Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: January 2024 [Citations 1 - 117]

KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GIRDHAR INDUSTRIES AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1

VINOD KUMAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 2

CIT Versus RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 3

Neelam Azad v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 4

Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 5

Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 6

SANJAY SINGHAL v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 7

HARE KRISHNA PATHAK v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 8

BHAVNEET SINGH v. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 9

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 10

MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 11

AMAR SINGH BHATIA & ANR. v. SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 12

Hyatt International-Southwest Asia Ltd. Versus Additional Director Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 13

R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 14

POOJA SHARMA BAJAJ v. KUNAL BAJAJ & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 15

PUMA SE v. INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 16

RAHUL DILIP SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 17

RS Wires Industries Versus Sales Tax Officer Class 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 18

SUNIL KUMAR ALEDIA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 19

Harshdip Singh Dhillon Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 20

M/S Mittal Footcare Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 21

Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 22

MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 23

T.V.TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. SAMEET THAKKAR & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 24

M/S Angelantoni Test Technologies Srl V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1) & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 25

NILKANTH DAS AND ORS. v. CBSE AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 26

Bar Council Of India Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 27

NIVEDITA JOSHI v. ABHISHEK RAY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 28

M/S BLUE HEAVEN COSMETICS PVT LTD v. MR ANISH JAIN TRADING AS M/S NAVKAR COSMO & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 29

MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 30

NEERAJ SINGAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 31

MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 32

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 33

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Bt Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 34

Amway India Enterprises Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Vat, Delhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 35

KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 36

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 37

A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 38

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. KAVITHA KURUGANTI and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 39

SAINT GURMEET RAM RAHIM SINGH INSAN SHISHAYEVA GADDINASHIN SHAH SATNAM SINGH JI MAHARAJ V/s YOUTUBE LLC AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 40

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VIRENDRA SINGH ADVOCATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 41

NOVARTIS AG v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 42

HARDESH KUMAR v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 43

ARIF KHAN v. THE STATE AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 44

OJAS SATYAWALI THROUGH HIS MOTHER BHAWNA PATHAK v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 45

NASHETA ZAIDI THROUGH GUARDIAN GROUP CAPTAIN IMRAN H ZAIDI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 46

Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 47

KAUM FAQEER SHAH v. MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 48

Jatin Mohanty v. Election Commission of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 49

MR. TARUN TEJPAL AND ANR v. MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 50

CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 51

M/S Een Een Sales Corporation Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 52

VIPUL JAIN v. STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 53

RAVI KAPOOR v. STATE-NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 54

Nipun Malhotra vs Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 55

X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 56

JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 57

SAGA MUSIC PRIVATE LIMITED v. ROGER DAVID & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 58

ALLIED BLENDERS @ DISTILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HERMES DISTILLERY PRIVATE LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 59

PCIT Versus M/S Wig Investament 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 60

Oguljeren Hajyyeva Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 61

Allied-Dynamic JV v. Ircon International Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 62

Simentech India Pvt Ltd v. BHEL 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 63

THE INDIAN EXPRESS P LTD v. THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS WORKERS UNION REGD AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 64

Bejon Kumar Misra v. GNCTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 65

MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 66

NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 67

APOORVA Y K v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 68

DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 69

MAKSOOD AHMAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 70

Vivek Aggarwal v. Hemant Aggarwal 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 71

Jatinder Kaur & Ors v. Late Jagjit Singh & Investament 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 72

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Versus Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 73

Mr. Gajendra Mishra v. Pokhrama Foundation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 74

A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 75

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 76

ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77

KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. MR ASHISH SINGH AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 78

OXFAM INDIA v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 79

SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 80

CPIO v. Girish Mittal 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 81

A.V. PREM NATH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 82

R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 83

AASHISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 84

PIYUSH GUPTA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 85

MS KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 86

Aryan Timber Store Through Its Prop Virender Kumar Versus Sales Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 87

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 88

INFINITI RETAIL LIMITED vs M/S CROMA -SHARE & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 89

Techfab International Pvt Ltd v. MIDIMA Holdings Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 90

SH. FIROZ AHMAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 91

STARBUCKS CORPORATION & ANR. v. NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 92

NEETU GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 93

Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar v. Rahul Gandhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 94

DR. SNEHASHISH BHATTACHARYA & ORS. v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 95

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES v. SOM PAN PRODUCT PVT. LTD. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 96

MOHIT PILANIA v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 97

SK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 98

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 99

MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 100

JAIDEEP SINGH SENGER@ATUL SINGH v. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 101

LEVI STRAUSS AND CO v. NAB PRODUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 102

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 103

LOTUS HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DPKA UNIVERSAL CONSUMER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 104

Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Gunocen Inc 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 105

M/s K.S. Jain Builders v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 106

Vingro Developments Pvt Ltd v. Nitya Shree Developers Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 107

Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Deputy Commissioner of Stamp Registration & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 108

Goodwill Acquired After 'Terminus Ad Quem' Inconsequential: Delhi HC Declines Interim Relief To 'Khadi' In Trademark Infringement Suit

Title: KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GIRDHAR INDUSTRIES AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass interlocutory injunction order against two entities from using “Girdhar Khadi” and “BR Khadi” marks in a trademark suit filed by Khadi and Village Industries Commission.

Justice C Hari Shankar however directed the two manufacturers to maintain accounts of the manufacture, stock and sales of their products bearing the two marks and file accounts with the court every three months, pending disposal of the suit.

Accused Can't Be Denied Right To File SLP On Ground Of Unsatisfactory Jail Conduct: Delhi High Court Grants Parole

Title: VINOD KUMAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 2

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to effectively pursue legal remedy by filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which is the last hope for availing justice, cannot be denied to an accused on the ground of “unsatisfactory conduct.”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that such a right cannot be withheld or the remedy denied to an accused on the ground that free legal aid is available in the jail and SLP can be filed from there.

Actual Interest Expenditure Had To Be Adjusted Against Income Earned By Way Of Interest: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 3

The Delhi High Court has held that actual interest expenditure had to be adjusted against the income earned by way of interest.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the assessee has parked its surplus funds in fixed deposits of the bank from which it earned interest income. At the same time, the assessee has also paid interest to the bank. The interest earned has to be netted off with interest expenditure.

Parliament Security Breach: Delhi High Court Dismisses Accused Neelam Azad's Plea Seeking Release From Custody

Title: Neelam Azad v. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 4

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition moved by accused Neelam Azad, arrested over the security breach in the Parliament last month, seeking immediate release from police custody.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that the plea is not maintainable as Azad has already moved bail plea before the trial court.

“…the petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly,” the bench said.

Accused Can't Be Coerced To Reveal Passwords Of Digital Devices While Trial Is Ongoing: Delhi High Court Grants Bail

Title: Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 5

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that an accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the passwords or any other similar details of the digital devices or gadgets seized during investigation while the trial is ongoing, in view of the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that the investigating agency cannot expect an accused to "sing in a tune which is music to their ears", more so when such an accused enjoys the Constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Delhi High Court Closes Proceedings Against Anand Ranganathan In Criminal Contempt Case For Tweets Against Justice S Muralidhar

Title: Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 6

The Delhi High Court has closed the criminal contempt proceedings against author Anand Ranganathan in relation to a suo motu case initiated by the court regarding certain tweets made in 2018 against former Justice Muralidhar.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain noted that the original initiator of the “contemptuous allegations” against the judge, including editor of Tamil political weekly Thuglak and RSS Ideologue S Gurumurthy S Gurumurthy and filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri, have already been discharged in the matter.

Delhi High Court Orders Constitution Of Joint Task Force To Inspect Infra Of Coaching Centres In Mukherjee Nagar

Title: SANJAY SINGHAL v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 7

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Fire Services (DFS) to constitute a Joint Task Force which may examine and inspect all coaching and teaching centres situated in city's Mukherjee Nagar area.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja ordered that the Joint Task Force will draw up a comprehensive report indicating the “infractions and other non-conforming aspects” that may come to its notice on the issue.

[KVS Admissions] EWS Certificate Must Be Obtained From State Where Verification Possible, Not Where School Is Situated: Delhi High Court

Title: HARE KRISHNA PATHAK v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 8

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a candidate applying for admission in a Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) anywhere in the country under the EWS category need not furnish an income certificate issued from the State Government where the school is situated but such certificate is required to be furnished by an officer of the specified rank in the State where such verification is possible.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that KVS being an institution established and controlled by the Central Government, the “appropriate government” for notifying the annual income threshold to decide whether a child belongs to the EWS Category is the Central Government.

Persons With Disabilities Must Be Given Choice To Be Posted At Preferred Place, May Be Exempted From Rotational Transfers: Delhi High Court

Title: BHAVNEET SINGH v. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 9

The Delhi High Court has observed that the State must ensure that transfers and job postings of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) is done in a way that they shall be given the choice to be posted at their preferred place of posting, and may even be exempted from rotational transfers as mandated for other employees.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the State shall also ensure that PwDs are not subjected to unnecessary and relentless harassment by being transferred or posted at places where they are unable to get an environment which is conducive for their working.

Can Issue Anti-Suit Injunction If Matrimonial Proceedings In Foreign Courts Concerning Non-Resident Indians Oppressive: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 10

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Indian Courts can issue anti-suit injunction if matrimonial proceedings in a foreign court, concerning non-resident Indians are oppressive or vexatious.

While dealing with a case under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta flagged the growing trend of invoking jurisdiction of foreign courts by one of the parties, while the other party may prefer to invoke the jurisdiction of Indian courts.

Mahua Moitra Withdraws From Delhi High Court Plea Against Eviction From Govt Bungalow, Will Approach Directorate Of Estates

Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 11

Trinamool Congress leader Mohua Moitra has withdrawn from the Delhi High Court her plea challenging the cancellation of her government accommodation following her expulsion from the Lok Sabha in connection with the 'cash-for-query' allegations.

Moitra's counsel told Justice Subramonium Prasad that the TMC leader will approach the Union Government's Directorate of Estates for considering her case in accordance with the relevant Rules and to permit her to continue occupation of the government accommodation.

As the plea was withdrawn, the court directed the Union Government to take steps to evict Moitra from the government accommodation “only in accordance with law.”

Delhi High Court Fixes Timelines For Interviews, Decision Making Process In Organ Transplant Cases

Title: AMAR SINGH BHATIA & ANR. v. SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 12

The Delhi High Court has fixed timelines to be followed by the Authorisation Committee under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, for conducting interviews and decision-making process in organ transplant cases.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that a time-bound approach is crucial to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of organ transplantation protocols and would also be in furtherance of the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Use Of Trademark Incidental To Advertisement Or Publicity Is A Business Income, Not Royalty And FTS: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hyatt International-Southwest Asia Ltd. Versus Additional Director Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 13

The Delhi High Court has held that the use of trademarks incidental to advertisement or publicity was held as neither royalty nor fees for technical services (FTS) but as business income.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that merely because the extensive services rendered by the assessee in terms of the Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) also included access to written knowledge, processes, and commercial information in furtherance of the services, this cannot lead to the conclusion that the fee received by the assessee was in the nature of royalty as defined under Article 12 of the DTAA.

'Right To Reproductive Choice Includes Right Not To Procreate': Delhi High Court Allows Woman To Terminate Pregnancy After Husband's Death

Title: R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 14

Observing that the right to reproductive choice includes the right not to procreate, the Delhi High Court has allowed a woman to terminate her pregnancy of 29 weeks as she was suffering with extreme trauma after her husband's death.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the woman should be permitted to terminate her pregnancy because allowing her to continue with the same can impair her mental stability as she was showing suicidal tendencies.

Bigamy | Inability To Prove 'Saptapadi' Qua Partner's Second Marriage At Summoning Stage Can't Be Misused To Evade Legal Consequences: Delhi HC

Title: POOJA SHARMA BAJAJ v. KUNAL BAJAJ & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 15

The Delhi High Court has observed that the absence of law making adultery an offence cannot provide individuals a “blanket immunity” where they can marry others in secrecy during subsistence of their first marriage.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added that such individuals cannot later claim that the first partner must prove that the second marriage was solemnized after performing essential rites and ceremonies, even for summoning the individual as an accused for the offence of bigamy, since adultery is no longer an offence.

E-Commerce Platforms Must Protect Intellectual Property Rights Of Sellers, Can't Become Safe Haven For Infringers: Delhi High Court

Title: PUMA SE v. INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 16

The Delhi High Court has observed that an e-commerce platform cannot become haven for infringers and it must protect the intellectual property rights of others.

“E-commerce websites are commercial ventures, and are inherently profit oriented. There is, of course, nothing objectionable in this; but, while ensuring their highest returns, such websites have also to sedulously protect intellectual property rights of others,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Bureau Of Immigration Can't Delete LOC On Its Own Without Originator's Request: Delhi High Court

Title: RAHUL DILIP SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 17

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Bureau of Immigration has not been vested with the jurisdiction to delete a look out circular (LOC) on its own without there being any request from the Originator.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Bureau of Immigration cannot sit as an Appellate Authority and see if there is sufficient material for opening the LOC, as the materials of such nature can only be questioned in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Order Cancelling GST Registration With Retrospective Effect Bereft Of Reasons, Liable To Be Quashed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RS Wires Industries Versus Sales Tax Officer Class

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 18

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling GST registration with retrospective effect, bereft of reasons.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that one of the consequences of cancelling a taxpayer's registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer's customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such a period.

Delhi High Court Orders Maximum Registration Of Construction Workers Under 1996 Law, Calls For Simpler Renewal Process

Title: SUNIL KUMAR ALEDIA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 19

The Delhi High Court has directed the Member Secretary of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board to take proactive steps to ensure that maximum number of construction workers in the national capital are registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that steps should be taken to ensure that renewal and registration process is made simple and all help is extended to illiterate workman in getting himself or herself registered.

Employee Accepted Salary After TDS Deduction, Employer Responsible For Non-Deposit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Harshdip Singh Dhillon Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 20

The Delhi High Court has held that the employee accepted salary after TDS deduction and the employer is responsible for non-deposit of TDS.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the petitioner/employee, having accepted the salary after the deduction of income tax at source, had no further control over it in the sense that thereafter it was the duty of his employer, acting as a tax collecting agent of the revenue, to pay the deducted tax amount to the Central Government in accordance with law.

GST ITC Refund Can't Be Rejected Merely On Ground Of Non-Supply Of Authenticated Document: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Mittal Footcare Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 21

The Delhi High Court has held that an input tax credit (ITC) refund cannot be rejected merely on the grounds of the non-supply of authenticated documents.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the petitioner had uploaded documents; however, the system did not register the documents that were uploaded by the petitioner. The appellate authority records that the petitioner had not submitted any documents, which were submitted along with the reply.

Section 34 Petition Is Non-Est If Filed Without The Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 22

The Delhi High Court has held that non-filing of the arbitral award along with the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act is a fatal defect which renders the filing as non-est.

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that filing of an award along with the challenge petition is not an empty procedural requirement as sans the award, the Court is left absolutely clueless to comprehend the grounds taken in the objection Petition and thereby unable to decide whether the Petition merits Notice to be issued or outright rejection.

Arbitral Tribunal Can Go Beyond To Grant Relief To Aggrieved Party When Contract Illegally Restricts Remedies : Delhi High Court

Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC,

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 23

The Delhi High Court has held that an Arbitral Tribunal can transgress the boundaries of the contract to grant relief to aggrieved party when the contract illegally restricts or does not provide for sufficient remedies.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that in a situation which is not anticipated in the agreement, the tribunal can transgress the boundaries of the agreement and grant relief to the aggrieved party which it is rightfully entitled to. It held that the tribunal cannot withhold a relief merely because of the explicit provision for such a relief in the agreement.

Delhi High Court Holds 'X' User Guilty Of Contempt Of Court For Making 'Defamatory Tweets' Against TV Today Despite Restraint Orders

Title: T.V.TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. SAMEET THAKKAR & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 24

The Delhi High Court recently held an 'X' (formerly 'Twitter') user guilty of committing contempt of court for making “defamatory tweets” against TV Today Network despite restraint orders passed against him in 2020.

Justice Rekha Palli directed Thakkar to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, taking into account that the offending tweets were removed by him and that he had tendered an unconditional apology for making the tweets.

Investment In Shares In Indian Subsidiary 'Capital Account Transaction', Not Income: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Angelantoni Test Technologies Srl V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1) & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 25

The Delhi High Court has held that investment in shares by a company in its Indian subsidiary is a “capital account transaction” which does not give rise to any income. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as income for taxation.

Placing reliance on the earlier decision of Delhi High Court in Nestle SA v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna held:

“It is settled law that investment in shares in an Indian subsidiary cannot be treated as 'income' as the same is in the nature of “capital account transaction” not giving rise to any income.”

School Can't Seek Correction Of Student's Internal Assessment Marks After Uploading On CBSE Website: Delhi High Court

Title: NILKANTH DAS AND ORS. v. CBSE AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 26

The Delhi High Court has observed that once a school uploads the internal assessment marks of a student on the website of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), it cannot seek any correction even if there was an error while uploading the marks.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that utter chaos would result if schools are permitted to commit errors while uploading students' marks on CBSE's website and thereafter, call upon the Board to correct the marks awarded at their end.

Delhi High Court Directs Income Tax Commissioner To Accept BCI's Form No.10 After Condoning Delay

Case Title: Bar Council Of India Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 27

The Delhi High Court has directed the income tax commissioner to accept Form No. 10 submitted by the Bar Council of India (BCI) after condoning the delay.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of the assessee in certain circumstances and authorize the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10.

Artist Nivedita Joshi Files Copyright Infringement Suit Before Delhi HC Against Music Composer, Producer Of 'Life Is Good' Film

Title: NIVEDITA JOSHI v. ABHISHEK RAY & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 28

Artist Nivedita Joshi has filed a copyright infringement suit before Delhi High Court against the music composer and producer of film “Life is Good” which was released in 2022, alleging that the lyrics of the song “Palko ke Palne” written by her in 2011 were used in the movie without informing her.

Justice Anish Dayal directed the film producer, Anand Shukla, to maintain proper accounts of all royalties received on account of dissemination of the song in question, through all possible media.

Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturers From Selling Cosmetic Products Using Similar Packaging Of 'Blue Heaven'

Title: M/S BLUE HEAVEN COSMETICS PVT LTD v. MR ANISH JAIN TRADING AS M/S NAVKAR COSMO & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 29

The Delhi High Court recently restrained two manufacturers from selling cosmetic products under the mark 'Namo Navkar' using imitative and identical packaging of Blue Heaven's eyeliner, mascara and kajal.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the use of identical artwork and packaging is likely to create deception amongst the consumers that the products of the two manufacturers also emanate from that of Blue Heaven.

Special Court Not Barred To Try Offences Against Person Who Ceased To Be MP/MLA At Time Of Commission Of Offence: Delhi High Court

Title: MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 30

The Delhi High Court has observed that Special MP/MLA Courts can try offences pending against sitting or former legislators and there is no bar for trial of a person who had ceased to be an MP or MLA, at the time of commission of the alleged offence.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a plea moved by BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa challenging an ACMM order rejecting his application seeking transfer or return of a complaint filed against him on account of lack of jurisdiction.

Oral Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Proper Compliance Of S.19(1) PMLA For Arrests Made Prior To 'Pankaj Bansal': Delhi High Court

Title: NEERAJ SINGAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 31

The Delhi High Court has observed that oral communication of “grounds of arrest” to an accused is proper compliance of Section 19(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for arrests made prior to the Supreme Court ruling in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, delivered on October 3, 2023.

Justice Vikas Mahajan made the observation while upholding the arrest of Neeraj Singal, former Managing Director of Bhushan Steel Limited, in a money laundering case related to Enforcement Directorate's probe in a bank fraud case.

Delhi High Court Restrains Local Dhabas From Using Registered Trademarks Of Popular Murthal Eatery 'Mannat Dhaba'

Title: MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 32

The Delhi High Court has restrained various local dhabas from using the registered trademarks of popular Murthal based eatery “Mannat Dhaba.”

Justice Anish Dayal passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order against the three defendants running their restaurants under the names Mannat Dhaba, Shri Mannat Dhaba and Apna Mannat Dhaba.

Delhi High Court Keeps In Abeyance Directions To CBI, DRI To Look Into Allegations Of Over-Invoicing By Adani Power

Title: CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 33

The Delhi High Court has put in abeyance its earlier directions to the Union Government, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to “meticulously and expeditiously” look into the allegations of over invoicing of coal imports and equipments by power companies belonging to the Adani Group.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on December 19 last year had directed the authorities to “unearth the actual factual position” and take appropriate actions against the erring power companies including those of Adani Group and Essar Group, if any, as per law.

Income Tax: Denial of 80lA Benefit In 4th Year Of Assessment, U-Turn By Department Is Not Justified: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Bt Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 34

The Delhi High Court has held that the Principal Commissioner Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and fell in error by taking a U-turn in the fourth assessment year, thereby denying the benefit of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that no material was brought on record by the PCIT to show that merely by migration from Internet Protocol-Virtual Private Network (IP-VPN) to National Long Distance-International Long Distance (NLD-ILD) license, a new and different “undertaking” of the assessee within the meaning of Section 80IA(4)(ii) came into existence.

Coconut Oil Sold By Amway As Hair Oil, Not Classifiable As Edible Oil Under DVAT Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amway India Enterprises Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Vat, Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 35

The Delhi High Court has held that coconut oil sold by Amway as a hair oil cannot be classified as edible oil under the DVAT Act.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan, while ruling in favour of the department, observed that the coconut oil is sold by the appellant in small packs, is displayed in the category of hair care, the manner in which it is to be applied to hair, and the purpose for which it is purchased by the consumer leaves no manner of doubt that the coconut oil sold by the appellant is wrongly sought to be classified under Entry 25 of the Third Schedule of the DVAT Act.

Delhi High Court Orders Mandatory E-Filing For Civil & Criminal Cases In District Courts, Digitisation Of Records Of Decided Cases

Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 36

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered that e-filing of pleadings, documents and interim applications be made mandatory in the civil jurisdictions and criminal complaint cases before all the District Courts in the national capital.

Directing that the “Centralised Filing System” for filings related to ongoing and pending cases be implemented in all the District Courts, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said:

“Mandatory e-filing of pleadings, documents and interim applications shall be adhered to in the jurisdictions already notified vide notification no.12/Rules/DHC dated 22nd February, 2022 under e-filing Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2021.”

Wife's Conduct Of Attempting Suicide, Trying To Put Blame On Husband And His Family Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 37

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's conduct of attempting suicide and then trying to put the blame on the husband and his family members is an act of “extreme cruelty.”

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the decree of divorce granted by a family court, in a divorce petition moved by the husband, on the ground of cruelty by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

DV Act | Unproven Allegations Of Illicit Relationship No Ground To Deny Interim Maintenance To Wife: Delhi High Court

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 38

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the wife cannot be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, merely on the basis of allegations of illicit relationship which are yet to be proved during the course of trial.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a husband's plea against a trial court order directing him to pay Rs. 6000 per month to the wife towards rent, alongwith monthly interim maintenance of Rs.11,460 and Rs.9,800 towards the expenditure of both minor daughters.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Upholding Revocation Of PepsiCo's Registration For Potato Variety Used In Lay's Chips

Title: PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. KAVITHA KURUGANTI and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 39

The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge's order which upheld an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority revoking Pepsico India's registration with respect to a potato variety used for making Lay's chips.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma set aside the order passed by the single judge on July 05 last year as well as the order of the Authority and its letter dated February 11, 2022, rejecting PepsiCo's application for renewal of patent registration.

'Prima Facie Defamatory': Delhi HC Asks Journalist & YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh To Remove Video On Ram Rahim Singh, Upload Fresh With Disclaimer

Title: SAINT GURMEET RAM RAHIM SINGH INSAN SHISHAYEVA GADDINASHIN SHAH SATNAM SINGH JI MAHARAJ V/s YOUTUBE LLC AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 40

The Delhi High Court has directed Journalist and YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to take down a video made by him on Dera Saccha Sauda Chief Ram Rahim Singh from all social media platforms.

“The video seems to be prima facie defamatory vis-à-vis the plaintiff (Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh),” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

However, the court granted liberty to the journalist to upload a new video with a disclaimer that its contents are quoted from trial court judgment on Rahim's conviction and the book titled “Dera Sacha Sauda and Gurmeet Ram Rahim” by Anurag Tripathi.

Contempt | Delhi High Court Sentences Lawyer To 6 Months In Jail For Making 'Scandalous Imputations' Against Judges In Pleading

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VIRENDRA SINGH ADVOCATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 41

The Delhi High Court has sentenced a lawyer to six months in jail after finding him guilty of contempt of court for making “contumacious allegations” and “scandalous imputations” against judges of the High Court as well as District Courts in a criminal appeal filed by him on behalf of a rape survivor.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur sentenced the lawyer to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months in Tihar jail, with fine of Rs.2,000.

Patents Act | Pre-Grant Opponent Merely Aids In Holistic Examination Of Patent Application, Can't Intervene In 'Examination Process': Delhi HC

Title: NOVARTIS AG v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 42

The Delhi High Court has held that a pre-grant opponent under the Patents Act, 1970, merely aids the Controller in a holistic examination of the patent application and does not have a right to intervene in the “examination process” of the patent.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that, unlike an adversarial process, the opposition to a patent merely contributes to the overall assessment of the patent application and thus, would not sustain a right of hearing being claimed in the examination process.

Those Harassing Daughter-In-Law For Giving Birth To Girl Child Should Know That Chromosomes Of Their Son Decides Child's Gender: Delhi HC

Title: HARDESH KUMAR v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 43

While dealing with a dowry death case which involved alleged harassment of the daughter-in-law for giving birth to a girl child, the Delhi High Court has observed that perpetrators of such crimes need to be educated that it is their son and not the daughter-in-law whose chromosomes, through union of a married couple, will decide the birth of the unborn child.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the “genetic science” is totally ignored according to which, the genetic determination of gender of the unborn child, involves the combination of X and Y chromosomes, with females possessing XX chromosomes and males having X and one Y chromosome each.

True Love Between Adolescents Can't Be Controlled Through Police Action: Delhi High Court

Title: ARIF KHAN v. THE STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 44

The Delhi High Court has observed that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minor or minors on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the dilemma at times faced by the court can be of trying to justify the State or Police action against an adolescent couple, who marry each other and continue to lead a peaceful life and raise a family, and respect for obeying the law of the land.

School Can't Refuse Admission If DoE Satisfied That Child Is Entitled To Preferential Admission Under EWS/DG Category: Delhi High Court

Title: OJAS SATYAWALI THROUGH HIS MOTHER BHAWNA PATHAK v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 45

The Delhi High Court has observed that once the Directorate of Education (DoE) is satisfied that a child is entitled to preferential admission under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) or Disadvantaged Group (DG) category, the school cannot refuse admission to the child.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that it is the child welfare which is paramount and law cannot countenance a situation in which, despite DoE having found the child entitled to admission, school refuses the same.

CBSE Board Exam | Student Entitled To Full Marks If Examiner Fails To Award Mark But Puts A Tick Against Answer Provided: Delhi High Court

Title: NASHETA ZAIDI THROUGH GUARDIAN GROUP CAPTAIN IMRAN H ZAIDI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 46

The Delhi High Court has observed that a student is entitled to full marks where the examiner fails to award mark in the margin against a particular answer even after entering a tick mark, thereby indicating that the answer is correct.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that consequence of the lapse of the examiner, if any, cannot be visited on the student.

Foreigners Can't Claim Right To Reside And Settle In India, Their Fundamental Rights Limited To Article 21: Delhi High Court

Title: Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 47

The Delhi High Court has observed that foreigners cannot claim right to reside and settle in India and their fundamental rights are limited to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“We may also note that foreign national cannot claim that he has right to reside and settle in India in terms of Article 19 (1) (e) of Constitution of India,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Immediate Financial Assistance, Recovery Of Back Wages For Rescued Child Labourers

Title: KAUM FAQEER SHAH v. MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 48

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions for immediate financial assistance, recovery of back wages and legal proceedings to be followed by the authorities in the post rescue protocol of child labourers in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed that when a rescued child is placed in a childcare or juvenile home under the care of the Delhi Government, a savings bank account shall be jointly opened immediately in the name of the minor, along with the Superintendent or In-charge of the respective Child Care Institution as the temporary guardian.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain BJP Leader's Plea Against Biju Janta Dal For Using Party Symbol In Advertising Welfare Schemes

Title: Jatin Mohanty v. Election Commission of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 49

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea moved by BJP Odisha's General Secretary, Jatin Mohanty, against alleged misuse of public funds by Biju Janta Dal (BJD) while advertising State welfare schemes using its party symbol 'Conch' allotted by the Election Commission of India.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked Mohanty to approach Orissa High Court as everything, including advertising of the schemes, happened there.

Tehelka's Tarun Tejpal To Publish Unconditional Apology For 'Defamatory' Story Against Former Army Officer

Title: MR. TARUN TEJPAL AND ANR v. MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 50

Tehelka magazines's former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal and co-founder Aniruddha Bahal has told the Delhi High Court that they will publish an unconditional apology in a national english newspaper stating that former Major General MS Ahluwalia, who filed a defamation case against them in 2002 over a news report depicting him as a “corrupt middleman” in defence deals, neither asked for nor accepted any bribery.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing an appeal moved by Tejpal and Bahal against an order passed last year by a single judge directing them, as well as Tehelka and a journalist Mathew Samuel to pay Rs. 2 crores to Ahluwalia for defaming him.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against Use Of Ward Volunteers, Village Secretariats For Preparation Of Electoral Rolls In Andhra Pradesh

Title: CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 51

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking direction on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to not utilize the services of Ward Volunteers and Village Secretariats for preparation of electoral rolls in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The PIL was filed by NGO Citizens for Democracy, representing by its Secretary, a retired IAS officer as well as former State Election Commissioner.

Taxpayer Not Provided Opportunity To Object To Retrospective Cancellation Of GST Registration: Delhi High Court Directs Restoration

Case Title: M/S Een Een Sales Corporation Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 52

The Delhi High Court has held that taxpayers are not provided an opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has restored the GST registration of the petitioner to its original number.

Forging Orders Of An Arbitrator A 'Serious Offence': Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

Title: VIPUL JAIN v. STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 53

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of producing a forged and fabricated order purportedly passed in an arbitration proceeding, before the Delhi Police.

Justice Navin Chawla said that forging an order, which may be of an arbitrator, is a serious offence.

Delhi High Court Denies Parole To Convict In Journalist Soumya Vishwanathan, Jigisha Ghosh Murder Cases

Title: RAVI KAPOOR v. STATE-NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 54

The Delhi High Court has denied parole to Ravi Kapoor, convicted for the murder of journalist Soumya Vishwanathan and IT executive Jigisha Ghosh and various other cases.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed Kapoor's plea taking into account his criminal history, the gravity of the offence committed by him and his overall conduct inside the jail premises.

Kapoor, who is currently serving life sentence in the cases, had moved the plea seeking parole for four weeks on the ground of maintaining social ties with his family and for undergoing a knee surgery.

India One Of Few Countries With Prior Censorship, Scenes Deleted Before Film Release: Delhi High Court Declines PIL Against 'Aankh Micholi'

Title: Nipun Malhotra vs Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 55

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation claiming that the film “Aankh Micholi”, which released in November last year, is derogatory to people with disabilities.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that Courts generally do not interfere once the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) gives certificate to a film.

Delhi High Court Orders Framing Of Rape Charges Against Man Who Allegedly Gave 'False Promise Of Marriage' To Married Woman, Her Then Husband

Title: X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 56

Calling it a “twin promise of marriage”, the Delhi High Court has recently ordered framing of rape and criminal intimidation charges against a man who allegedly assured a married couple that after their divorce he will marry the wife and look after their children, but later refused to do so after entering into physical relationship with the said wife.

“It is thus a case of twin promise of marriage, i.e. to the complainant as well as her husband and family. Had he not promised or represented to her, she would not have entered into physical relations with him,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Halts Construction Of 'Unauthorised Guest House' Near Nizamuddin Dargah And Baoli

Title: JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 57

The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to ensure that no further construction is carried out in an unauthorised guest house near centrally protected Nizamuddin Dargah and Baoli.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora pulled up the authorities and expressed disapproval over the unauthorised construction.

Delhi High Court Restrains Singer 'Bohemia' From Making Sound Recordings With Third Parties Without Prior Approval Of Saga Music

Title: SAGA MUSIC PRIVATE LIMITED v. ROGER DAVID & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 58

The Delhi High Court has restrained Pakistani-American rapper and singer Bohemia from engaging with third parties for making any sound recordings or musical works, without prior written approval of a Delhi based music company, Saga Music Private Limited.

Justice Anish Dayal also restrained Bohemia and his agents from posting any defamatory posts or content on social media platforms against the music company which claims that the singer violated terms and conditions of a performance agreement entered between them in 2019.

'Smart Copying': Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturer From Selling Liquor Under 'Peace Maker' Label In Suit By Officer's Choice

Title: ALLIED BLENDERS @ DISTILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HERMES DISTILLERY PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 59

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Karnataka-based manufacturer from selling whiskey and other liquor products under the “Peace Maker” label in a suit filed by alcoholic beverages manufacturer “Officer's Choice.”

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that prima facie, there was a clear attempt to indulge in “smart copying” by the manufacturer which would still be copying.

Transactions Concerning Mutual Funds Not In The Nature Of Investment And Not Motivated By Trade: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Wig Investament

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 60

The Delhi High Court has held that transactions concerning mutual funds were in the nature of investment and not motivated by trade.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the intent has to be ascertained keeping in mind the magnitude and frequency of the transactions, the period for which shares are held, the purpose for which they are held, and how transactions are disclosed in the books of account.

Delhi High Court Directs Customs Commissioner To Release Amount After Realising Redemption Fine, Penalty From Seized Foreign Currency

Case Title: Oguljeren Hajyyeva Versus Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 61

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Commissioner to release the remaining amount after realizing the redemption fine and penalty from the seized foreign currency.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that ordinarily, the adjudicating officer needs to give the owner of the goods the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, and if such a fine is not paid within a period of 120 days, such an option will become void. But the goods seized in the present case are nothing else but foreign currency.

Arbitral Award Can't Be Challenged On Ground Of Bias Of Arbitrator If No Challenge Was Made During Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Allied-Dynamic JV v. Ircon International Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 62

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral award cannot be challenged on the ground of bias of arbitrator if no challenge to bias was made during the pendency of arbitral proceedings.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that a party that has fully participated in the arbitral proceedings without raising any challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal on ground of bias, cannot challenge the award directly under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

Pendente Lite And Future Interest Can't Be Included In The 'Aggregate Value Of Claim And Counterclaims' U/S 12 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Simentech India Pvt Ltd v. BHEL

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 63

ThePendente Lite And Future Interest Can't Be Included In The 'Aggregate Value Of Claim And Counterclaims' U/S 12 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court has held that to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to deal with a challenge petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the value of the pendente lite and future interest cannot be included in the aggregate value of the claims and counter-claims to determine the 'Specified Value' as provided under Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA).

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that Section 12(2) of the CCA stipulates that the 'aggregate value' of the claim and any counterclaim in a commercial dispute arbitration forms the basis for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal's Order Increasing Retirement Age Of Indian Express Workers From 58 To 60 Yrs With Effect From 2009

Title: THE INDIAN EXPRESS P LTD v. THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS WORKERS UNION REGD AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 64

The Delhi High Court has set aside the order passed by an Industrial Tribunal last year increasing the age of retirement or superannuation of the workers of The Indian Express from 58 years to 60 years with effect from October 15, 2009, with all consequential benefits.

Justice Anish Dayal remanded the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication, after considering all materials which may be placed by the parties in detail to be examined with a fresh nuanced outlook and robust reasoning.

'Matter Already Referred To CBI': Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Court-Monitored Probe Into 'Fake Lab Tests' In Mohalla Clinics

Title: Bejon Kumar Misra v. GNCTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 65

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a court-monitored probe into the allegations of fake laboratory tests being conducted at the moholla clinics set up by the Aam Aadmi Party government in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected an application moved by social activist Bejon Kumar Misra in his pending PIL against “unauthorised pathological labs and diagnostic centres” in Delhi.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Eviction Order Asking TMC Leader Mahua Moitra To Vacate Government Accommodation Immediately

Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 66

The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the eviction order issued to Trinamool Congress leader Mohua Moitra asking her to vacate the government bungalow immediately, following her expulsion from the Lok Sabha in December last year.

Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed Moitra's application seeking stay of the eviction order in view of the pendency of the issue of her expulsion from Lok Sabha before the Supreme Court, and the issue of extension of time to vacate the government accommodation being inextricably linked with that, coupled with the fact that as on date she has no right.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Cop In Contempt Case Over Damages To Trees

Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 67

The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction of a police officer in a contempt case for damaging trees in the national capital during construction work in 2021.

Justice Mini Pushkarna also discharged the notice of contempt issued to the cop as well as three officers of Public Works Department (PWD). All four officials were convicted for contempt in June 2022.

'Sham, Pre-Determined': Delhi High Court Quashes South Asian University's Decision To Expel LLM Student Over Alleged Indiscipline

Title: APOORVA Y K v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 68

The Delhi High Court has set aside two orders issued by the South Asian University expelling an LLM student over alleged acts of indiscipline, observing that the procedure adopted was sham and pre-determined.

“The entire exercise was, therefore, chimerical in character, with the clear intention, already formulated, to send the petitioner out,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Delhi High Court Orders Day To Day Trial In 2017 Haryana Judicial Paper Leak Case

Title: DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 69

The Delhi High Court has asked a trial court in the national capital to expedite the trial in the case concerning the paper leak of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017, and take up the same on a day-to-day basis.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma directed the trial court to dispose of the matter positively on or before April 15 and sought a compliance report on the same.

Person Converting Religion For Marriage Must Be Informed Of Legal Consequences Like Inheritance, Maintenance: Delhi HC Issues Directions

Title: MAKSOOD AHMAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 70

The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual undergoing religious conversion for the purpose of marriage must be fully informed of the legal consequences associated with it and issued a slew of directions to be followed in conversion cases.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that by providing a detailed understanding of the religious and its associated ramifications, the individual must be made aware of the potential shifts in his or her legal standing post-conversion.

Issues Related To Bias Of An Arbitrator And Conduct Of Arbitral Proceedings Cannot Be Determined Under Section 29A Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Vivek Aggarwal v. Hemant Aggarwal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 71

The High Court of Delhi has held that an issue related to the bias of an arbitrator in conducting the arbitral proceedings cannot be determined by a Court while dealing with the application under Section 29A of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh reiterated that the scope of Court's power under Section 29A is limited to the examination of whether the extension should be granted or not. It held that the grievance of a party with the conduct of arbitral proceedings or any other substantive challenge cannot be decided by the Court under Section 29A.

Limitation Period For Appointment Of A Substitute Arbitrator Is 3 Years From The Date When The Right To Apply For Fresh Appointment Accrues: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jatinder Kaur & Ors v. Late Jagjit Singh & Investament

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 72

The High Court of Delhi has held that the limitation period for the appointment of the substitute arbitrator is 3 years from the date when the right to apply for such appointment accrues.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that since the act does not provide for any explicit period for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator, the limitation shall be governed by the residual provision found in Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides a period of 3 years as the limitation period from the date when the right to apply accrues.

Fees Received For Sub-Licensing Sports Broadcasting Rights Attributable To 'Live Feed', Not Taxable As Royalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Versus Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 73

The Delhi High Court has held that fees received by assessees for sub-licensing sports broadcasting rights attributable to 'live feed' is not taxable as royalty.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that once the Court came to the conclusion that a live telecast would not fall within the ambit of the expression “work”, it would be wholly erroneous to hold that the income derived by the assessee in respect of “live feed” would fall within clause (v) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A Party Cannot Insist On Fulfilment Of Pre-Arbitral Steps After Terminating The Contract: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mr. Gajendra Mishra v. Pokhrama Foundation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 74

The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot insist on fulfilment of pre-arbitration conciliation once it has itself terminated the agreement. It held that pre-arbitration conciliation provided in the agreement falls with the termination of the agreement.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that once a party has itself proceeded to terminate the agreement without approaching the Project Manager for conciliation, it cannot object to the maintainability of the petition seeking appointment of the arbitrator on the ground of non-fulfilment of pre-arbitral steps.

Findings Of Cruelty Against Wife In Divorce Case No Basis To Deny Her Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 75

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the findings of cruelty against a wife in the divorce proceedings by itself cannot be a basis to deny her maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Justice Amit Bansal also observed that a revision petition would lie to the High Court against an order passed by the Sessions Court in appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Child Suffers Most Casualty In Custody Battle, Loses Everything Due To Polarization Of Family Relations: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 76

The Delhi High Court has recently said that it is the child who suffers the most casualty in custody battle because even if either parent wins, the minor loses everything due to polarization of familial relations.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

“Merely having a child does not make one a 'parent', rather the one who protects the child from being torn in such parental conflicts is the closest to being an 'ideal parent'. The focus should be the child's future and not the parents' past.”

Liquor Policy Scam: Delhi High Court Refuses To Extend Interim Bail Of Businessman Arun Ramachandra Pillai

Title: ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77

The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the interim bail granted to Hyderabad based businessman Arun Ramachandra Pillai in the money laundering case connected to the alleged liquor policy scam.

Pillai was granted interim bail on December 28 last year on the ground of medical condition of his wife who had undergone a surgery.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma however granted extension of three days of interim bail to Pillai, who was asked to surrender on January 20, for travelling back to the national capital and making arrangement of an attendant for his wife, if not made yet.

'Preying On Religious Beliefs': Delhi High Court Orders Suspension Of Website Offering To Sell 'Ayodhya Ram Mandir Prasad' For Free

Title: KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. MR ASHISH SINGH AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 78

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered suspension of a website under the name of “Khadi Organic” which was promoting itself as an “official website for sale of Ayodhya Ram Mandir prasad” on various social media platforms.

The website was offering for delivery of free prasad from the Pran Pratishta ceremony scheduled to be held today at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.

Delhi High Court Stays IT Department's Order Cancelling Tax Exemption Status Of Oxfam India, Care India

Title: OXFAM INDIA v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 79

The Delhi High Court has recently stayed the order passed by the Income Tax department cancelling the tax exemption status of two non-government organisations, Oxfam India and CARE India.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order identical to an interim order passed on August 25 last year in favour of leading public policy think tank, Centre for Policy Research and said that the two NGOs shall also be entitled to identical interim reliefs.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Lokpal Proceedings Against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Chief Shibu Soren

Case Title: SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 80

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere at this stage with the proceedings initiated by Lokpal of India against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chief Shibu Soren in connection with a disproportionate assets case.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the plea moved by Soren challenging the Lokpal proceedings is “premature at this juncture”.

PM Cares Fund: Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Order Directing IT Department To Disclose Details Of Tax Exemption Under RTI

Title: CPIO v. Girish Mittal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 81

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Income Tax (IT) department to provide details regarding the tax exemption granted to the PM Cares Fund under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act (disclosure of information respecting assessees.

Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Former Bureaucrat For Allegedly Inducing False Complaint Against Special Secretary YVVJ Rajshekhar

Title: A.V. PREM NATH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 82

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to quash an FIR against former 1997-batch Danics officer AV Prem Nath, prematurely retired from service in October last year over molestation charges, for allegedly inducing a to file a false complaint against YVVJ Rajshekhar, Delhi Government's Special Secretary (Services and Vigilance), in return for a job.

Justice Amit Sharma said that it is not a case where it can be safely concluded at this stage that no offence is made out against Nath.

Delhi High Court Recalls Order Allowing Woman To Terminate 29 Weeks Pregnancy After Husband's Death

Title: R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 83

The Delhi High Court has recalled its recent order allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy of 29 weeks as she was suffering with extreme trauma after her husband's death.

“The order is recalled,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said while allowing an application moved by the Central Government seeking recall of the order passed on January 04.

CUET | Henceforth Final Answer Key Of Exam Will Be Uploaded Prior To Declaring Result: NTA Assures Delhi High Court

Title: AASHISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 84

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has assured the Delhi High Court that in future, the final answer key for Central University Entrance Test (CUET-UG) exam would be uploaded on its website at least a day prior to the final declaration of result.

Justice C Hari Shankar was given the assurance that the final answer key would be accessible only through the individual login ID and password of the candidate concerned.

“The Court is satisfied with the explanation. The NTA is directed to ensure that these assurances are scrupulously adhered to, in future,” the court said.

Online Single Window System For Seamless Payment To Empanelled Lawyers Will Be Operational Within Two Weeks: Delhi Govt Tells High Court

Title: PIYUSH GUPTA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 85

The Delhi Government has told the Delhi High Court that the Online Single Window System (OSWS) portal for seamless processing of payment of professional fees to the standing counsels will be made operational within two weeks.

The Delhi Government told a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora that the aspect of fee revision, including cap on appearances, of the empanelled lawyers is pending consideration with the Law Minister.

Advertising Part Of Commercial Speech; Exaggerations, Puffery & Hyperbole Can't Be Completely Curtailed: Delhi High Court

Title: MS KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 86

The Delhi High Court has observed that advertising is a part of commercial speech recognized under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and any restraint on such a right can be placed only with some authority of law.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that exaggerations, puffery, and hyperbole are part of advertising that cannot be completely curtailed, except in accordance with law.

GST Registration Can't be Cancelled Retrospectively For Non-Filing Of Returns: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aryan Timber Store Through Its Prop Virender Kumar Versus Sales Tax Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 87

The Delhi High Court has held that GST registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect for mere non-filing of returns.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdev and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that simply because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer's registration is required to be cancelled, with a retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.

Delhi High Court Grants Divorce To Man From 'Non Adjusting Wife' On Grounds Of Cruelty

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 88

The Delhi High Court recently granted divorce to a man on the grounds of cruelty by his wife, observing that she had a “non-adjusting attitude” and no maturity to sort out the differences with him without his public humiliation due to which he suffered mental cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that no fruitful purpose would be served in flogging a dead horse and granted divorce to the husband.

Delhi High Court Orders Centre To Permanently Block Websites Defrauding People On Pretext Of Recruitments At Croma

Title: INFINITI RETAIL LIMITED vs M/S CROMA -SHARE & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 89

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to permanently block access to three websites which were defrauding people by taking money under the pretext of recruiting them at Tata-owned Croma, the electronics retail store chain.

Justice Sanjeev Narula also ordered permanent suspension and disabling of UPI IDs and mobile numbers in respect of the websites.

Delhi High Court Halts PCA Arbitration Over Arbitrator Appointment Breach

Case Title: Techfab International Pvt Ltd v. MIDIMA Holdings Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 90

The High Court of Delhi has stayed a PCA Arbitration between an African and an Indian Entity due to the constitution of the tribunal in violation of the arbitration agreement.

The bench of Justice Anup J. Bhambhani, dealing with a suit seeking anti-arbitration injunction and an application seeking ad-interim injunction, restrained the defendant from proceeding further with the arbitral proceedings in PCA Case No. AA773.

'Stipulation Of Higher Merit Cannot Be Set Aside Because It Restricts Talent Pool': Delhi HC Upholds Stipulations For Appointment As IIM Director

Title: SH. FIROZ AHMAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 91

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation against the stipulation of an additional qualification and higher merit for being appointed as a Director of an Indian Institute of Management (IIM).

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Centre's recent notification making it mandatory for the applicants to have first-class degrees in both Bachelor's and Master's, along with a Ph.D. or equivalent from a reputed institute, for being appointed to the post.

Delhi High Court Orders Suspension Of Google Forms Unauthorisedly Inviting Public To Apply For 'Starbucks' Franchise

Title: STARBUCKS CORPORATION & ANR. v. NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 92

The Delhi High Court has directed Google to suspend URLs of various Google Forms inviting general public to apply for “Starbucks Franchise”. Starbucks does not work on a franchise model in India.

Justice Anish Dayal also said that Starbucks, the multinational chain of coffeehouses, will be at liberty to file an affidavit listing out other similar URLs of Google Forms after which Google may suspend the same.

Delhi HC Upholds Prohibition Of Marriage Between 'Sapindas', Says Incestuous Relations May Gain Legitimacy If Partner's Choice Left Unregulated

Title: NEETU GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 93

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act which states that no marriage can be solemnized between parties who are related to each other as “sapindas”, unless it is sanctioned by usage or custom governing them.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that if the choice of a partner in a marriage is left unregulated, incestuous relationship may gain legitimacy.

Have Deleted Tweet Disclosing Identity Of Minor Rape Victim: Rahul Gandhi To Delhi High Court

Case Title: Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar v. Rahul Gandhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 94

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi told the Delhi High Court that he has taken down his tweet allegedly disclosing the identity and sensitive details about the minor girl, who was raped and murdered in 2021.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was also informed by the counsel appearing for X, formerly Twitter, that the tweet in question has been deleted by Gandhi.

Accordingly, the bench disposed of a PIL moved by Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar, a social activist, seeking legal action and registration of FIR against Gandhi for allegedly disclosing the identity of the minor victim.

South Asian University Enjoys Status Of International Organization, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. SNEHASHISH BHATTACHARYA & ORS. v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 95

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the South Asian University is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it enjoys the status of an international organization having privileges and immunities conferred upon it under various enactments.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the varsity, being an organization deriving its powers from a 2007 inter-governmental agreement, is an international organization where the Government of India does not hold any control over its functioning, administration and finances despite it being situated in India.

Delhi High Court Upholds Stay On Action Against Companies Over 'Surrogate Advertisements' For Promoting 'Vimal Elaichi', 'Dilbagh Pan Masala'

Title: DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES v. SOM PAN PRODUCT PVT. LTD. and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 96

The Delhi High Court today upheld the stay on the show cause notices issued to two companies in 2018 by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) over the allegations of indulging in surrogate advertisements for promoting their products Dilbagh Pan Masala and Vimal Elaichi.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed the appeals moved by DGHS against the trial court orders which granted stay on the show cause notices in the suits filed by the companies.

Judges Also Have Right To Stand By Their Family Member Who May Be A Victim, Can't Be Denied Justice Due To 'Occupational Hazard': Delhi HC

Title: MOHIT PILANIA v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 97

The Delhi High Court has said that a judicial officer by virtue of being a judge does not waive of the fundamental rights which are available to other citizens, including the social and private rights to look after and stand by his or her family.

“Similarly as an accused cannot be denied justice in case a judicial officer or his family member is a complainant in a criminal case, the judicial officer and his family too cannot be denied justice in case, they are victims, as it will amount to denying fundamental, private and social rights to a judicial officer and his family which are otherwise available to other citizens and persons of the community. Being a judicial officer should not result in denial of justice to him or his family in his individual capacity and be merely dismissed as occupational hazards,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On Husband Who Sought Registration Of Fake Rape Case Against Wife's Cousin

Title: SK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 98

The Delhi High Court has imposed of cost of Rs. 25,000 on a husband for seeking registration of a fake rape case against his wife's cousin, alleging that the said cousin raped her. The allegations were denied by the wife.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that prima facie, the proceedings were initiated by the husband with oblique motives and intention to gain some advantage in the matrimonial proceedings against his wife.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Operation & Maintenance Of Special Schools, Hostels For Visually Impaired Children

Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 99

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Delhi Government and its Directorate of Education (DoE) to ensure the smooth functioning, operation and maintenance of seven special schools and hostels in the national capital for visually impaired children.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed that the DoE shall be responsible for providing hostel facilities to all the students admitted to the Special Schools by ensuring timely and quality food, uniform, clothes, recreation facilities and all facilities required for meeting daily needs of the students.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Proceedings Against BJP Leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa In Criminal Defamation Case

Title: MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 100

The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the criminal proceedings against BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa in a criminal defamation case filed by former president of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, Manjit Singh GK.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the trial court order passed on November 29 last year which upheld the summons issued to Sirsa by an ACMM court.

Unnao Rape Case: Delhi High Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of Kukdeep Singh Sengar's Brother Convicted For Death Of Victim's Father

Title: JAIDEEP SINGH SENGER@ATUL SINGH v. CBI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 101

The Delhi High Court has refused to suspend the sentence of the brother of expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Senger, convicted for causing the death of the father of the 2018 Unnao rape victim.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the application moved by Jaideep Singh Senger seeking suspension of his 10-year sentence awarded in March 2020, during the pendency of his appeal against the same.

'Habitual Offenders': Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Manufacturer From Selling Jeans Using Stitching Design Mark Of Levis

Title: LEVI STRAUSS AND CO v. NAB PRODUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 102

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a manufacturing company here from selling denim jeans using a stitching design mark identical and similar to that of Levis Strauss.

Justice Sanjeev Narula decreed the suit filed by Levis Staruss in its favour and permanently restrained the manufacturer, Nab Productions Private Limited, its Directors and Head of Planning and Operations.

Litigant Can't Be Allowed To Take Proceedings Initiated By Victim Under Domestic Violence Act For Granted: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 103

The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant cannot be allowed to take for granted the proceedings initiated by a victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“The DV Act was enacted to provide more effective protection to the rights of women granted under the Constitution, who are the victim of violence, of any kind, occurring within the family. The legislature also noting the victimization of the women has provided a mechanism for grant of maintenance to women who are not in a position to maintain themselves. Such proceedings cannot be taken in such a light manner as pleaded by the petitioner,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction To 'Lotus' In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Deepika Padukone's Self Care Brand's 'Lotus Splash'

Title: LOTUS HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DPKA UNIVERSAL CONSUMER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 104

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an interim injunction order in favour of “Lotus Herbals” in its trademark infringement suit against Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone's self-care brand 82E's “Lotus Splash” gentle face cleanser.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the products are completely dissimilar in appearance with a wide difference in the prices and no case of passing off was made as the only common feature between the two marks is the word “lotus”.

Award Cannot Be Challenged On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator If Appointment Was Not Contested Earlier: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Gunocen Inc

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 105

The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot challenge an arbitral award on the ground of the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator if it did not challenge the appointment at an earlier stage.

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna upheld an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator by observing that aggrieved party did not challenge the award at an earlier stage either by filing an application under Section 11(6) or an application under Sections 13&14 of the A&C Act.

A Party Cannot Challenge An Arbitral Award After Receiving Amount Payable Under It: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s K.S. Jain Builders v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 106

The High Court of Delhi has held that a party that has received payment in terms of an arbitral award cannot challenge the award with respect to the disallowed claims.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that acceptance of payments under the award would estop a party from challenging the award. It held that party after receiving payment cannot repudiate part award detrimental to it.

Group Of Companies Doctrine Cannot Be Applied To Directors Of A Company To Make Them A Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vingro Developments Pvt Ltd v. Nitya Shree Developers Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 107

The High Court of Delhi has held that directors of a company cannot be made parties to arbitration through 'Group of Companies' doctrine. It held that the relationship between the company and its director(s) is that of the 'Principal' and 'Agent' as defined under Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that in terms of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, the agent cannot be made personally liable for acts carried out on behalf of the principal.

Mere Reference Of Dispute To Arbitration Does Not Preclude The High Court From Examining Issue Of Stamp Duty In A Writ Petition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Deputy Commissioner of Stamp Registration & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 108

The High Court of Delhi has allowed a writ petition enabling the petitioner to approach the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to adjudicate/decide on the amount payable on the instrument despite the reference of the dispute arising out of the instrument to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that merely because the arbitral tribunal is empowered to carry out the same exercise, it cannot deprive the High Court from entertaining a writ petition to determine if the state has been deprived of the revenue or not.