- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Delhi High Court Monthly Digest:...
Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: February 2024 [Citations 119 - 238]
Nupur Thapliyal
3 March 2024 2:58 PM IST
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 119 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 238 NOMINAL INDEXX v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 119DHARAM NARAYAN GAUTAM v. STATE THROUGH ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 120SIYA OMAR THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PRIYANKA GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 121AMIT KUMAR...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 119 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 238
NOMINAL INDEX
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 119
DHARAM NARAYAN GAUTAM v. STATE THROUGH ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 120
SIYA OMAR THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PRIYANKA GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 121
AMIT KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 122
MR MAHENDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 123
Yasin Malik v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 124
CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 125
BAL KISHAN GUPTA v. DDA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 126
CPIO CBI v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 127
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 128
MICHAL BENSON NWAOGU @ CHUNA BENSON v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 129
A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 130
RAVI KUMAR v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 131
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 132
Naman Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 133
Shri Balaji Enterprises & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134
Arvind Kejriwal v. State & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 136
YATIN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 137
S v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 138
PIYUSH AGARWAL v. NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 139
SMT. MAYA KAUR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 140
M/s Opuskart Enterprises & Ors vs Kaushal Kishori Tyagi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 141
SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. MR GYANESHWAR SINGH & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 142
M/s Exotic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Medors Biotech Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 143
NITIN KUMAR TOMAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 144
Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar and Ors (and other connected matters) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 145
Sanjay Singh v. ED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 146
VIVEK KUMAR GAURAV v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 147
VIFOR (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED & ANR. v. MSN LABORATORIES PVT LTD & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 148
SIMRAN KUMARI v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 149
SHABNAM HASHMI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 150
The Braithwaite Burn and Jessop Construction Co Ltd vs Northern Railway 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 151
HIMANSHU DAMLE & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 152
SHALINI KHANNA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 153
Information TV Private Limited vs Jitendra Dahyabhai Patel 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 154
National Research Development Corporation & Anr vs Chromous Biotech Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 155
Praveen Kumar Kapoor vs Raj Kumar Jain and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 156
Air India Limited vs All India Aircraft Engineers Association & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 157
OMA RAM v. STATE OF GNCTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 158
Ranjana Bhasin vs Surender Singh Sethi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 159
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Through Its Co-Ordinator & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 160
M/S Bharti Enterprises Versus Commissioner, Value Added Tax, Department Of Trade And Taxes & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 161
Allied-Dynamic Joint Venture vs Ircon International Ltd, Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 162
Nitin Kwatra vs Stadhawk Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 163
SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC & ORS. vs JOHN DOE AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 164
Sanjay Kumar Verma vs Planning And Infrastructural Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 165
HARSHPAL SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 166
Case Title: Yes Bank Ltd Vs Modi Rubber Ltd & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 167
Anand International And Ors. Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 168
State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd vs Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Delhi And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 169
SHARMISHTHAA ATREJA vs UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 170
Vedanta Limited vs Shreeji Shipping 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 171
Surya Alloy Industries Ltd Vs Union Of India And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 172
M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 173
SWATI SINGH v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 174
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. RAAJ UNOCAL LUBRICANTS LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 175
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 176
PRAVEEN@NAVEEN@VICKY v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 177
DEBARATI NANDEE v. MS. TRIPTI GURHA & ANR and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 178
DR. AMIT KUMAR v. BHARATI COLLEGE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 179
M/S S.K Agencies vs M/S DFM Foods 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 181
VALLABHBHAI PATEL CHEST INSTITUTE v. NISHIKESH TYAGI & ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 182
JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 183
SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 184
RAGHAV AWASTHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 185
TTK PRESTIGE LIMITED v. BAGHLA SANITARYWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 186
VIJAY DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 187
VINOD NAGAR v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 188
Aroh Foundation Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 189
PO v. VP 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 190
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. ANGLO-FRENCH DRUGS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 191
CASTROL LIMITED v. RAJESH KUMAR TUTEJA, TRADING AS KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 192
NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 193
ASLAM & ORS. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 194
MAHESHWARI DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 195
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 196
Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 197
RV v. NAVBHARAT TIMES & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 198
Varun Sood Versus ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 199
Swashbuckler Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Avdesh Mittal & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 200
M/s NHPC Ltd Vs M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 201
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF DELHI WAQF BOARD v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT (GNCT), DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 203
MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 204
Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. vs Samtel Display Systems Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 205
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 206
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 207
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 208
NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CENTRAL LEGISLATION ON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 209
MOHD. ARSHAD AHMAD v. PRAMOD CHAUHAN SHO P.S. NABI KARIM 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus S.A.Chitra Ventures Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 211
Prime Interglobe Private Limited vs Super Milk Products Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 212
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Uniper Global Commodities. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 213
Premoday Khakha v. State and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 214
SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 215
MS. KANISHKA (THROUGH MRS. SANTOSH (MOTHER) v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Versus Relx Inc 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 217
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 218
ALI MOHAMMED v. DG, CISF AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 219
MRS TEJINDER PAL GUJRAL v. S MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 220
Devender Kumar Kashyap vs Chander Muni. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 221
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 222
DR NAMIT GUPTA v. DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 223
Apshara Garments Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 224
STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. TERIIMERIDOORIYAN.COM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 225
Umaxe Projects Private Limited vs Air Force Naval Housing Board 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 226
Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 227
ASHA CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 228
MOHD ARIF ANSARI v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 229
DEEPAK SEHGAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 230
VISHWAJEET SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 231
UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 232
SETU VINIT GOENKA v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 233
Smriti Irani v. Pawan Khera & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 234
MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 235
J.P. SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 236
ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 237
MS. SUJATA KOHLI v. RAJIV KHOSLA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 238
Title: AJAY KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 109
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on a man who sought gag order against Hindustan Times and Dainik Jagran, claiming that the newspaper reports which mentioned his name will have an adverse effect on the cases filed by him in different forums.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by one Ajay Kumar seeking direction on the two newspapers to conceal his identity while circulating any news or article on him.
Title: ANAJALI PANDEY v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 110
The Delhi High Court has ruled that carrying forward of unfilled EWS or DG vacancies by a school to next class in subsequent year does not infracts or violate the Right to Education Act or any other legal provision.
“Admitting of EWS/DG students to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of its entry level class is the statutory obligation of every school which falls within Section 2(n)(iv) of the RTE Act. If a School defaults, there is nothing illegal in directing it to make up the deficit in the next higher class in the next year,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH: ITS SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 111
The Delhi High Court has upheld the provisions concerning anti-profiteering measure and establishment of National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) under the Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 and its Rules, observing that they are in the nature of a beneficial legislation as they promote consumer welfare.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rules 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 and 134 of Rules of 2017.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Include Ayurveda, Yoga In Ayushman Bharat PMJAY Scheme
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 112
The Delhi High Court has dismissed public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy in Union Government's public health insurance scheme Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY).
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected the plea filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in default due to non-prosecution.
Title: Sharjeel Imam v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 113
The Delhi High Court has directed a trial court here to decide and pronounce judgment by February 17 an application moved by Sharjeel Imam seeking statutory bail for having undergone one half of the maximum seven years punishment in a UAPA and sedition case.
The case relates to the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in the national capital against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
Title: R K KAPOOR, ADVOCATE v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 114
The Delhi High Court has said that the working strength in the Delhi Judicial Service shall be “nearly at par with the sanctioned strength” by the end of this year.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora disposed of a PIL filed by Advocate RK Kapoor in 2014 seeking advertising of all the vacancies which were existing then in the lower judiciary.
Delhi High Court Orders Commencement Of Operation Of 'Lokshahi Marathi' News Channel
Title: ZORA TRADERS LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to permit the proprietors of “Lokshahi Marathi” to commence the operation of the news channel forthwith.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the proprietors had taken steps to rectify the defects pointed out by the Union Government and thus, are entitled to run the channel.
Title: KAMAL KANT AND COMPANY LLP v. RAASHEE FRAGRANCES INDIA PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 116
The Delhi High Court has restrained a manufacturer from using “Raashee” mark in respect of pan masala, mouth freshners and other chewing tobacco products in a trademark infringement suit filed by “Rajshree” Pan Masala.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the manufacturer will, however, be free to use the two proposed marks, मेरी राशी and My Raashee, so long as they are used in a manner that the words 'My' or 'मेरी' are of the same font, colour and size as the word 'Raashee'.
Title: Mohammad Hamim & Anr. v. Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 117
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an order directing the Union Government to restrain Facebook India from allegedly promoting “hateful and harmful content” against the Rohingya community on the social media platform.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that the suggestion that there should be prior censorship of any publication on Rohingyas on Facebook is an example of “a treatment that is worse than the disease.”
Title: KASHMIR HARVARD EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 118
The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing transfer of a domain name registered by Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute based in Srinagar to the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the United States of America.
Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed with Rs. 50,000 costs the plea moved by the Kashmir based educational institution against the arbitral award passed on March 04, 2023, under the “.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (IDNDRP).
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 119
The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court order which rejected a husband's plea to direct the wife and the child to give their blood samples for conducting a paternity test in order to establish her “adulterous conduct” and the minor being the “pawn.”
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the husband's appeal and said that whether the wife was involved in an adulterous relationship, as alleged, is an aspect that will have to go to trial.
Title: DHARAM NARAYAN GAUTAM v. STATE THROUGH ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court recently ordered action to be taken against erring jail officers of Tihar Jail over illegal detention of a man, despite bail and release order issued in his favour on January 20, based on an “expired production warrant” issued against him last year in an out-station case.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain directed that the man be released from jail forthwith, observing that he was kept in illegal detention based on a production warrant in a case pending in a court in Uttar Pradesh's Gautam Buddha Nagar which expired last year.
Frame Guidelines On Living Organ Or Tissue Donations By Minors: Delhi High Court To Centre
Title: SIYA OMAR THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PRIYANKA GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 121
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to frame guidelines for reference of the appropriate authority and the State Governments while considering an application for living organ or tissue donations by minors.
Justice Subramonium Prasad ordered that the guidelines under Rule 5(3)(g) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, be framed within two months.
Title: AMIT KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 122
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is high time that the faculty as well as staff members of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) make conscious efforts to counsel and encourage students and to make them understand that though scoring good marks and performing best is important but it is not the most important thing in life.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar emphasised that the varsity's faculty must motivate the students that one can certainly give his or her best without succumbing to the pressures or stress of performing better.
Title: MR MAHENDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 123
The Delhi High Court has observed that where the investigation under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, extends beyond 365 days and does not result in any proceedings relating to any offence, the seizure of a property will lapse and must be returned to the person from whom it was so seized.
“The continuation of such seizure beyond 365 days, in absence of the pendency of any proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, shall be confiscatory in nature, without authority of law and, therefore, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India,” Justice Navin Chawla ruled.
Title: Yasin Malik v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 124
The Delhi High Court has directed the Tihar Jail Superintendent to ensure that medical treatment is duly provided in the jail hospital to Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, convicted in a terror funding case.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta passed the order in a plea moved by Yasin Malik seeking appropriate directions upon the Union Government and jail authorities to refer him for “necessary medical treatment” to AIIMS or any other hospital physically as he is suffering from cardiac and kidney-related ailments.
Title: CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 125
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking an in-depth, thorough and time bound investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into alleged illegalities, violations and siphoning of funds by the promoters of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IBHFL) and its subsidiaries.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that necessary investigation has already been carried out by National Housing Bank (NHB) and the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs is in the process of conducting further probe in the matter.
Title: BAL KISHAN GUPTA v. DDA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 126
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) cannot carry out any demolition on its own whims and fancies and must issue show cause notice and adjudicate the reply or objections raised by a party before initiating such action.
“The respondent (DDA), being the State, is required to follow principles of natural justice and cannot carry out any demolition on its own whims and fancies. Before initiating the process, it is required to issue a show cause notice, call for reply, adjudicate the reply/objections and thereafter carry out any demolition,” Justice Jasmeet Singh held.
Title: CPIO CBI v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 127
Rejecting the argument that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is exempted from provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, the Delhi High Court has said that the probe agency must provide information on corruption and human rights violations, except in investigations which are sensitive in nature.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though CBI's name is mentioned in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, it does not mean that the entire enactment is not applicable to the agency.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 128
Observing that an “adulterous spouse” is not equivalent to an “incompetent parent,” the Delhi High Court has said that the points for consideration in divorce proceedings and custody matters may be co-related but they are always “mutually exclusive.”
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that an adulterous relationship or extramarital affair of either spouse cannot be the sole determining factor to deny custody of a child, unless it is proved that such relationship is pernicious or detrimental to the minor's welfare.
Title: MICHAL BENSON NWAOGU @ CHUNA BENSON v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 129
The Delhi High Court has underscored the need of speedy disposal of cases against foreign nationals who are detained in detention centres despite being admitted to bail, thereby restricting their liberty due to pendency of cases for long period.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the trial courts in the national capital must deal with criminal cases involving foreigners expeditiously, in the interest of equity and fair play, to ensure that their liberty is not restricted or curtailed due to delay in the conclusion of trials.
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 130
While upholding divorce of a couple on the ground of cruelty by wife, the Delhi High Court has observed that pressurising the husband to fulfil “distant and whimsical dreams” not within his financial reach may create a sense of “persistent dissatisfaction” which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a wife should not be a constant reminder of one's financial limitations and said that one must tread carefully between the needs, wants and desires.
Title: RAVI KUMAR v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 131
The Delhi High Court has observed that an authority asking for OBC-Non Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate should keep the cut-off date of its issuance in line with a particular financial year, as any deviation not only creates confusion and uncertainty but also deprives deserving candidates of reservation benefit.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 132
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be sent to jail for more than three months, over non-payment of arrears of maintenance to the spouse, in the subsequent execution petitions filed for recovery of maintenance which may accrue from time to time under the same order.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna analyzed Section 58 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and ruled that the total period in civil prison in execution of a decree in the same suit cannot exceed three months.
Case Title: Naman Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 133
The Delhi High Court has held that as a customs broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters were not traceable after the issuance of 'Let Export Orders' and the export of the goods out of the country.
Case Title: Shri Balaji Enterprises & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the aggrieved party should avail the alternate remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before approaching the court under Article 226 unless there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.
Further, the bench held that the remedy available to a party under Article 226 is not absolute and is at the discretion of the High Court.
Title: THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF DELHI WAQF BOARD v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT (GNCT), DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 135
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to maintain status quo on the land on which the 600-year-old mosque, Masjid Akhonji, was demolished in city's Mehrauli area.
Justice Sachin Datta passed the order while dealing with an urgent application filed by the Managing Committee of the Delhi Waqf Board.
Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 136
The Delhi High Court refused to quash the summons issued against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a criminal defamation case for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video posted by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in 2018.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that retweeting defamatory content will attract the offence of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The court upheld the summoning order passed by the Magistrate and the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting Kejriwal's revision plea against the same.
Title: YATIN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 137
The Delhi High Court has called for recommendations from the Committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Ayush on determining the criteria by which raw materials used in the production of drugs can be categorised into veg, non-veg or more categories.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the Committee, constituted by the Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB), to come out with its recommendations within 10 weeks.
Title: S v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 138
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a 20-year-old unmarried woman seeking medical termination of her pregnancy of 28 weeks.
Justice Subramonium Prasad perused the medical report and observed that there was no congenital abnormality in the foetus nor any danger to the woman to carry on with the pregnancy which will mandate termination of the foetus.
Title: PIYUSH AGARWAL v. NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 139
The Delhi High Court has said that the right of further investigation of the Police does not extend for mere 'reinvestigation' or 'fresh investigation' to be started ab initio.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the purpose of further investigation is also not to prove or establish the defence of the accused.
Title: SMT. MAYA KAUR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 140
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government to make efforts to pay the additional compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs to the kin of those who have died due to manual scavenging, in terms of a last year ruling of the Supreme Court.
“This Court expects that the State will endeavour to pay the balance of Rs.20 lakh to all similarly placed persons instead of forcing the family members of persons who have lost their lives in manual scavenging to approach this Court by filing writ petitions,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Case Title: M/s Opuskart Enterprises & Ors vs Kaushal Kishori Tyagi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 141
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that the disagreements related to the partners' business activities, whether conducted through the firm or the company, fall within the scope of arbitrable matters.
The bench rejected the argument that the firm or the company cannot be brought forth in the arbitration proceedings since neither the firm nor the company are signatories to the arbitration agreement.
Title: SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. MR GYANESHWAR SINGH & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 142
The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a contempt petition moved by Sameer Wankhede alleging non-compliance of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) last year.
The CAT, on August 21 last year, passed the order holding that NCB DGP Gyaneshwar Singh could not have been part of the inquiry team set up to probe alleged procedural lapses by Wankhede in connection with the Cordelia cruise drugs case.
Case Title: M/s Exotic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Medors Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 143
The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed a Section 34 application filed by Exotic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Medors Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
The bench held that an arbitral award cannot be set aside merely because the respondent company's name was struck off from the Register of Companies post-commencement of arbitral proceedings.
Title: NITIN KUMAR TOMAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 144
Denying anticipatory bail to a husband accused of sexually abusing his wife, the Delhi High Court has said that specific incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse recounted in the case “unveil a troubling reality” that “marriage is distorted into a vessel for unchecked dominance and entitlement.”
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar and Ors (and other connected matters)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 145
The Delhi High Court has directed the Indian Banks Association (IBA) to hold a meeting to ensure that all banks follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in respect of providing information on fraudulent transactions to the law enforcement agencies.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the SOP and the manner in which it has to be implemented by all the banks is still a work in progress.
Excise Policy: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To AAP Leader Sanjay Singh In Money Laundering Case
Title: Sanjay Singh v. ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 146
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam.
Jusice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that no ground for grant of bail to Singh was made out.
Title: VIVEK KUMAR GAURAV v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 147
The Delhi High Court has refused to direct the trial courts in the national capital to mandatorily issue notice to the complainant or victim in a criminal case at pre-trial stage.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that such a direction is likely to result in avoidable and undesirable delays in trials and is likely to work against the objective of expeditious trials.
Title: VIFOR (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED & ANR. v. MSN LABORATORIES PVT LTD & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 148
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the product-by-process claim under the Patents Act would necessarily have to be examined on the anvil of a “new and unobvious product”, irrespective of the applicant having chosen to describe the invention by referring to a process of manufacture.
“The mere adoption of the product-by-process format would not result in a novel product being downgraded to Section 48(b) of the Act. It would inevitably have to be tested on principles enshrined in Section 48(a),” a division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.
Title: SIMRAN KUMARI v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 149
The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) to expeditiously decide a plea seeking timely and effective implementation of the stipend or remuneration guidelines for interns and young advocates associated with a chamber or law firm.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the BCI and BCD to decide the representation moved by lawyer Simran Kumari on January 27, in accordance with law.
Title: SHABNAM HASHMI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 150
The Delhi High Court has quashed a trial court order taking cognizance against social activist Shabnam Hashmi in an FIR registered by the Delhi Police over the protest against the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Navin Chawla quashed the trial court order passed on October 08, 2021, and proceedings emanating therefrom.
Case Title: The Braithwaite Burn and Jessop Construction Co Ltd vs Northern Railway
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 151
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta allowed an application made under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, regarding the termination of an arbitrator's mandate under his former employment with the respondent, Northern Railway.
Title: HIMANSHU DAMLE & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 152
Observing that the right to health and breathe and the right to heritage and culture have to be harmonised and balanced, the Delhi High Court has observed that green areas are the lungs of the city and efforts must be made by all statutory authorities to ensure that no illegal and unauthorised construction is carried out on public land dedicated for public purpose.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that undoubtedly life in its expanded horizons includes all that gives meaning to a man's life, including his culture and heritage and the protection of that heritage in its full measure.
Title: SHALINI KHANNA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 153
The Delhi High Court has observed that the issuance of a lookout circular (LOC) cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan defaults or credit facilities availed for business.
“… the Fundamental Right of a citizen of the country to travel abroad cannot be curtailed only because of failure to pay a bank loan more so when the person against whom the lookout circular is opened has not been even arrayed as an accused in any offence for misappropriation or siphoning off the loan amounts,” Justice Subramonium Prasad held.
Case Title: Information TV Private Limited vs Jitendra Dahyabhai Patel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 154
The Delhi High Court bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh, held that a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can only be filed after a notice of arbitration has been issued and there has been a failure to make the appointment of an arbitrator within 30 days.
The bench held that the limitation period arises upon the failure to make the appointment of the arbitrator within 30 days from the issuance of the notice invoking arbitration.
Case Title: National Research Development Corporation & Anr vs Chromous Biotech Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 155
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Pratibha M Singh held that the time limit for limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is absolute in nature and it is impermissible to condone the delay in challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 unless the party demonstrates diligence and bona fide reasons beyond its control for the delay.
Case Title: Praveen Kumar Kapoor vs Raj Kumar Jain and Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 156
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that a dispute resolution clause providing for alternative modes of settlements, including arbitration, and containing the term “will”, doesn't require the consent of the other party for settlement of disputes through arbitration.
The bench noted that in such a case the parties have already reached a consensus ad idem regarding the resolution of disputes, whether through mutual settlement, mediation, or arbitration.
Case Title: Air India Limited vs All India Aircraft Engineers Association & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 157
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela modified its earlier order which restrained the execution of an arbitral award involving Air India as a party. Air India claimed that instead of granting an unconditional stay as requested, the High Court initially restrained the execution of the award by employing a contingency on Air India to pay the whole decretal amount.
Title: OMA RAM v. STATE OF GNCTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 158
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a chargesheet will not be vitiated or invalidated if the documents relied upon by the prosecution are not filed along with it.
“Ordinarily though, all the documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the charge- sheet, nonetheless, if for some plausible reasons, all the documents are not filed along with the charge-sheet, this itself, would not invalidate or vitiate the charge-sheet,” Justice Anoop Kumari Mendiratta said.
Case Title: Ranjana Bhasin vs Surender Singh Sethi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 159
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a party forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 once it has filed the written statement in a civil suit.
Case Title: Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Through Its Co-Ordinator & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 160
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad held that an entity registered under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 after the commencement of the contract cannot be referred to arbitration by MSME Council under Section 17 and 18 of the Act for the claims arisen before its registration.
Case Title: M/S Bharti Enterprises Versus Commissioner, Value Added Tax, Department Of Trade And Taxes & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 161
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to consider refunding the input tax credit (ITC) in light of the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) extending the benefit of the exclusion period.
Case Title: Allied-Dynamic Joint Venture vs Ircon International Ltd, Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 162
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that objections regarding bias against an arbitrator, as outlined in Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be raised after the arbitrator has rendered a decision under Section 31.
Case Title: Nitin Kwatra vs Stadhawk Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 163
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that even if the agreement specifies exclusive jurisdiction on a different court, courts having jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration retain supervisory authority over the arbitral process.
Delhi High Court Orders Meta Platforms, Telegram To Disclose Details Of Accounts Deceiving Investors Under The Name Of 'Sequoia Capital'
Case Title: SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC & ORS. vs JOHN DOE AND OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 164
The Delhi High Court has directed social media giants Facebook and Telegram, along with a Domain Name Registrar (DNR), to submit reports in sealed cover revealing the identities of individuals behind accounts, channels, or websites suspected of deceiving people using the name of 'Sequoia Capital', a US-based venture capital firm.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Verma vs Planning And Infrastructural Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 165
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the intention of the parties to grant exclusive jurisdiction can be derived from the language of the arbitration clause even in the absence of the usage of the term “seat” in the arbitration clause.
Title: HARSHPAL SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 166
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to conclude proceedings initiated against schools which are found in violation of its bye-laws within six months.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking CBSE enquiry into the transactions between education societies and franchise schools and also to inspect affairs of schools operated by Delhi Public School Society (DPSS).
Will Procedure Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Apply To Cases Instituted Before Its Commencement? Delhi HC Refers Yes Bank's Appeal to Larger Bench
Case Title: Yes Bank Ltd Vs Modi Rubber Ltd & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 167
The Delhi High Court has referred an appeal filed by Yes Bank to a larger bench, seeking its guidance on the issue of whether the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 would apply to cases instituted before the commencement of the Act, due to a difference of opinion with an earlier judgement by a coordinate bench.
Case Title: Anand International And Ors. Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 168
The Delhi High Court has held that the period spent in the disposal of the appeal before the CESTAT, i.e., between the filing and the final order being passed, shall not be counted towards the period stipulated under Section 28 (9) of the Customs Act.
Can't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction To Challenge Award Under MSME Act, Without Availing Remedy U/S 34 Of A&C Act; Delhi High Court
Case Title: State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd vs Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Delhi And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 169
The Delhi High Court division bench of the Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that a party cannot file a writ petition under Article 226/227 challenging the arbitration award under Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 without taking recourse to a statutory remedy for challenging an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: SHARMISHTHAA ATREJA vs UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 170
The Delhi High Court intervened in a matter concerning a visually impaired Assistant Professor at Delhi University, who has been asked to vacate her allotted hostel accommodation.
Sharmishthaa Atreja, the petitioner, who is visually impaired, and works as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Delhi approached the court seeking to quash a letter dated 03.10.2023 from the University, which directed her eviction from her allocated residence, citing the need for accommodation for the warden.
Case Title: Vedanta Limited vs Shreeji Shipping
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 171
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if an arbitration agreement stipulates multiple seats of arbitration, thereby, offering a choice to the parties is not void under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 declares agreements uncertain in meaning or incapable of being made certain as void.
Case Title: Surya Alloy Industries Ltd Vs Union Of India And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 172
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that once a party has agreed to constituting an arbitral tribunal, it is precluded from subsequently opposing the appointment of an arbitrator based on the alleged non-fulfillment of pre-arbitral steps.
Case Title: M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that mere expression of "place of arbitration" does not automatically indicate the seat and the determination of the seat should be inferred from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties.
The bench held that the seat was in Delhi as the contract clause specified that the venue for arbitral proceedings would be in New Delhi, and it vested exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of law in Delhi for all disputes arising from the Supply Agreement.
Title: SWATI SINGH v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 174
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that educational campuses cannot be allowed to be converted into political platforms to propagate party politics.
“Discipline in students in educational institutions is of the essence. There can be no compromise in that regard. While there can be no proscription against students engaging in political activities, they cannot be allowed to do so in a manner which would disrupt normal campus life, or the orderly conduct of affairs in the educational institution of which they are a part,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. RAAJ UNOCAL LUBRICANTS LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 175
The Delhi High Court has allowed examination of two witnesses in a commercial suit, residing in the United States of America (USA), to be conducted through video conferencing mode as per the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said courts must foster an environment where the reliability of testimony, whether delivered in person or remotely, remains unimpeachable.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court has constituted a six-member committee to give recommendations and suggestions for ramping up medical infrastructure and optimization of existing resources in various hospitals in the national capital, either owned by the Delhi Government or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
“With only six CT Scan machines being available in nineteen Delhi Government hospitals (which cater to a population in excess of three crores), the infrastructure needs to be ramped up manifold,” a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.
Title: PRAVEEN@NAVEEN@VICKY v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 177
The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal activity within jail premises may be regarded as a “significant departure from the rehabilitative process which may weigh against an inmate's parole eligibility.
“Parole, which is a conditional release from the jail, is granted by the competent authority, and the same is contingent upon several factors including the behaviour of prisoner within the jail premises, and his demonstration of readiness for reintegration into society. Criminal acts committed within the jail premises go against the very purpose of rehabilitation and correcting the prisoners/ convicts,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: DEBARATI NANDEE v. MS. TRIPTI GURHA & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 178
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to adopt cannot be raised to the status of a fundamental right within Article 21 of the Constitution of India, nor can it be raised to a level granting Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) the right to demand their choice of who to adopt.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that there is no right at all to insist on the adoption of a particular child before the final order of adoption is passed by the District Magistrate under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Title: DR. AMIT KUMAR v. BHARATI COLLEGE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 179
The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of sexual harassment by teachers with their students has witnessed a widespread occurrence which is a serious offence and abuse of a position of power.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said teachers are gifted with the power to impart wisdom and shape the minds of children who are the future and it is imperative that such power is not misused.
Case Title: M/S S.K Agencies vs M/S DFM Foods
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta dismissed the notion that the arbitration clause would cease to exist with the termination of the contract. The bench emphasized that the arbitration clause, as part of the contract, should be treated as an independent agreement.
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 181
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee, Mitsubishi Corporation, is not liable to deduct TDS under Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act where the sum paid was not chargeable to tax in India.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher has observed that the assessee could have taken recourse to the DTAAs qua the reformulated question since the provisions contained therein were more beneficial. Therefore, the business connection test had no relevance once it was established that MC Metal (Thailand) and Metal One (Singapore) did not have a PE in India.
Title: VALLABHBHAI PATEL CHEST INSTITUTE v. NISHIKESH TYAGI & ANOTHER
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 182
The Delhi High Court has said that it is a sorry state of affairs in the Constitutional Courts of the country that the poor labourers are forced to fight tooth and nail to get justice for themselves.
While dealing with a case which took more than two decades to reach to a conclusion leaving a poor worker in a “state of profound uncertainty”, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said:
Title: JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 183
Observing that illegal and unauthorised construction is going in the national capital at an unprecedented scale which is unheard of, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) must put structural reforms in place to deal with the issue.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that in today's time, the MCD is continuing to use tapes and strings to seal a building which is why sealing and demolition action is not having a deterrent effect.
Case Title: SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 184
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal moved by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chief Shibu Soren against a single judge's order refusing to interfere with the proceedings initiated by Lokpal of India against him in connection with a disproportionate assets case.
A division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar found no reason to interfere with the single judge's order which held that the writ petition filed by Soren was premature.
Title: RAGHAV AWASTHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 185
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking direction on the Union Government to block an article published by digital news platform 'The Print' on Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), observing that the publication involves facets of freedom of press as well as right to know.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected a plea moved by lawyer Raghav Awasthi seeking framing of guidelines that no media outlet is permitted to publish any source-based speculation as to whether any government officer or diplomat posted abroad is working for Indian Intelligence Agency.
Title: TTK PRESTIGE LIMITED v. BAGHLA SANITARYWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 186
In a trademark dispute between TTK Prestige Ltd and Baghla Sanitaryware, the Delhi High Court dismissed an application by TTK Prestige Ltd seeking to submit additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while emphasizing the necessity for diligence in presenting evidence and adhering to strict deadlines under the Commercial Courts Act.
Title: VIJAY DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 187
The Delhi High Court has granted one month's parole to a murder convict, sentenced to life imprisonment, for accompanying his son for Board examinations, observing that his presence is both reasonable and in the best interest of the child's welfare.
Title: VINOD NAGAR v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 188
The Delhi High Court has said that the bar provided under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cannot be invoked in a case where evidence against the accused “appears to be unbelievable” and “does not seem to be sufficient for the purpose of conviction.”
“The Courts are not expected to accept every allegation made by the prosecution as a gospel truth,” Justice Amit Mahajan said while granting bail to a man in an NDPS case.
Case Title: Aroh Foundation Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 189
The Delhi High Court has held that a mere deduction of TDS by a donor on grants would not disentitle the assessee-NGO from exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
Title: PO v. VP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 190
The Delhi High Court has observed that the doctrine of absolute privilege prohibits entertainment of claims made against judges, counsel, witnesses or parties qua judicial proceedings in Courts or tribunals.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said that the privilege extends to witness statements, testimonies, and documents properly used and regularly prepared for use in judicial proceedings.
Title: GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. ANGLO-FRENCH DRUGS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 191
The Delhi High Court has recently expressed displeasure with a lawyer who joined court proceedings through virtual conferencing mode in a moving vehicle, observing that such appearance “undermines the formalities of judicial process.”
Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing a commercial suit in which the defendant's counsel joined the proceedings through a video conferencing mechanism from a moving vehicle.
Title: CASTROL LIMITED v. RAJESH KUMAR TUTEJA, TRADING AS KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 192
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 12 lakhs as costs and damages to Castrol Limited while decreeing its suit against two individuals manufacturing engine oil products under the mark “Newcast Roi Racing.”
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that although the defendants' mark may seemingly appear distinct from Castrol, it was strategically presented in a manner that creates a deceptive similarity to the latter's registered trademark.
After Settlement, Nokia Withdraws Patent Infringement Suits Against Oppo, Vivo From Delhi High Court
Title: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 193
Nokia Technologies Oy has withdrawn the patent infringement suits filed by it against Chinese smartphone manufacturers Oppo and Vivo, after a settlement was arrived at between them.
Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed as withdrawn the suits as well as the counterclaim filed by the parties, in terms of the Litigation Settlement Agreement.
Title: ASLAM & ORS. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court has ordered for conduct of a meeting to resolve the issue of non-payment of salaries since May 2022 to the Imams, Muazzins and Muftis at the mosques registered with the Delhi Waqf Board.
Justice Sachin Datta directed the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board and the Delhi Government's Principal Secretary of Finance Department to convene a meeting and resolve the issue regarding payment of salaries.
Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Used For Settling Property Disputes: Delhi High Court
Title: MAHESHWARI DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 195
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Senior Citizens Act was enacted for the protection of the senior citizens and cannot be used for settling property disputes.
“The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted with the objective to provide a mechanism to secure maintenance and ensure welfare of senior citizens left bereft of support, financial or otherwise. The Act being a social legislation, ought to be construed liberally and its provisions should be implemented in light of the aims and objectives with which the Act was enacted, which for all intents and purposes in the immediate case herein is to ensure that a senior citizen without any semblance of support is not further deprived of the property and so that there is no threat to their life,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 196
The Delhi High Court has observed that raising a voice against alleged cruelty does not, in any way, indicate that the complainant is not interested in continuing with the marriage or is not ready to adjust.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that what is important is whether the allegations leveled are premised upon facts or concocted.
Title: Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 197
The Delhi High Court ordered an expeditious trial of the suit filed by BharatPe's co-founder Shashvat Nakrani seeking to restrain the fintech company's former Managing Director Ashneer Grover from alienating, transferring, or creating any third-party rights in the “unpaid shares” bought from him.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal requested the single judge, before whom the matter is pending, to frame issues in the suit on February 28, the date fixed for the next hearing.
Title: RV v. NAVBHARAT TIMES & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 198
The Delhi High Court has recently directed various media houses, social media platforms and search engines to take down allegedly defamatory and morphed images of a woman BJP MLA from Bihar.
Passing an interlocutory order in the MLA's suit, Justice Prateek Jalan directed the media houses, social media platforms and an individual, a political associate who she claimed circulated the photos, not to publish the images or other pictures of similar nature.
Case Title: Varun Sood Versus ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court has held that TDS prosecution can't be initiated against any office holder in a corporation without establishing an administrative connection.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar has observed that merely because a person holds an office in a corporate entity, it would not be sufficient to place him as a principal officer until and unless he is established to be connected with the management or administration of the company.
Case Title: Swashbuckler Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Avdesh Mittal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 200
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma rejected an argument that a letter of intent was a non-binding agreement and noted that the arbitration agreement contained in the letter of intent should be treated as an independent and binding agreement. Further, it held that the referral court at Section 11 stage should not examine or impound an unstamped instrument and should leave it for determination by the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: M/s NHPC Ltd Vs M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that partial setting aside of an award is valid and justified as long as the part proposed for annulment is independent and can be validly incised without affecting other components. The bench held that it held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the Court considers the power to partially set aside, it does not amount to a modification or variation of the entire award.
Title: THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF DELHI WAQF BOARD v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT (GNCT), DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking permission to offer prayers and visit the graves on the occasion of Shab-e-Barat at the site of recently demolished 600-year-old mosque, Masjid Akhonji, in city's Mehrauli area.
The mosque, along with Madrasa Bahrul Uloom and various graves, were demolished by the DDA on January 30.
Case Title: Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mohan Kumar Ohri held that an arbitral award lacking adequate reasoning suffers from the inherent flaw of patent illegality. It emphasized that a reasoned order should be proper, intelligible, and adequate, and failure to adhere to these standards can lead to challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea moved by Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra seeking to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from leaking any “confidential or unverified information” to the media in relation to the investigation against her under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).
Case Title: Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. vs Samtel Display Systems Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta held that an award suffering from internal contradictions is considered perverse and patently illegal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has ordered that no jagran or religious program will be held in the premises of city's Kalkaji mandir without permission of the Administrator, who has been appointed by the Court and given full management and control of the temple.
Title: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court disposed of a plea moved by the Delhi University against protests carried out by Dr. Ritu Singh, a former professor of the varsity, and her followers in the North Campus.
Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 208
The Delhi High Court has recently objected to the filing of an appeal on behalf of a person who went missing even before the impugned order was passed by the trial court, observing that such practice, if allowed, can lead to catastrophic consequences.
Title: NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CENTRAL LEGISLATION ON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 209
The Delhi High Court has ruled that denial of benefits to construction workers by the Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board on the ground that the worker has failed to pay contribution to renew his or her registration after the validity of the registration has come to an end is incorrect.
Title: MOHD. ARSHAD AHMAD v. PRAMOD CHAUHAN SHO P.S. NABI KARIM
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to provide police assistance to the Imam of Masjid Dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Baqi Billah, situated in the city's Paharganj area, and to ensure that the festival of Shab-e-Baraat is carried out unhindered.
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus S.A.Chitra Ventures Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 211
The Delhi High Court has held that the AO, under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, would have no jurisdiction to pass a draft assessment order in the absence of "any variation in the income or loss returned," which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee.
Case Title: Prime Interglobe Private Limited vs Super Milk Products Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that in cases where there are analogous arbitration proceedings related to other agreements, there is no need to invoke fresh arbitration by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. It held that there isn't a notice requirement under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Uniper Global Commodities.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the court under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot determine the admissibility, relevancy, materiality, and weight of any evidence, as doing so would amount to impermissible interference with the Tribunal's proceedings.
Title: Premoday Khakha v. State and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 214
The Delhi High Court on Monday denied default bail to Delhi Government's suspended Women and Child Development Department officer Premoday Khakha, accused of raping a minor girl over several months and impregnating her. Court also denied relief to Khakha's wife.
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 215
Observing that those who suffer from disabilities as recognized by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, are no different from anyone, the Delhi High Court has said that the more appropriate term to use for such persons would be “differently abled” rather than “disabled”.
“The RPWD Act, and all laws which strive to provide support to a person suffering from a disability, merely seek to neutralize the disability, so that the person's ability matches those of the rest of his peers, and they stand on an equal footing. This is the heart of the theory of equal opportunity, which pervades Article 14 and, indeed, the Constitution as a whole,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: MS. KANISHKA (THROUGH MRS. SANTOSH (MOTHER) v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Delhi High Court observed that the Central Board of Secondary Examination (CBSE) is expected to be vigilant regarding the entitlement of the students to appear in the examination.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that the CBSE has no right to stop a student from entering the examination hall, after issuing admit card.
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Versus Relx Inc
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 217
The Delhi High Court has held that subscription to legal databases cannot be construed as a transfer of copyright.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the subscription fees of the legal database LexisNex piad by an Indian subscriber neither comprise a transfer of copyright nor do they include a transfer of a right to apply technology and other related aspects, which are spoken of in Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 218
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to complete the formalities of the selection process for filling vacancies in all the Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) in the national capital by April 15.
Title: ALI MOHAMMED v. DG, CISF AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 219
The Delhi High Court has said that Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel can be deployed anywhere in India or abroad as per operational requirements and the administrative or operational exigencies can never be sidelined or disregarded.
Title: MRS TEJINDER PAL GUJRAL v. S MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 220
The Delhi High Court has found the President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee guilty of intentionally not complying with a 2021 ruling that ordered payment of arrears of salaries to teachers and staff of Guru Harkrishan Public School (GHPS), in view of fixation of their pay under the 6th and 7th Pay Commission.
Case Title: Devender Kumar Kashyap vs Chander Muni.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 221
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Rekha Palli held that when a party provides its incorrect address in proceedings cannot be permitted to urge that the invocation notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not served at the correct address.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 222
The Delhi High Court has said that it is unfortunate that in matrimonial litigations, the parties do not come out with their true income.
“Effort is always made to conceal the true income by the husband in order to avoid payment of maintenance to the wife and the child. On the other hand, effort is made by the wife to claim exorbitant amount as the income of the husband,”Justice Navin Chawla said.
Title: DR NAMIT GUPTA v. DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 223
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging a notice issued by the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) directing any person practicing allopathy, the modern scientific system of medicine, in the national capital to be mandatorily registered with it, as per the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997.
Case Title: Apshara Garments Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 224
The Delhi High Court has quashed the show cause notice, which was lacking reasons for retrospective cancellation of GST registration.
Title: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. TERIIMERIDOORIYAN.COM & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 225
The Delhi High Court has granted a dynamic injunction in favour of Star India as it restrained 21 rogue websites from illegally streaming its content, including TV shows and movies broadcasted on STAR channels and OTT platform Disney+ Hotstar.
Case Title: Umaxe Projects Private Limited vs Air Force Naval Housing Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 226
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that filing of the Section 29(A) application by a party did not amount to a waiver of its right to challenge the arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that filing an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act for an extension of the mandate did not amount to an express waiver in writing under Section 12(5).
Delhi High Court Orders Third-Party Audit Of MCD, DDA Public Toilets
Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 227
The Delhi High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to get an audit done from a Union Government empanelled third-party auditor.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Jan Sewa Welfare Society to ensure the availability of hygienic public urinals with clean water and electricity supply in the city.
Title: ASHA CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 228
The Delhi High Court has refused to direct the Union Government and Doordarshan to open a new 24 hours PAN India Doordarshan channel for the Sindhi Community, observing that it is purely a governmental function.
Title: MOHD ARIF ANSARI v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 229
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the intent of notifying a place under Section 8 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is to ensure that it is not used for unlawful activities and is not to seize properties of innocent owners who are neither members of the unlawful association nor involved in unlawful activities.
Take Steps To Fill Vacancies In Municipal Taxation Tribunal: High Court To Delhi Govt
Title: DEEPAK SEHGAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 230
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to fill up the vacancies in the Municipal Taxation Tribunal and ensure that it is in place.
“It is hoped and expected that expeditious steps shall be taken in this regard,” Justice Sachin Datta said in an order passed on February 14.
Title: VISHWAJEET SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court ruled that Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, does not fetter grant of bail to an accused on the ground of undue delay in the completion of trial.
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 232
Modifying an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in August last year, the Delhi High Court has set aside the direction of passing a reasoned and speaking order before any action is initiated against Sameer Wankhede on the basis of an enquiry report in relation to the Cordelia cruise drugs case, after granting a personal hearing to him.
Title: SETU VINIT GOENKA v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 233
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea challenging the normalization procedure based on percentile score adopted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) for JEE (Mains) examination for entrance into the various Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs).
Case Title: Smriti Irani v. Pawan Khera & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 234
The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction order passed in 2022 in favour of Union Minister Smriti Irani in her defamation case against three Congress leaders, on the aspect of taking down of content by social media intermediaries.
Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 235
The Delhi High Court was told that the General Body Meeting of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to discuss the aspect of nomination of women advocates as its Executive Members will be conducted within two months.
Title: J.P. SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 236
The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking merger of various cities in North India with the national capital, and shifting Punjab's High Court to Jalandhar instead of Chandigarh.
Title: ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 237
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by ArcelorMittal seeking approval and clearance to commence mining operations in Jharkhand's Saranda Forest Division.
Title: MS. SUJATA KOHLI v. RAJIV KHOSLA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 238
The Delhi High Court has discharged Rajiv Khosla, lawyer and former High Court Bar Association President Rajiv Khosla, in the contempt case filed by retired judicial officer Sujata Kohli.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that Kohli was not able to produce any material which may compel the court to form an opinion that Khosla committed any criminal contempt.