Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: June 2024 [Citations 666 - 733]

MAHANT SHRI NAGA BABA BHOLA GIRI THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR AVINASH GIRI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT CENTRAL AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 666

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-International Taxation-3 Versus The Bank Of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 667

Revd. John H. Caleb v. Diocese of Delhi-CNI and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 668

Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 669

Central Council of Homoeopathy vs Vijay Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 670

Progress Rail Locomotive Inc. (Formerly Electro Motive Diesel Inc.) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 671

M/S Twenty-Four Secure Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Competent Automobiles Company Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 672

Case Title: Network 18 Media and Investments Limited & Ors v WWW.BrawlersFightClub.Com & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 673

Case Title: Sanjeev Goyal v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 674

Case Title: M/S Divyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs M/S M2k Entertainment Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 675

Case Title: M/S Space 4 Business Solution Pvt Ltd Vs The Divisional Commissioner Principal Secretary And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 676

Case Name- Manisha Sharma Vs Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 677

Case Title: M/S Kings Chariot Vs Mr. Tarun Wadhwa 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 678

Case Title: Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs M/S Dsc Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 679

Case Title: Yc Electric Vehicles Vs Saksham Trading Company 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 680

Case Title: Mohammad Inamul Haq vs. the University Of Delhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 681

Title: SADDAM ALI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 682

Title: AMARJEET SINGH DHILLON v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 683

Case Title: Sundaresh Bhat Vs Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 684

Title: AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 685

Title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MOSPI v. RAM GOPAL DIXIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 686

Case Title: M/S Kld Creation Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 687

Title: AAM AADMI PARTY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 688

Title: YUGANSH MITTAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 689

Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S MG FOODS & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 690

Case Title: Jagdish Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indag Rubber Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 691

Case Title: Ms. Sarika Chaturvedi Vs Agarwal Auto Traders & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 692

Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (Tcil) Vs Ngbps Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 693

Case Name- Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 694

Case Title: GE Capital Us Holdings Inc Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 696

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Versus M/S Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 697

Title: ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 698

Title: KULDEEP SINGH SENGAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 699

Case Title: Flowmore Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 28, New Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 700

Title: MOHSIN IBRAHIM SAYYED v. NIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 701

Title: SRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 702

Case Name- Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd Vs Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 703

Case Title: Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 704

Case: Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 705

Case Title: HMD Mobile India Private Limited vs Mr Rajan Aggarwal and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 706

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Versus M/S Care Health Insurance Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 707

INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PRIVATE LTD & ANR. v. RAVINDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 708

AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OFINDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 709

Nirmaan Malhotra vs. Tushita Kaul 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 710

Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 711

Mahesh Gupta vs. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 712

Pitambar Solvex Pvt Ltd And Anr. Vs Manju Sharma And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 713

Indian Spinal Injuries Centre Vs M/S Galaxy India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 714

M/S Talbros Sealing Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Slach Hydratecs Equipments Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 715

RONAK KHATRI & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 716

Continuum Power Trading (Tn) Private Limited Vs Solar Energy Corporation Of India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 717

FAIZYAB MASJID AND MADARSA v. RELIGIOUS COMMITTEE AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 718

STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. MAGICWIN.GAMES & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 719

Vijay Maheshwari Vs Splendor Buildwell Private Limited And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 720

Dinesh Jindal Vs ACIT and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 721

GE Capital Us Holdings Inc Vs DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 722

PCIT Vs Care Health Insurance Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 723

Vaibhav Singh Sunita Kejriwal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 724

Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 725

MAHAVEER SINGHVI v. HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 726

Infosys Ltd vs. Southern Infosys Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 727

ED v. Arvind Kejriwal 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 728

If Each Sadhu Or Guru Is Allowed To Build Shrine Or Samadhi On Public Land, It Would Lead To Disastrous Consequences: Delhi High Court

Title: MAHANT SHRI NAGA BABA BHOLA GIRI THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR AVINASH GIRI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT CENTRAL AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 666

The Delhi High Court has observed that if every Sadhu, Guru or Baba is allowed to build a shrine or samadhi on a public land and use it for personal gains, it would lead to disastrous consequences.

Interest Received By Indian PE On Deposit Maintained With Head Office/Overseas Branch Is Not Taxable In India: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax-International Taxation-3 Versus The Bank Of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 667

The Delhi High Court has held that interest received by the Indian PE on deposits maintained with the Head Office/Overseas Branch is not taxable in India.

Rights out of Holding Of Non-Hereditary Office, Dies With Person's Death, Not Transferable Or Heritable: Delhi High Court

Case Name: Revd. John H. Caleb v. Diocese of Delhi-CNI and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 668

A single bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Dharmesh Sharmawhile deciding a civil revision petition in the case of Revd. John H. Caleb v. Diocese of Delhi-CNI and Ors, has held that a personal right of action, arising due to holding of a non-hereditary office, dies with the death of the person concerned and not transferable or heritable.

Delhi High Court Takes Judicial Notice Of 52.3 Celsius Temperature In Delhi, Issues Directions Regarding Forests Committee

Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 669

Taking judicial notice of the highest ever temperature recorded at 52.3 degrees Celsius in the national capital, the Delhi High Court has said that the city may be only a barren desert if the present generation continues an apathetic view on deforestation.

Central Council Of Homoeopathy Falls Within Definition Of “Industry” Under ID Act: Delhi High Court

Case Name- Central Council of Homoeopathy vs Vijay Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 670

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Central Council of Homoeopathy vs Vijay Singh has held that the Central Council of Homoeopathy falls within definition of “Industry” under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Once Issue Of Arm's Length Remuneration Settled By TPO, Question Of Ascertaining Existence Of PE Is Academic; Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Proceedings

Case Title: Progress Rail Locomotive Inc. (Formerly Electro Motive Diesel Inc.) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 671

The Delhi High Court, while quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated by the income tax department against the Caterpillar Group, held that once the issue of arm's length remuneration was settled by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the question of ascertaining the existence of a permanent establishment (PE) was academic.

Court Has Authority To Appoint Sole Arbitrator Even Though Arbitration Agreement Specified Three-Member Tribunal: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

Case Title: M/S Twenty-Four Secure Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Competent Automobiles Company Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 672

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a contention that the court lacked the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator, even though the arbitration agreement specified a three-member tribunal.

Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of Websites For Spreading Fake Interview Of Anant Ambani With Anand Narasimhan

Case Title: Network 18 Media and Investments Limited & Ors v WWW.BrawlersFightClub.Com & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 673

The Delhi High Court has directed the blocking of rogue websites disseminating false information about an interview between Reliance Industries Director Anant Ambani and TV18 journalist Anand Narasimhan.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, ordered Meta and X to remove the related Facebook posts and tweets and to provide details of the users who made these posts within four weeks.

Delhi HC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Section 71(3A) Income Tax Act; Dismisses Petition Challenging Rs. 2 Lakh Cap On House Property Income Set-Off

Case Title: Sanjeev Goyal v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 674

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 31 of the Finance Act, 2017. This section amended the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA) by adding sub-section (3A) to Section 71. The petition was filed by a government employee who claimed to have constructed a house in 2014, incurring an expenditure of Rs. 1.35 crore.

Conclusions Drawn By Arbitrator In Disregard Of Evidence On Record Makes Award Liable To Be Set Aside As Being Perverse And Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Divyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs M/S M2k Entertainment Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 675

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal.

[Arbitration Act] Awarding Interest Rate Is Discretion Of Arbitrator, Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Space 4 Business Solution Pvt Ltd Vs The Divisional Commissioner Principal Secretary And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 676

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right.

Principle Of No Work No Pay Not Applicable If Order Of Termination Illegal: Delhi High Court

Case Name- Manisha Sharma Vs Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 677

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the case of Manisha Sharma Vs Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Anr has held that an employee is entitled to backwages if order of termination was illegal and the principle of no work no pay is not applicable in such cases.

Where No Seat Is Specified In Arbitration Agreement, Jurisdiction Of Court Shall Be Determined In Accordance With Section 16 To 20 Of CPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Kings Chariot Vs Mr. Tarun Wadhwa

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 678

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that where no seat of arbitration is specified in the arbitration agreement, the jurisdiction of the court shall be determined in accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C.

Determination Of Delay On Part Of Contractor Is Not 'Excepted Matter', Only Quantum Of Damages Is Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs M/S Dsc Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 679

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the question of determination of whether indeed, there was a delay on the part of the Contractor is not an excepted matter and it is only the quantum of damages which is non-arbitrable.

Delhi High Court Ex-Parte Restrains Saksham Trading Company From Using “Yatra' And 'YS' In E-Vehicles Business

Case Title: Yc Electric Vehicles Vs Saksham Trading Company

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 680

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal held that restrained Saksham Trading Company from using 'Yatra', 'YS', and any other marks resembling or deceptively similar to the YC Electric Vehicles marks 'Yatri' and 'YC' in E-Rickshaws, E-Vehicles, parts, accessories, and related goods.

Wait List Candidate Doesn't Have Inherent Right To Appointment, Can't Challenge Selected List Of Candidates After One Year: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Inamul Haq vs. the University Of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 681

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the wait-listed candidate will not have any right whatsoever much less the right of consideration. Further, the bench held that once the final select list of candidates has been offered an appointment to the post and concluded by such incumbents accepting the said offer and occupying the said post, the candidate cannot be permitted to challenge it after a passage of more than a year.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Challenging Appointment Of National Small Industries Development Corporation's Chairman

Title: SADDAM ALI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 682

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of Dr. Subhransu Sekhar Acharya, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of National Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (NSIDC).

Grant Of Statutory Bail Not Interlocutory Order But Final Order: Delhi High Court

Title: AMARJEET SINGH DHILLON v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 683

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the grant of statutory bail is not an interlocutory order but a final order.

“As far as the maintainability of the Revision Petition is concerned, the grant of Statutory Bail cannot be considered as an Interlocutory Order. It is a final order releasing the Applicant on Bail as the investigation could not be completed and the final report could not be filed within the period of 60/90 days by the prosecution,” Justice Navin Chawla observed.

Official Liquidator Must Adhere To Ethical Principles And Fairness To Discharge Their Duties Under IBC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sundaresh Bhat Vs Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 684

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that official liquidators must adhere to ethical principles and demonstrate an unwavering commitment to fairness to discharge their duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall

Title: AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 685

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, Amandeep Singh Dhall, in the corruption case connected to the alleged excise policy scam case.

CIC Can't Comment Upon Utilization Of Funds By MPs Under MPLADS: Delhi High Court Expunges Observations

Title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MOSPI v. RAM GOPAL DIXIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 686

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has no jurisdiction to comment upon utilization of funds by the Members of Parliament under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).

Once Arbitration Agreement Is Confirmed, Court Should Refrain From Delving Into Other Issues: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Kld Creation Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 687

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the role of the court is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that once the court confirms that the arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from delving into other issues, which are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.

Decide AAP's Plea For Temporary Accommodation For Office Space Within Six Weeks: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: AAM AADMI PARTY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 688

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to decide within six weeks Aam Aadmi Party's request for temporary accommodation till a land is allotted to it for construction of permanent office space in the national capital.

Decide Plea For Implementation Of Fire Safety Norms In Nursing Homes Within Four Weeks: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: YUGANSH MITTAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 689

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to decide within four weeks a representation to frame basic norms on fire safety and sprinklers that could be implemented by smaller hospitals and nursing homes in the national capital.

Delhi High Court Restrains Punjab Based 'Donito's' From Using Domino's Trademark While Selling Pizzas And Burgers

Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S MG FOODS & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 690

The Delhi High Court has recently restrained a Punjab based food chain “Donito's” from using the trademark of Domino's for selling pizzas and burgers.

Justice Anish Dayal passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Domino's pizza group of companies and directed Donito's to take down all references to its device marks in respect of Pizzas and Burgers from its domain www.donito's.in.

[Arbitration Act] Party Can't Challenge Procedural Order Passed By Arbitrator Under Section 9: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jagdish Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indag Rubber Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 691

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that a party is not permitted to challenge a procedural order passed by an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Delhi High Court Imposes Costs Of Rs. 50,000 For Unnecessarily Challenging And Questioning Of Arbitrator's Mandate

Case Title: Ms. Sarika Chaturvedi Vs Agarwal Auto Traders & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 692

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on a party for unnecessarily challenging and questioning the mandate of the arbitrator. The bench held that the party's intent was to create a stale mate. It held that repeated interventions of the court in arbitral proceedings are to be avoided and parties cannot force the arbitrators to recuse/withdraw.

[Arbitration Act] General Explanation Of Intra-departmental Analysis And Discussions Doesn't Constitute Credible Explanation For Delay In Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (Tcil) Vs Ngbps Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 693

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a general explanation of intra-departmental analysis and discussions doesn't constitute as valid and credible explanation for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Not Allowing Representation By A Defence Assistant Is Violative Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court

Case Name- Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 694

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma has held that a person not being allowed to be represented by a defence assistant & non-enclosure of past record of the person in chargesheet established that an enquiry proceedings is conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.

Under-Reporting And Misreporting Are Viewed As Separate And Distinct Misdemeanours; Delhi High Court Quashes Penalty

Case Title: GE Capital Us Holdings Inc Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 696

The Delhi High Court, while quashing the penalty, has held that both under-reporting and misreporting are viewed as separate and distinct misdemeanours.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that, as per Section 270A(1), a person would be liable to be considered to have under-reported their income if the contingencies spoken of in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 270A(2) were attracted. In terms of Section 270A(3), the under-reported income is liable to be computed in accordance with the prescribed stipulations.

Exemption Allowable On Donations Made By One Charitable Trust To Other Charitable Institutions For Temporary Period: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Versus M/S Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 697

The Delhi High Court has held that exemption is allowable on donations made by one charitable trust to other charitable institutions for a temporary period.

Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court Order Rejecting Arun Pillai's Plea Against Commencement Of Arguments On Charge

Title: ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 698

The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order rejecting the application moved by Hyderabad businessman Arun Ramchandra Pillai, accused in the alleged excise policy scam, against commencement of arguments on charge till conclusion of probe by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Death Of Unnao Rape Victim's Father: Delhi High Court Rejects Kuldeep Sengar's Plea Seeking Suspension Of Sentence

Title: KULDEEP SINGH SENGAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 699

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea moved by expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar seeking suspension of his 10 years of sentence in the custodial death of Unnao rape victim's father.

Initiation Of Section 153C Assessment Proceedings Falling Beyond Maximum 10 Years Block Period Unsustainable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Flowmore Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 28, New Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 700

The Delhi High Court has held that the initiation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act assessment proceedings falling beyond the maximum 10-year block period is unsustainable.

'Not Same Transaction': Delhi High Court Rejects Convict's Plea Seeking Concurrent Running Of Sentences In UAPA Cases

Title: MOHSIN IBRAHIM SAYYED v. NIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 701

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a convict seeking concurrent running of his jail terms in two UAPA cases, observing that the offences committed by him did not form part of the same transaction.

Decide Plea For Conducting Door To Door Survey To Collect Senior Citizens Data Within 12 Weeks: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: SRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 702

The Delhi High Court has recently directed Delhi Government's Chief Secretary to decide within 12 weeks a plea to conduct a door to door survey to collect the data about total number of senior citizens in the national capital.

Definition Of Wages Under Minimum Wages Act Cannot Be Used To Calculate Bonus Under Payment Of Bonus Act: Delhi High Court

Case Name- Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd Vs Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 703

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd Vs Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has held that definition of wages under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cannot be used to calculate bonus under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

[Arbitration Act] Section 29A Allows Extension Requests Even After Arbitrator's Mandate Expires: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 704

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not preclude the consideration of applications for extension of the arbitrator's mandate filed after the expiration of the mandate.

Court To Refrain From Intervening In Cases Where There Is An Effective Alternate Remedy, Unless Compelling Reasons To Do So: Delhi High Court

Case: Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 705

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a writ petition in the case of Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors. has held that the Court is to refrain from intervening in cases where there is an effective alternate remedy, unless there exist compelling reasons to do so.

Copyright Cannot Be Granted To Ideas And Generic Terms Used Commonly In the Public Domain, Delhi High Court Invalidates Registration Of Phrase 'Coming Soon'

Case Title: HMD Mobile India Private Limited vs Mr Rajan Aggarwal and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 706

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anish Dayal held that copyright protection cannot be provided to vague and abstract subjects, merely expressing a generic idea. The bench invalidated the registration of phrases like 'Coming Soon' and generic titles like 'Advertisement', which are commonly available in the public domain.

Unsettled Claims As Well As IBNR Would Amount To Contingent Liabilities; Section 37 Deduction Allowable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Versus M/S Care Health Insurance Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 707

The Delhi High Court has held that the deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act is allowable on unsettled claims as well as Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR), which would amount to contingent liabilities.

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Journalist Rajat Sharma, Restrains Use Of 'Baap Ki Adalat'

Title: INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PRIVATE LTD & ANR. v. RAVINDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 708

Ruling in favour of senior journalist Rajat Sharma, the Delhi High Court recently restrained an individual from using India TV logo and “Baap Ki Adalat” trademark in the content posted by him on social media.

Justice Anish Dayal also restrained the man, Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, from using the photograph, video and name of Sharma, either as a trademark or logo in the social media posts, audio video content or any services which may result in violation of the journalist's personality rights.

Land For Jobs Scam: Delhi High Court Orders Medical Evaluation Of Lalu Yadav's Aide Amit Katyal Hauled Up In PMLA Case

Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OFINDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 709

The Delhi High Court has constituted a medical board of AIIMS to evaluate the condition of RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's close aide Amit Katyal, who is in custody in a money laundering case related to the alleged land-for-jobs scam case.

Justice Vikas Mahajan was dealing with Katyal's plea seeking his release on humanitarian and medical grounds.

'We Are Living In Era Of Deepfakes': Delhi High Court Says Photos Produced By Husband Alleging Adultery By Wife Must Be Proved In Trial

Case Title: Nirmaan Malhotra vs. Tushita Kaul

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 710

The Delhi High Court has refused to rely on the photographs produced by a man to show that his wife has been living in adultery and to claim that she is not entitled to receive maintenance from him under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal observed that in this era of "deepfakes", it is necessary that the alleged photographs are proved by way of evidence before the family court dealing with the matrimonial dispute.

[Arbitration Act] Non-Disclosure Of Section 9 Petition In Another Matter Can't Be Termed As 'Egregious Fraud': Delhi High Court

Case Title: Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 711

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that non-disclosure of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in another matter cannot be termed as a case of egregious fraud, which would disentitle a party from pursuing its petition under Section 9.

Predictable Application Of Existing Technology To New Context Not "Inventive Step": Delhi HC Rejects Patent To Portable Vehicle Tracker

Case Title: Mahesh Gupta vs. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 712

The Delhi High Court has confirmed an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing patent registration to "Portable Vehicle Management System" which claimed novel features like Real-time Monitoring of vehicle & Assistance, Anomaly Detection, Alert Generation, Detection and Masking of Faces, Portability, etc.

Mere Initiation Of Arbitration Proceedings Doesn't Bar Corporate Debtor From Pursing Remedies Under IBC: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

Case Title: Pitambar Solvex Pvt Ltd And Anr. Vs Manju Sharma And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 713

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that mere initiation of the arbitration proceedings does not bar the corporate debtor from pursuing his other remedies including those under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code.

[Arbitration Act] Mere Sending of Notice Under Section 21 Not Enough, Receipt of Notice Essential: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indian Spinal Injuries Centre Vs M/S Galaxy India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 714

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that merely sending notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not sufficient. It held that receipt of the notice is the prerequisite for the commencement of arbitration proceedings.

Arbitration Clause Valid Despite Even Number Of Arbitrators: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

Case Title: M/S Talbros Sealing Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Slach Hydratecs Equipments Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 715

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the arbitration clause is not invalidated merely on the ground that the number of arbitrators, as per the arbitration clause, was an even number and therefore, was in contravention of Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Delhi High Court Orders Stakeholders Meeting To Assess Drinking Water, Infra Facilities In DU Law Faculty

Title: RONAK KHATRI & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 716

The Delhi High Court has directed that a meeting be convened to assess drinking water and other infrastructural facilities in Delhi University's Faculty of Law, including availability of Wi-Fi in the campus.

While dealing with a plea moved by three students alleging lack of facilities in the varsity, a vacation bench comprising of Justice Amit Sharma impleaded the Bar Council of India and Dean Student's Welfare of Delhi University in the matter.

Clause Of 'Amicable Resolution' Cannot Prevent Invocation Of Arbitration After Sincere Efforts At Settlement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Continuum Power Trading (Tn) Private Limited Vs Solar Energy Corporation Of India Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 717

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that the clause of 'amicable resolution' in the arbitration agreement cannot be read as preventing the parties from invoking the arbitration if the parties have sincerely tried to resolve the disputes amicably. It held that literal compliance with such provisions may be counter-protective.

Delhi High Court Orders To Vacate In One Month Mosque, Madarsa At Hazrat Nizamuddin For Demolition

Title: FAIZYAB MASJID AND MADARSA v. RELIGIOUS COMMITTEE AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 718

The Delhi High Court has ordered vacation of a mosque and madarsa situated at Sarai Kale Khan's Hazrat Nizamuddin which are set for demolition by civic authorities.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Amit Sharma rejected the plea moved by Faizyab Masjid and Madarsa challenging the decision of the authorities of demolition.

Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Unauthorisedly Streaming ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2024

Title: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. MAGICWIN.GAMES & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 719

The Delhi High Court recently restrained various rogue websites from unauthorisedly and illegally streaming the ongoing ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2024.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the plaintiff, Star India Private Limited, made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction.

[Arbitration Act] Scope Of Inquiry In Section 9 Petition Is Limited, Interpretation Of Contract Would Be Within Domain Of Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vijay Maheshwari Vs Splendor Buildwell Private Limited And Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 720

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that under a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of inquiry is very limited to grant interim relief.

Reassessment On Non-Searched Entity Is Governed By Limitation In First Proviso To Sec 149(1) R/w Sec 153C & 153A: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Dinesh Jindal Vs ACIT and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 721

While quashing the reassessment notice issued to the Assessee, pursuant to a search operation conducted against a third party, the Delhi High Court held the same to be barred by limitation under first proviso to Section 149(1) read with Section 153C & Section 153A of Income tax Act.

Non-Payment Of Tax Due To Uncertain Legal Position Existing At Time Of Filing Return Is Outside Scope Of 'Mis-Reporting': Delhi HC Deletes Penalty U/s 270A

Case Title: GE Capital Us Holdings Inc Vs DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 722

While quashing a show cause notice issued by the Department for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A in a vague manner, the Delhi High Court held that categorical finding of 'mis-reporting/ under-reporting' is essential for levy of penalty u/s 270A.

Provisions For Unsettled Outstanding & IBNR Claims Allowable U/s 37 Being Ascertained Liabilities: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Vs Care Health Insurance Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 723

While upholding ITAT's decision deleting disallowance of provisions for unsettled outstanding claims and 'Incurred But Not Reported' (IBNR) claims of health insurance company, the Delhi High Court held that provisions for unsettled outstanding and IBNR claims are not contingent liabilities, and hence allowable u/s 37 of Income tax Act.

Delhi High Court Directs Social Media Platforms To Remove Video Recording Of Court Proceedings Concerning Arvind Kejriwal

Title: Vaibhav Singh Sunita Kejriwal & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 724

The Delhi High Court has directed various social media platforms to take remove audio or video recording of court proceedings when Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal addressed the court personally after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the alleged liquor policy scam.

Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Tweets By Congress Leaders Against Journalist Rajat Sharma

Title: Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 725

The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of tweets made by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera alleging that senior journalist Rajat Sharma used abusive language on air during a show on the election result day.

Delhi High Court Rejects IFS Mahaveer Singhvi's Defamation Suits Against Hindustan Times

Title: MAHAVEER SINGHVI v. HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 726

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed two defamation suits filed by 1999 batch IFS Mahaveer Singhvi against Hindustan Times newspaper, both English and Hindi editions, over two news reports published in 2002.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the suits and observed that the articles published in the two newspapers were not per se defamatory.

“Balancing the right of information of the public with the duty of the Media of truthful reporting and the individual right of protection of his reputation, it is held that the Articles which are the subject matter of the two suits, are not per se defamatory,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Grants Injunction To 'INFOSYS' Against 'Southern Infosys Ltd', Says Phonetic & Conceptual Similarity May Confuse Consumers

Case Title: Infosys Ltd vs. Southern Infosys Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 727

The Delhi High Court has recently clarified that minor procedural missteps that are adequately explained should not overshadow the merits of the case, particularly if there exists clear evidence of trademark infringement. Court said that visual or phonetic similarities may lead to consumer confusion.

A single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that “the combination of visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities between the marks, on a prima facie assessment significantly raises the likelihood of consumer confusion, suggesting that 'Southern Infosys Limited' might be mistakenly associated with the Plaintiff.”

BREAKING| Delhi High Court Stays Arvind Kejriwal's Bail Till Final Pronouncement On ED's Stay Application

Title: ED v. Arvind Kejriwal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 728

The Delhi High Court has stayed the order granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case connected to the liquor policy case.

The Court stayed the operation of the bail order till final order is passed on the stay application filed by the Directorate of Enforcement(ED).

Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 729

The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Objections Regarding Time-Barred Claims Under Section 11 Petition Should Be Left For Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Capri Global Capital Limited Vs Ms Kiran

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 730

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held for the purposes of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, where the appointment of an arbitrator is sought, the question of whether the claims are time-barred should ideally be left for determination by the arbitral tribunal.

Non-Participating Party Cannot Challenge Tender Awards: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Primatel Fibcom Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 731

The Delhi High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that a party which did not participate in a tender process lacks the standing to challenge the tender's award.

Delhi High Court Stays Arvind Kejriwal's Bail, Says Trial Court Didn't Properly Appreciate ED Case & Materials

Title: ED v. Arvind Kejriwal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 732

The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court's order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain allowed the application moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking stay of the trial court's order.

Courts Can Delve Into Examination Of Trademark Infringement In Execution Petitions, New Suit Not Needed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Glaxo Group Limited and Others vs Rajiv Mukul and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 733

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed an execution petition against the Defendants engaged in the infringement of the trademarks of Glaxo Group Limited, a biopharma company engaged in the production of vaccines. The High Court held that an executing court can delve into the merits of infringement to judge the violation of an original decree granting a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants.