Adverse Remarks In Appraisal Report For Carrying Weapons To Quarters, Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Petition seeking quashing of Displeasure awarded by DG, BSF and the order rejecting the representation of the Petitioner against the advisory remarks in the APAR. The Bench stated that the Petitioner who was in possession of his service weapon in his Government Quarters could not provide...

S.34 Application Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because Approach Of Court Should Be Not To Interfere With Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee have held that the Arbitral Award should not be interfered with lightly, the same does not imply that applications filed under Section 34 ought to be rejected only on the grounds that the approach of the Court should be not to interfere with the award. Additionally, the court held that both the parties,...

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Mankind Pharma, Restrains Use Of 'Mankind Agri Seeds' Mark

Granting relief to pharmaceutical company "Mankind Pharma", the Delhi High Court has recently restrained a Gujarat based agricultural goods manufacturer entity from using "Mankind Agri Seeds'" mark while advertising or selling its products. Justice Amit Bansal passed the interim order in favour of Mankind Pharma in its trademark infringement suit against Mankind Agri Seeds, observing that a...

Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'MH7' Trademark For Infringement Of MH ONE TV Network's Marks

The Delhi High Court has directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the “MH7” trademark from its register, ruling that it infringes upon the trademarks owned by MH ONE TV Network Private Limited.MH ONE TV Network Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) provides broadcasting services in cable, television and radio. Its 'MH ONE' channel streams Punjabi music and entertainment shows. It has...

[Direct Tax Vivaad Se Vishwas Act] Review Plea Against SLP Constitutes "Disputed Tax" U/S 2(i)(j): Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a review petition, against the orders passed in SLP by the Supreme Court, is “Disputed Tax” under Section 2(1)(j) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and the review petitioner would be eligible to take benefit of “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”. Section 2(1)(j) defines disputed tax in relation to Appeal, Writ Petition or Special Leave...

Degree Of Proof In Professional Misconduct Cases Is Higher Than Balance Of Probability, But Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court

In relation to disciplinary proceedings involving alleged professional misconduct by a chartered accountant in a complaint filed against the latter 19 years ago, the Delhi High Court said that the degree of proof required is higher than the balance of probabilities, but not as high as the criminal standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt.The chartered accountant had argued that to bring...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Pay ₹22 Lakh Compensation Over Death Of 9-Yr-Old By Falling Into Pit

The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to pay compensation of Rs. 22 lakh over death of nine-year-old boy by falling into a pit in 2016. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that there was negligence on the part of DJB and it was thw duty of the Board to maintain safe conditions and take due precautions in and around the land where the pit was situated. “it...

Delhi HC To Examine Retrospective Applicability Of S.223 BNSS On Opportunity Of Hearing To Accused In ED's Complaint Filed Post-Enactment

The Delhi High Court will hear a plea on the issue of retrospective application of Section 223 of the BNSS 2023 in a case where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) prior to the law's enactment but the Prosecution Complaint was filed and trial court took cognizance on it after the law came into force.For context, Section 223 of BNSS deals...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 18 To November 24, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1246 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1281NOMINAL INDEXANI v. RSY News & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1246 Kanwar Singh Yadav vs. Delhi Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1247 Gautam Gambhir v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1248 SHABANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1249 SUBATA KHAN v. GNCTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del)...

Incorrect Classification Is Not By Itself Collusion/ Wilful Misstatement U/S 28AAA Customs Act; Prior Determination By DGFT Must: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that a misclassification or an incorrect classification of goods to be imported or exported would not ipso facto amount to collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts under Section 28AAA Customs Act, 1962. The provision provides for recovery of duties in cases where an instrument issued to a person has been obtained by him by means...

Procedural Orders Cannot Be Considered As Interim Award Or Challenged U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that a procedural order given by an Arbitral Tribunal, such as rejecting an application seeking impleadment of a party, does not qualify as an interim award. So, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The petition was filed under Section 34 of...

Well Reasoned Award Cannot Be Interfered With Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju affirmed that Courts should not customarily interfere with Arbitral Awards that are well reasoned, and contain a plausible view.Judges, by nature, may incline towards using a corrective lens, however, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, this corrective lens is inappropriate especially under Section 37 of...