Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: April 2023 [Citations 280 - 355]

NOMINAL INDEX

Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 280

Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes Versus Corsan Corviam Construction S.A.-Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Jv 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 281

Sakshi Bahl Versus The Principal Additional Director General 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 282

GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Sneh Development Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 283

Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284

NG v. SG & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285

BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 286

IRCON INTERNATIONAL v. PIONEER FABRICATORS, FAO(COMM) 200/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 287

M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 288

SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 289

AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 290

SONU@BILLA v. STATE, THROUGH SHO, PS PASCHIM VIHAR EAST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 291

ABOOBACKER E. v. National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 292

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 293

MS. M PROSECUTRIX v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 294

RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 295

Rashtriya Transport Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296

RAVINDER v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 297

Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 298

COMMISSIONER (FOOD SAFETY), GNCTD v. SUGANDHI SNUFF KING PVT. LTD. AND ORS. and another connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 299

Karan Antil vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 300

SURENDER KUMAR MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 301

SAWAN v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 302

RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. SPS TOMAR and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 303

Mahesh Kumar vs Union of India and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 304

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Anr. v. Election Commission of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 305

INDU KAPOOR v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 306

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 307

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 308

PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT LTD v. SULABH KAPUR AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 309

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v. RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 310

M/s Promax Power Ltd vs. M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 311

RAGHUNATH v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 312

ACE TECHNOLOGIES CORP AND ORS. v. COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 313

M/S GOKALDAS PAPER PRODUCTS v. M/S LILLIPUT KIDSWEAR LTD & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 314

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC & ORS. v. FZMOVIES.NET & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 315

TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD & ORS. v. SARFARAZ KHAN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 316

JMD HERITAGE LAWNS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. MR . ANKIT CHAWLA PROPRIETOR SADDA PIND RESTAURANT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 317

MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 318

JYOTI SINGH v. NAND KISHORE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 319

Yashovardhan Birla vs Cecil Webber Engineering Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 320

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 321

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. SANTOSH & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 322

AYAN JORWAL (MINOR) THROUGH FATHER DINESH KUMAR MEENA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 323

STATE OF NCT DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 324

SALEEM v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 325

Gaurav Dhanuka & Anr vs Surya Maintenance Agency Pvt Ltd & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 326

S GURBACHAN SINGH & ORS v. GEETA ISSAR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 327

MS. AARADHYA BACHCHAN AND ANR. v. BOLLYWOOD TIME & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 329

AS vs State and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 330

SD v. RK 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 331

Nanu Ram Goyal Versus Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 332

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. ARVIND KUMAR TRADING AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 333

AK & Ors. v. State & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 334

ANTONY RAOD TRANSPORT SOULUTION PVT LTD v. VARSHA JOSHI & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 335

EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO (IS-I) (IS-IV DESK) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 336

REFRIGERATED WATER LICENSEES ASSOCIATION (REGD) AND ANR v. COMMISSIONER SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 337

ND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 338

Alliance of Digital India Foundation v. Competition Commission of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 339

Sanjay Mehra vs Sharad Mehra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 340

MANOJ KRISHAN AHUJA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 341

Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited vs Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 342

PROUD SECURITIES AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED v. URRSHILA KERKAR & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 343

ANUSHKA SHARMA (MINOR) THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER, SH. JITENDER KUMAR SHARMA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 344

DIGITAL COLLECTIBLES PTE LTD AND ORS. v. GALACTUS FUNWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 345

MRS X v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 346

LOKESH CHUGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 347

RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 348

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTATION v. S K GHOSH & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 349

BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 350

SWARARAJ @ RAJ SHRIKANT THAKERAY & ANR. v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 351

GDN v. GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 352

JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 353

JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 353 Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Limited vs M/s C. E. C. Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 354

RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 355

Arbitral Tribunal’s Order Rejecting The Application For Impleadment Of Party Doesn’t Constitute An ‘Interim Award’: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 280

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party who is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, can be impleaded as a necessary party in the arbitration proceedings.

The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain further ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting the application for impleadment of parties in the arbitral proceedings, does not constitute an ‘interim award’ under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it does not decide any substantive question of law or deal with the merits of the case.

Refund Claim Embedded In Return, No Need To File Fresh Claim: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Pay 6% Interest

Case Title: Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes Versus Corsan Corviam Construction S.A.-Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Jv

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 281

The Delhi High Court has held that since the claim for a refund made by the assessee was embedded in its return and the assessee was not required to file a fresh claim.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has directed the Department to pay interest within 4 weeks.

The assessee filed its revised return on 10.07.2015 for the fourth quarter of the Financial Year 2014-15. Since the assessee's tax period arises every quarter, in terms of Section 38(3)(a)(ii), in the ordinary course, it would be entitled to a refund within two months after the date on which the return was furnished. Therefore, the two-month period would end on 10.09.2015.

Attachment Of Bank Accounts Is A Draconian Step, Attachment Is Subject To The Condition Mentioned U/s 83 Of GST Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sakshi Bahl Versus The Principal Additional Director General

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 282

The Delhi High Court has held that attachment of bank accounts is a draconian step and the action can only be taken in case conditions specified in Section 83 of the GST Act, are fully satisfied.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that it is not open for the department to attach the bank accounts of other persons on the mere assumption that the funds were owned by any taxable person.

Court May Decline To Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Doesn’t Correlate To Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Sneh Development Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 283

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere existence of an arbitration agreement or arbitration clause would not be sufficient to refer the parties to arbitration and that even in the presence of an arbitration agreement, the court may decline to refer the parties to arbitration if the dispute does not correlate to the said agreement.

While dealing with a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Court observed that in the guise of seeking reference to an arbitrator, the petitioner was seeking recovery of the costs that it had been directed to pay as compensation to the homebuyers by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Arbitral Tribunal’s Order Rejecting The Application For Impleadment Of Party Doesn’t Constitute An ‘Interim Award’: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party who is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, can be impleaded as a necessary party in the arbitration proceedings.

The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain further ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting the application for impleadment of parties in the arbitral proceedings, does not constitute an ‘interim award’ under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it does not decide any substantive question of law or deal with the merits of the case.

Right To Residence In Matrimonial Home Includes Right To Safe And Healthy Living: Delhi High Court

Title: NG v. SG & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to residence in a matrimonial home under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also includes the right to safe and healthy living.

While issuing notice on a wife’s plea challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in a civil case relating to matrimonial dispute, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said:

“…. it goes without saying that the right to residence in a matrimonial home, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also would subsume within itself, the definition of “right to safe and healthy living” too. Hence, requiring interference by this Court.”

Authorities In Patent Office Must Practice Due Application Of Mind In Decisions, Cut-Paste Orders Can’t Sustain: Delhi High Court

Title: BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 286

The Delhi High Court has observed that the officers of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Mark must practice due application of mind while rendering decisions and that template or “cut-paste” orders must be discouraged and cannot sustain.

While pulling up an Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs for passing a “mechanical order” while refusing an application for grant of patent, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed:

“Reasoning through a speaking order is a vital aspect of the principles of natural justice and is of utmost importance, which needs to be underscored. If the patent office’s orders lack proper reasoning, it may be difficult for the applicant to identify the grounds for appeal. The legal proposition that an order of such kind should be supported by reasons, needs no reiteration.”

Location Of Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Would Remain The ‘Venue’ Of Arbitration When The Agreement Confers Jurisdiction On The Courts In A Different Place: Delhi High Court

Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL v. PIONEER FABRICATORS, FAO(COMM) 200/2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 287

The Delhi High Court has held that the location of the Facilitation Council administering arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 would remain the ‘Venue’ of arbitration when the parties have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a Court situated in a different place.

The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Anoop Jairam Bhambhani held that by virtue of the provisions of the MSMED Act, only the procedure of constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is obliterated and the same does not eclipse the agreement between the parties of foisting exclusive jurisdiction on a particular Court.

Services Provided By EY India To Overseas EY Entities Not “Intermediary Services”: Delhi High Court Directs IGST Refund To EY India

Case Title: M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 288

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the services provided by M/s Ernst and Young Limited (India), the Indian Branch Office of UK based company, M/s Ernst & Young Limited (E&Y Ltd), to overseas EY Entities, is not an “intermediary service”.

The Court thus set aside the orders passed by the GST Authorities where it had rejected Ernst and Young’s application seeking refund of input tax credit (ITC) with respect to the services exported by it, on the ground that it was an intermediary.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Satyendar Jain In Money Laundering Case

Title: SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 289

Denying bail to Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case, the Delhi High Court on Thursday said that witness statements show that the Aam Aadmi Party leader is the “conceptualizer, visualizer and executor” of the entire operation. The court also said he is an influential person having the potential to tamper with evidence.

In the order running into 46 pages, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that Satyendar Jain, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain failed to meet the twin conditions provided under section 45 of PMLA and the conditions laid down under section 439 of Cr.P.C. and thus, are not entitled for bail.

The AAP leader has been in custody since May 30last year. His bail application was dismissed by the trial court on November 17, 2022. Notice on his bail plea was issued by High Court in December last year. Order was reserved on the bail pleas on March 22.

Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Hold Stakeholder Consultation For Making Films Friendly For Visually And Hearing Impaired Persons

Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 290

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to hold a stakeholder consultation for making films disabled-friendly for visually and hearing impaired individuals and to ensure implementation of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting along with other relevant Ministries to hold the consultation with film producers, OTT platforms operating in India, television broadcasters, association of theatre owners, organizations consisting of disabled persons, distributors of films and any other stakeholder it may consider appropriate.

Peeping Inside Washroom When Woman Is Taking Bath Amounts To Invasion Of Privacy, Will Attract Offence Of Voyeurism: Delhi High Court

Title: SONU@BILLA v. STATE, THROUGH SHO, PS PASCHIM VIHAR EAST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 291

The Delhi High Court has observed that if a man peeps inside the washroom when a woman is taking bath, it will amount to invasion of her privacy and also attract the offence of voyeurism.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that taking bath in a bathroom by any person, whether a male or a female, is essentially a “private act” as it is taking place inside the four walls of the bathroom.

“It cannot be denied that a woman taking bath inside a closed bathroom will reasonably expect that her privacy was not invaded and she was not being seen or watched by anyone as she is behind closed walls behind a curtain. The act of a perpetrator peeping inside the said bathroom will certainly be regarded as invasion of her privacy,” the court said.

Former PFI Chairman Withdraws Plea For Medical Bail From Delhi High Court, Liberty Granted To Approach Trial Court For Relief

Title: ABOOBACKER E. v. National Investigation Agency

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 292

The Delhi High Court permitted former chairman of Popular Front of India (PFI) E Abubacker to withdraw his appeal challenging the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking bail on medical grounds.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted liberty to Abubacker to approach the trial court seeking appropriate relief in view of the fact that chargesheet has been filed by National Investigating Agency (NIA).

Delhi High Court Quashes Service Tax Demand of Rs. 56.61 Crores Against MTNL

Case Title: Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 293

The Delhi High Court has quashed the service tax demand of Rs. 56.61 crores against Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL).

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that MTNL had received the compensation during the financial year 2015-16, which was prior to May 14, 2016, i.e., the date on which the Finance Act, 2016, came into force and Clause (j) was introduced in Section 66E of the Act. Thus, the surrender of any right to use the spectrum by MTNL prior to the said date would not be chargeable to service tax.

Mere Apprehension Of Victim No Ground To Transfer Rape Case From Male Judge: Delhi High Court

Title: MS. M PROSECUTRIX v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 294

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere apprehension of a victim is no ground to transfer a rape case to special courts designated to deal with POCSO cases or those presided by a woman judge.

Justice Anish Dayal observed that such a situation would create a precedent which would open floodgates where all rape cases would be required to be transferred to special POCSO courts or to woman judges.

Ensure Cattle Do Not Feed On Garbage Or Plastic, Can Have Detrimental Effect On Quality Of Milk: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 295

The Delhi High Court has directed the national capital government to take steps to ensure clean and hygienic milk is provided to the citizens and that cattle do not feed on plastic or garbage in the national capital

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the cattle feeding on garbage or plastic can have a detrimental effect on the quality of milk and a deleterious effect on the people who consume it.

Person In Whose Custody The Goods Are Found To Produce Information Within A Reasonable Time: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rashtriya Transport Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296

The Delhi High Court has held that it would be open for a person found in the custody of goods to produce the relevant information in its possession with respect to the goods within a reasonable time on being required to do so by the Commissioner.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that none of the authorities have even examined whether the documents produced by the appellant established the ownership of the goods in question.

Delhi High Court Orders Constitution Of Joint Task Force To Stop Illegal Sand Mining On Yamuna River Banks

Title: RAVINDER v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 297

The Delhi High Court has ordered constitution of a joint task force, comprising Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Police, to ensure that the illegal sand mining on the banks of Yamuna River is stopped.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the joint task force to regularly monitor the river banks and ensure that "proper pickets" are posted for stopping any kind of illegal sand mining.

Delhi High Court Discharges Vivek Agnihotri In Contempt Case After 'Unconditional Apology', Asks Him To Be Careful In Future

Title: Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 298

Filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri has expressed his remorse and tendered an unconditional apology before the Delhi High Court in a contempt case related to remarks made against Justice S. Muralidhar on microblogging platform Twitter in 2018. Agnihotri was present in the courtroom and said he has "utmost respect" for the institution of judiciary.

In 2018, Agnihotri allegedly retweeted a post against Justice Muralidhar, former judge of the High Court and present Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, in respect of the judge's order quashing the order of house arrest and transit remand of activist Gautam Navlakha in the Bhima Koregaon case.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Vikas Mahajan recalled the show cause notice for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against Agnihotri and also discharged him as alleged contemner.

Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of Notifications Banning Manufacture & Sale Of Chewing Tobacco Products, Sets Aside Single Bench Ruling

Title: COMMISSIONER (FOOD SAFETY), GNCTD v. SUGANDHI SNUFF KING PVT. LTD. AND ORS. and another connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 299

The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge verdict which had quashed various notifications issued by Delhi Government’s Commissioner of Food Safety prohibiting the manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of Gutka, Pan Masala, flavoured tobacco and similar products in the national capital.

Upholding the validity of the notifications, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma allowed the appeals moved by Delhi Government and Union of India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Pursuing Master’s Course In Law Doesn’t Constitute A Break In Practice, Suspension Of Enrolment Not Required: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Karan Antil vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 300

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the eligibility criterion of seven years of continuous practise as an advocate to be appointed as a District Judge, as set out in Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) Rules, 1970 or Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, does not require any inquiry into the actual area of practise as an advocate.

"If a person is enrolled as an advocate for a period of seven years prior to the date of the application, he would satisfy the eligibility criteria unless it is established that he was not entitled for being so enrolled as an advocate; had suspended his practice either voluntarily or otherwise; or had accepted an engagement or vocation, which was impermissible as an advocate," said the court.

Look Into Anomalies In Maintaining ‘Asla Registers’ In Police Stations: Delhi High Court To Commissioner Of Police

Title: SURENDER KUMAR MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 301

The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Delhi Police to look into the anomalies in maintaining the “Asla registers”, which contain details of issuance and return of arms, in all the police stations.

A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba passed the order while setting aside the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life awarded to a policeman for murdering one Jai Kumar.

Lawyer’s Complaint Alleging Injury Can’t Be Disregarded Merely Because He Knows How To Draft It: Delhi High Court

Title: SAWAN v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 302

Denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of causing hurt to an individual by hitting his head with an iron rod, the Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the complainant is a lawyer by profession, his complaint cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that he knows how to draft it.

“The same would imply that an injured person who has his or her complaint prepared by a lawyer will be at better footing, than a lawyer himself who has suffered injuries on the vital part of the body,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said in the order.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Elections Of Equestrian Federation Of India, Appoints Justice Bharihoke As Returning Officer

Title: RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. SPS TOMAR and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 303

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions for conducting elections to various posts of the office bearers to the Equestrian Federation of India and appointed former high court judge Ajit Bharihoke as the returning officer to determine the electoral college.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the elections to the federation have to be held to ensure that a “democratically elected body” is in place and issued directions as a “one time measure” considering that the 19th Asian Games are to be held between September 23 to October 08.

Appointment Offer Can't Be Cancelled Merely On Basis Of Previous Involvement In FIR Without Considering Reasoning In Judgment: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar vs Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 304

The Delhi High Court has said that generalizations cannot be made to deny the offer of appointment merely on the basis of registration of FIR without considering the reasoning in the judgment and the relevant facts and circumstances.

The division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta made the observation while directing the authorities to consider the appointment of a person, whose appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (EXE) in Delhi Police was earlier cancelled due to his alleged involvement in a 2011 case of dowry death. The petitioner Mahesh Kumar was acquitted in the case in 2013.

Decide AIADMK’s Representation For Updation Of Its Amended By-Laws Within 10 Days: Delhi High Court Directs ECI

Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Anr. v. Election Commission of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 305

The Delhi High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to decide within ten days the representation of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) for updation of its amended by-laws with the records of the constitutional body.

The counsel representing ECI told Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav that the Commission will take a call on the representation within ten days.

The court disposed of the plea moved by the political party and its interim General Secretary Thiru K Palaniswamy seeking direction for ECI to consider its representation and upload the latest amended bye-laws dated July 11, 2022 in its records.

Practical Solution Needed At Earliest To Address Issue Of Frequent Vacancy In DRTs: Delhi High Court

Title: INDU KAPOOR v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 306

The Delhi High Court has taken note of the issue of “frequent vacancy” arising in the national capital's Debt Recovery Tribunals, observing that the issue needs consideration and a practical solution has to be found at the earliest.

A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain noted that out of the three DRTs in Delhi, only two are functional currently.

“Now one more Presiding Officer is stated to have put in his papers because of his appointment in another Tribunal. This would leave only one functional DRT with the pendency of over 17,000 cases of all DRTs,” it observed.

Delhi High Court Upholds Notifications Levying GST On Auto Rikshaw, Bus Services Booked Through Apps Like Uber, Ola

Title: UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 307

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of notifications issued by the Union of India levying goods and services tax (GST) on auto rickshaw and bus services booked through e-commerce platforms like Ola and Uber.

A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the notifications do not create an unreasonable classification on the basis of the “mode of booking” availed by the consumers and are not violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court dismissed the petitions moved by Uber India, Pragatisheel Auto Rickshaw Driver Union and IBIBO Group Private Limited along with Make My Trip (India) Private Limited, challenging two notifications issued by Union of India on November 18, 2021.

Merely Seeking Documents Or Clarifications By Issuing Deficiency Memo Will Not Render Refund Application Non Est: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Versus UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 308

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because certain other documents or clarifications are sought by way of issuing a Deficiency Memo, the same will not render the application filed by a taxpayer as non-est.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that if the application filed is not deficient in material particulars, it cannot be treated as non est. If it is accompanied by the "documentary evidence" as mentioned in Rule 89(2) of the Rules, it cannot be ignored for the purposes of limitation. The limitation would necessarily stop upon filing the application.

Union Govt’s Duty To Ensure Fully Functional DRTs On Unhindered Basis, Non-Availability Renders Litigants Remediless: Delhi High Court

Title: PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT LTD v. SULABH KAPUR AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 309

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is the duty of the Union Ministry of Finance to ensure that the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in the national capital are fully functional on an unhindered basis as their non-availability renders litigants remediless.

A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that pro-active measures are expected in such matters especially when they involve the nation’s economy and assets of banks, financial institutions, private entities and citizens.

Advertiser Can Indulge In Hyperbole But Can’t Claim Competitor’s Products As Bad Or Substandard: Delhi High Court

Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v. RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 310

The Delhi High Court has observed that an advertiser can indulge in puffery and hyperbole to reflect its product in a good light, however, it is not open for an advertiser to claim that the product of its competitor is bad, substandard or its use would be detrimental to the interest or well-being of the customers.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that while comparative advertisement is permissible, it cannot disparage the products of the competitors.

Delhi High Court Lays Down Twin Test For Exercising Power Of Attachment Before Passing Arbitral Award

Case Title: M/s Promax Power Ltd vs. M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 311

The Delhi High Court has ruled that though the power to pass an attachment order before an award is rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal may not have been specifically set out in Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), however, such an order could be made if the circumstances so warrant.

Construction Workers' Pension Can’t Be Denied Over Distinction In DoB When Identity Is Established & Claim Is Not Fake: Delhi High Court

Title: RAGHUNATH v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 312

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of pension of construction workers cannot be denied merely due to some distinction in the date of birth, as long as the identity can be established and the claim is not a fake or a ghost claim.

Noting that a large number of construction workers are either illiterate or even semi-illiterate and hail from rural background, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:

“It is nigh possible that their families may not preserve the proper record of date of birth and on most occasions date of birth is filled on the basis of information available with the adults in the family as also certain external events which may have occurred.”

Delhi High Court Upholds Patent Infringement In Favour Of Communication Components Antenna Inc.

Title: ACE TECHNOLOGIES CORP AND ORS. v. COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 313

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Ace Technologies Corp. against Communication Components Antenna Inc., thereby upholding the findings of infringement in the order passed by the Single Judge.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan rejected all grounds of invalidity raised by the Appellants, thereby holding that no credible challenge to the validity of the patent in question had been raised at the interim stage.

Perjury Is A Serious Criminal Offence Which Can’t Be Remedied, Making False Statement To Court Has To Invite Adverse Action: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S GOKALDAS PAPER PRODUCTS v. M/S LILLIPUT KIDSWEAR LTD & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 314

Observing that perjury is a serious criminal offence which cannot be remedied, the Delhi High Court has said that making false statements to the court has to necessarily invite adverse action.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that filing a false affidavit in court is a serious offence that undermines the very foundation of the legal system.

Observing that the legal system relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals who appear before courts, the bench said:

“ When one makes a statement before the court or signs an affidavit, they are making a solemn declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Filing of a false affidavit is a serious offence that undermines the very foundation of the legal system.”

Delhi High Court Restrains 40 Rogue Websites From Illegally Streaming Content Of Netflix, Universal City Studios & Other Entertainment Companies

Case Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC & ORS. v. FZMOVIES.NET & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 315

The Delhi High Court has restrained 40 rogue websites from streaming, hosting and making available to public the original copyrighted content of Netflix, Disney, Universal City Studios and other entertainment companies.

Justice Amit Bansal directed the internet and telecom services providers to ensure compliance of the order by blocking the rogue websites, their URLs and respective IP addresses.

Consuming Packaged Drinking Water Of Inferior Quality Can Be Fatal: Delhi High Court On Sale Of ‘Taza Water Plus’ Bottles In Tata’s Trademark Suit

Case Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD & ORS. v. SARFARAZ KHAN

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 316

Observing that consumption of packaged drinking water which may be of inferior quality could lead to fatalities, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained an individual from manufacturing water bottles under the mark “Taza Water Plus” in a trademark and copyright infringement case filed by Tata Sons Private Limited.

Justice Sanjeev Narula found the individual manufacturer guilty of infringement by dishonestly adopting a trademark which was “nearly identical” to Tata’s trademark “Tata Water Plus” for mineral water bottles and identical packaging.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Rajasthan-Based Restaurant From Using 'Sadda Pind' Mark, Asks It To Pay ₹2 Lakh Costs To NGO

Title: JMD HERITAGE LAWNS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. MR . ANKIT CHAWLA PROPRIETOR SADDA PIND RESTAURANT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 317

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a Rajasthan-based restaurant from using the mark “Sadda Pind”, which is registered in favour of a famous tourist place in Punjab.

Justice C Hari Shankar decreed the suit filed by JDM Heritage Lawns Heritage Private Limited after the defendant, Ankit Chawla, undertook not to use “SADDA PIND” mark for his restaurant.

Member Of Rifle Club Or Association Can Possess Third Firearm Only For Target Practice, Participation In Competition: Delhi High Court

Title: MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 318

The Delhi High Court has said that a member of a rifle club or rifle association cannot possess a third firearm other than for the limited period of using it for target practice or participation in a competition.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the order of a single judge which held that such a member cannot hold more than two firearms by claiming exemption under section 3(2) of the Arms Act 1959.

The bench dismissed the appeal moved by Meet Malhotra, a lawyer and life member of National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) who had three firearms duly endorsed on his license, challenging the order of the single judge.

Delhi High Court Awards Over ₹65 Lakh Enhanced Compensation To Road Accident Victim With 100% Functional Disability; Total ₹1.12 Crore

Case Title: JYOTI SINGH v. NAND KISHORE & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 319

The Delhi High Court has awarded over Rs. 65 lakh enhanced compensation to a woman who met with a motor-vehicular accident in 2011 when she was an 11-year-old school going girl. The accident has left her wheelchair bound for the rest of her life. Jyoti Singh was earlier awarded over Rs. 47 lakhs by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).

Observing that she would suffer “social and personal embarrassment” because of her “uncontrolled bowel movement”, Justice Najmi Waziri said that a just and fair compensation is to be awarded so that she is put in a position as close as to what she could have been without the injury.

Holding Chairpersons Of Large Companies Liable For Dishonour Of Cheques Would Unfairly Expand ‘Vicarious Liability’ Under NI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Yashovardhan Birla vs Cecil Webber Engineering Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 320

The Delhi High Court has said that holding Chairpersons of large conglomerates or companies liable for cheques issued in day-to-day affairs of the business of a company, would unfairly and unnecessarily expand the provisions of vicarious liability under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Justice Anish Dayal made the observation while quashing the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against businessman Yashovardhan Birla, who was a Non-Executive Co-Chairman/ Non-Executive Director of Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking ‘Uniform Judicial Code’ For Judicial Terms, Case Registration Process Across HCs

Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 321

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea moved by Lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking directions for the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report on “Uniform Judicial Code” to make judicial terms, abbreviations, case records and the process of case registration uniform across high courts.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma asked Upadhyay to seek clarification in respect of an order passed by the Supreme Court which had dismissed a similar plea moved by him as withdrawn.

Delhi High Court Imposes Over ₹9.5 Lakh Cost On Three Manufacturers For ‘Blatantly’ Infringing Louis Vuitton Trademarks

Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. SANTOSH & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 322

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of over Rs. 9.5 lakhs on three individuals for blatantly infringing the trademarks of Louis Vuitton and failing to appear before the court in the trademark infringement suit filed by the French luxury company.

Justice Amit Bansal said that this is a fit case for award of actual costs to Louis Vuitton and awarded Rs.9,59,413 as costs to be paid by the individuals.

The court was hearing a suit filed by Louis Vuitton Malletier alleging infringement of its registered and well-known trademarks by three individuals who were manufacturing and selling goods bearing “Louis Vuitton” trademarks.

Right Of Private Schools To Admit Students Of Their Choice Must Be Based On Reasonable And Transparent Criteria: Delhi High Court

Title: AYAN JORWAL (MINOR) THROUGH FATHER DINESH KUMAR MEENA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 323

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of private schools to admit students of their choice has to be on the basis of a criteria which is “transparent, identifiable and reasonable.”

Justice Mini Pushkarna said a school has the autonomy in matters of admission under the general quota and can devise its own criteria for admission. However, the court added that any admission criteria devised by the school has to be “reasonable, rational and non- discriminatory.”

Shraddha Walkar Murder Case: Delhi High Court Restrains News Channels From Broadcasting Contents Of Chargesheet

Title: STATE OF NCT DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 324

The Delhi High Court has restrained all media channels from showing or displaying material of the chargesheet in relation to the Shraddha Walkar murder case.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar issued notice on the plea moved by Delhi Police seeking to restrain the media channels from displaying the contents of the chargesheet collected by it till date.

The court also directed the Union of India to pass appropriate orders to the media agencies from publishing, printing and disseminating “confidential information” contained in the chargesheet and other material collected in the case and to ensure that the guidelines are complied with.

Victim Of Sexual Offences Has Right To Be Heard At Every Stage But No Requirement In Law To Implead Her As Party Respondent: Delhi High Court

Title: SALEEM v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 325

The Delhi High Court has held that there is no requirement in law to implead the victim of sexual offences as a party to any criminal proceedings instituted by the State or the accused.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. and said that a victim now has an “unbridled participatory rights” in all criminal proceedings but that, in itself, is no reason to implead the victim as a party in the matter, unless otherwise specifically provided in Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court noted that section 439(1A) Cr.P.C. mandates that a victim be heard in proceedings relating to bail, without requiring that the victim be impleaded as a party to bail petitions.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Directs Registry To Ensure Confidentiality Of Victims Of Sexual Offences

Delhi High Court Invokes “Direct Benefits” And “Intertwined” Estoppel Theory To Refer Non-Signatory To Arbitration

Case Title: Gaurav Dhanuka & Anr vs Surya Maintenance Agency Pvt Ltd & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 326

The Delhi High Court has invoked the “direct benefits” estoppel theory and the “intertwined estoppel theory” to refer a non-signatory to arbitration.

While referring the builder/developer (non-signatory) of a building to arbitration in a dispute between the owner of the flat and the maintenance agency under the ‘maintenance agreement’, the court observed that its impleadment was mandated not on account of the “group of companies” doctrine but on the ground that the maintenance agency’s authority was directly derived from the developer under the ‘service agreement’ executed between them.

The court said that the developer was deriving direct benefit from the service agreement with the maintenance agency. Further, the said service agreement was inextricably linked to the maintenance agreements containing the arbitration clause.

Court Can't Direct Party To Cross-Examine Witness On Basis Of Photocopies, Speculative Documents: Delhi High Court

Title: S GURBACHAN SINGH & ORS v. GEETA ISSAR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 327

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the trial court which directed a party to a civil suit to cross-examine a witness of the opposite party on the basis of photocopied documents.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the procedure directed by the trial court is “alien to law” and the order “cannot withstand a judicial scrutiny.”

“This possibly cannot be the intent of the legislature while granting the right to cross-examine a witness to conduct cross-examination on speculative documents, which are yet to be determined as to whether they are admissible or inadmissible in law,” the court said.

‘Every Child Entitled To Honour And Respect’: Delhi High Court Restrains YouTube Channels From Publishing Fake Content On Aaradhya Bachchan’s Health

Title: MS. AARADHYA BACHCHAN AND ANR. v. BOLLYWOOD TIME & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court has restrained various YouTube channels from disseminating, publishing or sharing videos or any fake content relating to the mental and physical health of Aaradhya Bachchan, daughter of Bollywood actors Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that dissemination of misleading information relating to a child, especially as regards the physical and mental health, is completely intolerable in law.

The court also added that it has “zero tolerance” in matters where misleading content is published on such platforms relating to physical well being of a child.

“Every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect, be it child of celebrity or of a commoner,” the court said, adding that no technicality can come in its way in such matters.

Assessment Order Issued Without DIN, Invalid; S. 292B Of ITA Not Applicable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 329

The Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) where it had set aside the assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department without quoting the Document Identification Number (DIN).

The court remarked that in view of the CBDT Circular no. 19/2019, dated 14.08.2019, all assessments, appeals, orders, which find mention in paragraph 2 of the 2019 Circular, issued without a DIN, can have no standing in law.

Probe Can't Be Transferred To CBI Merely Because Litigant Feels She Is Being Unfairly Prejudiced: Delhi High Court In Sexual Harassment Case

Case Title: AS vs State and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 330

The Delhi High Court has observed that an order for transfer of investigation is a serious affair, and that investigation cannot be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) merely because the litigant feels she is being unfairly prejudiced.

While dismissing the plea seeking transfer of further investigation in a sexual harassment case from the State Police to the CBI, the court said nothing was placed on record to show to shake the its conscience with respect to the investigation conducted by the police. It added that there had been no dereliction of duties by the police officials.

Either Party To Marriage Can Marry Again If No Appeal Filed Against Ex-Parte Divorce Decree Within Limitation Period: Delhi High Court

Title: SD v. RKB

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 331

The Delhi High Court has held that either party to a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can marry again if no appeal is filed against an ex-parte decree of divorce within the period of limitation.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act enables the parties to marry again only after the decree of divorce has become final.

“Therefore, in case of an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation,” the court said.

No Justification For Not Adjudicating The Notice For More Than 13 Years After Its Issuance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nanu Ram Goyal Versus Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 332

The Delhi High Court has held that there is no justification for not adjudicating the notice for more than thirteen years after its issuance.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the larger public interest requires that the Revenue Department and its officials adjudicate the show cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable time.

The petitioner/assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of executing civil construction works. The petitioner claimed that it executes contracts for civil works awarded by authorities, institutions, and other entities, including the Central Government and the State Governments. The petitioner was awarded the contract for the construction of residential flats by the Housing Board of Haryana, Gurugram.

Deceptively Similar To Mankind's Mark: Delhi High Court Directs Removal Of ‘Nikind’ Mark From Trademarks Register

Case Title: MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. ARVIND KUMAR TRADING AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 333

The Delhi High Court has directed removal of a registered “Nikind” mark from the register of trademarks observing that it was identical and deceptively similar to “Nimekind” mark owned by Indian pharmaceutical and healthcare products company Mankind Pharma Limited.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that the adoption and use of the trademark “Nikind” by a trading entity is very similar to the trademark “Nimekind” and is likely to create confusion in the market.

Pressing Rape Charges In Matrimonial Cases Against Husband, His Family Members Which Are Later Settled Needs To Be Curbed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: AK & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 334

The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of pressing rape charges in matrimonial cases by the complainant against the husband and his family members which are later settled needs to be curbed.

Justice Yogesh Khanna noted that serious offence of rape under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is being pressed during investigation of cases by complainants in a matrimonial lis against the husband and even his family members “putting the entire family to malign.”

The court added that subsequently, the rape charges are being with the settlement of matrimonial disputes between the parties.

High Court Finds Delhi Govt’s Chief And Labour Secretaries Guilty Of Contempt Of Court Over Failure To Enhance Minimum Wages Of Bus Staffers

Case Title: ANTONY RAOD TRANSPORT SOULUTION PVT LTD v. VARSHA JOSHI & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 335

The Delhi High Court has found the Delhi Government’s Chief Secretary, Secretary of Labour and Special Commissioner of Transport guilty of contempt of court for wilfully disobeying a judicial order passed in 2017 directing them to enhance the minimum wages of staff for the operation and maintenance of buses plying in the national capital.

Justice Rekha Palli said that the officials were “deliberately attempting to circumvent and undermine the unambiguous directions” issued by a division bench Bench on December 06, 2017, directing them to enhance the minimum wages by amending the formula envisaged in the Concessionaire Agreement entered into by the Delhi Government with various private stage carriage services providers.

Delhi High Court Upholds CIC Order Denying Information To 2006 Mumbai Train Blast Convict On Documents Related To UAPA Ban On ‘Indian Mujahideen’

Case Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO (IS-I) (IS-IV DESK) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 336

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Central Information Commission denying information under Right to Information Act to a death row convict seeking documents related to the ban on Indian Mujahideen under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed the plea of Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, a death row convict in Mumbai Train Blast case (7/11 Bomb Blast case), challenging the CIC order denying him the information.

The court said that the information consisting of background notes and reports on the ban would have to be viewed not merely from the view of Ehtesham’s right to information but also from the larger issue of country’s safety and security under section 8 of RTI Act.

Continue Initiating Prosecution, Carrying Out Regular Raids Against Those Selling Contaminated Water Or Beverages: Delhi High Court To MCD

Title: REFRIGERATED WATER LICENSEES ASSOCIATION (REGD) AND ANR v. COMMISSIONER SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 337

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to continue initiating prosecution and carrying out regular raids against individuals who are selling contaminated water or beverages like shikanji and soda water on the roadside.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the civic body to ensure that the hawkers are prohibited from selling such contaminated water or beverages.

No All India Judicial Service Exists, Judicial Officer Has To Complete Eligibility Criteria Of Service In Feeder Grade: Delhi High Court

Title: MS. NEETU NAGAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 338

Observing that there is no All India Judicial Service for judges, the Delhi High Court has observed that a judicial officer has to complete the prescribed eligibility criteria of service specified in the feeder grade of a particular State judicial service.

A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed a plea of Neetu Nagar, a civil judge who voluntarily resigned from Haryana Civil Services in 2018 and joined Delhi Judicial Services after clearing the examination.

Consider Start-Ups’ Applications Against Google’s New Payment Policy On Or Before April 26: Delhi High Court To CCI

Title: Alliance of Digital India Foundation v. Competition Commission of India and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 339

The Delhi High Court directed the Competition Commission of India to take up the applications moved by an alliance of start-ups against Google’s new in-app user choice billing policy, and consider the same on or before April 26.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela pronounced the order on the plea moved by Alliance of Digital India Foundation, against the new policy. The plea had also sought direction on the tech giant to keep the same in abeyance till the issue is adjudicated by Competition Commission of India.

Also Read: Proceedings Before Competition Commission Of India Won’t Be Invalidated Due To Vacancy Or Defect In Its Constitution: Delhi High Court

Agreement Is Linked With Family Settlement Which Contains Arbitration Clause - Delhi High Court Allows S. 8 Application To Refer Parties to Arbitration

Case Title: Sanjay Mehra vs Sharad Mehra & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 340

The Delhi High Court has ruled that once there is an arbitration agreement governing the parties, the matter must be referred for arbitration unless there is a “chalk and cheese” case of non-arbitrability.

The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) in a suit for infringement of Intellectual Property rights (IPR).

‘Need For Safe Womb For Female Foetus’: Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Effective Implementation Of PCPNDT Act

Title: MANOJ KRISHAN AHUJA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 341

The Delhi High Court has passed a slew of directions for effective implementation of the Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, observing that there is a need for a “safe womb for female foetus.”

Observing that the enactment has to be implemented with greater care and utilised by those who are affected, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said:

“Sex-determination based abortion is a powerful method of perpetuating gender inequalities. The restriction of access to foetal sex information is directly related to the problem of misogyny, which affects women of all socioeconomic backgrounds not only in this country but globally as well. The purpose of controlling knowledge of sex or gender is to protect expectant women and their unborn child. Despite the fact that sex-selective abortion may not be immediately apparent in the present act, its primary objective is to address this issue.”

Delhi High Court Allows Daiichi Sankyo To Withdraw Rs. 20.5 Crores, Imposes A Cost Of 10 Lakh On IHFL For Abuse Of Process Of Court In 4000 Crore Foreign Arbitral Award Case

Case Title: Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited vs Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 342

The Delhi High Court has allowed Daiichi Sankyo to withdraw over Rs. 20.5 crores lying with the Registrar General of the High Court, which was transmitted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2022 order in the contempt proceedings initiated against the directors of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IHFL) and Indiabulls Ventures Limited (IVL) for flouting the Supreme Court’s restraint orders in relation to the shareholding of Fortis Healthcare Holdings Private Limited (FHHPL) in Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL).

The contempt proceedings had arisen out of the application filed by Daiichi in the execution petition pertaining to a 2016 foreign arbitral award passed in its favour in the arbitral proceedings initiated against the respondents, including the former promoters of FHL- Malvinder and Shivinder Mohan Singh. The award debtors were jointly and severally held liable to pay to Daiichi a sum aggregating to more than Rs. 4000 crores.

Delhi High Court Allows Court Fee Refund Application In Commercial Suit After NCLT Imposes Interim Moratorium On Defendants

Title: PROUD SECURITIES AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED v. URRSHILA KERKAR & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 343

The Delhi High Court has ordered to refund court fee to a plaintiff in a commercial suit after interim moratorium was imposed on the defendants by National Company Law Tribunal in Mumbai under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Expanding the scope of section 16 of Court Fees Act, 1870, Justice Yashwant Varma said:

“The Court notes that once personal insolvency has commenced in terms of Section 95, the interim moratorium would come into play immediately upon the institution of those proceedings. In terms of the commencement of proceedings under the IBC, the plaintiff would now have the solitary remedy of filing a claim and participate in the collective statutory settlement process that would ensue against the defendants. Since the same would also relate to a settlement of claims, it would appear to fall within the scope of Section 16.”

Re-Evaluation Of Answer Scripts Is Subject To Rules Laid Down By Examining Authority, Can’t Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court

Title: ANUSHKA SHARMA (MINOR) THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER, SH. JITENDER KUMAR SHARMA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 344

The Delhi High Court has said that re-evaluation of answer scripts in examinations cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it is always subject to the Rules laid down by the concerned examining authority.

Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a plea moved by a moved by student seeking directions for Central Board of Secondary Examination to re-evaluate and rectify her mathematics subject answer book for Class X board examination, 2018.

Using Celebrity Names, Images For Art Or Satire Permissible Under Freedom Of Speech And Expression; Won’t Infringe Right Of Publicity: Delhi High Court

Title: DIGITAL COLLECTIBLES PTE LTD AND ORS. v. GALACTUS FUNWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 345

The Delhi High Court has observed that the use of celebrity names or images for art, satire, news or music would be permissible as a facet of the right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India and would not infringe the celebrity’s right of publicity.

Observing that the right of publicity cannot be seen as an absolute right in India in the absence of a specific legislation, Justice Amit Bansal said:

“Intellectual property rights, such as trademarks, copyrights and patents, that have a statutory basis in India, are also not absolute rights. The extent of these rights is defined by the statute and the statute itself provides defences or exemptions. Even in jurisdictions where right to publicity is recognized as a statutory right, such as the U.S., the statute itself provides exemptions or defences.”

‘Internet Never Forgets’: Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Authorities To Prevent Dissemination Of ‘Non-Consensual Intimate Images’

Title: MRS X v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 346

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Union Government, Delhi Police and social media intermediaries to deal with cases concerning dissemination of content relating to “non-consensual intimate images” on the internet and to ensure that they are dealt in a manner that minimizes the victim’s trauma and resolves the problem expeditiously.

Observing that the “internet never forgets,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said that once such content is uploaded on the internet, it becomes exceptionally difficult to control its spread.

High Court Sets Aside Delhi University Decision To Debar Congress Student Leader Over Screening Of BBC Documentary On PM Modi

Title: LOKESH CHUGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 347

The Delhi High Court has set aside the decision of the Delhi University debarring PhD Scholar and National Secretary of NSUI Lokesh Chugh from taking examination for a period of one year over his alleged involvement in screening of a recent BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and latter's alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav quashed the decision for “violation of natural justice” and restored Chugh’s admission in the varsity.

“The court is unable to sustain the impugned order dated March 10, 2023. Impugned order is set aside. The admission of the petitioner is restored. Necessary consequences will follow," the court said.

Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites, Internet Service Providers From Streaming Clips Of ‘Jawan’ Movie Without Proper License

Title: RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 348

The Delhi High Court has restrained various rogue websites and internet service providers from copying, streaming or displaying any stills or clips related to the upcoming movie Jawan without proper license.

The film starring bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan is set to be released on June 02.

Justice C Hari Shankar passed the interim order in favour of Red Chillies Entertainments Private Limited in its suit filed against the rogue websites and other defendant platforms seeking to restrain them from committing any infringement in relation to its copyright in the film.

Public Insult By Judicial Order Has Tremendous Impact On Individual’s Reputation, Restrain Must Be Exercised: Delhi High Court

Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTATION v. S K GHOSH & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 349

The Delhi High Court has said that public insult and disrespect by way of a publicly available judicial order has tremendous impact on an individual’s self-esteem and reputation in the society and judicial restrain must be exercised by courts in passing such strictures.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while expunging the remarks made by a trial court against working of officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The trial court had also imposed costs of Rs. 16,000 on CBI for failure to submit draft questions and incriminating evidence due to which recording of statement of accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was getting delayed.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel ‘Burger King’ Trademark, Stays Operation Of Registered Mark ‘Burger King Family Restaurant’

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 350

Refusing to cancel the mark “Burger King” registered in favour of multi-national fast food chain Burger King, the Delhi High Court has stayed the operation of a registered trademark “Burger King Family Restaurant” observing that it is likely to create confusion in market.

Justice Amit Bansal stayed the operation of the mark registered in favour of a restaurant till final adjudication of the rectification petition moved by Burger King.

Passing another order, the court dismissed various rectification petitions filed by Vijender Kumar, owner of Burger King Family Restaurant, seeking cancellation or removal of several marks registered in favour of Burger King from the Register of Trade Marks.

Religious Feelings Can’t Be So Fragile To Be Hurt Or Provoked By An Individual’s Speech: Delhi High Court Quashes Summons Against Raj Thackeray

Title: SWARARAJ @ RAJ SHRIKANT THAKERAY & ANR. v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 351

Observing that religion and faith are not as fragile as human beings, the Delhi High Court observed that religious feelings and sentiments cannot be so fragile to be hurt or provoked by a speech of an individual.

“…I am of the view that India is a country which is unique due to various religions, faiths and languages which co exist with side by side. Its unity lies in this coexistence. Religious feelings and religious sentiments cannot be so fragile as to be hurt or provoked by a speech of an individual,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

The court added that faith and religion “are more resilient” and cannot be hurt or provoked by views or instigation by an individual.

Delhi High Court Allows Minor Rape Victim From Nepal To Undergo Medical Termination Of Pregnancy At LNJP Hospital

Title: GDN v. GNCTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 352

The Delhi High Court has allowed a minor rape victim from Nepal to undergo medical termination of pregnancy with 27 weeks of gestational period.

“Accordingly in view of the fact that though the child and family are Nepalese citizens, this court directs that the termination of pregnancy is effected to as soon as possible by the doctors at LNJP hospital,” Justice Prathiba M Singh ordered.

The court was hearing a plea moved by the victim’s mother seeking direction to allow termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter. It was the mother’s case that her daughter was subjected to a brutal gang rape in Nepal in October last year when she and her husband were working in Delhi.

Delhi High Court Stays Order To Evict Jasmine Shah From Government Accommodation

Title: JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GNCTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 353

The Delhi High Court has stayed a recent order asking Jasmine Shah to vacate the government accommodation. The Aam Aadmi Party leader was removed from the post of Vice Chairperson of Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi last year.

Justice Prathiba M Singh stayed the operation of the order passed on April 25 by the Public Works Department, which also said that Shah be treated as an “unauthorised occupant.”

The court was hearing Shah’s application to restrain the authorities from giving effect to the eviction order, filed in the pending plea challenging his removal from the post.

Agreement Between The Parties “Birth-Giver”; Arbitrator Can’t Grant Pre-Award Interest When Agreement Provided For No Interest: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Limited vs M/s C. E. C. Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 354

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the agreement between the parties has primacy over the powers of the Arbitral Tribunal to grant pre-award interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that since the Agreement between the parties specifically provided that no interest shall be granted on the accrued amount under the contract, the same took away the power of the Arbitrator to deviate and grant his own rate of interest.

Delhi High Court Appoints Abhinav Bindra, MM Somaya On Committee For Overseeing Disbursement Of Funds To Sports Federations

Case Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 355

The Delhi High Court has included two sportspersons in the Committee constituted for overseeing the disbursement of funds released by Union Government to various Sports Federations, to ensure that the funds go only for betterment and training of sportsmen in the upcoming Asian Games to be held in China from September 23 to October 08.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad appointed shooter Abhinav Bindra and field hockey player MM Somaya as members of the Committee which earlier consisted of Secretary of Department of Sports; Director General of Sports Authority of India and the Joint Secretary of Department of Sports.

The bench clarified that the funds will not be spent on the office bearers of the National Sports Federations who are not concerned with the sports persons.