADEEM MAJID OOMERBHOY vs SH. GAUTAM TANK AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 878
The Delhi High Court has ruled that it cannot returning a finding of infringement against the holder of a registered trade mark without invalidating its trademark registration in the first instance.
Justice C. Hari Shankar was hearing a suit for infringement of trademark, where the defendants were subsequently granted registration of the impugned trademark. The court remarked that by operation of Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the registration dated back to 29th April 2004, i.e., the date of filing the application, which was notably before the date of filing of the trademark suit by the plaintiff. Therefore, the court said, it could not hold the defendants to be infringing the plaintiff's trademark unless the court finds the registration of the defendants' trademark to be invalid.
Case Title: RAM KISHOR ARORA v. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 879
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition moved by Supertech Chairman Ram Kishor Arora challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that no fundamental rights of Arora were violated and that there was nothing on record to suggest that he was denied right to consult or be defended by a legal practitioner.
“The petitioner here failed to show that the arrest of the petitioner is in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA In J&K Larger Conspiracy Case
Case Title: SUHAIL AHMAD THOKAR vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 880
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal against the Trial Court order denying bail to Suhail Ahmad Thokar, one of the accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), in connection with the Jammu and Kashmir “larger conspiracy” case post revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India.
The court observed that several pieces of evidence were procured during the course of investigation that suggested the accused's significant involvement in the larger conspiracy and in activities related to militancy and terrorism. It further noted that as per the chargesheet filed by NIA, the accused had attempted to arrange shelter for two militants associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a banned terrorist organization listed in the First Schedule of the UAPA.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. MS. KIRAN KANOJIA and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 881
The Delhi High Court has said that there is an urgent need for a system that prevents unnecessary and frivolous litigation concerning government departments or bodies which should focus on conducting audit of decision-making process to contest cases.
The court added that such a mechanism must also focus of the principles of responsibility and accountability of erring government officials.
Unsubstantiated Judicial Remarks Against CBI Demoralizes Entire Agency: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CBI v. SHYAMAL GHOSH & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 882
The Delhi High Court has observed that unsubstantiated judicial remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation demoralizes the entire agency, calling it India's “premier investigating agency.”
“…. the function assigned to investigating agency is very sensitive in nature. It is also pertinent to note that the CBI is the premier investigating agency of this country and any observation or remarks which does not have substantive basis, demoralise the entire agency itself,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed.
Title: RAJAN DEVI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 883
The Delhi High Court has said that derogatory terms that perpetuate gender stereotypes and undermine the dignity and rights of individuals based on their gender should not be used in pleadings.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the 'Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes' launched by the Supreme Court recently may be used while drafting pleadings as well as the orders and judgments.
Case Title: ASHOK SINGH BHADAURIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 884
The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to two former-Uttar Pradesh Police officers who were convicted in the case involving the custodial death of the Unnao rape survivor's father.
Ashok Singh Bhadauria and Kamta Prasad Singh (appellants) were convicted by the Trial Court on 04.03.2020, along with co-accused Kuldeep Singh Sengar and 3 others, for several offences including criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and were sentenced to 10 years in jail. Their appeals against the conviction and sentencing order is pending before the court.
Case Title: UJJWAL SHORI (THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 885
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government to revisit the existing rules or consider drafting new rules on the eligibility criteria of candidates seeking admissions to educational institutions in respect of their domicile or permanent residency status.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the said rules should determine the criteria for designating someone as a domicile or permanent for admissions and also for granting suitable relaxation to genuine residents of Delhi “who are rendered ineligible due to fortuitous circumstances.”
Case Title: Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. Versus CIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 886
The Delhi High Court has deleted the tax demand against Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the jurisdiction on the withholding tax liability on the transaction of share purchase by the Assessee was already exercised by the tax authority based in Mumbai, thus the tax authority based in Delhi had no jurisdiction to pass the order.
Case Title: ROHAN PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS PALAM VILLAGE AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 887
While quashing a POCSO case after settlement between parties who were young individuals, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused's father to arrange free health checkups by Orthopaedic doctors for teachers in 10 government schools in the national capital.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee asked the accused's father, presently working as Chief Administrative Officer of Indian Orthopaedic Association, to arrange Orthopaedic Surgeons or doctors associated with the said association to provide free medical health checkup for the teachers.
Case Title: MISS TANISHKA v. ANR v. GNCTD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 888
The Delhi High Court has said that the Ordinance of the Universities for self-regulation cannot override a student's right to education and the right to live a life with human dignity.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the Universities should not be rigid while taking decisions in those cases where cogent reasons are given by students for seeking migration.
Case Title: THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST, INDIA v. HTTPS://BHAGAVATAM.IN/#GSC.TAB=0 & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 889
Observing that no copyright can be claimed in religious scriptures, the Delhi High Court has ruled that adaptions of such work, including making TV series or creating dramatic works, would be entitled to copyright protection.
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while dealing with a suit filed Bhaktivedanta Book Trust created by a renowned scholar and spiritual leader Srila Prabhupada, against various websites, mobile applications and social media accounts which were allegedly disseminating its copyrighted works, including Bhagavat Gita and other religious books.
Case Title: P v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 890
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue a notification prescribing the manner in which the details about completion of investigation and filing of final report is to be given by officer-in-charge of a police station to the complainant in terms of Section 173(2)(ii) of CrPC.
In an order passed on September 04, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the notification may be issued within three months.
Case Title: JOSEPH VARGHESE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 891
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of Rs. 1 crore ex-gratia compensation to the husband and minor son of a health care worker who died on COVID-19 duty during the first wave of pandemic.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed that Rs. 50 lakhs be released to the husband whereas the remaining Rs. 50 lakhs shall be released to the son.
Delhi High Court Calls For Uniform Eligibility Conditions For Recruitment To Various Teaching Posts
Case Title: NAVEEN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 892
The Delhi High Court has called for uniform and consistent eligibility conditions for recruitment to the posts of primary teachers, post graduate teachers and trained graduate teachers respectively, and has asked the Union Ministry of Higher Education to look into the matter.
“It may be in consonance with the objective of National Education Policy to streamline and provide uniform/consistent eligibility conditions for the recruitment to the posts of Primary Teachers, TGTs and PGTs since the curriculum to be taught is generally similar across different educational boards including CBSE,” a division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.
Case Title: Raja v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 893
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered between neighbours after settlement between them and asked the accused to offer social service at Hanuman temple situated at Connaught Place for 40 days.
Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the petition moved by the accused Raja seeking quashing of an FIR which was registered in 2018 under Section 354 (outraging modesty of a woman) of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of POCSO Act.
Case Title: Disha A Ravi v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 894
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by climate activist Disha Ravi, accused in the 2021 “toolkit case”, seeking modification of a bail condition requiring her to obtain prior permission from court each time before travelling abroad.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the petition moved by Ravi seeking modification of the bail condition which read as “She shall not leave the country without the permission of the court.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 895
The Delhi High Court has observed that making friends at workplace or otherwise when both husband and wife have been living separately due to work exigencies cannot be termed as cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a person who is living alone may find solace by having friends, and merely because such individual used to talk to friends can neither be held to be an act of ignoring the spouse nor a cruel act.
Case Title: DEEPAK VERMA v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 896
While quashing a sexual harassment case after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused to contribute Rs. 25,000 in the form of woollen blankets to a shelter home for girls in the national capital.
Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the accused's plea for quashing of the FIR registered in 2014 under Section 354 (outraging modesty of a woman), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Title: AS v. NN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 897
The Delhi High Court has observed that if a wife starts working to supplement daily expenditure for herself and the child due to financial crunch, it is not a ground to reduce maintenance payable to her by her husband.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a husband's appeal challenging a family court order refusing to modify monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000 to the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the minor child.
Title: KARTIKYA SWAMI & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 898
The Delhi High Court has asked a man to make contributions towards the "green cover" of the national capital, while quashing an FIR registered against him and his family members by his wife. The parties had reached a settlement after divorce by mutual consent.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee asked the husband to provide 500 ml of “Organic Fungicide for Plants” to five police stations in Delhi within two weeks.
Case Title: SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 899
The Delhi High Court recently stayed the order of the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat disengaging the services of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre Fellowship Programme.
The tenure of petitioners was terminated prematurely on the ground that the reservation policy had not been followed while making the appointments and that the approval of the Lt. Governor had not been taken.
Case Title: OMID HUSSAIN KHIL @ UMED MILAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 900
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of a convict to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court cannot be denied solely based on the severity of the offence or the availability of free legal assistance even if such a plea can be filed from jail itself.
The Court said that every individual has the right to “effectively pursue their legal recourse in the ultimate court of justice within the nation” accomplished by submitting a SLP through a chosen legal representative.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar vs G.N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 901
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the period under which an employee is placed under suspension, cannot be treated as period “not spent on duty” for all intents and purposes. The court remarked that the period can be treated as “not spent on duty” only for the purposes of back wages and not for the purposes of seniority and promotion.
Case Title: NHAI v. D.S. Toll Roads Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 902
The Delhi High Court has held that delay in the handing over of the Right of Way is a material breach of contract if it affects the issuance of Completion Certificate or delays the Commercial Date of Operation (COD).
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri upheld an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator held NHAI to be in material breach of the contract for its failure to provide the Right of Way or the work front to the contractor which resulted in the delay in issuance of provisional completion certificate and delayed commercial date of operation.
Case Title: DLF Limited v. PNB Housing Finance Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 903
The Delhi High Court has held that the right of the pledgee to sell the pledged shares for default to repay the loan amount is subservient to the right of the pledgor to redeem such shares under Section 177 of Indian Contract Act.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the pledged shares cannot be sold by the pledgee without deciding on the offer made by the pledgor to redeem such shares
Delhi High Court Asks UGC To Take Action Against Colleges Offering Unspecified Degrees
Case Title: RAHUL MAHAJAN v. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 904
The Delhi High Court has directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to take necessary action against the varsities and colleges offering unspecified degrees and ensure compliance of law including penal provisions on the issue.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the purpose of providing specification of degrees approved by UGC is to maintain uniformity in the standards of education.
Case Title: SNV AVIATION PVT LTD & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 905
While dealing with a plea moved by budget carrier Akasa Air in relation to resignation of its pilots without serving mandatory notice period, the Delhi High Court has said that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is at liberty to act against the defaulting pilots in case they are in breach of the contract.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh observed that in case of non-compliance of the contract, the Civil Aviation Rules, 2017 become operative and thus, DGCA can act in accordance with the said Rules as well as the extant law against the party in breach.
Case Title: PADMAJA GARIKIPATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 906
The Delhi High Court has stayed the election of the office bearers and members of executive committee of the Gymnastics Federation of India (GFI).
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the Federation was in non-compliance of the mandate of an order passed on August 16 last year wherein a division bench ordered that the Indian Olympic Association and National Sports Federation have to necessarily comply with the mandate stated under the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.
Delhi High Court Upholds Restriction On MCOCA Inmates To Meet Family Members Only
Case Title: S. DAYA SINGH LAHORIA AND ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 907
The Delhi High Court has upheld the restriction put by the prison authorities on the inmates booked under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, to meet only their family members and no one else.
This was after prison authorities submitted that they are authorized to separate high-risk prisoners or prisoners perceived as security threats, and lodge them in high security wards.
Case Title: VBM MEDIZINTECHNIK GMBH vs GEETAN LUTHRA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 908
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the attempt of an Indian entity to invoke the holy Trinity of Hindu gods- Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh- to justify the use of a mark which allegedly infringed a German medical equipment company's “VBM” mark.
While granting interim relief to the latter, bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar said,
“The “Vishnu Brahma Mahesh” explanation is too facile to pass legal muster, besides being unsupported by any corroborative documentary evidence,” the court said.
Theos v. Theobroma: Delhi High Court Closes Trademark Infringement Suit, Issues Clarifications
Case Title: THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 909
The Delhi High Court has decreed with certain clarifications a trademark infringement suit between two competing bakery entities Theos and Theobroma, after a settlement between them.
Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Screening ICC Cricket World Cup Matches
Case Title: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. JIOLIVE.TV & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 910
The Delhi High Court has restrained nine rogue websites from screening or disseminating any part of the ICC World Cup cricket matches on any electronic or digital platform.
“Rogue websites, which in the past have indulged in piracy of copyrighted content, are very likely to continue communicating copyrighted works to the public during the currency of World Cup 2023. Thus, there is a need to restrain any rogue websites from disseminating and communicating to the public any part of the cricket match events without authorisation or license from the Plaintiffs,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Case Title: GR Builders v. Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 911
The Delhi High Court has held that the accrual of cause of action at a place for pursuing a substantive legal action is not a consideration for determining jurisdiction for the purposes of Section 11 of the A&C Act.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reiterated that the place of arbitration would be the seat of arbitration when there is no contrary indicia present in the agreement to show that the place of arbitration was not intended to be the seat of arbitration.
Title: Sarvesh v. AIIMS & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 912
The Delhi High Court has constituted a seven member Committee to streamline the process of availing free medical treatment under various government schemes in the hospitals in the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the Committee will give recommendations for “alleviating and curing the defects” in the current system to avail financial assistance.
Title: JAINEMO PRIVATE LIMITED v. RAHUL SHAH AND OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 913
The Delhi High Court has restrained various entities from circulating or sharing the course materials of online education platform “Apna College” on WhatsApp groups, telegram and YouTube channels.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with Apna College's suit alleging infringement of its copyrighted content by 17 defendant entities who were disseminating its courses, including printed course materials, videos, etc. on social media platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram and YouTube.
Title: SP Singh Dhillon v. Delhi Capital Badminton Association & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 914
The Delhi High Court has appointed retired judge of Allahabad High Court, Justice Pankaj Naqvi, as administrator of the Delhi Capital Badminton Association.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma ordered that Justice Naqvi shall be entitled to take over the day-to-day affairs and administration of the Association, subject to further orders.
Case Title: NHAI v. GMR Ambala Chandigarh Expressway Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 915
The Delhi High Court has held that development, improvement, widening and construction over an existing narrow highway would be considered to be a 'bypass' when such improvement makes the road viable for heavy vehicles and becomes an alternate road, resulting in reduction of the traffic from the project highway, affecting the toll revenue.
The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award wherein the tribunal had rejected the claims of the contractor by observing that the widening or development of an existing road would not be a 'bypass' even if does lead to reduction in the traffic on the project highway.
Title: Jitendr Lala & Ors vs The State Of Delhi & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 916
While quashing an FIR after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed three accused to arrange bus ride for “Delhi Darshan” for senior citizens residing in an old age home in the national capital.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee asked the accused persons to collectively arrange a bus on hire for taking the senior citizens for Delhi Darshan for a minimum duration of 4 hours.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 917
The Delhi High Court has allowed the deduction for the employee's contribution towards the provident fund as the due date fell on a national holiday.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that since the due date fell on a date that was a national holiday, the deposit could have been made by the respondent or assessee only on the date that followed the national holiday.
Display 'Environmental Cost' Of Projects At Construction Sites: Delhi High Court To Centre
Title: ADITYA N PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 918
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to ensure that the environmental cost of all projects, including the number of trees that are felled and location of compensatory plantation, is displayed at the construction sites.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that an officer not less than the rank of Joint Secretary in the Union Ministry of Urban Development should be made responsible to ensure compliance of the direction.
Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. MS DOMINICK PIZZA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 919
The Delhi High Court has observed that where the trademarks in a suit pertain to food items or eateries where food items are served, a “higher degree of care and caution” is to be observed.
Observing that running an eating house using a mark which is deceptively similar to a reputed mark does not speak well for the enterprise concerned, Justice C Hari Shankar said:
“The intent to capitalise on the reputation of a known and established brand, by using a mark which is deceptively similar to the mark used by the brand, can, in a given case, give rise to a legitimate apprehension of quality compromise by the imitator. Courts have, therefore, to be vigilant in ensuring that, where the marks relate to consumable items or to enterprises such as hotels, restaurants and eating houses where consumable items are served to customers, such imitative attempts are not allowed to go unchecked.”
Delhi High Court Vacates Stay On Termination Of Delhi Assembly Fellows
Case Title: SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 920
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday vacated its interim order staying the decision of the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat disengaging the services of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre Fellowship Programme.
Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the Supreme Court in July had refused to stay the operation of the letter issued by Delhi Government's Services Department directing the disengagement of the Fellows and Associate Fellows.
Case Title: DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 921
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking prohibition on the display of anti-tobacco health spots containing “graphic or gross images” during films in cinemas, TV or OTT platforms.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the graphic description given in the Government issued advertisements are meant to be “eye-openers for the people” to not use tobacco and tobacco products and therefore, is in public interest.
Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi Gets Political Clearance To Travel Abroad; High Court Disposes Plea
Title: Shelly Oberoi v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 922
Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi informed the Delhi High Court that she has been granted political clearance by the Union Government for her visit to Brisbane to attend a conference.
Noting that the grievance no longer survives, Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of the plea upon being informed of the clearance.
Oberoi had sought permission to attend the 2023 Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayor's Forum in Brisbane. The event is scheduled to take place between October 11 and 13.
Title: Abhishek SIngh v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 923
While dismissing a plea moved by a candidate who appeared in Delhi Judicial Higher Services Preliminary examination 2023, the Delhi High Court has said that there is no requirement that a question asked in the exam must refer to the statute on which it is based.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that it is sufficient that the question contains clues so as to enable an examinee to select the correct option.
Award On Damages Cannot Be Sustained Just On Penalty Clause In Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sudershan Kumar Bhayana (Deceased) v. Vinod Seth (Deceased)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 924
The Delhi High Court has held that an award of damages based on no evidence of loss cannot be sustained on the basis of a penalty clause in the agreement.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that mere presence of a clause providing for liquidated damages does not dispense with the requirement of proof of loss from a party claiming damages.
Title: Harshita Gandhi v. Nimit Gandhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 925
The Delhi High Court has expressed regret to a retired Principal and Sessions Judge who was appointed by it as a local commissioner in a matrimonial dispute for the agony caused to her during the appointment.
Justice Navin Chawla observed that the wife was making a mockery of the court system by first seeking substitution of the Local Commissioner initially appointed by the family court and later making allegations against the substitute Local Commissioner appointed by the High Court as well.
Case Title: SHRI RAMLEELA COMMITTE JANAKPURI & ANR. v. RISHU KANT SHARMA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 926
The Delhi High Court on Thursday permitted hosting of Dussehra Mela in the District Park, Janakpuri while directing the organizers to ensure that no damage or harm be done to the ground's green cover or trees already in existence.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna permitted Shri Ram Leela Committee, Janakpuri to host the Dussehra or Ramleela celebrations on the ground for the current year from today till October 30.
Court-Monitored Probe Is A Significant Measure, Can't Be Employed Routinely: Delhi High Court
Title: TARUN NARANG v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 927
The Delhi High Court has observed that a court-monitored investigation is a significant measure which is invoked in cases of “palpable sense of governmental neglect or oversight” and should not be employed routinely or without just cause.
“We must preserve its weight for situations where the state appears either ignorant or non-cognizant of issues. Resorting to such an investigation without substantial reasoning could inadvertently diminish its efficacy,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Title: Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 928
The Delhi High Court has ordered compensation of Rs. 50,000 to a man who was illegally detained for about “half an hour” in a Delhi Police's lockup “for no rhyme or reason” and said that a meaningful message must be sent to the authorities that police officers cannot be law unto themselves.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed that the compensation amount be recovered from salaries of two erring Sub-Inspectors of Badarpur Police Station who brought the man and placed him in the lockup.
Title: PRASHANT REDDY T v. CPIO, UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 929
The Delhi High Court has ruled that details of the agreements entered into between the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) with external organisations engaged in handling the grievance redressal mechanism of the statutory body can be provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the details pertaining to non-disclosure agreements entered into with the personnel and individuals who will be covered under the said agreement will however be exempted.
Title: STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. YODESISERIAL.SU & ORS
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 930
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained 50 rogue websites from illegally streaming various television shows, TV series and movies broadcasted on OTT platform Disney plus Hotstar.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that prima facie, exclusive rights to stream or telecast the content contained in the 26 shows and films vests in the platform and not others.
The court was hearing a suit moved by Star India Private Limited and Disney Plus Hotstar against the rogue websites alleging that they were engaged in piracy of their copyrighted content.
Title: AAKASH GOEL v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DELHI GOVT and other connected matter
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 931
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to conduct an exhaustive review of the existing cap on the beneficiaries under the Old Age Assistance Rules, 2009, taking into account the contemporary socio-economic conditions and the emerging needs of the elderly population.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also directed the government to relook at the eligibility criteria of annual family income of Rs. 1 lakh per annum which is one of the eligibility conditions for the applicants to receive the financial aid under the Rules.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 932
The Delhi High Court has observed that for a married couple to be deprived of the conjugal relationship and of each other's company is an act of extreme cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, on the ground of cruelty by wife.
Title: FRESH FRUIT FLOWERS AND VEGETABLES TRADERS ASSOCIATION v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR.
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 933
The Delhi High Court has upheld a notification issued by the Union Government's Directorate General of Foreign Trade in 2020 prohibiting importation of a variety of cut flowers into India through all airports, except Chennai airport.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the notification does not arbitrarily discriminates against flower traders in the Delhi-NCR region but rather aims to fortify the nation's bio-security.
Title: FIRASAT HUSSAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 934
The Delhi High Court has suggested the Parliament's Select Committee to make changes in Section 438 of the new CrPC[BNSS] (akin to Section 437A of Code of 1973) pertaining to the requirement of furnishing of personal bond with surety by an accused on his acquittal.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna suggested the Select Committee to replace the word “shall” with “may” and replace the word “bail or bail bond” with “personal bond with or without surety.”
Title: BRIJ MOHAN v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 935
The Delhi High Court has observed that the enquiry report of the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding investigation in a case is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act.
“Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act specifically exempts such information which will impede the process of investigation revealing a copy of the entire report of the CBI. Further, if such information falls in the hands of other offenders, it will certainly impede an ongoing investigation process,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Case Title: Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. Versus M/S Indian Trade Promotion Org. & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 937
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner exempting the Indian Trade Promotion Organization from entertainment tax on trade fairs.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that entry to the Pragati Maidan is regulated and the visitors are allowed entry on payment of an admission fee. Once they are inside the complex, they can visit not only stalls or pavilions with regard to trade and commerce, but they could also access movies, exhibitions, plays, and fashion shows inside the complex besides enjoying meals and refreshments, which may or may not be free.
Case Title: SIMPLOT INDIA LLC v. HIMALAYA FOOD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 938
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award can be denied due to the non-stamping of the arbitration agreement.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has issued notice on a plea seeking to raise objection to the enforcement of the Singapore seated foreign arbitration award under Section 48 of the A&C Act.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Transferring IPS Officer Amit Lodha's Case From CAT Patna To Delhi
Title: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. AMIT LODHA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 939
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order transferring the case concerning disciplinary proceedings initiated against 1998-batch Bihar cadre IPS officer Amit Lodha from Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna to the national capital.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta allowed Bihar Government's pleas and quashed the order passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in March transferring an original application filed by Lodha, that was pending before the Patna bench, to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
Title: SAURABH SHUKLA v. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 940
The Delhi High Court has observed that it would be unwise to allow expansion of “offshore study centres” which are running without necessary approvals from the authorities as it could flourish a market of substandard education and deprive countless individuals from seeking quality education.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that an “untrammelled proliferation” of such study centres would lead to “devaluation of academic credentials.”
Title: ANUBHAV KHAJURIA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 941
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the exclusion of individual veterinarians from the animal birth control programme under Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, is not unjust or arbitrary.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the Rules do not outrightly prohibit veterinarian participation, instead, they advocate for a “formalized and structured approach” via the mechanism of “Project Recognition” from the Animal Welfare Board of India.
Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. PURO WELLNESS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 942
The Delhi High Court has refused to injunct circulation of a TV commercial aired by Puro about its pink color rock salt in a suit filed by Tata alleging commercial disparagement of its white salt.
While dismissing Tata's interim application in the suit, Justice C Hari Shankar said that Tata failed to make out any prima facie case justifying interference with continued broadcasting of the commercial.
Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V. DMRC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 943
The Delhi High Court has held that no compensation can be awarded for the prolongation of the contract if the contractor did not reserve its right to such compensation at the time of the seeking Extension of Time (EOT).
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri's bench upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation. They ruled that the Tribunal's decision, which denied the prolongation cost due to the Contractor's failure to reserve this right during the EOT request, and because the EOT was granted without financial implications, is a plausible view which does not warrant intervention by the Court using its powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Shambhu Synthetics Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 944
The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors., in which it was held that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days, which is the normal period for preferring an appeal. Therefore, there is a complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: NEELAM KUMARI v. THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 945
The Delhi High Court has observed that maternity rights are not something that are based on a statute but they stand to be an integral part of a woman's identity.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that denial of such rights stand in the way of a woman who chooses to bring a life into the world and thus, violates her fundamental right to life.
Title: Dr Akash Bhattacharya v. Delhi Disaster Management Authority through Chairperson Lt. Governor & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 946
Observing that the affected people have been shifted back to their homes, the Delhi High Court recently closed a public interest litigation seeking immediate measures like free ration, medical assistance, sanitary provisions and other essentials in the Yamuna flood relief camps in the national capital.
“We note that, at present, the relief camps have been wound up and the flood affected people have been shifted back to their homes,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Case Title: HUMANS OF BOMBAY STORIES PVT. LTD. v. POI SOCIAL MEDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 947
The Delhi High Court has said that storytelling platforms Humans of Bombay and People of India cannot use each other's copyrighted work but added that there can be no copyright claim for individual's private photos which are sent to either platforms.
Justice Prathiba M Singh decreed the suit filed by Humans of Bombay against People of India alleging copyright infringement of its content.
Wife's Claim For Separate Residence Under 'Justified Circumstances' Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 948
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's claim for separate residence under “justified circumstances” cannot be term as an act of cruelty to the husband.
“There may be myriad situations such as differences with the in-laws, her own work commitments or difference of opinion which may make her demand for separate accommodation justified for survival of the marriage. Where there exist certain justifiable reasons, claim for a separate residence per se cannot be termed as an act of cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: MATA PRASAD AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 949
The Delhi High Court has said that the policy mandating obtaining of licence to work as photographers in Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) protected monuments has been notified “in larger public interest” to regulate the quality and conduct of photographers for the benefit of visitors and tourist.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna upheld the Clause 2.7 of “The Policy for Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Photographers to perform within Centrally Protected Monuments” notified by the government agency on May 24, 2017.
Title: State v. Ariz Khan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 950
The Delhi High Court has refused to confirm the death penalty awarded to Ariz Khan, who was convicted by a trial court in the 2008 Batla house encounter case in which Delhi Police's inspector Mohan Chand Sharma was killed.
division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Amit Sharma however upheld the trial court order convicting Khan in the case and commuted the sentence of death penalty to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Case IOCL v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 951
The Delhi High Court has held that any claim that has been settled under the resolution plan, even though at a nominal value of Rs. 1 only, would become non-arbitrable once the resolution plan is approved by CoC and affirmed by the adjudicating authority under the IBC.
Case Title: M/S Asian Hotels Ltd. Versus CIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 952
The Delhi High Court has allowed the income tax deduction to Hyatt Regency towards repair, renovation, refurbishment, and consultancy expenses as revenue expenditure.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that ITAT rightly mentioned that if the owner of a building that is used for business incurs expenditure in the nature of current repairs and the assessee is not able to claim expenses for current repairs under Section 30(a)(ii), it could still claim deduction under Section 37(1).
Case Title: BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 953
The Delhi High Court has held that absence of a contract would not deprive the contractor from a reasonable remuneration for the work performed.
Justice Sachin Datta held that the principle of quantum meruit is enshrined under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act which demands that a party which has done work and incurred expenses at the instance of another party must be reimbursed notwithstanding the lack of a contract between them.
No Fresh Adjudication Can Take Place For Any Claim That Was Made Part Of Resolution Plan: Delhi HC
Case IOCL v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 954
The Delhi High Court has held that once a resolution plan is approved by the CoC and the adjudicating authority, it results in the extinguishment of all the existing claims that any party may have against the corporate debtor and no fresh adjudication can take place for any claim that was made part of the resolution plan.
Case Title: BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 955
The Delhi High Court has held that A party is liable to be compensated for the costs of preparatory work carried out at the instance of the employer even when the final purchase order is not issued in its favour.
Case Title: Zakir Hussain v. Sunshine Agrisystem Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 956
The Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 does not exclude the remedy of arbitration.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the bar to arbitration or civil jurisdiction by necessary implication would apply only when the alternative remedy is a Complete Code in itself or provides a special statutory right or protection that the civil court or arbitral tribunal may not be able to grant.
Title: MASTER ADITYA VIKRAM KANSAGRA & ANR. v. PERRY KANSAGARA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 957
The Delhi High Court has held that the maintenance proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, are not suits and the “ad valorem” court fee is not liable to be paid in such cases.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that imposition of a condition on a wife or a child who have been neglected and do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves to pay the ad valorem court fees calculated on ten times the amount claimed for one year would be “discriminatory, unreasonable and onerous.”
Title: TIBRA COLLECTION v. FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 958
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is an obligation on e-commerce platforms to ensure that complete details of the sellers are available on the website for awareness of the consumers.
“There is also an obligation upon the E-Commerce platform to ensure that the complete details of the sellers are available on the platform so that the consumer is aware of the sellers from whom the product has been purchased and the entity, who is listing the product,” Justice Prathiba M Singh observed.
Delhi High Court Directs Go Air To Provide Access To Aircraft Documents To Lessors
Title: ACG AIRCRAFT LEASING IRELAND LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 959
The Delhi High Court has directed the resolution professional of the crisis hit airline Go Air to provide access to documents in relation to the leased aircrafts to various lessors.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju also permitted the lessors to contract a “24 hour security service” for all the aircrafts, which are lying parked at various airports, at their own expense.
Case Title: PRABIR PURKAYASTHA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 960
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Supreme Court's judgment in Pankaj Bansal case, directing ED to inform grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under UAPA.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that under UAPA, the grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours of such arrest, however furnishing of such grounds in written are not mandated under the enactment.
Case Title: Ajay Sagar Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 961
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing the petition seeking directions for waiver of the pre-deposit requirement as placed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, noted that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of rare and exceptional cases.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the petitioner was complicit and actively involved in the evasion of duty and the intent of these parties to mis-declare imports while acting in concert.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S. Azure Retreat Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 962
The Delhi High Court has held that the travelling expenses were incurred by the directors for business purposes of the company.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that there was no information brought on record by the AO that could prove that these expenses were of a personal nature; therefore, the assessing officer was not justified in disallowing the travel expenses.
Delhi High Court Upholds Chinese National's ED Remand Of Three Days In Vivo Money Laundering Case
Title: MR. GUANGWEN KUANG @ ANDREW v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 963
The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order remanding a Chinese national to three days of Enforcement Directorate's custody in a money laundering case registered against smartphone manufacturer Vivo.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the trial court order takes into account the mandate of compliance of provisions of Section 19 and 45 of the PMLA.
Case Title: Dr. Vivek Jain v. PrepLadder Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 964
The Delhi High Court has held that a Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act to secure the amount in dispute or for ordering attachment before award draws sustenance broadly from the principles of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC.
Title: BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. AMAR BISCUIT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 965
The Delhi High Court has restrained a manufacturer from selling its biscuits under the mark “Good Time” or “Good Time Butter Cookies” or any other mark which is deceptively similar to Britannia's Good Day biscuits.
Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the order in favour of Britannia considering that it is a well reputed brand selling “Good Day Butter Cookies” “since such a long time” as also other products under the said trade mark and trade dress.
Title: GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. PRECADO HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 966
The Delhi High Court has observed that the level of tolerance allowable for confusion among consumers is “very low” in pharmaceutical products which cannot be easily condoned.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking protection of the packaging and trade dress of its product name “Aufmentin” used for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations.
Case Title: Taleda Square Pvt Ltd v. Rail Land Development Authority
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 967
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration clause wherein one of the contracting party has the power to appoint the 2/3rd members of the arbitral tribunal and compels the other party to choose its nominee arbitrator from a narrow panel of only 5 names is not enforceable in law.
Case Title: M/s SVK Infrastructures v. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 968
The Delhi High Court has held that no stamp duty is payable on an instrument which is executed by, or on behalf of or in favour the government.
The bench of Justice Rekha Palli held that the recent judgment by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global would have no application to an agreement executed by or on behalf or in favour of the government. It held that the Court exercising powers under Section 11 of the A&C Act would not refuse to appoint arbitrator once it ascertained that instrument falls within the exception created by the stamps act for government.
Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. KENDRIYA VIDVALAYA SANGTHAN & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 969
The Delhi High Court has directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to conduct an audit of the total number of vacancies and prepare a “vacancy based roster” for recruitment of persons with disabilities within three months.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the exercise be done as per Rule 11 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2016.
Case Title: Centre for Policy Research v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 970
The Delhi High Court has allowed a plea moved by India's leading think-tank Centre for Policy Research (CPR) seeking permission to utilise 25% of “unutilized funds” in the fixed deposits towards the payment of salaries of its employees.
Justice Subramonium Prasad allowed the application moved by CPR in the petition against the suspension of its licence under Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) by the Union Government on February 27.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 971
The Delhi High Court has observed that where both the spouses are equally qualified and earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the object of Section 24 is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings under the enactment, either party should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity of source of income.
Title: S v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 972
The Delhi High Court has pulled up a trial court in the national capital for discharging an accused in a rape case on the basis of the results of polygraph test conducted on the victim.
Calling it erroneous, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the result of polygraph test at best could have been considered as part of the investigation and tested during the trial on the touchstone of testimonies of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, since such result by itself is not a piece of independent evidence.
Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. CAPITAL TV AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 973
The Delhi High Court has restrained Capital TV news channel from using “To The Point”, “Halla Bol”, “Special Report”, “Black & White” and “Kismat Connection” in a trademark infringement suit filed by TV Today Network which runs India Today and Aaj Tak news channels.
Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the individual words by themselves, which are part of the common parlance in Hindi and English language, could be used in a different manner or in conjunction with other combinations in a way that Capital TV's programs of are clearly differentiable from TV Today's programmes.
Writ Petitions Against Orders Passed By IPAB Must Be Decided By Single Judge: Delhi High Court
Title: AYUR UNITED CARE LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 974
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) before its abolition in 2021 would have to be heard and decided by a single judge and not a division bench.
Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 abolished various Tribunals including India's Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and assigned their functions to the country's Commercial Courts and High Courts.
Title: MRS. D & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 975
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that individuals who have already undergone Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) process prima facie cannot be disqualified due to the age bar prescribed for intending couples under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the 2021 Act, which imposes an age restriction in respect of intending parents, cannot be applied retrospectively.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 976
The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authorities are not precluded from adopting a method different from that adopted by the assessee in the transfer pricing report.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the ultimate aim of the transfer pricing exercise is to determine an accurate value of the arms length price for the purpose of taxation.
Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 977
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal moved by Aam Aadmi Party MP Raghav Chadha challenging the trial court order which granted nod and paved way for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to evict him from a government bungalow.
“Accordingly the appeal is allowed, holding : (a) that there was no requirement for the appellant/plaintiff to file the application under section 80 CPC, or to comply with that provision; and therefore the application under section 80 CPC is disposed-of as infructuous,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.
It directed Chadha to present the plaint before the trial court within three days and has further asked the trial court to proceed with the matter by deciding the AAP leader's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Ching's Trade Mark Registration For “Schezwan Chutney”
Case Title: Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v. Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 978
In a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products seeking cancellation of Ching's Secret owner Capital Foods' registered trade mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, the Delhi High Court refused to grant stay over the impugned registration.
The order was passed by Justice Pratibha M. Singh, while noting that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Capital Foods Private Limited v. Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd., has prima facie held the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” to have acquired secondary significance. It was also observed that an issue of jurisdiction arising in the matter needed to be considered first.
Case Title: Amit Sharma v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 979
Financial trap-laying scam conducted through online channels erodes the public's confidence in online financial transactions and strike at the heart of the nation's financial stability, the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma thus refused anticipatory bail to an accused in an online financial scam case.
Case Title: Japan Patent Office v. Ms. A2Z Glass and Glazing Co. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 980
The Delhi High Court has restrained Indian company 'A2Z Glass and Glazing Co.' and its two sister concerns from using Japan Patent Office's mark/logo (or any mark identical or similar thereto) as well as the mark 'JPO PLATINUM' in respect of any product or service, with immediate effect.
The judgment came to be passed by Justice Prathiba M. Singh in an application filed by the Japanese governmental agency under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC, alleging imitation of its logo by the Defendant-Indian companies for manufacture and sale of tools and kits.
Title: DR RAVIKANT CHAUHAN & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. & Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 981
The Delhi High Court has observed that the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, barring use of donor gametes for an intending couple wanting to undergo surrogacy, prima facie violates the basic rights of a married infertile couple to parenthood by denying them access to legally and medically regulated procedures and services.
“Further, the Impugned Notification does not disclose any rational justification, basis or intelligible criteria for discriminating between citizens based on their ability to produce gametes for the purpose of availing Surrogacy services,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Case Title: Nayati Healthcare and Research NCR Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. through its Authorized Representative Sh. Satish Kumar Narula & Ors. v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs through its Standing Counsel & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 982
The Delhi High Court has quashed an ECIR and proceedings arising therefrom, observing that the predicate offence had already been quashed and the order to that effect had attained finality.
Delhi High Court Upholds Sales Tax Demand Against Berger Paints On Stock Variations
Case Title: Berger Paints India Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 983
The Delhi High Court has upheld the sales tax demand against Berger Paints on stock variations.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the discrepancies in the sales figures as well as the physical stock were not explained by the appellant.
The assessing authority took a fair, just, and reasonable view of the matter in proceeding to carry out a best judgment assessment by enhancing sales by 10% of the net Goods Transport Operator (GTO) after deducting the stock transfer figure of GTO, and accordingly, the levy of tax with interest cannot be unpalatable or an unconscionable exercise of powers.
Delhi High Court Decrees Red Bull's Suit, Protects Its Signature Silver And Blue Color Combination
Case Title: Red Bull AG v. Rohidas Popat Kapadnis & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 984
The Delhi High Court has decreed Red Bull's suit against an entity's adoption of identical silver and blue colour combination for energy drinks.
The suit was filed against Defendants 'Rohidas Popat Kapadnis' and 'Blue Marine Bottling Company', alleging that they were manufacturing and marketing an energy drink under the name 'SEVEN HOURS' bearing Red Bull's trade mark color combination. Reportedly, these products were being sold on e-commerce platforms and promoted on social media.
Case Title: Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Fantasy Sports MyFab11 Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 985
The Delhi High Court has allowed an application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by the owner of fantasy sports app MYFAB11 (defendants) for vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier in favour of the Plaintiffs.
After a meticulous analysis of judicial precedents, Justice Jyoti Singh emphasized that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Originality is a key criterion for copyright protection, meaning that the work should originate from the author.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 986
The Delhi High Court has ruled that once there is a legal bar on the performance of second marriage when either spouse of the parties are living, the consent of such parties cannot confer validity to the second marriage.
Noting that both the parties should not have a living spouse according to Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“In case, there is a violation of this condition, the marriage is void in terms of Section 11 of HMA, 1955. Once there is a legal bar to the performance of the second marriage, the consent of the parties cannot confer the validity to a marriage held in violation of the condition specified in Section 5(i) of HMA, 1955.”
Title: AMIT SAHNI v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 987
The Delhi High Court has directed its administration to ensure that all the Commercial Courts in the national capital are made fully functional as and when the infrastructure and judges are available for such courts.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula disposed of a PIL moved by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking setting up of the Commercial Courts in terms of a 2021 decision taken by the Delhi Government's cabinet for creation of 22 Commercial Courts and 42 additional posts of judges.
Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 988
The Delhi High Court has directed all the District Judges in the national capital to ensure that after disposal of a case, its records are immediately transmitted to the record room.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula was dealing with a public interest litigation concerning the lack of standardised procedure for the acknowledgment of pleadings, documents and applications filed in the district courts of Delhi.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 989
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to increase awareness and publicity of the existing schemes for welfare of prisoners and their families.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that ensuring that convicts, undertrials and their dependents are aware of and can access benefits designed for their welfare will be crucial in their rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of Websites Illegally Streaming Popular Reality Show 'Bigg Boss'
Case Title: Viacom18 Media Private Limited v. BiggBos.Live & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 990
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte injunction against illegal streaming of reality show 'Bigg Boss'. The order came to be passed in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC by leading broadcaster-Viacom18.
Notably, 'Big Boss' is being produced and broadcasted in India since 2008. It is based on a Dutch show 'Big Brother', rights of which are owned by M/s Endemol Shine IP BV. M/s Endemol is stated to have given rights of the show's format to Viacom18, which broadcasts the show on television channels Colors and Colors Kannada as well as its OTT platform 'JioCinema'.
Intelligence Bureau Exempt From Rigours Of RTI Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Adarsh Kanojia v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 991
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) stands exempted from rigours of RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 (Act not to apply to certain organizations) thereof.
The issue had arisen when the Appellant appeared for Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II Examination conducted by IB in 2017, but his name did not appear in the list of successful candidates. Some irregularities with respect to the exam were reported in newspapers. The same led the Appellant to file an RTI application seeking information regarding marks, certified copy of his OMR sheet and a model answer key.
ED's Power To Issue Summons Under Section 50 PMLA Does Not Include Power To Arrest: Delhi High Court
Title: ASHISH MITTAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 992
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the power of the Enforcement Directorate to issue summons to a person under Section 50 of PMLA does not include the power to arrest.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the power to arrest is “conspicuously absent” in section 50 of the PMLA which empowers ED officers to arrest any person, subject to satisfying the conditions mentioned therein.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Sh. Dev Inder Bhalla
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 993
The Delhi High Court has upheld order of the Special Court refusing police remand of Dev Inder Bhalla, an accused in the money laundering case registered in connection with Indian government's aircraft deal with M/s Embraer, Brazil.
Bhalla is the Director of Singapore-based M/s Interdev Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Allegations against him are that he helped launder proceeds of crime generated from procurement of defense deal by M/s Embraer upon payment of bribe to Indian officials.
Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Salman Khan & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 994
The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit in favour of New Balance Athletics Inc., holding that dealing in counterfeit goods was sufficient to constitute infringement/passing off.
The suit had been filed by the plaintiff as proprietor of registered marks 'NEW BALANCE' and 'NB', under which it was selling footwear and readymade clothing in over 120 countries, including India.
Subscription Fee Received By Deloitte Exempted From Tax On Principle Of Mutuality: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CIT Versus Deloitte Touche Tohmastu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 995
The Delhi High Court has held that subscription fees received by Deloitte are exempted from tax on the principle of mutuality.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the expression “mutuality” flows from the expression “mutual”, which indicates reciprocity of arrangement in which the concerned parties have reciprocal rights or understanding or arrangement to abide by the mandate of the group for benefit of other members.
Case Title: Sinogas Management Pte Ltd Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 996
The Delhi High Court has held that non-adherence to the mandatory requirement of passing a draft assessment order invalidates the final assessment order.
The Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula have observed that the omission to pass a draft assessment order is not merely a procedural oversight but a substantive lapse, which renders the subsequent order devoid of jurisdiction.
Delhi High Court Permits Woman Living Separately From Husband To Terminate 23 Weeks Pregnancy
Title: MRS B. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 997
The Delhi High Court has permitted a woman living separately from her husband and desirous of taking divorce to terminate her 23 weeks pregnancy.
Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the opinion given by the medical board of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) stating that the foetus was normal and that it is safe to terminate the pregnancy.
This was after the court had directed AIIMS to constitute a medical board to examine the woman's condition and to consider if it would be safe for her to undergo the medical termination of pregnancy.
Title: SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 998
The Delhi High Court has denied regular bail to businessman Sameer Mahendru on medical grounds in the money laundering case related to the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that Mahendru is not suffering from any life threatening condition or sickness or infirmity involving danger to his life and for which treatment cannot be provided to him in jail.
Delhi High Court Calls For Complaint Reporting System For Public Toilets, Issues Directions
Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 999
The Delhi High Court has called for implementation of a complaint reporting system for public toilets for ensuring that such conveniences are maintained with proper sanitation standards.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the city civic authorities to prominently display, at conspicuous location at the toilet facility, the name and contact numbers of the agency or contractor responsible for its operation and maintenance.
Title: M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. 9TH KILOMETER, MEX ESTATE, PATHANKOT ROAD, JALANDHAR v. VIKRAM SURI TRADING AS M/S ARMEX AUTO INDUSTRIES
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
The Delhi High Court has held that where an applicant or opponent provides an e-mail ID, on which official communication are sent by the Registry of Trade Marks, in the application or notice of opposition constitutes an “address for service” within the meaning of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Registry of Trade Marks is at liberty to effect service of documents by e-mail only where the party being served has provided an e-mail ID in the application or notice of opposition.
Case Title: Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1001
The Delhi High Court has declined a judicial officer's prayer for expunging/deleting remarks allegedly made against him in a judgment passed by the High Court.
Pithily put, writ petitions were initially filed by an SHO, seeking inter-alia deletion of remarks allegedly made against him by the then ASJ (applicant) in a common order dated September 6, 2022.
The said petitions were allowed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on November 22, 2022, observing that unwarranted remarks had been made by the applicant (judicial officer) against the petitioner (SHO).
Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Abony Healthcare Limited through its Directors & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1002
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company, while decreeing a suit against defendants' adoption of its trademarks and trade dress.
The plaintiffs had approached the court against defendants' use of trade names “LIV.55 DS”, “LIVA 55” and “LIV. 999” for liver tonic similar to theirs, which was being marketed using a trade dress also deceptively similar to the plaintiffs'.
Case Title: Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v. Ashraf V
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
The Delhi High Court has decreed renowned tobacco exporter-Sopariwala's trademark suit, holding that the defendant had a clear intent to adopt a mark deceptively similar to Sopariwala's and to pass off its own products as the latter's.
The plaintiffs are registered proprietor/licensees of trademark “AFZAL” (word and device), under which tobacco is exported and sold in India. They also hold a copyright in their trade dress and have been recognised as a 'Star Export House' by GoI.
Case Title: INDIAMART Intermesh Limited v. Mr. Sameer Samim Khan & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1004
Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently granted a permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff-INDIAMART, which had filed a suit seeking restraining of defendant No.1 from using its trademark (or any deceptively similar mark) as well as logos.
The plaintiff pled that it was the holder of various valid and subsisting trademarks as well as domain names comprising “INDIAMART”. As such, defendant No.1's adoption of “INDIAMART” was a clear case of infringement and passing off.
Title: SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
While dismissing Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh's plea challenging his arrest and remand in money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has said that the Enforcement Directorate cannot be expected to work as magicians and that it will take time to investigate a case and reach to the truth.
“Even if the investigating agency/ED is premier investigating agency, they cannot be expected to work as magicians and even if with the aid of technology and best investigative skills at their best are to be applied, it will still take time to investigate the case and try to reach the truth,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: PINKI IRANI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1006
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Pinky Irani, a close aide of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, in connection with the Rs. 200 crore extortion case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said there was nothing on the record regarding the criminal antecedents of Irani. The court also noted that she is a woman of 52 years who has been in custody since November 30 last year.
Case Title: Modicare Limited v. Maa Adishakti Multi Trade Enterprises & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1007
The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit filed by Modicare Limited against 4 defendants for identically copying their product names and adopting deceptively similar trade dress.
Modicare Ltd. is a part of India's leading conglomerate K.K. Modi Group which includes ventures like 24Seven Convenience Stores. It manufactures, markets and sells various FMCG products, including food processing products, nutraceuticals and health care products.
Title: ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1008
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to continue its monitoring and regular registration of cases to avoid injuries or deaths due to the sale of banned Chinese manjha in the national capital.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a bunch of pleas highlighting the menace of manufacturing and sale Chinese manjha for kite flying in Delhi.
Title: INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. QUESS CORP LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1009
The Delhi High Court has said that commercial courts can permit recording of cross-examination of overseas or outstation witnesses, who cannot travel due to any reason, through video conferencing after following the prescribed procedure, if the reason is found to be genuine and bona fide.
“This would ensure that cross-examination of witnesses is not conducted in a never ending manner and such witnesses are not inconvenienced, especially, if they are to travel from foreign countries,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Delhi High Court Grants Protection To PUMA's 'Leaping Cat' Mark, Awards Rs. 10 Lakh Damages
Case Title: Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1010
The Delhi High Court has decreed a suit in favour of Puma SE, holding that the defendant's large-scale and brazen manufacturing of footwear bearing plaintiff's 'leaping cat' mark/logo called for an injunction.
Plaintiff-Puma SE, a German company dealing in footwear, apparel, accessories, etc., had filed the suit seeking injunction against defendant/Ashok Kumar, alleging that the latter was engaged in manufacturing and sale of counterfeit “PUMA” products.
Title: FSN E-COMMERCE VENTURES LTD & ANR. v. PINTU KUMAR YADAV & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1011
The Delhi High Court has restrained owner of an online website selling makeup and skincare products from using the mark “Oykaa” or any other mark similar or identical to “Nykaa” which is an e-commerce company which sells beauty, wellness and fashion products.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed that the website www.oykaa.com and other online listings shall also be taken down immediately.
Title: ASFIVE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1012
The Delhi High Court has quashed a trade notice issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade restricting the eligibility for securing allocation of quota for export of broken rice only to those exporters who had exported it to Senegal, Gambia and Indonesia in the three preceding financial years.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that the Union Government failed to produce any material to establish any rational nexus between restricting the export quota to rice exporters that had exported it during the three financial years preceding the prohibition and the object of ensuring capacity and quality.
Case Title: Dr. P. V. Vijayaraghavan & Ors v. Nityam Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1013
Taking a view that there had been serious and material irregularities in the conduct of 2020 elections of the Indian Orthopaedic Association (IOA), the Delhi High Court yesterday appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha (former Delhi High Court judge) as Administrator to inter-alia conduct IOA's affairs till the Executive Committee was re-constituted pursuant to elections in November, 2023.
The judgement came to be passed in a suit filed by plaintiffs, aggrieved by the manner in which IOA's 2020 elections were conducted to elect office bearers as well as a venue for hosting IOACON 2023 (an annual conference of members/orthopaedic doctors).
Title: MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD. v. OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1014
The Delhi High Court has rebuked the RBI Ombudsman for passing an unreasoned order, observing that the Reserve Bank- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, under which the official is appointed, cannot be reduced to a “tantalizing promise.”
“The RBI Ombudsman, appointed by the RBI, is a person who understands the business of banking, the practices involved therein, the duties of the bank and the possible infirmities in the system. It is, therefore, observed that the Ombudsman is entrusted to carry out quasi-judicial functions with utmost diligence in accordance with the extant regulations,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.
Title: SANGEETA WAHI v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1015
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government, Director General of Health Services and Medical Superintendent of Safdarjung Hospital to release Rs.50 lakhs in favour of widow of a security guard who died on duty during COVID-19 pandemic while being deployed in the government hospital.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the widow is entitled to the benefit of “Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19" announced by the Union Government and that it cannot take a “narrow and pedantic stand” that the Scheme would not apply to the deceased as he was not deployed for the care of Covid-19 patients.
Case Title: Strix Ltd v. Maharaja Appliances Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit against Maharaja Appliances Limited, holding that it had infringed the plaintiff's registered patent for “Liquid Heating Vessel”.
Initially, plaintiff-Strix Ltd., a manufacturer and seller of temperature control systems as well as cordless interfaces for water boiling appliances (like kettles), had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against defendant for infringing its patent i.e. IN 192511/95 for “Liquid heating Vessels” (suit patent).
Case Title: Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
In a challenge brought against improper issuance of medical certificate by 2 doctors, the Delhi High Court recently held that removing their names from the rolls of Medical Council of India's register (MCI rolls) was not the only punishment that could be given.
Interpreting Regulations 7.7 and 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, Justice Subramonium Prasad said that removal of a doctor's name from MCI rolls for issuing improper certificate was only one of the possible punishments, but not the only.
Case Title: Wills John v. Delhi Development Authority
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
The Delhi High Court recently quashed DDA's cancellation order w.r.t. a flat allotted in 1996 and directed that the same be handed over to the allottee's son (petitioner).
While deciding in favour of the petitioner, Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the Authority's cancellation of the allotment was in violation of principles of natural justice, as no show-cause/termination notice in advance had been served.
IT And Admin Services By Singapore Entity To Its Affiliate In India Can't Be FTS: Delhi High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi Versus M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
The Delhi High Court has held that information technology and other administrative services provided by the respondent or assessee to its affiliate in India could be construed as fees for technical services (FTS).
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that services offered by the respondent or assessee to its Indian affiliates did not come within the purview of FTS, as reflected in Article 12(4)(b) of the Indo-Singapore DTAA, and concluded that they did not fulfil the criteria of the “make available” principle.
Title: KAVI VAIDWAN & ORS. v. DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is regrettable that the candidates appearing for competitive examinations have to resort to malpractices and tampering in order to succeed, as a result of which innocent and sincere students become victims of their colleagues' disorderly conduct.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that such situations do not leave the State or its agencies with any other option but to cancel the examination altogether.
Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. GOLA SIZZLERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Sandoz and Gola Sizzlers from playing the sound recordings of Phonographic Performance Limited in the latter's suit alleging copyright infringement by the two food outlets.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that a case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction is made out against the two food outlets.
The court also bound another food outlet Tim Hortons by the statement made by its counsel that it is not playing, nor would play, any of the sound recordings forming part of Phonographic Performance Limited's repertoire, without a license.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is holding a graduation degree, it cannot be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband, particularly when she was never employed in the past.
While refusing to reduce interim maintenance granted to a wife, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“ There is no denial that the wife is a graduate having a degree, but she has never been gainfully employed. No inference can be drawn that merely because the wife is holding a degree of graduation, she must be compelled to work. It can also not be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband.”
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund IGST on telecommunication services rendered by Vodafone Idea to foreign telecom operators (FTO).
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the predecessor of the petitioner (Vodafone India Ltd.) had prevailed before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on the question of whether the services qualified for export services.
Title: MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant permission to an organization to hold a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) at the Ramlila Ground on October 29.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Delhi Police's decision which revoked the permission granted to the organization for holding the meeting, observing that it cannot be held to be arbitrary. It was the police's stand that the proposed event was "communal".
The petition was moved by Mission Save Constitution, an organization which is found by Advocate Mehmood Pracha. It claims to work for creating awareness among the masses, especially the depressed classes, about their constitutional rights.
Title: SMT. DEEPALI & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
While granting police protection to a couple who got married against the wishes of their parents, the Delhi High Court has said that where the parties are major, their right to marry a person of choice is protected under the Constitution of India and even their family members cannot object to such relationship.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the couple's right to marry cannot be diluted in any manner and that the State is under a constitutional obligation to provide protection to its citizens.
Title: SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT LTD v. GREY MANTRA SOLUTIONS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
The Delhi High Court has restrained a flavoured tea brand, selling its products under the brand name “Teacurry” and “Just Vedic”, from making any fresh manufacture under the trade dress and packaging of the tea café “Chaayos.”
Regarding the products that have already been manufactured under Chaayos' packaging, Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the flavoured tea manufacturer to place on record the details of the inventory along with the monetary value.
Title: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ANR. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Senior IAS officer Nidhi Chibber as the chairman of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by way of a “bureaucratic reshuffle.”
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh rejected the plea moved by Independent School Federation of India alleging that Chibber did not fulfil the requisite terms and conditions for appointment to the position of CBSE Chairman.
Case Title: Sakshi Rathore and Ors v. Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain an appeal challenging “last minute” notification of the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS) preventing candidates from participating in subsequent rounds of counselling, should they commence attendance at an institution or be allotted seats by the Medical Counselling Committee in the third round of counselling.
Case Title: Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
While answering a reference, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma recently overruled the judgment passed by a Single Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents.
The decision came to be rendered in the context of Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. This provision allows filing of a further (divisional) application w.r.t. an invention disclosed in the specifications of a preceding patent application, suo motu or consequent to an objection raised by the Controller.
Case Title: WONDER BRICKS Versus PCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed before the time to file a reply to the show cause notice expired.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the show cause notice was issued on March 31, 2023, giving time to the petitioner or assessee to file its reply by May 5, 2023 (15:49 hours). The impugned order was passed on April 13, 2023.
Case Title: Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
The Delhi High Court has granted the assessee an opportunity to adduce appropriate evidence—documentary or otherwise—before the Assessing Officer in order to establish its claim regarding educational qualification, experience, work profile, and in particular the duties discharged by the concerned persons to justify the claim of the appellant or assessee qua payment of salary to the persons concerned.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that as per the provision under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, before recording disallowance, the Assessing Officer has to form an opinion. The opinion has to have regard to, inter alia, the legitimate needs of the business, the benefit derived, or even the fair payment outgoing for services rendered.
Title: TTK PRESTIGE LTD v. ARJUN RAM & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained two manufacturers from selling or advertising “Paristone” pressure cookers bearing a design which is prima facie identical and infringes that of “Prestige” Svachh range of pressure cookers.
Justice C Hari Shankar also restrained the manufacturers from using the trade dress “Paristone” for its mark which is almost identical to the trade dress used by Prestige.
Dream11 vs. Dreamz11: Delhi High Court Grants Trademark Protection To Dream11 Owner
Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Dreamz11 and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit brought by owner of fantasy sports app 'Dream11', observing that the contesting defendants (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) had a “clear and transparent intent” to imitate the plaintiffs.
Given the similarities between the competing marks, the fact that they were being used for identical services, and the likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers, Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a case of infringement u/s 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was clearly made out.
Title: MD NEMAT ALI AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE AND OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
The Delhi High Court has observed that when two consenting adults willingly choose to marry each other, there is nothing left for anybody to interfere in their lives, underscoring that Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to exercise personal choices.
“Article 21 of The Constitution of India gives Protection of Life and Personal Liberty to all persons whereby it is the inherent right of every individual to exercise personal choices, especially in matters relating to marriage,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed.
Delhi High Court Restrains 'FranchiseByte' From Publishing YouTube Videos Using 'WOW! MOMO' Mark
Title: WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FRANCHISEBYTE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained FranchiseByte, a website providing franchises for various Indian start-ups, from advertising or publishing videos using “WOW! MOMO” trademark.
Justice C Hari Shankar also directed the website to take down all videos relating to WOW! MOMO from its YouTube channel.
Trivial Irritations, Loss Of Trust Between Married Couple Not Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
The Delhi High Court has said that trivial irritations and loss of trust between a married couple cannot be confused with mental cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain also observed that denial of sex can be considered a form of mental cruelty where it is found to be persistent, intentional and for a considerable period of time.
Case Title: Rajeev Nambiar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain recently rejected a claim for pro rata pension raised by discharged Indian Air Force personnel, noting that they were let go on having been found “unsuitable for retention”.
Title: YUVRAJ FRANCIS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
The Delhi High Court has called for rigorous enforcement of existing prohibitions relating to the movement of slow-moving vehicles on expressways, within the territorial confines of the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that regular monitoring and prompt corrective actions should be taken where deviations from the prescribed norms are observed.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Naresh Sharma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sentenced a litigant to six months in jail who demanded that death penalty be imposed on a sitting judge who dismissed his pleas.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur observed that Naresh Sharma, the litigant against whom criminal contempt proceedings were initiated in August, has no repentance for his conduct and actions.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1040
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. to a man convicted of rape (S. 376 IPC) and abetment of suicide (S. 306 IPC), holding that the causal facts giving rise to the two offences were intrinsically intertwined and could not be segregated into two distinct sets.
The judgment came to be passed in response to an oral application made by the appellant-accused to the effect that his two sentences (RI for 10 years u/s 376 IPC and RI for 7 years u/s 306 IPC) be directed to run 'concurrently' instead of 'consecutively'.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1041
The Delhi High Court has directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to provide 4% reservation to the disabled persons in respect of the total vacancies, including 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons.
“The exercise of appointing disabled persons, including deaf and hard of hearing persons be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Transfer Pricing | Delhi High Court Excludes Comparables On The Basis Of Functional Dissimilarity
Case Title: PCIT Versus Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1042
The Delhi High Court has excluded the comparables on the basis of functional dissimilarity in the transfer pricing case.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia excluded three comparables, namely Infobeans Technologies Ltd., Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd., citing clear reasons for their exclusion.
Delhi High Court Allows Income Tax Deduction On Upfront Loan Processing Fee To Indus Towers
Case Title: PCIT Versus Indus Towers Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
The Delhi High Court has allowed income tax deduction on the upfront loan processing fee to the assessee, Indus Towers.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that merely because the loan processing charges were paid upfront but amortized over a period of five years, solely to be in consonance with the mercantile system of accounting, the deduction of the entire charges in a lump sum in the year in which they were paid could not be denied to the respondent or assessee.
Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. A B SUGARS LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1044
The Delhi High Court has confirmed an interim order passed in 2019 restraining two manufacturers/sellers from dealing in liquor and alcoholic beverages under the mark “Indian Stag” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Indian whiskey brand “Royal Stag”.
Justice C. Hari Shankar said that the interim order passed by a co-ordinate bench on July 25, 2019 shall remain confirmed pending the disposal of the trademark infringement suit.
Failed Relationship No Ground For Lodging Rape FIR: Delhi High Court
Title: SUSHANT KUMAR v. THE STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1045
The Delhi High Court has observed that if a romantic relationship does not work out, it cannot be a ground of lodging a rape case.
“It is a settled law that if a relationship does not work out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed.
The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a government employee accusing of making physical relations with a woman on the false pretext of marrying her.
Title: PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATEL TRADING AS RAKESH PHARMACEUTICALS v. SSS PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1046
The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that it would be open for the competent court to examine the “declared specified value” and the value ascribed to the reliefs claimed in an IPR suit if it is pegged below Rs. 3 lakhs, adding that its undervaluation would have to be evaluated based on the facts of each case.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that the exercise can be legally undertaken by the competent court itself and that such matters need not be transferred to commercial courts for the purpose of value evaluation.
Case Title: ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. Dabico Airport Solutions Private Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1047
In an application seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner (LC), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that such appointments cannot be sought by parties to equip themselves with 'best evidence' in their case against others.
Speaking of Order 26 Rule 10A CPC which empowers a court to issue commissions, Justice C. Hari Shankar said that the provision was invocable only where the court believed that (i) determination of issue(s) in the suit involved scientific investigation, (ii) such scientific investigation could not be conveniently conducted before the court and, (iii) it was necessary or expedient in the interests of justice to issue the commission to conduct the scientific investigation.
Title: SATPAL SINGH v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1048
The judicial system cannot stand by and allow the economic circumstances of a girl's parents to become death warrants and sentences for their daughters in their matrimonial homes, the Delhi High Court has observed while dealing with a dowry death case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that to subject a woman to a life akin to a slave merely because of her marital status is an egregious injustice.
Case Title: Vasudev Garg v. Embassay Commercial Project
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1049
The Delhi High Court has held that the venue of arbitration would actually be the seat of arbitration when the agreement does not contain any contrary indicia. It held that clause proving for venue of arbitration would have a superseding effect over a clause providing for exclusive jurisdiction on any other Court if the parties have expressly made the latter subject to the former.
Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1050
The Delhi High Court has asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to decide a representation submitted by the President of NGO Hindu Sena alleging that there are “wrong historical facts” in public domain regarding construction of Taj Mahal by Shahajahan.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL filed by President Surjit Singh Yadav seeking removal of allegedly “wrong historical facts” on the monument's construction by Shahjahan from the history books in schools and colleges.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Award Passed In Defiance Of Supreme Court Order
Case Title: Unison Hotel v. Value Line Interiors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1051
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award for having been passed in defiance of the order of the Supreme Court. It held that such an award would be against the public policy and that if the arbitral tribunal is allowed to defy the order of the Supreme Court, it would violate principle of Judicial discipline.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1052
The Delhi High Court had upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the selection of comparables for the determination of the arm's length price of an international transaction.
The Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the Tribunal not only followed the previous orders mentioned above to maintain consistency but also examined the entire material on record to ascertain the comparability of each of the comparables with the case of the respondent or assessee pertaining to AY 2007–08.
Title: AJEET SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1053
The Delhi High Court has observed that the child sexual abuse is a serious issue, being “pervasive and disturbing”, which deserves adequate attention of every stakeholder directly or indirectly connected with administration of justice and judicial process.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that the issue requires to be addressed with lot of sensitivity and sensibility, adding that it is the solemn duty of the court to award adequate punishment to the accused, irrespective of his social, economic background or other domestic responsibilities.
Title: ASHOK AGARWAL v. UOI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other civic authorities in the national capital to strictly comply with a recent Supreme Court ruling which called for a complete eradication of the practice of manual scavenging.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the authorities to comply with a last month judgment in Balram Singh v. Union of India and Others wherein the Apex Court directed that the compensation in cases of sewer deaths must be increased to Rs.30 lakhs.
Title: MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1055
The Delhi High Court has expressed strong displeasure over non-compliance of its directions regarding medical termination of pregnancy of rape victims by the Delhi Police and hospitals in the national capital, observing that it is being complied with only on paper but not in spirit.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the directions were passed in January keeping in mind that every day, every hour, every minute of pregnancy which is a result of sexual assault, is not only traumatic and affects the psychological health of a victim and her family, but also is critical for her physical health and welfare, in case its termination is to take place.
Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1056
While denying relief to a man seeking copy of ECIR in a money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has said that it cannot throttle the investigative process of the Enforcement Directorate at the stage of issuance of summons under PMLA.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea moved by one Amit Katyal, who was not named as an accused in the land for job scam case, seeking quashing of ECIR and a summon issued by ED.
Title: UTTIM LAL SINGH UOI & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1057
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 20,000 cost on the Union Government for its lackadaisical approach and failure to pay “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension” to a 96 years old freedom fighter, who participated in Quit India Movement and other movements associated with the country's independence.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the inaction of the Central Government is an insult to the freedom fighter Uttim Lal Singh, who was declared as a proclaimed offender, and that his entire land would have been attached in the proceedings initiated by the British Government.
Title: POOJA V . SHAH v. BANK OF INDIA & Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1058
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Right to Information Act, 2005, only specifies the maximum limit of penalty to be imposed on Public Information Officers and the said amount may vary depending on malice and degree of inaction on the officials' part in not providing the information.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though Section 20 of the RTI Act stipulates a maximum penalty of Rs.250 per day to be imposed on the Public Information Officer, however, it does not mean that the maximum penalty has to be imposed on the official.
Title: MOHD NASIM v. THE STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1059
The Delhi High Court has observed that happening of a road accident is an unforeseen incident but it cannot be a ground to let off the offender.
“The happening of an accident is an unforeseen incident but it cannot be a ground to let off the offender. The accident may render the entire family of the deceased in state of destitution,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said.
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1060
The Delhi High Court has directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to commence the process of procurement of medicines for children with rare diseases, for whom evaluations have been completed and who are amenable to treatment, as per the fund of Rs. 50 lakhs allocated per patient in terms of the Rare Diseases Policy.
Justice Prathiba M Singh took note of a report submitted by AIIMS stating that out of the total 32 patients, 14 patients were amenable to treatment, 17 patients were not amenable to treatment and one 1 was under evaluation.
Delhi High Court Allows Daughter Longing To See 90-Yrs-Old Mother To Meet For 10 Minutes
Case Title: Seema v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1061
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur on Thursday took a sympathetic view in a daughter's habeas corpus plea in respect of her mother.
The petitioner-daughter had filed the petition stating that her mother was initially residing with her. However, sometime back, her brother had taken their mother to reside with him.
Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. New Balance Immigration Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court recently declared footwear and apparel brand New Balance's marks as well-known. It was clarified, however, that there shall be no monopoly in the words “New” and “Balance” if used separately in respect of any other goods or services.
“…the mark “NEW BALANCE” is a unique combination of two distinctive words i.e. “New” and “Balance” which have no connection, allusion or description of the products of the services offered by the Plaintiff. The logo [NB] is also quite distinctive and has been repeatedly enforced by the Court orders against misuse. The global reputation of the Plaintiff's marks have been proved on record”, the court said.
Title: MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
The Delhi High Court has directed the investigating officers of Delhi Police and medical board to explain the pros and cons of medical termination of pregnancy to the rape victims and her guardians (in case of minors) in mother tongue, be it Hindi or English language.
“This Court orders that henceforth, in cases of medical termination of pregnancy in rape cases, the pros and cons of the medical termination of pregnancy will be explained in Hindi wherever the victim and her guardian in case of a minor victim understands Hindi, or English where they understand the said language,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Delhi High Court Quashes Suspension Of License, Issued To Customs House Agent, Finding Order Illegal
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
The Delhi High Court has held that there was proper verification on the part of the Customs House Agent (CHA) with regard to the genuineness of the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) as well as GSTIN.
Title: HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
The Delhi High Court has said that the application for premature release of convicts who have undergone long incarceration period must not be dealt with in mechanical and clerical manner.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that when the convict has undergone substantial and long period of incarceration, the eventual purpose of imprisonment, including the most serious offences, is reformative and not retributive.
Case Title: SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
The Delhi High Court has held that once the return has been found to be valid and only a defect within the meaning of Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act has been found, interest cannot be levied.
Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
The Delhi High Court has observed that an insurance company is liable to meet the contractual liability where it undertakes to pay compensation on the death or injury suffered by the owner of the insured vehicle.
Justice Navin Chawla said that as a general rule, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death or the bodily injury suffered by the owner or borrower or the driver of the insured vehicle.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
The Delhi High Court has said that the wife making serious and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband and waging a legal war against him by implicating him and his family members amounts to extreme cruelty towards spouse.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside a family court order and granted divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Parle Product Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
The Delhi High Court recently rejected an application filed by “OREO” proprietor under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act seeking permission to initiate rectification proceedings w.r.t. Parle's “FABIO” mark registered in Class 30 (biscuits, cookies, etc.).
It opined that for Section 124(1) to apply in a case where the plaintiff seeks to challenge the validity of the defendant's mark, “firstly, the defendant must raise a Section 30(2)(e) defence by citing the registration of its mark as a defence to infringement and, if the defendant does so, the plaintiff must plead invalidity of the defendant's mark”.
Title: VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
The Delhi High Court has held a Meerut based restaurant owner guilty of disobeying a last court order which restrained him from having any online listing on Zomato or Swiggy using the name “Veer Ji Malai Chaap Wale” by “subverting” the injunction and using a different name “Veer Di Malai Chaap Wale.”
“There was a specific direction to the defendant to remove the online listings from Zomato and Swiggy using the id VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE. The defendant has, while removing the said id, engineered a stratagem by which orders can be placed on the same outlet using the new id VEER DI MALAI CHAAP WALE though no such outlet bearing the said name is present at the address,” Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
Title: SUNITA KEJRIWAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
The Delhi High Court has stayed a trial court order issuing summons to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's wife Sunita Kejriwal in a case alleging she holds two voter IDs.
Justice Amit Bansal issued notice on Sunita Kejriwal's plea and stayed the trial court order till February 01, 2024, the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Juniper Hotels Private Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula recently dismissed a challenge brought against increase in Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO) of Open Access Consumers and imposition of additional surcharges by DERC.
“...the fixation of tariffs through subordinate legislation is within the commission's purview, and no manifest arbitrariness has been demonstrated to call this decision into question”, it said.
Case Title: DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by DCM Ltd. u/s 37 of the A&C Act, refusing to re-examine evidence in view of the limited scope of the provision.
The appeal by DCM Ltd. impugned a judgement by Single Bench of the court, whereby its challenge to an Arbitral Award u/s 34 A&C Act was dismissed.
Regularly Monitor Azad Market To Identify Violators Of Fire Norms: Delhi High Court To MCD
Title: AZAD MARKET RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to conduct regular monitoring of Azad Market area in the national capital to ensure that the violators of fire norms are identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing.
“In this regard, the MCD shall endeavor to conduct regular monitoring of the Subject Area [Azad Market] to ensure that persons found violating the Fire Norms are promptly identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing under Rule 34 of the Delhi Fire Rules,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Prohibition On Carrying E-Cigarettes On Aircrafts
Title: SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the prohibition on carrying e-cigarettes on aircrafts.
After Justice Subramonium Prasad hinted on dismissing the petition with a “six figure cost”, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sutirtha Dutta, withdrew the plea.
The court allowed the withdrawal with a liberty to Dutta to make a representation to the Union Government on the issue.
Title: ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Government to take appropriate measures for filling up all the posts of Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) lying vacant, observing that it would greatly assist in disposals of the pending appeals.
“The Union of India may also consider increasing the sanctioned strength of Commissioner (Appeals) substantially at least to the extent of 570 of such posts, to achieve the aims and objects of the Central Action Plan which is formulated every year,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered.
Case Title: Sushant Kaushik v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old college student accused of raping his professor, noting that the prosecutrix not only chose to enter a relationship with the applicant on her own, but also to continue with the same for over a year.
“All the aforesaid show the love, care and affection, the prosecutrix had for the applicant … Prima facie, it seems that she was in a relationship with the applicant out of choice and desire rather out of compulsion or force”, the court said.
Simple Touch Not 'Manipulation' For Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court
Title: SHANTANU v. THE STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a simple act of touch cannot be considered as manipulation for the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act.
Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act states that a person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if he manipulates any part of the child's body so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any other body part or makes the child to do so with him or any other person.
Case Title: Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079
In a relief to teachers of Rao Manohar Singh Memorial Sr. Secondary School, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula today upheld the order of a Single Bench and directed reinstatement in service of the respondent-teachers.
Notably, relying on Kathuria Public School v. Director of Education and Anr., the appellant, a private unaided school, had contended that it was not required to obtain approval from Director of Education for terminating respondents' services. The court, however, did not agree.
Case Title: IDFC First Bank Limited v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1080
The Delhi High Court recently held that DRT cannot entertain a claim for an amount less than Rs.10 lakhs under the SARFAESI Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan added that the SARFAESI Act's remedy under Section 13(10) cannot be availed by a bank independent of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), and the pecuniary limit set out in the RDB Act also applies.
Case Title: ANR International Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 8 of the A&C Act is mandatory in nature meaning thereby that the Court is bound to refer the dispute to arbitration when there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the respondent makes an application for reference to arbitration before submitting its written statement before the Court.
The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that the Court cannot refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration merely on the ground that the defendant had initially, in reply to Section 21 notice, denied the existence of the arbitration agreement.
Case Title: BT (India) Private Limited Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082
The Delhi High Court has held that a CENVAT credit refund cannot be denied in the absence of the self-assessed return having been questioned, reviewed or re-assessed.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that a self-assessed return also amounts to an “assessment” and unless it is varied or modified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute, it cannot possibly be questioned in refund proceedings.
Case Title: National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot modify an arbitral award. It held that the Court can either uphold the award or set aside any finding, however, the Court is powerless to modify the award by allowing a relief that was disallowed by the arbitral tribunal.
The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma also held that where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove, the tribunal is empowered to award liquidated amount stipulated in the contract, if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, or reasonable compensation for the said amount loss or damage. The claim for LD in such cases is well within the purview of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Case Title: Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela recently dismissed the PIL filed by a party while suppressing relationship with the private respondent.
“…this Court is of the firm opinion that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands… the Petitioner was certainly an interested person”, the court said.
Case Title: ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to immediate take steps for operationalizing the Online Single Window System (OSWS) portal for clearing fee memos of its lawyers and for inaugurating the same within the one month.
Justice Prathiba M Singh asked the Delhi Government to file a report regarding the functioning of the portal and listed the matter for hearing on March 07.
Title: MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED v. MAXI CURE HOSPITALS & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1086
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Telangana based hospital chain from using the mark “Maxi Cure” for its healthcare services in a trademark infringement suit filed by Max Healthcare.
Keeping in view the fact that since Maxi Cure Hospital was using the impugned mark for a hospital, Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the injunction shall come into effect only from February 01, 2024.
Case Title: Aryan Kumar (Minor) through Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court recently allowed a student of Class-XI to be promoted based on marks obtained by him in Physical Education, an additional subject, instead of Mathematics (which he had failed to qualify).
The petitioner's grievance was that he had been denied promotion on the ground of Article 106 of the KVS Education Code (as amended in 2018), even though respondent No.1/school was bound by CBSE Examination Bye-Laws, 1995, which allow for marks in main subject to be substituted with marks of an additional subject, subject to conditions.
Case Title: S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently disposed of a habeas corpus petition, where the missing girl, a minor, was recovered but her parents/petitioner refused to take custody in view of her pregnancy.
Notably, the petition was filed by the mother of the girl, seeking directions for her production before the court. It was alleged that a boy had lured the daughter away, established physical relations with her and made public certain illicit videos that he had made of her.
Title: NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
The Delhi High Court has restrained two plastic chair manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” device mark or any other device mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar to the device marks of Nilkamal.
Justice C Hari Shankar however rejected Nilkamal's prayer in its trademark infringement suit to restrain the manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” as a word mark, either for chairs or for any other item manufactured by them.
Case Title: Viridian Development Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
The Delhi High Court has held that once the licence is revoked by the licensor, any use of the mark by the ex-licensee would amount to an infringement of the trademark and would deceive the public, inasmuch as the public would be led to believe that the ex-licensee is still connected with the licensor.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an ex-licensee cannot be allowed to use the mark after termination of license. Further, the licensor has a right and duty to ensure the consistency of the goods or services being sold and advertised under its mark and take action against any infringement of the mark.
Title: DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of appointment of Dr. Ishwarappa Veerbhadrappa Basavaraddi as Director of the Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga, an autonomous institution under the Union Ministry of AYUSH.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by one Dr. Ajay Pal who claimed that during his tenure in the institute as an Assistant Professor, he witnessed numerous administrative discrepancies occurring under the directorship of Dr. Basavaraddi.
Title: VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092
The Delhi High Court has warned a litigant for misusing the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as he sought contempt action against a district court judge on the ground that his grievances were not duly addressed.
Case Title: HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy's Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093
Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court recently granted relief to “34 Chowringhee Lane” acquirer-HDA Flavours Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the Arbitrator, while dealing with a Section 17 application, should not have interdicted it from creating new franchisees.
“A blanket embargo on the appellant from creating any new franchisee or entering into such business agreements as may be appropriate for the advancement of business, may result in denuding the value of the business on account of stagnation/depletion in market share,” the court said.
Title: GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094
The Delhi High Court has ruled that conviction for committing sexual offences is no ground for denying the benefit of furlough to an otherwise eligible prisoner.
“In this Court's opinion, merely because a person has been convicted for committing sexual offences, he cannot be denied benefit of furlough, which he is otherwise eligible for, on such erroneous grounds,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095
The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre and the Delhi Government to implement their policies on skill learning and vocational training to the children with special needs in letter and spirit with a timely reassessment to counter any challenges that may arise in future.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL moved by a class XII student seeking implementation of a nation-wide policy to impart skill learning and vocational training to children with special needs.
Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Demand Of Rs. 257 Crores Against Tata Steel Ltd.
Case Title: Tata Steel Limited Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096
The Delhi High Court has quashed the income tax demand of Rs. 257 crore against Tata Steel Ltd. (TSL).
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that a successful applicant is, in law, provided with a “clean slate”; therefore, dues for the period prior to the date when the RP was approved cannot be recovered. The courts have recognized this principle in more than one case.
Case Title: Indian Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association v. Director General of Foreign Trade
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently ruled that DGFT's decision to repeal the MEIS scheme with retrospective effect, combined with their refusal to honour claims for the valid period, was arbitrary and indefensible, both in principle and law.
Title: Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the Delhi Government's decision of prohibiting devotees from performing Chhath Puja on the banks of Yamuna river.
Observing that the prohibition has been imposed in order to prevent pollution in the river, Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed his inclination to dismiss the plea which was moved by two societies namely Chath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti and Purwanchal Jagriti Manch.
Case Title: ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 29A of the A&C Act is empowered to extend the mandate of the arbitrator even in cases where the application seeking extension of time is not made within the time limit fixed for the making of the award.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the purport of Section 29A of the A&C Act is clearly not to tie the hands of the parties or the court, and prevent extension of time even where warranted, simply because the petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a few days after expiration of the deadline contemplated under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue within two weeks a notification declaring all un-encroached forest land in the national capital as reserved under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that in case the notification is not issued within the stipulated period, the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government shall be liable for contempt action and a notice of contempt will be initiated against him.