Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 08 To July 14, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 783NOMINAL INDEXSUBLIME SOFTWARE LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756 HARISH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 757 RAJAN TEWARI v. DURGESH KUMAR PATHAK & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 758 CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 759 Delhi Medical Association &...

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Analyse Electro Homeopathic Prescriptions For Recognition As Alternative Medicine

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition that sought to direct the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory, Ministry of Ayush to analyse certain Homeopathic prescriptions, in order to enable the Inter-Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to decide on the recognition of Electro Homeopathy as an alternative system of medicine. The Ministry of Health...

Delhi High Court Dismisses Reliance Communications' Petition, Upholds Arbitrator's Calculation Of Call Minutes Based on Total Call Seconds

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has dismissed a petition filed by Reliance Communications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the arbitrator correctly divided the total number of call seconds by 60 to determine the number of call minutes. The bench noted that the company is not entitled to a whole minute if the call...

Arbitrator Not Required To Provide Detailed Reasons When Granting Request To Summon Witnesses Under Section 27(1) of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that while exercising power under Section 27(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant a request to summon a witness, the arbitrator is not required to offer detailed reasons when granting such a request. Section 27(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows the arbitral tribunal or a...

Coercion In Disputes Must Be Examined By Arbitral Tribunal, Referral Court's Jurisdiction Limited By Section 11(6A): Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that coercion, or its absence in a dispute is a complex question, purely of fact, which has necessarily to be examined by the arbitral tribunal. The bench held that with the introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the jurisdiction of the referral court is now circumscribed. Consequently, the High Court appointed...

Invoices Containing Arbitration Clauses Which Show Mutual Acceptance Are Prima Facie Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that when parties engage in actions based on invoices containing arbitration clauses, demonstrating mutual acceptance, an arbitration agreement may be inferred directly from those invoices. Brief Facts: M/s Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt Ltd (Petitioner), a manufacturer and supplier of corrugated boxes and...

Specific Reference To Arbitration Clause Needed In 'Two-Contract Case' For Incorporation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in a 'two-contract case', a specific reference to the arbitration clause in an earlier contract is necessary for its incorporation into the main contract between the parties. A 'two-contract case' refers to a situation where there are two separate contracts involved and the parties seek to incorporate terms, including...

Uploading Of Notices By GST Department Under Heading 'Additional Notices' Is Sufficient Service: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the uploading of notices by the GST department under the heading 'additional notices' amounts to sufficient service.The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta, while remanding the matter to the authority to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice afresh, observed that the GST Authorities had addressed the issue and had re-designed the portal to...

Arbitrator Panel Restricting Nominee Selection To Railways' Officers and Suggested Names Is Not Valid: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that panel comprising of serving or retired officers of Railways not only restricted the party's choice but also compelled it to choose its nominee from amongst four names suggested by the Railways. The bench noted that such a panel is not in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for...

Disputes Related To Lock-In Periods In Employment Contracts Are Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court held that the three-year lock-in period did not constitute an unreasonable curtailment of the employees' right to employment and did not...

TPO Lacks Jurisdiction To Question Commercial Expediency Or Genuineness Of Need: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory authority conferred upon the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) can only extend to an examination of the appropriateness of the method adopted for the purposes of determining arm's length pricing (ALP) or evaluating the enlistment of comparables. However, the TPO would neither be justified nor could it be countenanced to have the jurisdiction...

Loans Extended By NOIDA Is Not Commercial Activity, Eligible For Section 10(46) Exemption: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the loans and advances extended by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) are not commercial activities and are eligible for exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act.The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the respondent department has erred in holding that the loans and...