Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023: Part IV [Citations 1101- 1357]

DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101

Shreyash Retail Private Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax TDS Circle 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1102

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHAHJAHANABAD REDEVLOPMENT CORPORATION (SRDC), GNCTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1103

VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1104

Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

SAKH ALAM @ SHEKH ALAM v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairman & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCTD AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax LiveLaw (Del) 1122

Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

Court on its own motion v. M/s Obssiobn Naaz & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

PCIT Versus M/S Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VICKY AGGARWAL AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1148

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

Trusted Info Systems Private Limited v. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1150

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1151

M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CONCESSIONAIRE OF DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION) v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1152

SHRI NARESH KUMAR V/s THE WIRE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1154

Prasanta Karmakar v. Paralympic Committee of India through its Chariman & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1155

SANJAY KUMAR VALMIKI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1156

Neelu Kumari & Ors v. Om & Anr (Bajaj Alliance Gen Ins Co Ltd) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1157

Varun v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1159

Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1160

AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1161

SUJAAT ALI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS v. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1162

CHHAYA TYAGI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

TARUN KUMAR v. PARMANAND GARG 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

BDR Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1166

Metal Engineering and Forging Company v. Central Warehousing Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1167

Italian Thai Development v. NTPC Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

LAXMI KOHLU GHAR THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH ARUN KUMAR v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

RAJINDER SINGH CHADHA v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1170

Mis Deco Industries India v. JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd through its AO Kumar Gaurav & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1171

Preeti v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

MOHD. TASLIM ALI v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1193

BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1194

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and Other Connected Matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1195

Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1196

Pooja Menghani v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1197

ANJURI KUMARI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1198

Rahul Bhardwaj and Anr v. The Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1199

Nikhil Rana v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

M 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1200

MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1201

Mr. Maahi Neil Jaipal (Minor) v. University of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1202

Shri Chintan Bindra Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1203

SOMDUTT SINGH @ SHIVAM v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1204

MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. DIALMYTRIP TECH PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1205

Vishnu Das Through Peherokar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1206

N.K. Sharma v. The General Manager Northern Railways 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1207

Taqa India Power Ventures v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1208

Maj Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagale v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1209

Sri Ganesh Engineering Works v. Northern Railways 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210

Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1211

KIRAN JUNEJA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1212

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD. v. THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS RIGHTS AUTHORITY AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1213

CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1214

S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1215

N v. The Union of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1216

S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1217

Citius Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1218

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1219

ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220

Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1221

PCIT Versus M/S Inductis India Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1222

Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1223

SAIL v Uniper Global Commodities 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1224

Ravi Gupta v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1225

CASTROL LIMITED & ANR. v. VOLTRANIC INDIA LUBRICANTS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1226

SMT. VIMMI CHAWLA v. DEEPAK SETHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1227

SHARIQ v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1228

Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1229

MASTER SINGHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1230

Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1231

Arpit Bhargava and Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1232

KOHLI SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHI SPORTS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1233

NARENDER JAIN & ANR v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS and Other Connected Matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1234

Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v. LDD Bioscience Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1235

New Delhi NatureSociety v. Director Horticulture DDA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1236

THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS LAW FIRM (REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATE ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1237

CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. CITY NEWS NETWORK & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1238

SMT. RUBINA & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1239

M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1240

VICKY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1241

Divender v. LG of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1242

Vikas Malhotra v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1243

CIT Versus Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1244

FAIZY KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1245

KESHAV PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1246

MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1247

VINEET JHAVAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1248

Defsys Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India, LPA 672/2023 (and connected matter) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1249

J.S.R. Constructions v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1250

Sanjiv Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1251

AWADHESH YADAV v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1252

Kanta v. Gurvinder Kapoor & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1253

BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1254

Shourya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1255

LAMBODER JHA v. GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1256

CIT Versus Cairnhill Cipef Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1257

SHARAD VASHISHT GENERAL SECRETARY W ONE DESU ROAD MEHRAULI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1258

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. BRIJESH SHUKLA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1259

House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. House of Pathology Labs Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1260

Umaxe Projects Pvt Ltd v. AIR Force Naval Housing Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1261

Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262

Havells India Limited v. Polycab India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263

DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1264

Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1265

PCIT Versus Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1266

Subhajit Dutta v. Principal District and Sessions Judge (South Delhi), Saket Courts Complex, and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1267

ATT SYS India Pvt Ltd Estex Tele Private Limited Consortium Versus The Commissioner Goods And Services Tax Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1268

Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax Act & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1269

Neeraj Paper Marketing Ltd. Versus Special Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, Gnctd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1270

AMAZON WHOLESALE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, NEW DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1271

PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1272

ovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1273

Dr Suman Gupta v. Ravinder Pratap & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1274

SHANKAR @ GORI SHANKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1275

Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276

Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1277

PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1278

IOCL Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1279

BINEET SINGH BISHT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1280

Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Agro Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi- East 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1281

Indusind Bank Limited Versus Department Of Trade & Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1282

VIREN SINGH v. MADHUP VYAS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1283

TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1284

ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1285

VISHAL YADAV v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1286

Court in its own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1287

GOOGLE LLC v. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1288

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1289

INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS v. WORLDDEVCORP TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1290

MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1291

Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1292

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL & ANR. v. ARYAN KUMAR THROUGH FATHER RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1293

DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1294

PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1295

HUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH AND CO. KG. v. SANDEEP ARORA TRADING AS ARRAS THE BOSS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1296

U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1297

NARENDRA TYAGI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1298

Usha Bansal v. Genesis Finance Co. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1299

INDIWAR PARIJAT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1300

PCIT Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1301

ARIF v. STATE and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1302

MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1303

PCIT Versus M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1304

CIT Versus Hersh Washesher Chadha 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1305

M/S KUEHNE + NAGEL PVT. LTD. v. MR. PREM SINGHEE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1306

THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v. SHEELA ABHAY LODHA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1307

KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1308

DR. ARUN MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1309

Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1310

ATMARAM SARAOGI v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1311

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1312

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1313

NITIN GARG v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1314

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1315

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v. MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES AND ANR. & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1316

AMRIT LAL WADHERA & ANR. v. SAROJ SUNEJA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1317

SHISHIR CHAND v. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1318

KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1319

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1320

BHARAT NAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1321

Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1322

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1323

JASPREET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1324

WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. BAJAAR LLC AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1325

PCIT Versus B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1326

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1327

Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1328

VINOD KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1329

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CRIME-III, DELHI v. SHADAB 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1330

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1331

MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1332

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1333

TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. KABIR SHANKAR BOSE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1334

KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1335

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1336

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1337

NCLT BAR ASSOCIATION THR ITS SECRETARY GENERAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1338

R.K. GUPTA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1339

Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1340

The Hershey Company v. Atul Jalan trading as Akshat Online Traders 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1341

DDA Demolitions | Ambit Of Writ Court Does Not Extend To Resolving Intricate Disputes Over Boundary Delineations: Delhi High Court

Title: DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the ambit of a writ court does not extend to resolving intricate disputes over boundary delineations which require thorough examination of documents, surveys, maps, an assessment of their validity and ground study of areas.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that such tasks squarely fall within the expertise and jurisdiction of the statutory authorities which are constituted under relevant land statutes enacted by the State legislature.

Delhi High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The Grant Of An LDC Permitting Deduction Of 0.01% TDS

Case Title: Shreyash Retail Private Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax TDS Circle

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1102

The Delhi High Court has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the grant of a lower deduction of tax certificate (LDC) permitting the deduction of 0.01% TDS.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the reasons furnished by the Respondent/department qua the Application i.e., as to why the Petitioners' request that TDS should not be deducted at a rate of 0.01%, hinges on broad generalisations in relation to the propriety of projected estimations of revenue and tax liability and accordingly has been had been issued mechanically reflecting non-application of mind.

Chandni Chowk Re-Development Work Should Continue And Be Maintained: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHAHJAHANABAD REDEVLOPMENT CORPORATION (SRDC), GNCTD & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1103

The Delhi High Court has requested the Delhi Government to ensure that the re-development work of city's Chandni Chowk is continued and maintained.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a suo motu PIL registered last year on the basis of a newspaper report concerning various stages of Chandni Chowk's development and the delay which occurred in its implementation.

Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Alleging Irregularities In 'Special Olympics Bharat', Directs Compliance Of National Sports Code In Elections

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1104

The Delhi High Court has asked Special Olympics Bharat to ensure strict compliance with National Sports Development Code, 2011, for all upcoming elections of office-bearers at national and state level.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also asked the national sports federation to comply with the Code for the selection of sportspersons and national coaches for upcoming Special Olympic World Games, 2025.

Throwing On Another Person Any Liquid Or Substance Other Than 'Acid' Not An Offence U/S 326B IPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

"...under Section 326-B of the IPC, an offence is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw 'acid' on another person, and not any other liquid or substance,” the Delhi High Court has held.

It thus quashed an FIR registered on allegations of a woman throwing acid on her sister-in-law, observing that the substance thrown was not found to be 'acid' and the allegation appeared to be motivated by an ongoing property dispute between the parties.

School Safety Standards: Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Inspections By Child Safety Monitoring Committee

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to be followed by the court-appointed Child Safety Monitoring Committee during the course of its inspections of schools in the national capital, in respect of minimum standards of school safety.

A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered that no member will be allowed to inspect the schools independently and that the three member Committee as a whole headed by the Chairperson will inspect the schools.

Merely Because Complainant Married Accused Does Not Entail Quashing Of Rape, POCSO FIR: Delhi High Court

Title: SAKH ALAM @ SHEKH ALAM v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the complainant married the accused does not entail quashing of an FIR registered for the offence of rape and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain refused to quash an FIR registered under the POCSO Act after the accused and complainant sought its quashing on the ground that they had settled their disputes, got married and were blessed with a son.

Can't Permit All Cases Against CBSE To Be Filed In Delhi When Most Vital Part Of Cause Of Action Arose Elsewhere: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairman & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently dismissed an LPA seeking relief against CBSE, holding that though the Board has its HQs in Delhi, the appellant's grievance was not directly attributable to it.

Speaking of forum conveniens, the Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, observed:

“…the doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice”.

Finalize Proposal On Establishing Specialized Training Academy For Public Prosecutors Within Four Weeks: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to finalize within four weeks its proposal regarding the establishment of a specialised training academy for public prosecutors.

A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the public prosecutors shoulder weighty responsibilities in the discharge of their duties and directed the Delhi Government to file an affidavit outlining the steps taken by it.

Delhi High Court Directs DCP Legal To Convene Meeting Regarding SOP On Security Measures During College Fests

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Police's DCP (Legal) to convene a meeting to put in place the standard operating procedure (SOP) regarding the security measures to be followed during college fests that are organised by colleges or Universities in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the representatives of IIT Delhi, Delhi Universities and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University shall also be called in the meeting.

Delhi High Court Seeks DDA's Stand On CBI Probe Into Allotment Of Properties Based On Forged Recommendation Letters

Title: GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

The Delhi High Court has sought stand of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as to whether the matter of allotment of 128 properties, on prime locations in the national capital, based on “forged recommendation letters” by Land and Building Department be referred for further investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the value of the properties, even at an average price, would be in thousands of crores, and that the total value even by conservative estimates could be over Rs. 2000 crores.

Conduct Security And Social Audit Of DUSIB Shelter Homes: High Court To Delhi Govt's Chief Secretary

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCTD AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government's Chief Secretary to undertake a security and social audit of all the shelter homes under the supervision of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) to ensure that they are occupied by eligible persons.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the exercise be done positively within six weeks.

Court Exercising Powers Under Section 34 Of A&C Act Cannot Allow Claims Rejected By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot allow claims which were disallowed/rejected by the arbitral tribunal.

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that Section 34 of the A&C Act does not permit the Court to rewrite an arbitral award and the Court can either set aside or upheld the arbitral award.

Once Granted Bail, Accused Must Not Only 'Join' Investigation But Also 'Participate' In It: Delhi High Court

Title: VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

The Delhi High Court has said that an accused, once granted bail, is always expected to not only join the investigation but also participate in it, while underscoring that there is a palpable difference between “joining” and “participating” in probe.

“In any event, this Court wishes to take note of the fact that in numerous cases pending trial, unfortunately, there is a recent growing trend wherein an accused, despite either making a statement through counsel in the Court or despite conditions being imposed by the Court, merely chooses to 'physically' join investigation on paper, without any actual participation,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

Continuing To Contest The Suit Does Not Waive The Right To Arbitration When A Section 8 Objection Was Raised In Written Submissions And Arguments: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot be deemed to have waived off its right to arbitration merely because it continued to contest the suit when it had specifically raised objection to the maintainability of the suit due to the presence of the arbitration agreement.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that when a party takes a specific objection predicated on Section 8 in the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) seeking leave to defend the suit and that objection, thereafter, is reiterated in the written statement and arguments. It cannot be said that the party has waived the right to arbitration.

Before Issuing Summons U/S 138 NI Act, Only Prima Facie View On Presence Of Basic Ingredients Of The Offence Necessary: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently upheld summoning orders passed in a complaint case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that evidence need not be gone into by the MM while conducting inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of NI Act.

“At the stage of issuance of summons, for the purpose of Section 202 of the CrPC read with section 145 of the NI Act, the learned MM is only required to examine whether the basic ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been prima facie made out by the complainant and supported by the pre-summoning evidence led on behalf of the complainant.”

No Separate Application Under Section 8 Of The A&C Act Is Required When The Objection Is Duly Raised In The Written Submissions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

The Delhi High Court has held that once a party has duly taken objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit due to the presence of the arbitration clause between the parties in its written statement, it would be sufficient compliance of Section 8 of the A&C Act and there is no need for a separate application.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that once an arbitration clause has been extracted by a party in its written submission to object to the jurisdiction of the Court, the mere fact that the party did not separately request that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration, would be of little consequence.

Interested Party Cannot Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally, Award Passed By An Ineligible Arbitrator A Nullity: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party interested in the dispute cannot unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, and if any Award is passed as a result of such unilateral appointment, the same would be a nullity.

The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain, noted that the respondents' nomination of the Arbitrator was without reference to the court in terms of Section 11 of A&C Act.

Interpretation Of Contract Primarily A Matter For Arbitrator To Determine, Scope Of Section 34 Arbitration Act Limited: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently allowed restoration of an arbitral award, noting that it was not within the scope of the Single Judge u/s 34 of A&C Act to re-interpret the contract between the parties and substitute the finding of the Arbitrator's despite it being plausible and well-reasoned.

The court referred to Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI and said:

“…a change that has been brought in by the Amendment Act, 2015 is that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in short that the arbitrator's view is not even a possible view to take”.

Govt Can Only 'Monitor' MRP Of Non-Scheduled Formulations Under Drugs (Price Control) Order, Not Fix Or Revise It: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently held that the government only has power to “monitor” the maximum retail price (MRP) of non-scheduled formulations, and not to fix or revise it. It was added that in case there is an increase in the MRP beyond this limit, the consequences are prescribed in Para 20 itself.

The judgment came to be passed in a batch of LPAs filed by pharmaceutical companies, bringing into question interpretation of Para 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 (DPCO 2013), which deals with monitoring of non-scheduled formulations' MRP.

Delhi High Court Rejects Interim Plea To Reopen Roshanara Club Sealed By DDA

Title: SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

The Delhi High Court has rejected an application seeking opening of city's 100-year-old Roshanara Club, which was sealed and locked by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in September.

A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the interim application filed in the petition moved by a member of the club Manish Aggarwal.

Wrongful Application Of Foreign Contribution By Trust Not In Accordance With Trust's Objective: Delhi High Court Upholds Reassessment

Case Title: Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

The Delhi High Court has upheld the reassessment proceedings against a trust for wrongful application of foreign contribution, which was against the objective of the trust.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the AO based its opinion on tangible and concrete information in the form of the petitioner's trust deed and the statement of the managing trustee that certain identified foreign contributions received by the petitioner were utilized for a purpose divergent from its object as disclosed in the trust deed. The wrongful application of the exemption availed under Section 11 or Section 12 of the Income Tax Act in relation to such funds would undoubtedly result in the AO forming the subjective satisfaction that the wrongly availed exemption vis-à-vis foreign contributions escaped income for the purpose of assessment under the Income Tax Act.

Court Won't Insist For Bank Guarantee If Enforcement Of Award Is Not Frustrated In Section 9 Petition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

The Delhi High Court held that the Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act would not order furnishing of Bank Guarantee (BG) to secure the claims of a party pending the arbitration proceedings, unless it shown that the order party is alienating its assets or acting in a manner that would frustrate the enforcement of the Arbitral Award.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that an order under Section 9 directing furnishing bank guarantee to secure the claims is akin to an order of attachment before judgment as provided under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. It held that the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act is not unduly bound by texts of CPC, however, it cannot pass any order in disregard to the principles of CPC.

Pendency Of Vigilance Inquiry No Impediment To Travel Abroad: Delhi High Court

Title: RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

The Delhi High Court has observed that pendency of a vigilance inquiry cannot be an impediment for an individual to travel abroad.

Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while granting relief to a woman, accused in a corruption case, to travel abroad from November 29 to December 14 for her honeymoon.

Frame Policy On Online Sale Of Drugs Within Eight Weeks, Else Joint Secretary Should Appear: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: DR ZAHEER AHMED v. PREETI SUDAN SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Union Government to frame within eight weeks the policy to regulate online sale of drugs or medicines.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that if the policy is not framed within the stipulated time, the concerned Joint Secretary dealing with the subject shall remain present in court on the next date of hearing.

Yemen Supreme Court Dismissed Malayali Nurse's Appeal Against Death Sentence : Centre Informs Delhi High Court

Title: PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that the Supreme Court in Yemen on November 13 had dismissed the appeal of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya against the death sentence imposed on her for murdering a Yemeni national. The final decision now lies with the President of the Yemen, the Centre added.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the mother of Nimisha Priya seeking permission to travel to Yemen to negotiate with the victim's family by paying blood money.

Delhi High Court Directs Acko General Insurance To Take Down Social Media Posts Using St+art India's 'Humanity' Mural

Title: ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

The Delhi High Court has directed insurance company Acko General Insurance to take down its social media posts using a mural titled “Humanity” in a copyright infringement suit filed by St+art India, an organization that works on art projects in public spaces.

As the insurance company agreed to take down the social media posts and other online postings using the mural, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:

“…accordingly, it is directed that the Defendant shall take down the said listings within 72 hours. Specific URLs displaying the said mural on the Defendant's posts, if any, may also be communicated to the Defendant by the Plaintiffs. The above order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.”

Delhi HC Accepts Litigant's Apology For Non-Disclosure Of Order Before Lower Court, Sets Aside Order Imposing Cost Noting There Was No Malice

Case Title: Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court recently accepted a litigant's unconditional apology for failing to produce the court's stay order before the District Judge at the time of listing for final arguments.

“…the mistake is definitely a serious one since order of the higher Court ought to have been necessarily communicated to the Court upon which the said order would have been binding,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Pulls Up MCD For Not Taking Possession Of Public Park Alleged To Be Illegally Occupied By Jama Masjid Authorities

Title: MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

The Delhi High Court on Friday pulled up the Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to take possession of a public park near city's Jama Masjid, observing that a statutory authority cannot lose possession of a public park.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by MCD's counsel that the Shahi Imam or Jama Masjid authorities are allegedly in illegal possession and have locked the park in question.

Arbitration | Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Steel Manufacturer-Arcelormittal In Section 9 Petition Against GAIL, Says Prima Facie Case Not Made Out

Case Title: ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

The Delhi High Court recently denied urgent interim relief to leading steel manufacturer-ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (petitioner) in a claim against GAIL India Ltd., observing that the scope of enquiry u/s 9 of A&C Act was limited to prima facie examination of the issue, which was not established in the petitioner's favour.

The petitioner had approached the court seeking stay over a Notice issued by GAIL, statedly to terminate the LNG Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) entered by the two. It further sought directions for GAIL to deliver LNG in accordance with the LSPA.

TRU Can't Issue Clarification Regarding Classification Of Polypropylene Woven And Non-Woven Bags Under Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

The Delhi High Court has held that the Tax Research Unit (TRU) cannot issue clarification regarding the classification of polypropylene woven and non-woven bags under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the department could not point out any provision of the CGST Act, in terms of which the TRU could be said to have been clothed with the authority or jurisdiction to render a clarification with respect to the classification of goods and articles. The Board appears to be the sole recipient of the authority. There is no authority vested in the TRU to issue the clarification.

Excise Policy: Delhi High Court Allows PMLA Accused To Interact With Daughter Suffering From Paranoid Schizophrenia Through VC, Denies Interim Bail

Title: AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

The Delhi High Court on Friday allowed businessman Amit Arora, accused in the PMLA case related to the excise policy scam, to interact with her 16 years old daughter suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia through video-conferencing for half an hour twice a week and wished her “complete psychological recovery” as well as a “life time of positive mental health.”

While Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the interim bail plea moved by Arora on the ground of his daughter's mental health condition, the court made arrangement for VC meetings and said that the psychological injury that some children may suffer in such cases need healing.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Extend Hospital Stay Of Amandeep Singh Dhall In Excise Policy Case, Asks Jail Authorities To Ensure Treatment

Title: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the duration of medical treatment of businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, Amandeep Singh Dhall, who is an accused in the excise policy scam case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the pleas moved by Dhall in both the cases registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking extension of duration of his medical examination and treatment at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, pursuant to order passed by the court.

Coal Scam: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash ED Summons To West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak

Title: MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from summoning West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak in future in connection with the coal smuggling case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that it was rather surprising that Ghatak himself had not appeared before the ED on 11 occasions out of 12 to give the information that was being sought by the probe agency.

Concealment Of Income Above Rs.50 Lakhs, Extended Period Of Limitation Would Apply: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

The Delhi High Court has held that an extended period of 10 years would apply in serious tax evasion cases where there was evidence of concealment of income above Rs. 50 lakhs.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that, as per the Memorandum, in “normal cases”, no notice was intended to be issued if 3 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant AY. Notice, beyond the prescribed 3 years from the end of the relevant AY, could be issued only in a few specific cases. One such example, which is given in the bill, is where the AO was in possession of evidence that escaped income amounted to Rs. 50 lakhs or more.

Delhi Gymkhana Club Exigible To Tax Under Delhi Tax On Luxuries Act, 1996: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

The Delhi High Court has held that Delhi Gymkhana Club is exigible to tax under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996, as it stood during the assessment period in question, extended its application also to the provision of residential accommodation in a club and, in any case, did not at the relevant time exclude the provisioning of accommodation to members of a club from the expression “luxury”. In fact, the word “luxury” did not even exist in the statute book prior to its insertion by virtue of the 2012 Amendment Act.

AO Lacked Tangible Material To Form A Belief That Income, Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment: Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice

Case Title: Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

The Delhi High Court has held that AO did not have the tangible material on record that could have persuaded him to form the belief that income, otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia, the AO, did not employ diligence while triggering the reassessment proceedings against the petitioner or assessee. Because AO realized that the information received by him from ITO (Nahan) concerned the preceding period, he attempted to commence reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act by simply comparing the “source of funds” reflected under various heads in the balance sheets for the preceding AY and the AY in issue.

Delhi High Court Restrains Kerala Based Furniture Store From Using 'IKEA' Mark In Trademark Infringement Suit

Title: INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Kerala based furniture store “Ikea Luxury Furniture” from using the mark “Ikea” either as a trademark or trade name on hoardings, including stationery, banners, handbills, and promotional materials.

Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational furniture company, Inter IKEA Systems BV. It sought protection of its mark 'IKEA'.

Constitute Committee To Supervise Implementation Of Pay Commission Recommendations On School Staff : High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to constitute a High Powered Committee to supervise implementation of recommendations prescribed in 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) regarding payment of salaries and arrears to staff of private unaided schools and recognized private unaided minority schools in the national capital.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ordered that the Committee shall be constituted at Central and Zonal levels.

Will Can Be Suspected Only When Substantial Changes Are Introduced By Cuttings And Overwriting: Delhi High Court

Title: MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

The Delhi High Court has observed that only where it is found that there are substantial changes sought to be introduced to a Will by cuttings and overwriting on it, it can be open for the Court to conclude that the Will is suspect and has to be rejected.

Justice Rekha Palli observed that the effect of cuttings and overwriting in a Will would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

IPD Rules Do Not Bar Taking Additional Documents On Record After Filing Of Reply Or Counter-Statement To Rectification Petition: Delhi High Court

Title: BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

The Delhi High Court has ruled that its Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, do not contain any provision which bars taking additional documents on record after reply or counter-statement is filed by the respondent to the rectification petition.

“The IPD Rules do not contain any provision which proscribes taking of additional documents on record, unlike the Original Side Rules, which does contain such a provision, in Rule 147 in Chapter VII,” Justice C Hari Shankar held.

Can A Patent Office Assign A Patent Application Filed Before It To Another Patent Office? Delhi High Court Asks

Case Title: Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

Hearing a case where an application seeking grant of patent, filed before the Bombay Patent Office, was assigned to the Delhi Patent Office, the Delhi High Court on Thursday posed two interesting questions – (i) whether such practice was permissible, and (ii) if permissible, whether it precluded an unsuccessful applicant from filing an appeal before the Delhi High Court.

Statedly, after the appellant's patent application was assigned to the Delhi Patent Office, not only did the examination took place at Delhi, but also the First Examination Report (FER) was issued at Delhi.

Can't Expect Every Doctor To Know Distinction Between 'Aziwok' And 'Aziwake': Delhi High Court Grants Injunction In Favour Of Dr. Reddy's

Case Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

Finding a prima facie case of infringement, the Delhi High Court recently granted injunction in favour of Dr. Reddy's-AZIWOK against defendant's AZIWAKE, noting that the minuscule difference between the two words was too slight to detract from the overall phonetic similarity between them.

“To the ear of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, it is, therefore, clear that the words “AZIWOK” and “AZIWAKE” are phonetically deceptively similar,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Says Contempt Action For Attack On Local Commissioners Maintainable As They Are Extension Of Court

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. M/s Obssiobn Naaz & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

During the hearing of a criminal contempt case initiated in respect of a violent attack on Local Commissioners (LCs) out for inspection in 2014, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court opined that LCs are an extension of the court, and as such, it had jurisdiction to initiate/continue contempt proceedings.

Reassessment Notice Severed At Old Address Despite Knowing Assessee's New Address: Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order as the notice under Section 148 was improperly served as it was sent to the old address, despite the fact that the department was aware of the new address.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that no notice, under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, was issued to the respondent or assessee before framing the assessment order. Thus, the assessment order, which has been framed without a notice being issued to the respondent or assessee under Section 143(2), is unsustainable in law.

Delhi High Court Directs BCD To Take Action Against Lawyer If Found Guilty Of 'Manufacturing' Order Purportedly Passed By IPAB

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VICKY AGGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to take action against a lawyer if he is found guilty of "manufacturing" an order purportedly passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2016.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur however discharged the clients who engaged the lawyer to represent their case before the Board after an unconditional apology was tendered for any inconvenience caused to the court, with an undertaking that they shall be careful while filing any document in judicial proceedings in future.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Murdering Wife, Reiterates Ligature Marks In Case Of Hanging Different From Strangulation

Case Title: Rihan v. The State (GNCTD)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1147

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man being prosecuted under Sections 302 (murder), 498A (cruelty) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) IPC, in relation to his wife's death.

“In view of the categoric opinion of the doctor that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, it prima facie, appears that the medical evidence is not in accord with the prosecution version”, it said.

Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Conduct Exercise For Improving Infrastructure Of Its Hospitals

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1148

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to undertake an exercise for improvement of infrastructure of the hospitals being controlled and run by it in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna also directed the Delhi Government to file an action taken report stating as to whether the recommendations of the expert committee, which was constituted to enhance operational standards and treatment methodologies within government hospitals, are being implemented.

Seized Cash Should Be Treated As Advance Tax As Per Law, There Was No Default In Payment Of Advance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

The Delhi High Court has held that the seized cash was offered by the assessee, under the regime that was prevailing then, to be treated as the advance tax, and thus there was no default in payment of the advance. Although its payment or adjustment was triggered due to a search action,

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the petitioner had offered Rs. 50 lakhs seized in search to be treated as advance tax. This endorsement is found both in the return on investment (ROI) as well as in the computation sheet accompanying the ROI.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To CERT-IN's Empanelment Procedure, Reiterates That Courts Ought Not Sit In Appeal Over Expert Decisions

Case Title: Trusted Info Systems Private Limited v. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1150

Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court recently dismissed a litigant's challenge to the procedure adopted by Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) w.r.t. empanelment of cyber-security firms as IT security auditing organizations.

It was observed that, “…the process of empanelment adopted by the Respondents is extremely technical. The Court cannot be expected to sit on appeal over decisions taken by experts and substitute its own conclusion with one arrived at by the experts.”

Maintenance Provision Under Hindu Marriage Act Is Gender Neutral: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1151

The Delhi High Court has said that the provision for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to a spouse under the Hindu Marriage Act is gender neutral.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Municipal Corporation Order Directing Pacific Mall Not To Charge Parking Fee From Visitors

Title: M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CONCESSIONAIRE OF DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION) v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1152

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order issued by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) in 2018 directing city's Pacific Mall not to charge parking fee from the visitors.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the charging of parking fee by the mall does not violate the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016, or the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021.

S.76(3) Trademarks Act Does Not Require Both Rival Marks To Be Registered CTMs, Targeted Client Base Relevant To Infringement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Scrum Alliance, Inc v. Mr. Prem Kumar S. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1153

In an application filed by a leading Scrum certification organization, the Delhi High Court yesterday granted interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's mark “CERTIFIED SCRUM MASTER” as well as its logo.

The plaintiff, being registered proprietor of Certification Trade Marks (CTMs) “CERTIFIED SCRUMMASTER”, “CSM” and certain device marks, had filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, claiming that defendants were using marks and logo deceptively similar to that of its own.

Delhi Chief Secretary Gets Interim Relief, High Court Directs 'The Wire' To Take Down Alleged Defamatory Article Over Bamnoli Land Acquisition

Title: SHRI NARESH KUMAR V/s THE WIRE & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1154

The Delhi High Court has directed news portal 'The Wire' to take down its article on city's Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar casting aspersions on him in relation to his involvement in an alleged land acquisition case.

The suit has been filed against the news report titled “Links of Son of Delhi Chief Secretary to Beneficiary's Family in Land Over-Valuation Case Raise Questions”. The story was published on November 09 by reporter Meetu Jain.

Suspension Of Para Swimmer Prasanta Karmakar Accused Of Recording Videos Of Female Swimmers Upheld By Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prasanta Karmakar v. Paralympic Committee of India through its Chariman & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1155

Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court on Monday upheld the 3-year suspension order passed by Paralympic Committee of India in respect of Arjuna Awardee Paralympic Swimmer Prasanta Karmakar, observing that he failed to showcase how the decision of the Disciplinary Committee was unfair.

Reiterating that the scope of judicial review over administrative decisions was limited, the court said,

“It is well settled that when a statute/law/bye-law gives a discretion to an administration to take a decision, the scope of judicial review remains limited and it is not permissible, unless the decision is contrary to law or has been taken without considering the relevant factors or where irrelevant factors have been considered or the decision is one which a prudent man would not have arrived at.”

Depriving Furlough To Convict Undergoing Long Term Imprisonment Is Counterproductive To Reformative Approach: Delhi High Court

Title: SANJAY KUMAR VALMIKI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1156

The Delhi High Court has observed that depriving furlough to a convict, who is undergoing long term imprisonment, would be counterproductive to the reformative approach and would also take away the motivation to maintain good conduct inside the jail.

Justice Amit Bansal said that only on the basis that the convict has committed a gruesome crime many years ago, it cannot be said that the individual's temporary release on furlough would be against the interest of the society.

Murder Of Employee Doesn't Disentitle Legal Heirs From Claiming Compensation Under Employees' Compensation Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Neelu Kumari & Ors v. Om & Anr (Bajaj Alliance Gen Ins Co Ltd)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1157

In an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation (EC) Act, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that the fact of an employee being murdered during the course of employment does not disentitle his legal heirs from seeking compensation under the Act.

“…the finding by the Commissioner that murder of an employee during the course of performance of his duties would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 2(1)(n) of the E.C. Act, is flawed. For which reliance can be placed on decision in Rita Devi Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd., as also decision by this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munesh Devi.”

Party Cannot Contest Arbitral Award For Exceeding Reference Scope If It Failed To Object When Alleged Breach Initially Occurred: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aman Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. Orient Lites

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1158

The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot challenge an arbitral award on the ground that the tribunal went beyond the scope of reference when it admittedly did not raise any objection when the alleged breach was first committed by the tribunal.

The bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that the tribunal's decision to include certain invoices in the claim cannot be challenged under Section 34 as being beyond the reference to arbitration when no such objection was raised before the arbitral tribunal.

Delhi HC Denies Interim Bail To Murder-Accused For Attending PhD Classes, Says Options Available In Judicial Custody To Pursue Educational Goals

Case Title: Varun v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1159

The Delhi High Court has denied prayer of a murder-accused for interim bail to pursue regular PhD classes, noting the gravity of the stated offence and allegations that the complainant had been threatened.

“Undoubtedly, every individual has the right to pursue the education but in the present case the petitioner is an accused of a serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has to be dealt accordingly looking into the gravity of offence.”

Delhi High Court Orders Release Of ₹1 Crore Ex-Gratia Compensation To Kin Of Constable Amit Kumar Who Died On COVID-19 Duty

Title: Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1160

The Delhi High Court recently ordered release of Rs. 1 crore ex-gratia compensation to the wife and father of 31-year-old constable Amit Kumar who passed away during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic while performing his duties.

Noting that the Delhi Government has agreed to release the ex gratia payment, Justice Prathiba M Singh directed:

“The amount in terms of the Cabinet Decision dated 3rd November, 2023 shall now be released to the Petitioner and the father of the deceased within four weeks.”

Delhi High Court Grants Last Opportunity To Govt To Constitute Delhi Pharmacy Council

Title: AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1161

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to constitute Delhi Pharmacy Council within two weeks, as a last and final opportunity.

Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a plea moved by members of the Delhi Pharmacy Council. concerning notifying the results of election of the Council held on November 02, 2021.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Motor Accident Tribunal's Order To Exhume Deceased's Body For DNA Test To Verify Legal Heirs

Title: SUJAAT ALI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS v. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1162

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal directing that the grave of a deceased man be dug up to conduct a DNA test for verifying the claim of compensation by various individuals asserting to be his legal heirs.

Justice Navin Chawla allowed the petition moved by persons claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased Sujaat Ali, who passed away in a motor vehicle accident. They challenged the Tribunal's order dated December 12, 2022.

High Court Rejects Judge's Plea Seeking Transfer From DU's 2-Yr LLM Course To 3-Yrs Course Owing To Her Employment

Title: CHHAYA TYAGI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition moved by a judge seeking her transfer from two-year LLM to the three-year course offered by the Delhi University in order to complete her ongoing studies on account of her employment as a judicial officer.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the three year LL.M. course offered by the varsity is specially designed for people who are employed but it does not stipulate that if any student attains employment in the middle of two year course, he or she can take the advantage of three year course to continue the studies alongwith the employment.

Delhi High Court Upholds Extradition Of Man Charged With Murder Of Family In Oman

Title: MAJIBULLAH MOHAMMAD HANEEF v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1164

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Union Government's decision to extradite a man charged with murder of a family, including three minor children, in Oman.

Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the petition moved by the accused, Majibullah Mohammad Haneef, challenging a trial court order recommending his extradition to Oman for facing murder trial.

When Tenant Is Evicted For Bonafide Use, Courts Should Refrain From Prescribing Guidelines For Landlord's Residential Choices: Delhi High Court

Title: TARUN KUMAR v. PARMANAND GARG

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

Granting relief to a landlord who evicted a tenant from his shop for setting up a business for his wife which constitutes as a “bona fide requirement”, the Delhi High Court has said that courts should refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the residential choices of a landlord.

Emphasizing that the tenant cannot dictate as to how the landlord must utilize the property, Justice Jasmeet Singh said:

“The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. It is not within the purview of the courts to impose directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises. Essentially, the courts should refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord's residential choices.”

No Recovery Towards TAS Can Be Made Towards Deductee Even If Deductor Is Undergoing CIRP: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BDR Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1166

The Delhi High Court has held that no recovery towards Tax at Source (TAS) can be made towards the deductee even if the deductor is undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Loss Of Goodwill Is Difficult To Prove, Cannot Be Proved With Mathematical Precision: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Metal Engineering and Forging Company v. Central Warehousing Corporation

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1167

The Delhi High Court has held that it would be difficult for any party claiming loss of goodwill to prove or establish the same with any mathematical precision.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator allowed a party to retain certain amount as penalty, being the genuine pre-estimate of the loss of goodwill without any proof of quantum of actual loss suffered by it.

Court Can't Grant Unconditional Stay Of Arbitral Award Unless Prima Facie Case Of Fraud: Delhi High Court

Cas Title: Italian Thai Development v. NTPC Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court cannot grant unconditional stay on an arbitration award under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, unless a prima facie case is made out that making of the award is marred by fraud.

'Brief Order' Of Advertisement Before Acceptance Of Mark Must Be Available On Trade Mark Registry's Portal For Litigants' Reference: Delhi High Court

Title: LAXMI KOHLU GHAR THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH ARUN KUMAR v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

The Delhi High Court has observed that a brief order which has to be passed at the time of directing advertisement before acceptance of a mark should be made available on the online portal of the Trade Marks Registry for reference of the litigants.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that in case such a brief order is not uploaded for all the trademark applications, a copy of the same should still be made available upon litigant's request via email.

'Scheduled Offence' Cannot Exist After Quashing Of FIR: Delhi High Court Quashes PMLA Proceedings

Title: RAJINDER SINGH CHADHA v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1170

The Delhi High Court has quashed PMLA proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against an accused, on the basis of two FIRs registered against him- that were later quashed and compounded after settlement between the parties.

Justice Amit Sharma said that a scheduled offence, after an FIR has been quashed, cannot exist and therefore, if there is no scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering with respect to the same.

Debt Recovery | Extension Of Interim Relief At The Time Of Remand Subject To Prima Facie Finding In Petitioner's Favor: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mis Deco Industries India v. JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd through its AO Kumar Gaurav & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1171

The Delhi High Court recently held that an interim order granted by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ("DRAT") during the pendency of appeal was not required to be extended in pursuance of remand, without a prima facie finding on the need for such an order.

Delhi High Court Allows Plea Of Manual Scavenger's Widow For Increase In Compensation From 10 To 30 Lacs

Case Title: Preeti v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

The Delhi High Court has allowed plea of a sanitation worker's widow for enhancement of compensation from Rs.10 lacs to 30 lacs, based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Balram Singh v. Union of India & Ors., whereby directions were issued w.r.t. compensation of dependents of victims who have lost their lives in manual scavenging.

The petitioner had approached the court assailing grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs. Besides enhancement in compensation, she had sought a direction to concerned agencies to provide her full rehabilitation including employment, as well as education to her children and skill training in terms of the decision in Balram Singh.

Delhi HC Flags Rising Kidnapping Cases Of Minor Girls Subjected To Sexual Assault Under Guise Of Marriage, Forced To Abandon Studies

Case Title: MOHD. TASLIM ALI v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1193

The Delhi High Court has flagged rising incidents of kidnapping of minor girls, who are subjected to sexual assault under the guise of marriage, as a result of which they are forced to abandon studies and denied opportunity to pursue careers.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that when a girl is forced to abandon her education due to such incidents, it causes a profound setback not only to an individual but to the society as a whole.

Mere Global Reputation, Asserted Goodwill Of Trademark Not Sufficient To Answer Claim Of Trans-border Reputation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1194

The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere global reputation or asserted goodwill of a trademark is not sufficient to answer claim of trans-border reputation.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that it is imperative for the claimant/plaintiff, who seeks protection of a trademark, to prove and establish the existence of a significant and substantial reputation and goodwill of the mark in the concerned territory.

'Leave It To Law Commission Of India': Delhi High Court Closes Pleas Seeking Uniform Civil Code

Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and Other Connected Matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1195

The Delhi High Court has closed a batch of petitions seeking introduction and implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the country, observing that the Law Commission of India is already seized of the matter.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna referred to an order passed by the Supreme Court of India in April wherein it was held that enactment of law lies exclusively within the domain of legislature and that a mandamus cannot be issued to the legislative to enact law.

Enhanced Therapeutic Efficacy Be Shown 'Precisely' By Patent Applicant, Clinical Data Acceptable Only To Support Specification Claims: Delhi HC

Case Title: Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1196

The Delhi High Court recently held that when a patent applicant wishes to demonstrate enhancement in therapeutic efficacy in terms of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, the same must be done 'precisely' by filing data before the Patent Office during prosecution of the application.

“The Applicant must ensure that comparative tables, and a clear explanation as to the manner in which the new form of the known substance has significant enhancement in therapeutic efficacy is placed before the Patent Office during prosecution of the application. The same could be in the form of comparative tables, in-vitro and in-vivo data as also clinical trial data,” the court said.

IBBI Has Discretion To Decide Fitness For Appointment As Insolvency Professional, Immediate Past Being Clean No Clean-Chit: Delhi HC

Case Title: Pooja Menghani v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1197

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a banker's challenge to IBBI's rejection of her application to be registered as a Resolution Professional ("RP"), observing that a person's past actions could not be ignored when judging if they are fit and proper for appointment as an Insolvency Professional ("IP").

“The Petitioner has been found guilty of fraudulent practices of violating market integrity and the decision of the Respondent Board to refuse the registration of the Petitioner as an Insolvency Professional on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court cannot be said to be so perverse or irrational warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Magistrate Can't Direct Investigation Mechanically, Application Of Mind Must: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ANJURI KUMARI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1198

The Delhi High Court has said that direction for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be issued by a Magistrate mechanically and must be given only after application of mind.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed that a Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if all allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence.

Delhi HC Closes PIL Against Delhi Tree Authority's Functioning, Says It's For The Authority To Decide If Saplings Should Be Provided To All

Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj and Anr v. The Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1199

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently closed a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) relating to functioning of the Delhi Tree Authority, noting that a Single Judge Bench of the court was already in seisin of the matter.

The PIL was filed seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondents to perform their duties in a time-bound manner, inasmuch as under Section 4 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, the Delhi Tree Authority must hold a meeting once every 3 months.

Delhi HC Sets Aside Admission Cancellation of Jaat Community Med Student Based On Non-Recognition Of Caste Status Per Central OBC List

Case Title: Nikhil Rana v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1200

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a medical student whose admission was cancelled by Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Science on the basis that OBC status of his caste was not recognized in view of the central OBC list.

The petitioner, who had filed the petition assailing cancellation of his admission to four-year BDS course, urged that the aspect underlying the notice was not raised by the Institute at the time of counselling and certificate verification.

Muslim Mahapanchayat Meeting Can Be Held At Ramlila Ground On Dec 18: Delhi Police To High Court

Title: MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1201

The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that it has granted permission to an organization, Save India Constitution, to hold a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) at the Ramlila Ground on December 18.

Taking note of city police's stand, Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of the organisation's plea seeking no-objection certificate (NOC) to organize the public meeting.

Try Including Admission Quota For Foreign Nationals In 5-Yr LLB Courses From Upcoming Academic Session: High Court To Delhi University

Case Title: Mr. Maahi Neil Jaipal (Minor) v. University of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1202

The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi University to endeavor to include admission quota for foreign nationals in its newly introduced five-year integrated law courses from the upcoming academic session, as per the varsity's extant regulations.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav however rejected a foreign national's plea seeking admission in the five-year law courses, under the foreign student quota, for the current academic session (2023-2024).

Employee Can't Be Penalised For Non-Deposit Of TDS By Employer: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shri Chintan Bindra Versus DCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1203

The Delhi High Court has held that the employer of the petitioner or assessee, having failed to perform his duty to deposit the deducted tax with the department, cannot be penalized. It would always be open for revenue to proceed against the employer of the petitioner for recovery of the deducted tax.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the petitioner, having accepted the salary after deduction of income tax at source, had no further control over it in the sense that it was the duty of his employer acting as tax collecting agent of the revenue under Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act to pay the deducted tax amount to the Central Government in accordance with law.

Mere Delayed Compliance Of Section 52A NDPS Act No Ground For Bail: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SOMDUTT SINGH @ SHIVAM v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1204

The Delhi High Court has said that though it is desirable that the procedure contemplated in Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, must be complied with at the earliest, mere delayed compliance of the same cannot be a ground for grant of bail.

“The applicant will have to show the prejudice caused on account of delayed compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act,” Justice Amit Bansal observed.

Delhi High Court Restrains Travel Booking Company From Using 'Dialmytrip' Mark In Trademark Infringement Suit By MakeMyTrip

Case Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. DIALMYTRIP TECH PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1205

The Delhi High Court has restrained a travel and hotel booking company from using “Dialmytrip” mark in respect of tour, travel, hospitality and other services in a trademark infringement suit filed by online travel company MakeMyTrip.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the marks "MakeMyTrip" and "Dialmytrip" are confusingly similar with each other and granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of MakeMyTrip.

Can't Expect Sexual Assault Victim To Recount Facts Verbatim Every Time, Ignoring Trauma Of Delivering Accused's Child Unacceptable: Delhi HC

Case Title: Vishnu Das Through Peherokar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1206

While dismissing a man's appeal against conviction for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl, the Delhi High Court has observed that courts cannot expect witnesses in sexual assault cases to recount case details in same words every time.

“…the statements of such minor victims have to be examined from the lens of delivering justice in accordance with principles of fair criminal trial to accused and victim, and not on the yardstick of strict factual accuracy of words. It is the substance of the testimony which is to be appreciated”.

Once Agreed To Constitute An Arbitral Tribunal, A Party Cannot Turn Around And Insist On Fulfilment Of Pre-Arbitral Steps: Delhi High Court

Case Title: N.K. Sharma v. The General Manager Northern Railways

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1207

The Delhi High Court has held that once a party has agreed to constitute an arbitral tribunal, it cannot turn around and resist appointment of arbitrator on the ground of non-fulfilment of pre-arbitral steps.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta also held that issue of 'excepted matters' requires in-depth examination of the factual matrix, therefore, the same can only be done by the arbitral tribunal and goes beyond the scope of examination permissible under Section 11 of the A&C Act.

A Written-Off Debt Is An Asset, Award Holder Can Enforce At The Location Of Asset: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Taqa India Power Ventures v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1208

The Delhi High Court ruled that a written-off debt constitutes a recoverable asset, affirming the award holder's right to enforce the award at the location of the debt/asset.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a debt written off by the award debtor remains a recoverable asset. This pivotal decision solidifies the award holder's entitlement to initiate enforcement proceedings at the location where the debt is owed or the asset is situated, establishing a robust legal precedent in favor of the award holder's enforcement rights.

Peaceful Protests Allowed Near Central Vista, Jantar Mantar But Subject To Guidelines Framed Under Standing Order: Delhi Govt To High Court

Case Title: Maj Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagale v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1209

Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court recently allowed a petitioner's plea for permission to carry out a dharna/protest at Jantar Mantar, in exercise of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

The petition was filed assailing the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police's rejection of the petitioner's application to conduct a protest at Jantar Mantar from October 25-30, 2023 between 10:00 AM and 06:00 AM.

Right Of A Party To Nominate 2/3rd Of The Arbitral Tribunal Violates Counter-Balancing: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Sri Ganesh Engineering Works v. Northern Railways, ARB.P 609/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210

The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration clause that confers on a party the right to nominate 2/3rd of arbitral tribunal violates the principles of 'counter-balancing' as sought to be achieved by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in Perkins.

The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that a party cannot have the right to nominate the majority of the arbitral tribunal and such an exercises casts doubts on the neutrality and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal.

Court Cannot Admit An Application To Modify The Final Order Passed Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD, FAO(OS) (COMM) 315 of 2019.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1211

The Delhi High Court of Delhi has held that once a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act has been disposed of by a final order, the Court cannot admit an application seeking to modify such an order.

The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja set aside an order of the Court wherein the Court had, upon the application of the respondent, modified its earlier order passed under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

Principles Of Natural Justice Not 'Mantras' But Foundational Precepts Concerning Fairness Of Procedure: Delhi High Court

Title: KIRAN JUNEJA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1212

The Delhi High Court has observed that the principles of natural justice are not “mantras” but foundational precepts concerned with fairness of procedure and the right of a person to respond to the allegations made.

“Ultimately, whether the asserted violation of some facet of natural justice has tainted the procedure adopted by the respondent is an issue of fact and which would ultimately guide courts to consider whether interference is warranted,” a division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Shailender Kaur said.

Farmers Must Be Given Full Opportunity To Oppose Any Monopoly Created By Registering Plant Varieties Under PPV Act: Delhi HC

Title: NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD. v. THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS RIGHTS AUTHORITY AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1213

The Delhi High Court has observed that the farmers are to be given full opportunity to oppose any monopoly which may be created by registering of plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, as new plant varieties.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that farmers' rights are a pre-eminent consideration that has to guide the approach of the court while administering the provisions of the enactment.

Declaration Of Rural Areas As Urban In Furtherance Of Pre-Eminent Purpose Of Delhi's Planned Development: High Court

Case Title: CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1214

The Delhi High Court has observed that the declaration of rural areas as urban areas is done in furtherance of the pre-eminent purpose of planned development of the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of a notification issued on May 16, 2017 by Delhi Government's Department of Urban Development, declaring that certain villages which were part of rural areas shall be deemed as urban areas.

Court Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act Can Sever Offending Part Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

Case Title: S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India, ARB. P. 737 of 202

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1215

The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 11 of the A&C Act can sever an illegal/offending portion of the arbitration clause.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an arbitration clause does not become illegal by mere illegality of the appointment procedure provided therein, therefore, the Court u/s 11 can sever the illegal portion of the award and refer the dispute to arbitration.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy | Delhi High Court Permits Woman To Terminate Pregnancy After Expiry Of Period Prescribed Under MTP Act

Case Title: N v. The Union of India & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1216

The Delhi High Court has permitted a 21-year-old unmarried woman to terminate an ongoing unwanted pregnancy, despite expiry of the period prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (“MTP Act”).

Entire Arbitration Not Invalid By Illegality Of Appointment Procedure: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India, ARB. P. 737 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1217

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause does not become illegal by mere illegality of the appointment procedure provided therein.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator is clearly distinct and separable from the agreement to refer disputes to arbitration, even if these are contained in the same arbitration clause.

Applicant Can Seek Refund For Unused Stamp Paper Post 6 Months, If Unaware During Such Time That It Won't Be Of 'Immediate Use': Delhi HC

Case Title: Citius Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1218

Taking note of a lacuna in the express provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (“Act”), the Delhi High Court has held that Section 54(c) of the Act must be interpreted as being inapplicable to cases where an applicant seeks refund of stamp duty because he was not aware that the stamp paper would be of no “immediate use” within 6 months of its purchase.

Merely Because Wife Is Earning Isn't An Absolute Bar To Receiving Maintenance From Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1219

The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is earning does not automatically operate as an absolute bar for awarding maintenance by the husband.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also observed that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is on a higher pedestal than the wife, since the provision for grant of maintenance or interim maintenance for women and children in various statutes is keeping in perspective the underlying principle under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.

Person Can't Be Summoned For Non-Compliance Of Maintenance Order Under Section 31 Of Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

Title: ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for non-compliance of an order for payment of maintenance.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the focus of the enactment is on providing immediate and effective relief to victims of domestic violence by way of maintenance or interim maintenance orders, and that the idea is ot to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against the aggressor for non-payment of maintenance and to send such person to prison.

Same Argument Cannot Be An Obstacle Every Time In Granting Furlough, Personal Freedom A Fundamental Right: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1221

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar of the Delhi High Court has granted furlough to a prisoner, while observing that personal freedom is a priceless fundamental right, which should only be restricted when necessary in light of unique facts and circumstances of the case.

Assessee Being A Debt Free Company, No Need To Impute Notional Interest On Outstanding Receivables: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Inductis India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1222

The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee was a debt-free company and there was no need to impute notional interest on outstanding receivables.

Delhi High Court Extends The Arbitration Period Despite Significant Delays, Considering The Advanced Stage Of Proceedings.

Case Title: Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar, OMP(MISC.) 15 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1223

The High Court of Delhi has extended the time period for the completion of arbitral proceedings, despite observing that there was inordinate delay in the completion of arbitral proceedings, on the ground that the proceedings, though protracted, has reached advance stage.

Court Exercising Powers Under Section 27 Of The A&C Act Cannot Examine The Admissibility Or Relevancy Of The Evidence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SAIL v Uniper Global Commodities, OMP(E)(COMM.) 22 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1224

The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 27 of the A&C Act cannot form an opinion on the relevancy or the admissibility of the evidence for which the assistance of the Court is sought.

Crucial To Distinguish Between Citizens' Legitimate Expectations And Unreasonable Demands From State: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ravi Gupta v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1225

The Delhi High Court recently observed that it is crucial to distinguish between legitimate or reasonable expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands made by citizens from the State.

“…undoubtedly the citizens' expectation of protection of their life and liberty by the State is a fundamental aspect of governance in any society. Citizens look to their government to provide safety, security, and a legal framework that safeguards their rights and well-being. However, it's crucial to distinguish between legitimate and reasonable expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands when it comes to the role of the State,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma opined.

Delhi HC Rules In Favor Of Castrol In Trademark Infringement Suit, Says Compromise In Product Quality Can Adversely Affect Customers

Case Title: CASTROL LIMITED & ANR. v. VOLTRANIC INDIA LUBRICANTS & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1226

The Delhi High Court has awarded costs of Rs. 1 lakh in favor of Castrol India Limited in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against manufacturing of identical products by the defendant-entity using its registered trademarks.

MBBS Seats At AIIMS Not For Sale, Securing Them Through Unlawful Means Opposed To Public Policy: Delhi High Court

Title: SMT. VIMMI CHAWLA v. DEEPAK SETHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1227

The Delhi High Court has observed that the seats in MBBS course at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) are not for sale and securing them through unlawful means is immoral and opposed to public policy.

Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld a trial court order dismissing the suit filed by a mother seeking recovery of Rs. 30 lakhs given to an individual to secure admission of her daughter for MBBS course at AIIMS.

Delhi HC Imposes Rs. 10K Costs On Litigant For Filing Petition Alleging Unauthorized Construction With Incorrect Description Of Property

Case Title: SHARIQ v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1228

The Delhi High Court recently imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on a litigant for filing a petition alleging unauthorized construction with incorrect description of the property.

Justice Prateek Jalan observed that due care must be taken while filing a writ petition to ensure that the details incorporated in it are correct.

Delhi High Court Allows Death Claim Filed By Building Worker's Widow, Says Board Secretary Can Condone Delay In Annual Contribution Payment

Case Title: Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1229

The Delhi High Court has allowed a plea for death benefits and funeral claims filed by a building worker's widow, observing that Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (“Act”) is a beneficial legislation aimed at benefit of construction workers who do not have any form of security.

Delhi High Court Orders To Increase Income Threshold For EWS Admissions In Schools From Rs. 1 Lakh To Rs. 5 Lakh Till Amendment

Title: MASTER SINGHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1230

The Delhi High Court has ordered that the existing income threshold of Rs. 1 lakh per annum, for admissions under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in schools in the city, be increased to Rs. 5 lakhs, till an amendment is made by Delhi Government in the 2011 reservation scheme.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the Delhi Government to take a decision as expeditiously as possible to increase the existing threshold income of Rs. 1 lakh per annum to a “commensurate amount” which corresponds to the living standards of the intended beneficiaries of the scheme in the city.

Dishonor Of Cheque Given As Security Attracts Section 138 NI Act, Cases of 'Account Closed' And 'Payment Stopped' Also Covered: Delhi HC

Case Title: Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1231

The Delhi High Court recently observed that dishonor of a cheque given as security attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“NI Act”) and cases where cheques are dishonored for reasons “payment stopped” or “account closed” also fall within the ambit of the provision.

Conduct Structural Audit Of Hospital, School Buildings To Check Stability During Earthquakes: Delhi High Court To Authorities

Title: Arpit Bhargava and Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1232

The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to conduct a structural audit of buildings of all hospitals, schools and colleges in the national capital to check their stability during earthquakes.

Delhi High Court Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao As Mediator In 'Shape Mark' Infringement Suit By Cricket Helmets Manufacturer

Title: KOHLI SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHI SPORTS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1233

The Delhi High Court has appointed former judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Nageswara Rao, as a mediator in a suit filed by manufacturer of cricket helmets alleging infringement of its shape mark by a Meerut based entity selling identical products.

Delhi High Court Orders Fresh Valuation Of Salman Rushdie's Ancestral Property, Requests Single Judge To Conclude Proceedings Expeditiously

Title: NARENDER JAIN & ANR v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS and Other Connected Matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1234

The Delhi High Court has ordered fresh valuation of the market price of an ancestral property of Indian-born British-American writer Salman Rushdie in city's Civil Lines area which was valued by a single judge at Rs. 130 Crores in 2019.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the 2019 order and remanded the matter back to the single judge to determine the value of the property afresh, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2012.

Invalidity Of Trademark Registration Not A Defense To Infringement, But May Be Relevant When Deciding The Question Of Relief: Delhi HC

Case Title: Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v. LDD Bioscience Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1235

In a trademark infringement suit filed by Bhargava Phytolab to protect its mark “TUMORIN” against defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark “TUMOTIN”, the Delhi High Court recently granted relief of interim injunction, holding that plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case of infringement.

Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo On Translocation Of Deer From Deer Park At Hauz Khas

Title: New Delhi NatureSociety v. Director Horticulture DDA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1236

The Delhi High Court has ordered status quo on the translocation of deer from city's Deer Park at Hauz Khas, till further orders.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order in a PIL moved by New Delhi Nature Society against translocation of about 600 animals, including deer, from the park to city's Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary, without compliance of legal provisions and guidelines.

Decide Plea To Ban License For Keeping 'Dangerous Dogs' Within Three Months: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS LAW FIRM (REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATE ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1237

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to decided expeditiously and preferably within three months a representation seeking to cancel and ban the license for keeping dogs like Pitbull, American Bulldog, Rottweiler etc. and their cross breeds which are dangerous to public at large.

Delhi HC Rules In Favour Of CNN News Channel In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Lucknow Based Entity, Awards ₹7 Lakh Costs

Title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. CITY NEWS NETWORK & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1238

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Lucknow based news website from using the marks “CNN City News Network” or “CNN” in a trademark infringement suit filed by CNN news channel.

Cases Involving Kidnapping Of Minors Can't Be Quashed By Settlement, Involves Practice Of Children Being Treated As Commodity: Delhi High Court

Title: SMT. RUBINA & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1239

The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal proceedings in cases involving children cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties as it could contribute to the perpetuation of a culture where rights and dignity of minors are subjugated to negotiation and compromise.

Persons Not Affected By Order Challenged In Revision Petition Not Necessary Parties, Cannot Seek Recourse To Section 401(2) CrPC: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1240

While dealing with a plea filed by M/s Bennett Coleman, Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court recently observed that the words “other persons” under Section 401(2) CrPC cannot be construed as wide enough to include persons not affected by the order challenged in the revision petition.

Judges May Often Stay Aloof From Public, But Don't Remain Aloof From Societal Expectations: Delhi High Court

Title: VICKY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1241

The Delhi High Court has observed that the judges may often stay aloof from the public, but they do not remain aloof from the societal expectations that offenders of criminal offences should be punished for their wrong doings.

“By maintaining a vigilant approach, the Courts ensure that the pursuit of truth remains paramount, undeterred by outside influences or attempts to compromise the integrity of the legal process,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

Delhi High Court Restrains Forest Department From Conducting Proposed 'Walkathon' Inside Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary

Title: Divender v. LG of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1242

The Delhi High Court has restrained the city forest department from conducting a “Walkathon” event proposed to be held inside the city's Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary, till further orders.

Objections In Contested Testamentary Cases Must Not Be Rejected On Technical Grounds, Delay Condonable Unless Inordinate: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vikas Malhotra v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1243

While dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay, the Delhi High Court has held that objections in a contested testamentary petition should not be rejected on technical grounds, unless there has been an inordinate delay.

Explanations 6 & 7 Appended To Section 9(1)(i) Income Tax Act To Be Given Retrospective Effect: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1244

The Delhi High Court has held that Explanations 6 and 7 appended to section 9(1)(i) Of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be given retrospective effect.

Delhi High Court Cautions Its Registry To Keep In Mind Judgments, Practice Directions On Ensuring Confidentiality Of Sexual Offences Victims In Filings

Title: FAIZY KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1245

The Delhi High Court has recently cautioned its Registry to “keep in mind” the judgments and its practice directions for ensuring that anonymity and confidentiality of the prosecutrix or victim of sexual offences is maintained in judicial filings.

Filing Of Chargesheet Not Sole Criteria While Considering Grant Of Bail, Has To Be Coupled With Facts And Circumstances: Delhi High Court

Title: KESHAV PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1246

The Delhi High Court has observed that filing of chargesheet in a criminal case is not the sole criteria to be taken into consideration while considering the grant of bail to an accused as it has to be coupled with facts and circumstance involved.

Woman Can Be 'Karta' Of Hindu Undivided Family; Hindu Law Doesn't Limit Women's Right To Be HUF Karta : Delhi High Court

Title: MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1247

The Delhi High Court has ruled that neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu Law, in any way, limits the right of a woman to be a Karta of an Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “societal perceptions” cannot be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the Legislature.

Cyber Crimes Erode People's Trust In Online Transactions, Against Aspirations Of Advanced 'Digital Bharat': Delhi High Court

Titled VINEET JHAVAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1248

The Delhi High Court has observed that crime-enables crimes erode trust of the people in online financial transactions platforms which is against the aspirations of an advanced “Digital Bharat.”

No Entity's Suspension Can Be Indefinitely Continued, Investigation Of Ex-Director Not Attributable To Company: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Defsys Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India, LPA 672/2023 (and connected matter)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1249

In connection with Union of India's suspension of business dealings with Defsys Solutions Private Limited (“Defsys”), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that no suspension can continue indefinitely without show cause notice, especially because even at the time of review, principles of fairness/natural justice are not to be adhered to.

A Party Cannot Unilaterally Appoint The Presiding Arbitrator Upon The Failure Of The Nominee Arbitrators To Reach A Consensus: Delhi High Court

Case Title: J.S.R. Constructions v. NHAI, ARB.P. 753 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1250

The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot unilaterally appoint the presiding arbitrator upon the failure of the nominee arbitrators to reach a consensus.

Courts Can Authorize Investigating Agency To Obtain Voice Samples of Accused, But Compliance With Telegraph Act Provisions Must: Delhi HC

Case Title: Sanjiv Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1251

While dealing with the issue of interception of calls, Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently held that in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., courts can authorize an investigating agency to obtain voice samples of accused. However, there must be compliance with provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

Investigations Often Half-Hearted, Provisions Of NDPS Act Must Be Implemented Effectively: Delhi High Court

Title: AWADHESH YADAV v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1252

The Delhi High Court has said that the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, must be implemented effectively, observing that investigations in narcotics cases are often half-hearted for various reasons.

Delhi HC Allows Claim Of Widow Whose Husband Died Helping Road Accident Victim, Says Law Must Stand With Good Samaritans

Case Title: Kanta v. Gurvinder Kapoor & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1253

The Delhi High Court recently allowed appeal of a truck driver's widow, observing that denial of her compensation claim on the ground that the driver added peril himself by getting down his vehicle to help another, was “unconscionable” and “patently erroneous”, as well as opposed to purposes of the Employees' Compensation (EC) Act.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Burger King' As A Well-Known Trademark

Title: BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1254

The Delhi High Court has declared “Burger King” as a well known trademark, considering the long period during which the mark and its variations have been used for fast foods, especially burgers.

Reassessment Proceedings, Senior Officers Like ACIT, PCIT Expected To Apply Mind; Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shourya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1255

The Delhi High Court has held that senior officers like ACIT and PCIT are expected to apply their minds to such requests and, only after that, approve the initiation of reassessment proceedings.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Missing Children Cases, Calls For User Friendly Ready To Use Handbook In Police Stations

Title: LAMBODER JHA v. GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1256

The Delhi High Court has called for a user-friendly ready-to-use handbook in every Police Station across the national capital for accessibility to aid investigations concerning cases of missing children.

Issuing various directions concerning cases related to missing children, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a standardized checklist must be formulated and maintained at all police stations, providing a comprehensive guide for investigating officers when handling such cases.

Delhi High Court Quashes Order In Revision In Respect Of Rs.1,000 Cr. LTCG Exemption Passed Against Buyer Of Non-Existing Seller

Case Title: CIT Versus Cairnhill Cipef Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1257

The Delhi High Court has held that a revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not be passed against a non-existing seller entity by invoking Section 163 against the buyer.

Explore Possibility Of Developing Parking Spaces In Mehrauli's Vicinity To Tackle Traffic: Delhi High Court To MCD

Title: SHARAD VASHISHT GENERAL SECRETARY W ONE DESU ROAD MEHRAULI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1258

The Delhi High Court has asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to explore the possibility of developing parking spaces in the vicinity of Mehrauli area to tackle the problem of traffic jam there.

High Court Accepts Litigant's Apology For Calling Delhi Judiciary Corrupt 'Out Of Sheer Frustration', Discharges Him Of Criminal Contempt

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. BRIJESH SHUKLA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1259

The Delhi High Court has discharged a litigant of criminal contempt proceedings initiated against him for calling the Delhi judiciary corrupt, levelling allegations against a judicial officer and using abusive language against him.

Advance Service On Defendant Must Under IPD Rules, Unless Plaintiff Demonstrates Likelihood Of Irreparable Injury: Delhi High Court

Case Title: House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. House of Pathology Labs Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1260

In response to a plea raised by plaintiffs/House of Diagnostics for exemption from advance service of the suit papers on the defendant, the Delhi High Court recently ruled that advance service of suit papers on a defendant, as mandated by Rule 22 of the IPD Rules, is must, unless plaintiff demonstrates that compliance with the requirement would cause irreparable prejudice or irreversibly alter the status quo.

Participation In Arbitration And Filing Section 29(A) Application Not To Preclude Challenge To Arbitrator's Eligibility: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Umaxe Projects Pvt Ltd v. AIR Force Naval Housing Board, OMP(COMM) 469/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1261

The High Court of Delhi has held that mere participation of a party in the arbitration proceeding cannot be deemed to be a waiver under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.

Technical Deficiencies, Including Pagination And Affidavit Attestation, Do Not Render Section 34 Under A&C Act Non-Est: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 302 of 2019

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262

The High Court of Delhi has held that technical deficiencies, including pagination and affidavit attestation, do not invalidate petitions under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

Design Piracy | Overall Impression Of Design Is What Matters, Trade Variants And Miniscule Differences Can Be Ignored: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Havells India Limited v. Polycab India Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263

In a design infringement suit by Havells, the Delhi High Court has observed that when examining the aspect of design piracy from the point of view of visual appeal, it is the overall impression of the design of the defendant's product, vis-à-vis the suit design, that matters.

“…it is the overall shape and configuration which matters. The Court is not supposed to fragment the shape or configuration of the suit design into minor individual elements and start measuring lengths and breadths in order to arrive at a finding regarding imitation/similarity.”

Lawyer Tenders Apology For Filing PIL To Ban Anti-Tobacco Imagery In Ads, Delhi High Court Expunges Single Judge's Remarks

Title: DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1264

The Delhi High Court has expunged the remarks made by a single judge against a lawyer while dismissing his PIL seeking prohibition on the display of anti-tobacco advertisements containing “graphic or gross images” during films in cinemas, TV or OTT platforms.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna last week accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the lawyer who said that his endeavour was never to promote or support consumption of tobacco in any manner and that he is himself against use of tobacco in any form.

Ensure Public Toilets Are Clean, Hygienic And In Order: Delhi High Court To Authorities

Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1265

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to ensure that the public urinals and toilets in the national capital are clean, hygienic and in order.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Jan Sewa Welfare Society to ensure availability of hygienic public urinals with clean water and electricity supply in the city.

No Incriminating Material Was Found During Search: Delhi High Court Quashes S. 153A Proceedings

Case Title: PCIT Versus Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1266

The Delhi High Court has held that the assessment for the assessment year 2011–12 was finalized on January 20, 2012, and no notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued. As such, no assessment was pending on the date of the search action, i.e., October 29, 2013.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that during the search action against the respondent or assessee, no incriminating material was found, and the material in the form of a statement now sought to be relied upon by the appellant or department was recorded subsequent to the search action.

Delhi HC Rejects Special Status Claim Of Litigant Who Impleaded District Judge In Person, Directs Periodic Visit By SHO Saying He May Need 'Care'

Case Title: Subhajit Dutta v. Principal District and Sessions Judge (South Delhi), Saket Courts Complex, and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1267

While dealing with an appeal impleading District Court Judges, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the appellant was not entitled to any special privileges based on his claim of being a “Special Constitutional Functionary with the Union of India”, and instead, appeared to be in need of care and protection.

SCN Lacked Time Or Date For Personal Hearing: Delhi High Court Directs Restoration Of GST Registration

Case Title: ATT SYS India Pvt Ltd Estex Tele Private Limited Consortium Versus The Commissioner Goods And Services Tax Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1268

The Delhi High Court has directed the restoration of GST registration as no opportunity for a hearing was accorded to the petitioner or assessee.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the show cause notice (SCN) does not mention any time or date for a personal hearing. Thus, the petitioner was not afforded a hearing to contest the SCN. The order cancelling the petitioner's registration is void as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

ITC Reversal During Late Night Search Involuntarily: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Reverse ITC In Assessee's ECL

Case Title: Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax Act & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1269

The Delhi High Court has directed the department to reverse the input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 22,14,226 in the petitioner's electronic credit ledger (ECL).

“We do not find it difficult to accept that the petitioner may have found the circumstances intimidating and had, accordingly, agreed to reverse the ITC. We are unable to accept that the reversal of ITC was made voluntarily without any suggestion or encouragement by the officers,” the bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed.

Assessee Coerced To Deposit GST During Search: Delhi High Court Orders Refund

Case Title: Neeraj Paper Marketing Ltd. Versus Special Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, Gnctd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1270

The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner by making a payment of Rs. 23,70,000 in cash along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that payments aggregating to Rs. 28,20,000 were made at 11:49 PM and at 12:38 PM during the search operations. The payments made by it were not voluntary but under compelling circumstances.

Delhi High Court Allows Exemptions Claim Of Amazon On Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation Under Customs Notification

Case Title: AMAZON WHOLESALE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, NEW DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1271

The Delhi High Court has held that Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation, and Echo Dot 4th Generation with Clock are eligible to claim exemptions in accordance with SI. No. 20 of the Notification dated June 30, 2017.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that merely because these devices could, if so chosen by the user, also be used as mere speakers, the same would not justify recognizing their primordial attribute to be that of a speaker alone.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Newsclick's Plea Seeking Stay Of Demand During Pendency Of Appeal Before Commissioner Of Income Tax

Title: PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1272

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by news portal Newsclick seeking stay of demand, as per the assessment order of income tax department passed last year, during the pendency of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna upheld two orders passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax which dismissed the news portal's application for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal.

GST Officers Should Not Pressurise Taxpayers To Pay Tax Not Following Procedure: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Lovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1273

The Delhi High Court has held that it is impermissible for the officers to pressurize the taxpayers to pay tax without following the requisite procedure, notwithstanding that it may be apparent that such tax is due and payable.

Delhi High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Former GGSIPU Dean, Says Accusations Were Made To Authorized Person In Good Faith

Case Title: Dr Suman Gupta v. Ravinder Pratap & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1274

The Delhi High Court has quashed a defamation case filed against Dr Suman Gupta, former Professor and Dean, University School of Law and Legal Studies (USLLS), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), noting that the case fell under exception 8 (accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person) to Section 499 IPC.

Trial Has To Begin De Novo When Case Is Committed By Magistrate To Sessions Court: Delhi High Court

Title: SHANKAR @ GORI SHANKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1275

The Delhi High Court has ruled that when a case is committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session, the trial would have to begin de novo.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that the Sessions Court would first frame charges and then proceed with the examination of the witnesses.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Divorce To Omar Abdullah From Estranged Wife Payal Abdullah

Title: Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah seeking divorce from his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan rejected the petition moved by Omar Abdullah challenging a family court order passed on August 30, 2016, dismissing his plea for divorce.

Delhi High Court Quashes Final Assessment Order Passed By AO Without Waiting For DRP's Directions Mandated U/s 144C

Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1277

The Delhi High Court has set aside the final assessment order and the consequent notices and computations that were passed without waiting for the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as per the mandate of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.

Delhi High Court Permits Nimisha Priya's Mother To Travel To Yemen At Her Own Risk To Save Daughter On Death Row

Title: PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1278

The Delhi High Court has permitted mother of a Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, an Indian who is on death row in Yemen, to travel there along with another individual working there, at her own personal risk without any liability of the Union Government or concerned State Government.

Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Pay GST ITC To IOCL

Case Title: IOCL Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1279

The Delhi High Court has allowed the refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to the inverted duty structure to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL).

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the rate of tax chargeable on inputs other than LPG, which are higher than the rate of GST chargeable on bottled LPG. The ITC has accumulated on account of the rate of tax on such inputs being higher than the output supply – bottled LPG.

No Room For One Who Tries To Seek Employment In Disciplined Forces By Concealing Material Fact About Criminal Antecedents: Delhi High Court

Title: BINEET SINGH BISHT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1280

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no room for an individual who endeavours to seek employment in disciplined forces by concealing material fact about his or her criminal antecedents.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain observed that there has to be strict obedience towards disclosure about criminal antecedents by anyone seeking employment in disciplined forces.

Roving Inquiry As Per Order Of Special Judge (PC Act) By GST Dept. Delhi High Court Quashes Order

Case Title: Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Agro Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi- East

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1281

The Delhi High Court has quashed the special judge's directions for conducting a roving inquiry by the GST department in the absence of any statutory provisions.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that apart from the directions issued in terms of the order dated April 5, 2023, there were no reasons for the respondent to initiate the search against the petitioners under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act.

VAT Applicable On Sale Of Repossessed Vehicles: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indusind Bank Limited Versus Department Of Trade & Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1282

The Delhi High Court has held that the sale of repossessed vehicles is subject to the charge of value-added tax (VAT).

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that notices have been issued to the petitioner demanding VAT on the sale of repossessed vehicles and not on the transaction of financing the vehicles at the initial purchase.

Not Oblivious Of Ground Situation Of Rampant Unauthorised Construction Allowed By MCD Officials Under Their Noses: Delhi High Court

Title: VIREN SINGH v. MADHUP VYAS & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1283

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not oblivious of the ground situation regarding the rampant unauthorized construction allowed by officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in the city “under their very noses” and the “ill motivated selective application of laws”, thereby harassing and tormenting innocent people.

Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice Issued Prior To Date Of Approval Of Resolution Plan

Case Title: TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1284

The Delhi High Court has quashed the income tax notices and orders issued prior to the date of approval of the resolution plan.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed the notices and orders pertaining to the income tax claims of the respondents or department pertaining to the period much prior to the date of approval of the resolution plan.

Overlapping Jurisdiction To Grant Maintenance Under Different Legislations Leads To Conflicting Orders, 'Forum Shopping': Delhi High Court

Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1285

The Delhi High Court has recently said that there is an overlapping of jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance under various enactments which leads to conflicting judgments or orders at different stages between the parties.

“Such conflicting Orders, in the similar facts and without any change in circumstances, under overlapping jurisdiction of different Acts, creates a sense of judicial impropriety and forum shopping, which may not be conducive to the majesty of the Courts,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Postponement Of Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary Examination 2023

Title: VISHAL YADAV v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1286

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking postponement of the Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary Examination, 2023, which is scheduled to be held on December 17.

Refusing to postpone the examination date, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a public interest litigation moved by one Vishal Yadav.

Delhi High Court Transfers Probe Into Attack On Advocates In 2018 To CBI

Title: Court in its own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1287

The Delhi High Court has transferred the probe into the attack on three advocates and members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association in 2018 from Delhi Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna ordered the probe agency to take action in the matter in accordance with law and directed that the entire investigation report be transferred to it within 10 days.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Restraining Booking.com From Using 'MakeMyTrip' Mark As Keyword On Google Ads Program

Title: GOOGLE LLC v. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1288

The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge's order which restrained Google and online travel agency Booking.com from using 'MakeMyTrip' mark, with or without spaces, as a keyword on the Google Ads Program.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Booking.com is a well-known and popular platform offering travel services and that prima facie, it cannot accept that an internet user is likely to be misled into believing that the services offered by it are those of Make My Trip.

Children Room In District Courts Must Be Kept Open On Every Second Saturday And Sunday For Visitation: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1289

The Delhi High Court has ordered that the children room in all District Courts in the national capital must be kept open on every Sundays and second Saturdays between 10 AM to 5 PM, so that visitation with children can also be directed on those days.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that it is a matter of record that District Courts in Delhi are closed on Sundays and Second Saturday and no order for visitation can be passed on those days.

Words Of Common English Usage Can't Be Registered As Trademark, No Monopoly Can Be Claimed By Anyone: Delhi High Court

Title: INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS v. WORLDDEVCORP TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1290

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that words of common English usage cannot be registered as a trademark and no monopoly can be claimed by the registrant of such a mark.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that words of ordinary English usage cannot be monopolised or else, the entire language would be appropriated by a few, which cannot be permitted.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Urgent Implementation Of Women's Reservation Bill In Upcoming 2024 General Polls

Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1291

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking direction on the Union Government and the Election Commission of India to urgently implement the Women's Reservation Bill, 2023, to ensure the reservation of 33% seats for women in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain Ashneer Grover From Creating Third Party Rights In 'Unpaid Shares' Of BharatPe Co-Founder Shashvat Nakrani

Title: Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1292

The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain BharatPe's former Managing Director Ashneer Grover from creating any third party rights in the “unpaid shares” which he bought from fintech company's co-founder Shashvat Nakrani.

CBSE Examination Bye-Laws In Nature Of Central Bye-Laws, Not Akin To Local State Acts Or Regulations: Delhi High Court

Title: KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL & ANR. v. ARYAN KUMAR THROUGH FATHER RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1293

The Delhi High Court has said that the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws are in the nature of Central Bye-Laws and are not akin to Local State Acts or Regulations.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that when there is contradiction and conflict in the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws and KVS Education Code, the former would prevail.

2017 Haryana Judicial Paper Leak: Delhi High Court Upholds Charges Framed Against Former P&H HC Registrar (Recruitment)

Title: DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1294

The Delhi High Court has upheld the charges framed against former Registrar (Recruitment) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, in connection with the paper leak of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that as per the record, Sharma was in possession of the question paper immediately before the alleged leak.

Patent Office Expected To Pass Final Orders Within Reasonable Period Not Exceeding 3 To 6 Months: Delhi High Court

Title: PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1295

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Patent Office is expected to pass final orders after concluding oral hearings within a reasonable period, which cannot be beyond three to six months, depending on the complexity of the case.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there are strict timelines prescribed in the Patents Act, 1970, and its Rules right from the filing of the request of examination, preparation of examination report by the examiner of patent, consideration of the report by the Controller, issuance of the statement of objections, reply to the statement of objections and the time for putting the application for grant of patent.

Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright Registration Of 'Arras The Boss' In Suit By Perfume Brand 'Hugo Boss'

Title: HUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH AND CO. KG. v. SANDEEP ARORA TRADING AS ARRAS THE BOSS & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1296

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the copyright registration of 'Arras The Boss', obtained by an individual selling perfumes, in a suit filed by German perfumery brand 'Hugo Boss'.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that 'Arras The Boss' is an imitative mark and artistic work and not an original artistic work.

Petition U/S 34 Of The A&C Act Dismissed Twice For Non-Prosecution, Delhi High Court Denies Benefit Of Section 14 Of Limitation Act Citing Lack Of Diligent Prosecution

Case Title: U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1297

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not available to a petitioner who, through lack of diligence, allowed its Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to be dismissed twice for non-prosecution.

Correctness Of Information Provided Can't Be Adjudicated In Proceedings Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: NARENDRA TYAGI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1298

The Delhi High Court has observed that the correctness of information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the enactment.

Bare Plea Of Fraud, Coercion Not Enough To Challenge Settlement Agreement U/S 34 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Usha Bansal v. Genesis Finance Co. Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1299

The High Court of Delhi has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify challenge to the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify challenge to the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

Insurance Company Has No Contractual Or Other Relationship With Transferee Of Offending Vehicle: Delhi High Court

Title: INDIWAR PARIJAT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1300

The Delhi High Court has observed that an Insurance Company has no contractual or other relationship with transferee of the offending vehicle in a road accident.

“The registered owner cannot absolve himself of the liability by contending that he had transferred the offending vehicle to a third person prior to the date of the accident,” Justice Navin Chawla said.

High-End KPO Services Provider Can't Be Compared With ITeS, Which Is BPO Services Provider: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1301

The Delhi High Court has held that the high-end knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) services provider cannot be compared with the information technology-enabled services (ITeS), which fall under the category of BPO services provider.

Delhi Riots: High Court Grants Bail To Two Men, Denies Bail To One In Rahul Solanki Murder Case

Title: ARIF v. STATE and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1302

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men and denied bail to one in a 2020 North-East Delhi riots case where a bystander, Rahul Solanki, lost his life due to a gunshot injury.

Justice Amit Bansal granted bail to Arif and Anish Qureshi, who have been in custody since March 09, 2020, observing that the trial is likely to take a long time and they cannot be kept under incarceration for an indefinite period.

2024 Lok Sabha Polls: Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Urgent Implementation Of 'Women's Reservation Bill'

Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1303

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking urgent implementation of the “Women's Reservation Bill, 2023” to ensure the reservation of 33% seats for women in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted liberty to the petitioner, a lawyer, Yogamaya MG, who withdrew the plea after some arguments, to approach the Supreme Court before which a similar petition has been filed.

No Upward Adjustment Required To Be Carried Out For Amount Received By Sony India From Its AE: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1304

The Delhi High Court has held that no upward adjustment concerning advertising, marketing, and promotion expenses (AMP) ought to have been made as the comparables chosen by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had a net margin lower than that registered by the assessee, Sony India.

S. 69A Of Income Tax Act Can Only Be Invoked Where Books Of Account Are Maintained: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus Hersh Washesher Chadha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1305

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked where books of account are maintained.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the assessee is a non-resident Indian, and his source of income in India is interest on bank accounts and interest on income tax refunds. He is not obliged to maintain any books of account in India.

'Wilful' Disobedience For Contempt Excludes Casual, Bona Fide Acts, Does Not Encompass Negligent Actions: Delhi High Court

Title: M/S KUEHNE + NAGEL PVT. LTD. v. MR. PREM SINGHEE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1306

The Delhi High Court has observed that “wilful” disobedience of a judicial order by a contemnor excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.

“Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with malice or without a justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same,” Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.

Judicial System Can't Function If Parties Are Allowed To Resile From Their Undertaking Without Any Reasons: Delhi High Court

Title: THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v. SHEELA ABHAY LODHA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1307

The Delhi High Court has observed that the judicial system cannot function if the parties are permitted to resile from the undertaking given by them without any reasons.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that there is solemnity and seriousness attached to court proceedings and parties cannot give undertakings without intending to honour them, or at least, they must make sincere and conscious efforts to comply with the same.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10K Costs On Litigant Claiming Ownership Of Territory Between Ganga & Yamuna From Agra To Gurugram

Title: KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1308

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on one Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh who claimed property rights on the territory of Agra, running between rivers Yamuna and Ganga, to Meerut and other places including 65 revenue estates of Delhi, Gurugram and Uttarakhand.

Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed Singh's plea seeking a direction on the Union Government to adopt the process of merger, accession or enter into treaty with him for his claimed territory and pay the due compensation to him.

Insolvency Resolution Professional Not 'Public Servant' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. ARUN MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1309

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) does not fall within the meaning of “public servant” under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that it is not necessary that all duties which are broadly defined as “public duty” would encompass within itself “public character”.

Decision To Cancel GST Registration With Retrospective Effect Must Be Based On Some Objective Criteria: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1310

The Delhi High Court has held that the decision to cancel the GST registration with retrospective effect must be based on some objective criteria.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on account of non-filing of returns for a period of six months.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Replace Term 'Central Government' With 'Union Government' In Laws, Notifications

Case Title: ATMARAM SARAOGI v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1311

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation for using the expression "Union Government" instead of "Central Government" in all legislations, orders, notifications, Rules, executive actions and circulars.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the two terms can be used interchangeably and it was not a case of PIL.

Look Into Allegations Of Over-Invoicing By Power Firms Including Adani, Essar Groups: Delhi High Court To CBI, DRI

Title: CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1312

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to “meticulously and expeditiously” look into the allegations of over invoicing of coal imports and equipments by several power companies, including those of Adani Group and Essar Group.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the authorities to “unearth the actual factual position” and take appropriate actions against the erring companies, if any, as per law.

Delhi High Court Constitutes Monitoring Committee To Periodically Review Recruitment Of Public Prosecutors

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1313

The Delhi High Court has constituted a monitoring committee to periodically review the recruitment of public prosecutors for trial courts here.


A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that cases are piling up in the trial courts due to lack of public prosecutors.

Vivo Money Laundering Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas Of Three Accused Alleging Illegal Detention In Jail Sans Judicial Order

Title: NITIN GARG v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1314

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas filed by three accused, in a money laundering case registered against smartphone manufacturer Vivo, alleging illegal custody in Tihar jail for want of judicial order remanding them to judicial custody.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur rejected the habeas corpus pleas moved by Nitin Garg, Pranay Rai and a Chinese national Guangwen Kuang alias Andrew.

Time For Filing Written Statement Can Be Extended By Family Courts If Exceptional Circumstances Shown: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1315

The Delhi High Court had said that the time period of filing written statement, being in the realm of procedural law, can be extended under the Family Courts Act, 1984, if the applicant spells out exceptional circumstances or disability faced by him or her in filing the same.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta however underscored that ordinarily, the time schedule for filing the written statement needs to be followed to deal with family disputes in an expeditious manner.

Is Plaintiff Entitled To Complete Refund Of Court Fees Where Dispute Settled Privately Without ADR Mechanism? Delhi High Court To Decide

Title: V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v. MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES AND ANR. & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1316

The Delhi High Court is set to decide as to whether a plaintiff in a civil suit would be entitled to complete refund of court fees or only to half of it, where the dispute is settled with the defendant privately, without intervention of any ADR mechanism.

Justice C Hari Shankar referred the question to a division bench, observing that the issue may have to be decided in the light of Sections 16 and Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, as well as different judgments of the Supreme Court and division benches on the issue.

When Tenant Is Absent From Tenanted Premises, Summons Must Be Served At Alternative Address: Delhi High Court

Title: AMRIT LAL WADHERA & ANR. v. SAROJ SUNEJA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1317

The Delhi High Court has said that where the tenant is undeniably absent from the address of tenanted premises, temporarily or permanently, court should make every sincere endeavour to serve summons upon the tenant at an alternate address.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that summoning by way of publication should only be resorted to when the circumstances are such that it leaves no scope for any other course of action.

Increasing Abuse Of RTI Act Has Led To Paralysis And Fear Among Government Officials: Delhi High Court

Title: SHISHIR CHAND v. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1318

The Delhi High Court has said that it has been coming across various cases where the abuse of Right to Information Act, 2005, has led to “paralysis and fear” among Government officials.

“The Act was brought into to provide for secure access to information to every citizen, and to prevent corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable. However, this Court is now seeing increasing abuse/misuse of the RTI Act…,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Delhi High Court Directs CISF To Amend Rules To Allow Recruitment Of Women As Drivers Within Six Months

Title: KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1319

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to amend its recruitment Rules to allow recruitment of women as drivers in the force, within six months.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by Union Government's counsel that it was not possible to give a definite timeline to the court within which the Recruitment Rules for CISF shall be amended.

Decide Plea To Link Properties With Aadhaar Within Three Months: Delhi High Court To Centre, Delhi Govt

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1320

The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre and the Delhi Government to decide within three months a public interest litigation seeking linking of property documents with Aadhaar by treating it as a representation.

A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia disposed of the plea moved by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, observing that it is a policy issue which has to be decided by the concerned authorities.

'Not In Good Taste': Delhi High Court On Rahul Gandhi's Speech Against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Directs ECI To Take Action

Title: BHARAT NAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1321

The Delhi High Court has said that the speech made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on November 22 in Rajasthan's Nadbai against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and calling him, along with Home Minister Amit Shah and Gautam Adami as “pick pocketors”, was “not in good taste.”

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by Advocate Suruchi Suri, the counsel representing Election Commission of India (ECI), that a show cause notice was issued to Gandhi on November 23.

Delhi High Court Constitutes Committee Headed By Retired Judge To Examine Issues Regarding Forests

Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1322

The Delhi High Court has constituted an inter-departmental committee headed by a retired judge of the court to examine the issues regarding forests in the national capital.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that for effective discharge of its responsibilities, the Committee may call for any documents from any persons, government or any other official.

Having Different Religious Beliefs And Not Performing Religious Duties Per Se Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1323

While dealing with a divorce case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties per se would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient to severe a marital tie.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that fasting or not fasting on “Karwachauth” may be an individual choice and if dispassionately considered, may not be termed as an act of cruelty.

FIRs In Rape Cases With Minors Not Mere Printed Papers But Reflection Of Trauma Suffered By Victim: Delhi High Court

Title: JASPREET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1324

The Delhi High Court has said that the FIRs in cases involving sexual assault and rape committed upon minors are not mere printed papers, but a trauma writ large, experienced by a living human being, which is difficult to be portrayed on a piece of paper.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in cases of sexual assault of minor victims, the extreme stressful situation and life-turning experience faced by a victim should not be dealt with in mechanical manner by courts.

Delhi High Court Restrains US Based Company From Using 'Winzo Games' Mark, Orders Deactivation Of 'Winzos' Google Chrome Extension

Title: WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. BAJAAR LLC AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1325

The Delhi High Court has restrained a US based company, offering an application “Winzos!” on Apple and Google App Stores and an associated website, from using “Winzo” or “Winzo Games” mark.

Justice Prathiba M Singh also ordered deactivation of www.winzos.com extension on Google Chrome Webstore.

Power To Extend Time For Submitting Audit Reports U/S 142(2c) Belongs Exclusively To AO And Can't Be Exercised By CIT: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1326

The Delhi High Court has held that the power to extend the time for submitting audit reports under Section 142(2c) belongs exclusively to the AO and cannot be exercised by CIT.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the Assessing Officer alone has the jurisdiction to extend the deadline for filing audit reports under Section 142(2C); a higher authority, such as the CIT, is not permitted to do so.

Limitation Period To Pass Fresh Assessment Order Expired: Delhi High Court Accepts Returned Income For 12 Years

Case Title: Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Versus PCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1327

The Delhi High Court has accepted the returned income for 12 years as the limitation period to pass a fresh assessment order has expired.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the time limit fixed as per Section 153(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act or the time limit fixed by the amended provision, i.e., Section 153(3), as of today, the AO is bereft of jurisdiction and hence would have no legal locus to pass an assessment order.

Family Courts Must Ordinarily Be Lenient In Matrimonial Disputes And Not Apply Rules Of Procedure Strictly: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1328

The Delhi High Court has allowed a wife's petition against closure of her right to cross-examine her husband in divorce proceedings, observing that Family Courts must strike a delicate balance between need for expeditious disposal and giving of fair opportunity to a party to present case.

Recording of Prosecutrix's Testimony Through Two-Way Video Conferencing Not Adverse, No Denial Of Right To Fair Trial Of Accused: Delhi High Court

Title: VINOD KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1329

The Delhi High Court has observed that recording of testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual assault cases through “two-way video conferencing facility” is not adverse nor does it amount to denial of accused's right to fair trial or effective cross-examination.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that recording of the victim's testimony will still have to be subjected to the “tradition parameters of reliability” and will be tested on the touchstone of credibility on the basis of cross-examination.

Delhi High Court Pulls Up Special NDPS Judge For Repeatedly Summoning Senior Cops, Sends Matter To Inspection Committee

Title: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CRIME-III, DELHI v. SHADAB

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1330

The Delhi High Court has pulled up a Special NDPS judge in the national capital for repeatedly summoning senior police officials and even issuing bailable warrants against a Deputy Commissioner of Police, observing that there was a “complete breach of judicial discipline.”

Justice Amit Bansal said that the judge has been repeatedly passing orders that are in “teeth of a detailed judgment” delivered by a Coordinate Bench where adverse remarks made by the same judge against high-ranking police officials were expunged.

Delhi High Court Order Deputing One Clinical Child Psychologist In Each Family Court Complex

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1331

The Delhi High Court directed its Registrar General to take necessary steps for deputing at least one Clinical Child Psychologist in each Family Court Complex, who would be in a better position to provide counselling sessions to minor children as and when required or as directed in respective cases.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the report submitted by the Clinical Child Psychologist on evaluation or counselling can be shared with the concerned Family Court in a sealed cover, which would enable such court to form an appropriate opinion for custody or visitation rights in custody cases.

Delhi High Court Forms Committee For Improving Healthcare Facilities In Prisons, Says Every Inmate Has Inherent Right To Humane Treatment

Title: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1332

The Delhi High Court has formed a Committee for giving suggestions to improve the health care facilities in prisons in the national capital, observing that every prison inmate has an inherent right to life and humane treatment.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the committee will also inform the court as to whether facilities are available in the jail hospital to deal with emergency situations such as cardiac arrest and hemorrhages, “as the first few minutes in such eventuality are crucial to save life of a person.”

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Expeditious Disposal Of Criminal Cases Against MPs, MLAs

Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1333

The Delhi High Court has issued directions for expeditious and effective disposal of criminal cases pending in the designated courts against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue Court to ensure almost equal pendency of the criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the designated courts, at the same level.

Information On Interception Or Phone Tapping Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. KABIR SHANKAR BOSE & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1334

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the information in relation to interception or tapping or tracking of a phone is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that any order passed by the Government in relation to interception or phone tapping is passed when an authorized officer is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign states or public order, and information on the same would be exempted under RTI Act.

Convict Has Fundamental Right To Parenthood And Procreation, Incarceration Does Not Make Him Lesser Citizen: Delhi High Court

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1335

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a convict has the right to parenthood and procreation and such an individual does not become a lesser citizen only due to the incarceration.

“While, Judiciary in Bharat, has always stubbornly refused to hold that prisoners have no fundamental rights, this Court following the same tradition as handed over by judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court respectfully takes the intent to interpret the constitutional rights in favour of upholding and including new situations and challenges holds that right to parenthood and procreation is fundamental right of a convict in peculiar circumstances of a case,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Solicitor General Of India's Opinion To Government Fiduciary In Nature, Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1336

The Delhi High Court has accepted a submission that the advice tendered by the Solicitor General of India to the Union Government and government departments is done in the nature of fiduciary, and hence, the disclosure of such information would fall under the exception of Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Subramonium Prasad found no infirmity with Union Government's submission and said and that the relationship between the Solicitor General of India and Government of India is that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary.

Harassing Husband Publicly, Portraying Him As 'Womanizer' Extreme Cruelty: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1337

The Delhi High Court recently upheld divorce granted to a married couple on the ground of cruelty by the wife, observing that her act of harassing and humiliating the husband publicly and portraying him as a “womanizer” in his office is an act of extreme cruelty to him.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which has the impact of publicly tarnishing the image of the other, is nothing but acts of extreme cruelty.

Consider Proposal For Installing Biometric Machine To Facilitate Access Of Lawyers To NCLT: Delhi High Court To Centre

Case Title: NCLT BAR ASSOCIATION THR ITS SECRETARY GENERAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1338

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to consider on priority basis the proposal for installation of a biometric machine to facilitate the access of lawyers to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) premises.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna also directed the Land and Development Office (L&DO) to process the proposal within eight weeks.

SFIO Not Barred From Investigating IPC Offences, Conducting 'Further Probe': Delhi High Court

Title: R.K. GUPTA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1339

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is not barred from investigating offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or conducting further investigation in accordance with law after the Investigation Report has been submitted.

“From a conjoint and harmonious reading of the relevant provisions of the CrPC and the present Act, as quoted hereinabove, it cannot be said that the SFIO is barred from investigating an offence under the IPC. SFIO is not barred from conducting a ̳further investigation' in accordance with law,” Justice Amit Sharma observed.

Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Freebit's 'Improved Earpiece', Imposes Cost Of 5 Lakhs For Suppressing Material Facts

Case Title: Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1340

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by leading supplier of in-ear products “Freebit AS”, observing that it had suppressed material facts and the suit patent was vulnerable to revocation.

Referring to the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022, Justice Prathiba M Singh explicated that, “it is necessary, to the extent possible, for a plaint to include details of corresponding foreign patent applications, as well as information relating to any orders passed by a Court or Tribunal concerning the same or substantially similar invention as asserted in the suit.”

Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Freebit's 'Improved Earpiece', Imposes Cost Of 5 Lakhs For Suppressing Material Facts

Case Title: The Hershey Company v. Atul Jalan trading as Akshat Online Traders

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1341

Taking strict view of the food safety and public health concerns highlighted, the Delhi High Court recently directed detailed investigation into the re-packaging and sale of expired food products in Delhi, including counterfeit chocolates of leading brand Hershey's.

Going through the material brought on record, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the way in which expired products were being reintroduced into markets appeared to be coordinated and systematic.

Delhi HC Dismisses TV Today Network's Plea Against Orders To Run Apology Scroll For Broadcasting Advertisements Promoting Liquor Brand Names

Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 9556/2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1342

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with orders passed by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, whereby TV Today Network, operator/owner of India Today and Aaj Tak, was directed to run an apology scroll for broadcasting advertisements promoting brand names associated with alcohol produces.

Domain Name Infringement, S.34 Restrains Judicial Interference In Issues Of 'Subjective Satisfaction'; Delhi High Court

Case details : QUANTUM UNIVERSITY v. INTERNATIONAL QUANTUM UNIVERSITY FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INC O.M.P (COMM) 260/2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1343

The Delhi High Court has held that the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 strictly restrained the Court from interfering in issues of interpretation of contractual conventions and those matters where the arbitrator is required to be “subjectively satisfied” on questions of facts.

Unscrupulous People Using Name Of Judges For Committing Offences Brings Disrepute To Judicial System, Can't Be Allowed At Any Cost: Delhi High Court

Title: HARISH CHANDER @ SURAJ BHATT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1344

The Delhi High Court has said that the name of any judge or judicial officer used by unscrupulous persons for blackmailing general public or commission of offences brings disrepute to the judicial system, which cannot be allowed at any cost.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that general public should not believe such individuals and give them money, even if they are assured that they will get some work done from within the judicial system by way of some payment.

Consider Uploading Fresh Copy Of 'Jawan' Movie With Accessibility Features On OTT Platforms: Delhi High Court To Ministry Of I&B

Case Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1345

The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to consider uploading a fresh copy of actor Shah Rukh Khan starrer “Jawan” film with accessibility features on OTT platforms.

Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the Ministry to call the producers of the films “Jawan” and “Hi Papa” (yet to be released on OTT) for consultation and to impress upon them the importance of providing the accessibility features at least in the OTT release for the two movies.

Delhi High Court Quashes Decision To Declare Religare Finvest's Account As 'Fraud'

Title: RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1346

The Delhi High Court has recently quashed the decision of State Bank of India (SBI) declaring Religare Finvest's account as “fraud” and including it on the Central Fraud Registry of Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that SBI will be at liberty to take an appropriate action in accordance with law, if so necessitated.