Delhi High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March, 2024 [Citations 1 - 384]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384NOMINAL INDEXKHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GIRDHAR INDUSTRIES AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1VINOD KUMAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 2CIT Versus RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 3Neelam Azad v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 4Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw...

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL To Constitute High Powered Committee To Look Into Complete Affairs Of All Cooperative Banks

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a PIL seeking constitution of a High Powered Committee for looking into the complete affairs of all the co-operative banks. A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that such a prayer falls in the domain of policy making by the Executive and Legislature. The court said that it was...

Suppression Of Pendency Of Criminal Case By Person Seeking Appointment To A Police Post Has Bearing On His Suitability: Delhi High Court

A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while deciding a writ petition in the case of Shri Nomil Rana v. Union of India and Ors. has held that suppression of the material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by a person seeking appointment to a police post wherein he is required to maintain public order has bearing...

Onus To Establish Employee-Employer Relationship Rests On the Claimant: Delhi High Court

A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a writ petition in the case of Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors. has reiterated that the onus to establish the relationship of employee-employer between the management and the workman is on the claimant, i.e., the person who sets up a plea of existence of such relationship...

Delhi HC Disposes PIL To Prevent CM Arvind Kejriwal From Issuing Directions From Custody, Asks ED To Place Matter Before District Judge

The Delhi High Court on Monday disposed of a public interest litigation to prevent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from issuing directions or orders while in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following his arrest in the liquor policy case.A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked the central probe agency to bring...

Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: March 2024 [Citations 239 - 384]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 239 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384NOMINAL INDEXCENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER v. KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 240Indian Highways Management Company Ltd. vs Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 241RESHMA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 242X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 243The Executive Engineer & Ors...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 25 To March 31, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384NOMINAL INDEXTechno Compact Builders v. Railtel Corporation of India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360Rani Construction v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 361aDharamvir & Company v. DDA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 362VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del)MANJU PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS WAZIRPUR &...

Second Petition Can't Be Filed If First Petition Challenging ITC Reversal Is Unconditionally Withdrawn: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner, having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, is precluded from filing the fresh petition seeking the same relief that was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner.The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in...

Delhi High Court Directs Arbitrator To Refund 6 Lakh Of 14.5 Lakh Fee Paid By Parties

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed the arbitrator to refund Rs.6,00,000- of the fees of Rs.14,50,000/- paid by the parties to the arbitrator noting the arbitrator had conducted a total of twelve hearings, of which only three resulted in substantive orders. Moreover, the bench noted that the issues in the arbitral proceedings had not yet been framed,...

Section 37 A&C | Explanation For Delay Of 191 Days Is Sketchy And Doesn't Corelate Any Event To Specific Dates: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay of 191 days for petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that explanation provided for the delay was sketchy and did not corelate any event to specific dates or time period. Section 37 of the...

Telecom Services - Franchisee Agreement, Not Subject To TDSAT Jurisdiction, Delhi High Court Refers Dispute To Arbitration

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a mere franchisee responsible for promotion of services provided by the petitioner, ergo, it does not fall under the definitions of licensee, licensor, service provider, or group of consumers as per the TRAI Act. It held that bar under Section 14 only applies in relation to telecommunication services and not to...

No Writ Against Order Of Tribunal Rejecting Application U/S 16 Of The A&C Act Unless It Shocks The Conscience Of The Court: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal rejecting an application challenging its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the A&C Act cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless the order is so perverse that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad reiterated that to protect the sanctity of the arbitral process,...