Delhi High Court
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Second Petition Can't Be Filed If First Petition Challenging ITC Reversal Is Unconditionally Withdrawn: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner, having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, is precluded from filing the fresh petition seeking the same relief that was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner.The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in...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,...
MSMED Act | Service Supplier Registered During Ongoing Contract Can Avail Benefits For Services Provided After Registration: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a service supplier, upon registering during an ongoing contract, is eligible to avail benefits under the MSMED Act for services provided after registration. It held that it is always open to the arbitrator to decide this issue even as a preliminary issue. Brief Facts: A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was...
Sec. 11, A&C Act Petition Must Be Filed In High Court Where Cause Of Action Arose, Not Necessarily At Principle Place Of Business: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that such a petition should be filed at the place of the subordinate office of the corporation. “In the present case as well, the subordinate office of the respondent is situated at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and for the...
Another PIL Filed In Delhi High Court Seeking Removal Of Arvind Kejriwal From Post Of Chief Minister
A fresh public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case, from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi.The plea has been moved by Vishnu Gupta, who is a social worker and National President of Hindu Sena. Yesterday, a division bench headed by Acting...