Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: March 2024 [Citations 239 - 384]

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER v. KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 240

Indian Highways Management Company Ltd. vs Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 241

RESHMA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 242

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 243

The Executive Engineer & Ors Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 244

Zillion Infraprojecs Pvt. Ltd Through Anant Saxena Vs Fab-Tach Works & Constructons Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 245

Govt. Of NCT of Delhi vs M/s R.S Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 246

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 247

X v. SQUINT NEON & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 248

ANUP BHENGRA @CHOTU v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 249

RATUL PURI v. BANK OF BARODA and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 250

Jagdish Bansal Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 251

M/s NHPC Ltd v. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 252

Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 253

M/s MAC Associates vs Parvinder Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 254

My Preferred Transformation And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Panchdeep Constuction Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 255

MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 256

NAAM TAMILAR KATCHI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 257

EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 258

Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 259

Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 260

M/S. Fiberfill Engineers Through Its Partner Mr. Rishabh Kishore Vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Dy. General Manager (Engg.) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 261

Union Of India Vs NCC Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 262

Directorate of Education v. Master Singham & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 263

M/S. Breakthrough Concepts Vs M/S. Atrix Group Of Restaurants & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 264

National Skill Development Corporation Vs Best First Step Education Private Limited & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 265

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 266

ABHI TRADERS v. FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 267

AJAY KUMAR MAHAWAR & ORS. V/s LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI, THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 268

MOHAMMAD HAKIM AND ANR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 269

SUJIT KUMAR SINGH v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 270

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 271

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 272

Tata Motor Limited vs Delhi Transport Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 273

VIRENDER CHAHAL @ VIRENDER v. STATE AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 274

RAJEEV DAGAR v. STATE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 275

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 276

JINDAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUNCITY SHEETS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 277

S v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 278

PCIT Versus M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 279

PCIT Versus M/S Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 280

Raghav Ventures Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods & Services Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 281

RITIKA PRASAD v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 282

Max Healthcare Institute Limited Versus UOI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 283

DAE (SY 22) 13 IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY v. GO AIRLINES (INDIA) LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 284

SANJAY JAIN v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 285

M/s Sabsons Agencies Private Limited Vs M/s Harihar Polymers & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 286

Godavari Projects (J.V) Vs Union of 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 287

Amanatullah Khan v. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 288

HARISH YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI LiveLaw (Del) 289

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 Versus Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 290

PRASAR BHARTI v. DISH TV INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 291

Indigrid Technology Pvt. Ltd Vs Genestore India Pvt. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 292

Chabbras Associates vs M/s Hscc (India) Ltd & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 293

RAVI RANJAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 294

Rites Ltd Vs Ahuwalia Contract (India) Ltd. & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 295

Aerosource India Pvt Ltd. Vs Geetanjali Aviation Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 296

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-19 & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 297

MANVIR @ MANISH v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 298

GOVT. NCT OF DELHI THROUGH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND ORS v. REHMAT FATIMA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 299

SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 300

KENISHA AGRAWAL MINOR REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MR NITIN AGRAWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 301

SH. CHHATTER PAL & ORS. v. STATE & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 302

KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 303

MR TALIB HASSAN DARVESH v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 304

BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 305

Commissioner Of Central Excise Versus Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 306

SFDC Ireland Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 307

Navisite India Pvt Ltd vs CIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 308

AAFTAB AMIN POONAWALA v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 309

DOLMA TSERING v. MOHD. AKRAM KHAN AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 310

RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MADHURI JAIN GROVER & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 311

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 312

Sakshi v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 313

BTB MARKETING PVT. LTD. v. DEEPSHIKHA SINGH AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 314

MUNTAZMIA COMMITTEE MADARSA BEHRUL ULUM AND KABARSTAN v. DDA AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 315

PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS INDIA LLP & ANR. v. JOHN DOE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 316

PRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318

MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES V. DILIP JAIN 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 319

SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 320

LATE AKSHEM CHAND THROUGH LR ATLO DEVI v. SURESH BALA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 321

AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA v. MS. GUPTA SNIZHANA GRYGORIVNA & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 322

LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 323

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 324

UMESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 325

VEDPAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 326

National Association Of Software And Services Companies (NASSCOM) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2 (1) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 327

AJAY SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 328

SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 329

GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS.2024 LiveLaw (Del) 330

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. DOODSTREAM.COM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 331

G & S International Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 332

PCIT Versus M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 333

SYED ABU ALA v. NCB 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 334

Alka Sachdeva vs Bhasin Infotech And Infrastucture Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 335

Ved Contracts Pvt Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 336

ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 337

MOHIT YADAV v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 338

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. A RAJA & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 339

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - 19 & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 340

Apex Buldsys Limited v. IRCON International Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 341

Avdhesh Mittal Vs Deepak Vig. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 342

Srf Limited Vs Jonson Rubber Industries Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 343

M/S. Assam Petroleum Ltd. & Ors Vs M/S. China Petroleum Technology Dev. Corp. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 344

CG Engineering Company Vs Ircon Infrastructure And Services Limited (Ircon Isl) And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 345

Central University Of Jharkhand Vs M/S. King Furnishing And Safe Co 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 346

GANGA SARAN v. THE COMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 347

M/s Fortuna Skill Management Pvt Ltd v. M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 348

Maj. Pankaj Rai vs M/s Niit Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 349

Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 350

AKSHAR REDDY VANGA AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY SUBBA REDDY VANGA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 351

SHAMBHAVI SHARMA v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 352

Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Lt Vs Dilip Jain And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 354

Mrvs Value Straight Private Limited & Anr. Vs Brightstar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 355

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 356

MADHAV CHAUDHARY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 357

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Kanohar Electricals Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 358

M/s Upper India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359

Techno Compact Builders v. Railtel Corporation of India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360

Rani Construction v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 361a

Dharamvir & Company v. DDA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 362

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del)

MANJU PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS WAZIRPUR & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 364

WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW PUNJABI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 365

PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD v. SANJAY JAIN & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 366

KIRTI v. RENU ANAND & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 367

ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 368

GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 369

AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 370

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 371

ARPIT BHARGAVA v. GNCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 372

SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 373

PCIT Versus Rashmi Rajiv Mehta 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 374

JIYA THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MS. SUSHMA v. MAHARAJA AGRASEN MODEL SCHOOL & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 375

Department Of Transport Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs Green City Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 376

Psa Protech And Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Food Corporation Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 377

Vijay Kumar Mishra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Vijay Kumar Mishra vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 378

Nbcc India Ltd Vs Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 379

Oriel Financial Solutions v. Bestech Advisors Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 380

Fusionnet Web Services v. Yash Fiber Network 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 381

M/S Delhi Msw Solutions Limited vs Amity Software Systems Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 382

Manju Gupta & Ors. Vs Shri Vilas Gupta & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 383

Jetibai Grandsons Services India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384

Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Order Asking CBDT To Provide Information On Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust

Title: CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER v. KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 240

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the Chief Information Commission (CIC) directing the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to provide information relating to Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, set up by the Union Government to construct and manage the Ram temple in Ayodhya, under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

MSME Facilitation Council Can't Arbitrate Matters Pertaining To Individual Service Providers Outside The Scope Of MSME Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indian Highways Management Company Ltd. vs Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 241

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the MSME Facilitation Council does not have the jurisdiction to arbitrate matters pertaining to individual service providers who do not fall under the definition of 'supplier' under the MSME Act. The same would be violative of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Policing Not Meant To Serve Interests Of Any Specific Religious Community: High Court On 'Pardanashin' Muslim Woman's Plea Against Delhi Police

Title: RESHMA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 242

The Delhi High Court has observed that policing is not tailored to serve the interests of any specific religious or any cultural community alone and has to be guided by the principles of impartiality, fairness, and reasonability.

“While respecting cultural sensitivities and religious practices, law enforcement agencies must prioritise the common good and uphold the law without discrimination,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

Wife Turning Children Against Father Is Parental Alienation, Amounts To Grave Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 243

The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of a wife in trying to turn the children against the father is a clear case of “parental alienation”, which amounts to “grave mental cruelty.”

Observing that a person may be a bad husband but that does not lead to the necessary conclusion of he being a bad father, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

“Howsoever abysmal the differences maybe between the spouses, but in no realm can the act of the aggrieved spouse of igniting animosity and hostility in the minor child in an attempt to use the child as a weapon to get even with their spouse, could be justifiable.”

Party Fails To Challenge Arbitral Award U/s 34 A&C Cannot Approach High Court Under Article 226: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

Case Title: The Executive Engineer & Ors Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 244

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be invoked where a party has failed to invoke other remedies available to it under law. It held that if a party fails to challenge the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot approach the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Section 29A Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Commenced Before 2015: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Zillion Infraprojecs Pvt. Ltd Through Anant Saxena Vs Fab-Tach Works & Constructons Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 245

The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which prescribes a time limit for issuance of arbitral award is not applicable to arbitration proceedings commenced before 2015 Amendment Act. It held that arbitral proceedings commence on the date when the Respondent receives the request for reference to arbitration. Section 29A mandates for the tribunal to make the award within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings.

Arbitrator Need Not To Be Technical In Nature, Within Power To Decide Matter On Basis Of Material On Record: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition

Case Title: Govt. Of NCT of Delhi vs M/s R.S Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 246

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral proceedings before the arbitrator are not required to be technical in nature and the arbitrator is within its power to decide the same on the basis of material on record. The bench held that the arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality and quantity of evidence, and the court's role is not to reassess the material or correct the arbitrator's errors under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Take Steps To Implement Suggestions For Improving Functioning Of Children Homes Within Four Weeks: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 247

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to take steps to implement within four weeks the suggestions for improving the facilities and functioning of the children homes in the national capital.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain was referring to the suggestions made by Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Satish Tamta, in a suo motu case initiated by it in 2018.

Doxing Can Result In Privacy Violation If Unchecked, Individuals Can't Be Rendered Remediless: Delhi HC On Woman's Plea Who Tweeted About Politician

Title: X v. SQUINT NEON & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 248

While dealing with a woman's suit who posted a tweet on X (formerly Twitter) about an interview of a political figure and was later doxed by various individuals and entities, the Delhi High Court has observed that doxing, if permitted to go on unchecked, could result in violation of right to privacy.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that aggrieved parties or individuals in cases of doxing cannot be rendered remedyless, because the individual would have suffered an injury as the privacy of the individual is breached.

Delay In Minor's Testimony Due To Psychological Distress Caused By Sexual Assault, Human Trafficking Not Ground For Bail To Accused: Delhi High Court

Title: ANUP BHENGRA @CHOTU v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 249

The Delhi High Court has observed that the delay in testimony of a minor, who is a victim of sexual assault and human trafficking, before the trial court, cannot serve as a ground for bail to the accused.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma took note of the “realities of profound impact” of sexual assault and human trafficking on a minor victim, which extends beyond mere physical harm that inflicts enduring mental trauma.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Banks' Decision To Declare Ratul Puri As Wilful Defaulter Under RBI Master Circular

Title: RATUL PURI v. BANK OF BARODA and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 250

The Delhi High Court has quashed the decision of Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank declaring businessman Ratul Puri as a “wilful defaulter” under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters, 2015, issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

Puri is the Chairman of Hindustan Power Projects Private Limited. The banks declared him as a wilful defaulter with respect to his association in another company, Moser Baer Solar Limited, as a result of which he was deprived from availing credit facilities for his prospective business enterprises.

'Cash' Excluded From Definition Of 'Goods', Can't Be Seized: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jagdish Bansal Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 251

The Delhi High Court has directed the respondent department to forfeit or remit the cash seized from the premises of the petitioner to the petitioner along with interest.

Counterclaims Can Be Enforced Under Section 36 Of The A&C Act If The Part Of Award Favouring Judgment-Debtor Is Set Aside: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s NHPC Ltd v. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 252

The High Court of Delhi has held that the counterclaims allowed by the arbitral tribunal can be enforced under Section 36 of the A&C Act when the portion of the award granting larger sums to the judgment-debtor (claimant in the arbitration) is set aside.

Custom Duties, Charges Not To Be Levied On Medicines For Rare Diseases: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 253

The Delhi High Court has clarified that custom duties and charges shall not be levied on medicines, drugs and therapies for rare diseases.

Justice Prathiba M Singh took note of the gazette notification issued by the Union Ministry of Finance on March 29 last year under the Customs Act, 1962, which included drugs, medicines or food for special medical purposes used for treatment of rare diseases.

Mere Reference To Another Agreement Having Arbitration Clause Does Not Automatically Incorporate It Into Subsequent Contract: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s MAC Associates vs Parvinder Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 254

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held that arbitration cannot be binding on parties unless the terms and conditions of the referenced agreement, which includes an arbitration clause, are explicitly incorporated into the new contract.

Designation Of Seat Of Arbitration Akin To An Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11 Application

Case Title: My Preferred Transformation And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Panchdeep Constuction Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 255

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that designation of a seat of arbitration is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. It emphasized that in an agreement featuring distinct forum selection and seat clauses, the clause designating the seat takes precedence and assumes pre-eminence.

Cash For Query Row: Delhi HC Declines Mahua Moitra's Plea To Restrain BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, Lawyer From Posting Alleged Defamatory Content

Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 256

The Delhi High Court refused to restrain at this stage BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai from posting allegedly defamatory content against Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra on social media.

Justice Sachin Datta denied interim relief to Moitra in the defamation suit filed by her against Dubey and Dehadrai, in connection with the “cash for query” allegations.

Delhi High Court Upholds 'First-Come-First-Serve' Criterion For Allotting Free Election Symbols To Unrecognised Parties

Title: NAAM TAMILAR KATCHI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 257

The Delhi High Court has upheld the “first-come-first-served” criteria of allotting a free symbol to an unrecognized party under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the plea moved by Naam Tamilar Katchi, an unrecognized political party, challenging the vires of Explanation (iv) and Proviso 1 to Explanation (iv) of Order 10B (B) of the Election Symbols Order, which provides for the criteria in question.

Mumbai Twin Blast: Delhi HC Rejects Death Row Convict's Plea Seeking RTI Info On Intelligence Bureau Report, Officers Involved In Probe

Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 258

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by a death row convict in the Mumbai twin blast case (7/11 bomb blast) seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the Intelligence Bureau report as well as appointment of IAS and IPS officers who supervised the probe and accorded sanction to the prosecution relating to his arrest and conviction.

Section 42 A&C | Delhi High Court Terminates Arbitrator's Mandate Who Disclosed Award Prematurely To Party During Proceedings

Case Title: Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 259

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh terminated mandate of an arbitrator who disclosed the award prematurely and revealed details about several claims during the hearing of the arbitral proceedings to the party. The bench held that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates for strictest confidentiality in arbitration proceedings and the Award itself.

Multiple Arbitration Before Different Arbitral Tribunals Is Counterproductive And Should Be Avoided: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 260

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh held that multiple arbitrations before different Arbitral Tribunals in respect of the same contract is counterproductive and ought to be avoided.

The bench held that it is incumbent on the parties to disclose such information to the court when approaching for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Delhi High Court Imposes Costs Of Rs.1 Lakh On Indian Oil For Taking Inconsistent Stance In Section 34 A&C Petition

Case Title: M/S. Fiberfill Engineers Through Its Partner Mr. Rishabh Kishore Vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Dy. General Manager (Engg.)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 261

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan set aside an arbitral award noting that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited failed to present evidence before the Arbitrator, thereby, making it impossible to adjudicate the contention raised regarding payment of dues. The bench imposed a substantial costs of Rs.1 lakh on the Indian Oil for taking unjustifiable contrary stands at various points in the proceedings.

Non Filing Of Arbitral Award Along Section 34 Is A Fatal Defect, Makes Filing Non-Est: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition

Case Title: Union Of India Vs NCC Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 262

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that non filing of the arbitral award along with the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a fatal defect, making such filing as non-est.

The bench held that the absence of a copy of the award renders it impossible to appreciate the grounds for seeking to set aside the award.

Delhi High Court Modifies Single Judge Order; Increases Income Threshold For EWS Admissions From ₹1 Lakh To ₹2.5 Lakh

Title: Directorate of Education v. Master Singham & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 263

The Delhi High Court modified a single judge's order that increased the income threshold of Rs. 1 lakh per annum, for admissions under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in schools in the city, to Rs. 5 lakhs.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora stayed the directions of the single judge and said that the threshold income under the EWS category shall be increased from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2.5 lakhs, till further orders.

Negotiation Requires Active Communication Between Parties, Non-Responsive Party Not Actively Participating: Delhi High Court Refers Matter To Arbitration

Case Title: M/S. Breakthrough Concepts Vs M/S. Atrix Group Of Restaurants & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 264

The Delhi High Court single bench comprising held that 'negotiation' necessitates communication between the involved parties, asserting that a party failing to respond to legal notices from another cannot be considered actively participating in the negotiation process. Consequently, Justice Sharma referred the matter to arbitral tribunal.

Section 29A Petition Maintainable If Filed Before Award Is Delivered and Not If Award Is Delivered : Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Skill Development Corporation Vs Best First Step Education Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 265

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when filed before the award is delivered during the ongoing petition, but becomes non-maintainable if filed after the award is delivered and proceedings for setting aside have commenced.

Husband Expecting Wife To Do Household Chores Can't Be Termed As Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 266

The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband expecting his wife to do household chores cannot be termed as cruelty.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dealing with a husband's appeal challenging a family court order rejecting his plea seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty by the wife.

E-Commerce Platforms Obliged To Provide Complete Details Of Sellers, Can't Be Exploited To Facilitate IPR Infringement: Delhi High Court

Title: ABHI TRADERS v. FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 267

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is an obligation on the E-Commerce platforms to ensure that complete details of the sellers are available on their site so that consumers are aware of the sellers from whom the product has been purchased, as well as the entity who is listing the product.

“The Consumer Protection (E- Commerce) Rules, 2020, notified on 23rd July, 2020, imposes an obligation as per section 5, on the e-commerce platform to give the full geographic address, customer care number, rating and other feedback about the seller for enabling consumers to make informed decision at the pre-purchase stage,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Suspension Of 7 BJP MLAs From Delhi Assembly Budget Session

Title: AJAY KUMAR MAHAWAR & ORS. V/s LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI, THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 268

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitions filed by seven BJP MLAs challenging their recent suspension from the remainder of the Budget session of the Delhi Assembly, for allegedly interrupting the Lieutenant Governor's address.

Ration Cards Can't Be Considered As Proof Of Address Or Residence: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHAMMAD HAKIM AND ANR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 269

The Delhi High Court has observed that a ration card is issued exclusively for obtaining essential commodities from shops under the public distribution system and cannot be considered as proof of address or residence.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that there is no mechanism setup by the authority issuing ration cards to ensure that the holder is staying at the address mentioned therein.

Verification Of Local Surety Bond Needs To Be Ensured Within Strict Timelines To Avoid Exploitation Of Prisoner Or Surety: Delhi High Court

Title: SUJIT KUMAR SINGH v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 270

The Delhi High Court has observed that verification of local surety bonds needs to be ensured within strict timelines in a time bound manner to avoid exploitation of prisoner or surety in any manner.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that after bail orders have been issued by the Court, the State is bound to ensure smooth release of the accused or convicts at the earliest, without any bottlenecks or delay.

Delhi High Court Rejects Husband's Plea For Divorce, Says Matrimonial Disputes Due To Mere Lack Of Adjustment Are Unfortunate

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 271

The Delhi High Court has observed that unfortunate are the matrimonial disputes where the “fountain head of friction” inter se the spouses is mere lack of adjustment, understanding and the will to stay together.

“These factors are the wheels of the chariot of a workable marriage and if either spouse becomes averse to move together and chooses to abandon the relationship, then extensive reconciliatory efforts by one spouse, would also not yield any results,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Mere Acquittal In Cruelty Case By Wife No Ground To Grant Divorce To Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 272

While rejecting a husband's plea for divorce, the Delhi High Court has observed that his mere acquittal in a criminal case filed by the wife alleging cruelty cannot be a ground for him to seek divorce.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while upholding a family court order denying divorce to a husband who alleged cruelty by the wife. His divorce petition filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was rejected by the family court.

Section 9 Not Res Judicata For Section 17 Application When Withdrawal Is Conditional: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 37(2)(B) Application

Case Title: Tata Motor Limited vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 273

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Section 9 application under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot act as res judicata for Section 17 application when the withdrawal of Section 9 application is conditional between the parties. The bench dismissed the reliance on Kanchan Kapoor v. Swaran Kumar noting that the principles of res judicata applied in that case due to the appellant's unconditional withdrawal of an appeal against a civil court judgment, where there was a finding against the appellant.

Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Judge's Conduct For Suggesting Accused & Victim Settle Rape Case, Orders Trial By Another Judge

Title: VIRENDER CHAHAL @ VIRENDER v. STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 274

The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the conduct of a trial court judge here who “suggested and assisted” the accused and victim to settle a rape case during recording of prosecution evidence.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the case be tried by another judge, to ensure that justice should not only be done but also seem to be done.

Delhi High Court Cites Religious Texts, Says Full Proof Mediation Process Will Go Long Way In Liberating Old Judicial Process

Title: RAJEEV DAGAR v. STATE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 275

The Delhi High Court has said that in the modern days' realities and demands, a full-proof mediation process will go a long way to liberate the lifestyle of the “old judicial system of resolution through litigation” towards a “new lifestyle of resolution through mediation.”

“Whether in the Courts of law or working from the office, or mediation and arbitration rooms, the lawyers have proved that the partnership between the 'lawyer power' and the 'judicial power' have brought the functional transformation of jurisprudence whether in litigation or mediation,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Wife's Request For Financial Support From Husband Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 276

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that though the aggrieved person is entitled to avail the remedy under laws, but crossing the point of “no return” becomes inevitable once the spouses get engulfed in the “rabbit hole of criminal litigations.”

[Trademarks Act] Individual's Right To Use His Or Her Name For Own Goods Can't Be Compromised: Delhi High Court

Title: JINDAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUNCITY SHEETS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 277

Quoting Shakespeare “What's in a name?”, the Delhi High Court has observed that in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the right of a person to use his or her name on one's own goods cannot be compromised, else it would compromise the right to use one's name as an identity marker, which would ex facie be unconstitutional.

“In the absence of any such caveat to be found in Section 35 (of Trade Marks Act), it may be arguable, at the very least, whether, while the use of one's name as an identity marker is permissible under Section 35, but the instance it spills over into “trade mark” territory, it is rendered impermissible. Any such interpretation, in my prima facie view, would be reading a non-existent proviso into Section 35 and, in effect, rewriting the provision,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Accused's Right To Expeditious Conclusion Of Trial Can't Be Defeated When Complainant Appears As Witness On Her Own Terms: Delhi High Court

Title: S v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 278

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of an accused to the expeditious conclusion of trial cannot be defeated when the complainant chooses to appear as a witness at her own terms.

Justice Navin Chawla said that the accused also has a right to the expeditious conclusion of the trial, as mere pendency of a case accusing a person of a criminal offence can attach stigma and cause embarrassment.

Revisional Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked For Inadequacy Of Enquiry By AO: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 279

The Delhi High Court has held that the inadequacy of the inquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

Pick And Choose Method Of Rejecting Certain Entries From Books Of Account Is Arbitrary: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 280

The Delhi High Court has held that any pick-and-choose method of rejecting certain entries from the books of account while accepting others without an appropriate justification is arbitrary and may lead to an incomplete, unreasonable, and erroneous computation of the income of an assessee.

Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Pay 6% Interest For Delayed IGST Refund

Case Title: Raghav Ventures Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods & Services Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 281

The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to pay 6% interest on delayed IGST refund.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that Section 56 of the CGST/DGST Act deals with the interest on delayed refunds.

Regressive To Mention Only Father's Name In Educational Certificates & Degrees, Names Of Both Parents Must Be Reflected: Delhi High Court

Title: RITIKA PRASAD v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 282

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no reasonable justification for only mentioning name of the father in degrees and educational certificates issued to students.

“It would be clearly retrogressive if educational certificates, degrees and other such documents reflect the name only of the father of a candidate, eliminating the name of the mother. The names of both parents should necessarily be reflected on the body of the certificate,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Failure To Consider Reply On Merits; Delhi High Court Quashes GST Demand Against Max Healthcare

Case Title: Max Healthcare Institute Limited Versus UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 283

The Delhi High Court has quashed the GST demand of Rs. 8.23 crore against Max Healthcare.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that a proper officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion as to whether the reply was devoid of merits. The proper officer merely held that the reply was devoid of merit, which shows that the proper officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.

Go Air RP Unable To Undertake Regular Maintenance Of Lessors' Aircrafts: Delhi High Court Issues Show Cause Notice For Contempt

Title: DAE (SY 22) 13 IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY v. GO AIRLINES (INDIA) LTD.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 284

The Delhi High Court has issued a show cause notice to the Resolution Professional (RP) of crisis-hit Go Air as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him, observing that he was unable to undertake regular maintenance of the aircrafts of various lessors in terms of last year's judicial orders.

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the directions to provide access and inspection of all the aircrafts records to the lessors and carrying out maintenance were not being adhered to by the RP.

Confessional Statement Of Co-Accused Under Section 50 Of PMLA Not Substantive Piece Of Evidence, Can Be Used Only For Corroboration: Delhi High Court

Title: SANJAY JAIN v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 285

The Delhi High Court has said that the confessional statement of a co-accused under Section 50 of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only for corroboration in support of other evidence to lend assurance to the Court in arriving at a conclusion of guilt.

Justice Vikas Mahajan reiterated that the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are to be meticulously appreciated only by the Trial Court during the course of the trial and there cannot be a mini-trial at the stage of bail.

Requirement Of Pre-litigation Mediation Under Section 12-A Of Commercial Courts Act Is Mandatory: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Sabsons Agencies Private Limited Vs M/s Harihar Polymers & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 286

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that the requirement of pre-litigation meditation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory in nature.

Section 12-A of the Act outlines the mandatory requirement for pre-institution mediation before filing a suit, provided urgent interim relief is not sought.

Proceedings Under IBC Doesn't Exclude Court Jurisdiction To Entertain Section 11 A&C Applications: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Godavari Projects (J.V) Vs Union of India.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 287

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that proceedings contemplated in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) do not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the court or authorities to entertain applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act or other proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor against another party. It held that even if a Joint Venture is undergoing insolvency, the bench held that preclude the corporate debtor from filing an application under Section 11.

MLAs Not Above Law, Cooperating With Investigation Also Public Service: Delhi High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To AAP's Amanatullah Khan

Title: Amanatullah Khan v. ED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 288

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan in a money laundering case connected to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Waqf Board recruitment during his chairmanship.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied the relief to Khan taking note of his conduct of avoiding the repeated summons issued to him by ED and not joining the investigation.

Delhi High Court Grants Three Weeks Parole To NDPS Convict For Arranging Funds For Payment Of Fine

Title: HARISH YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 289

The Delhi High Court has granted three weeks parole to a man convicted under the NDPS Act on the ground of arranging funds for payment of fine in terms of the sentence awarded to him, as well as for re-establishing social ties with his family.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that there were sufficient reasons for releasing the convict on parole, subject to him furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned jail superintendent.

Expression “Yes” By PCIT Couldn't Be Considered A Valid Approval U/s 151 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 Versus Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 290

The Delhi High Court has held that the expression “yes” could not be considered to be a valid approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the satisfaction arrived at by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act must be clearly discernible from the expression used at the time of affixing its signature while according approval for reassessment under Section 148.

Dish TV Cannot Claim Exclusive Right On Use Of 'Dish' Word, Not Entitled For Protection Under Trade Marks Act: Delhi High Court

Title: PRASAR BHARTI v. DISH TV INDIA LTD.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 291

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Dish TV India Limited cannot claim exclusive right to use the word “Dish” as it is generic in nature which refers to dish antenna and it will not be entitled to be protected under Section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, on a standalone basis.

A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the word 'Dish' appearing in Dish TV's trademark is a prominent or essential feature of its trademark, but it is not entitled to any protection.

Fraud Regarding Internal Management Of Company Doesn't Go To Root Of Contract, Dispute Is Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indigrid Technology Pvt. Ltd Vs Genestore India Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 292

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that fraud alleging regarding the internal management of the company doesn't go to the root of the contract. Therefore, the bench held that the dispute concerning the lack of authority to enter into a contract are arbitrable.

The bench held that the Court while deciding a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only required to see the existence of an Arbitration Clause.

Delhi High Court Ceases Mandate Of Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Under General Conditions Of Contract

Case Title: Chabbras Associates vs M/s Hscc (India) Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 293

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma rejected the contention presented by Respondent, that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator made in accordance with the contract cannot be challenged and the only option available to the petitioner is to challenge the mandate of the arbitrator. It emphasized that the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator as stipulated in Clause 25 of the GCC was inherently and blatantly unlawful.

Demolition: Delhi High Court Orders No Coercive Action Against Pakistani Hindu Refugee Residing In Camp At Majnu Ka Tila

Title: RAVI RANJAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 294

In an interim order, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to no take any coercive action against a Pakistani Hindu Refugee residing in the Pakistani Hindu Refugees Camp at city's Majnu Ka Tilla.

Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order after considering the Union Government's statement recorded in another petition in 2013 stating that it shall make endeavour to extend all support to the Hindu Community which entered the country from Pakistan.

When Parties Agree For No Interest Payable Till Arbitral Award Is Made, Arbitrator Bound By This Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rites Ltd Vs Ahuwalia Contract (India) Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 295

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that when parties agree that no interest shall be payable, the Arbitral Tribunal is bound by that agreement. The bench held that that such an agreement is not ultra vires under Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872.

Prima Facie No Arbitration Agreement Between Parties, Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 11(5) A&C Petition

Case Title: Aerosource India Pvt Ltd. Vs Geetanjali Aviation Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 296

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition filed under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, noting that prima facie there was no arbitration agreement between Petitioner and Respondent.

The High Court noted that Section 8(1), as amended in 2015, mandates the referral of parties to arbitration by a judicial authority unless there is prima facie finding that no valid arbitration agreement exists.

Delhi High Court Upholds ITAT Order Rejecting Congress' Plea To Stay Notice For Recovery Of Over ₹100 Cr Outstanding Tax

Title: INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-19 & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 297

The Delhi High Court has upheld the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on March 08 refusing to stay a demand notice issued to Indian National Congress for recovery of outstanding tax of more than Rs. 100 crores for the assessment year 2018-19.

“..while we find no ground to interfere with the order impugned, we dispose of the writ petition according liberty to the petitioner to approach the ITAT by way of a fresh stay application bringing to its attention the change in circumstances noticed above,” a division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.

Unsafe To Rely On Child's Testimony Which Is Found To Be Tutored: Delhi HC Acquits Step-Father Convicted Under POCSO Act For Raping Minor Daughter

Title: MANVIR @ MANISH v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 298

The Delhi High Court has acquitted a stepfather who was convicted in 2015 for sexually assaulting and raping his minor daughter in 2014.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that there were multiple reasons to grant the benefit of the doubt to the convict and that the victim's testimony did not inspire much confidence.

Surprised That Govt Which Announced 'Mahila Samman Yojna' Has Appealed Against Granting Maternity Benefits To Young Woman: Delhi HC Imposes ₹50K Costs

Title: GOVT. NCT OF DELHI THROUGH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND ORS v. REHMAT FATIMA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 299

The Delhi High Court has expressed surprise over the Delhi Government's decision to file a “misconceived appeal” challenging a single judge order which granted maternity and medical benefits to a young woman.

A division bench of Justice Rekha Palika and Justice Shalinder Kaur took note of the Delhi Government's steps to promote the interest of women in the city, including the recently announced Mukhyamanti Samman Yojna Scheme of giving Rs. 1000 to all adult women.

Evidence Recorded In Special Enquiry Team Won't Be Relied Upon In Departmental Enquiry Against Sameer Wankhede: Delhi High Court Clarifies

Title: SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 300

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the evidence recorded in the Special Enquiry Team (SET) will not be relied upon in the departmental enquiry proposed to be held against Sameer Wankhede as per law in relation to the Cordelia cruise drugs case.

A division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur disposed of Wankhede's plea against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on August 21 last year in so far as it refused to quash the findings of SET.

'Policy Decision': Delhi High Court Upholds Bar On OCIs From Participating In International Maths Olympiad On Behalf Of India

Title: KENISHA AGRAWAL MINOR REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MR NITIN AGRAWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 301

The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision to not allow non-citizens or Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) to participate in the International Mathematical Olympiad, observing that it is a policy decision.

“There is, therefore, a justifiable reason for not permitting non-citizens to represent India in International Maths Olympiad, and the decision cannot, therefore, be treated as either arbitrary or taken without proper application of mind,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

'Lackadaisical': Delhi High Court Unhappy Over Non-Compliance Of Ruling On Drafting Settlement Agreements In Matrimonial Cases

Title: SH. CHHATTER PAL & ORS. v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 302

The Delhi High Court has recently expressed displeasure over non-compliance of its last year's ruling wherein guidelines were framed on drafting of mediation settlement agreements in matrimonial cases, with special reference to clauses dealing with criminal cases.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that failure to effectively communicate and implement the directions poses a significant setback to the progress made in promoting ADR mechanisms.

Delhi HC Rejects Litigant's Appeal Claiming Ownership Of Land Between Ganga And Yamuna From Agra To Gurugram, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs

Title: KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 303

The Delhi High Court has dismissed with Rs. 1 lakh costs the appeal moved by a litigant, Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh, who claimed property rights on the territory of Agra, running between rivers Yamuna and Ganga, to Meerut and other places including 65 revenue estates of Delhi, Gurugram and Uttarakhand.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the single judge's order which dismissed Singh's plea with Rs. 10,000 costs.

ED Summons Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Documents Required For Confrontation Or Probe Not Specified In It: Delhi High Court

Title: MR TALIB HASSAN DARVESH v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 304

The Delhi High Court has said that the summons issued by Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot be quashed merely because relevant documents required for investigation or confrontation with an accused have not been specified in them.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the summoning, in exercise of statutory powers, cannot be stalled merely on mere apprehension that the accused may be arrested and prosecuted on basis of summons issued after registration of ECIR in the proceedings initiated by ED.

Delhi High Court Rejects Bloomberg's Appeal Against Trial Court Order To Take Down 'Defamatory' Article On Zee

Title: BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 305

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by news and media platform “The Bloomberg” against a trial court order directing it to take down an allegedly defamatory article on Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited.

Justice Shalinder Kaur upheld the trial court order and granted three days time to The Bloomberg to comply with the directions of the Additional District Judge.

Clandestine Removal And Under-Valuation Charges Can't Be Sustained Merely Based On Assumptions And Presumptions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise Versus Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 306

The Delhi High Court has held that the charges of clandestine removal and under valuation cannot be sustained merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The absence of direct, credible evidence linking the respondents to the alleged offences necessitate the dismissal of the charges.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the physical verification of the stocks and the absence of discrepancies in the recorded quantity of the raw material as well as the lack of evidence regarding the purchase of significant quantities of raw materials and cash undermine the presumption of unaccounted manufacture.

Services Provided By Irish Company To Its Indian Counterpart Not Technical Services: Delhi High Court Quashes Order Denying Nil/Lower TDS certificate

Case Title: SFDC Ireland Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 307

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order denying Nil or lower TDS certificates and held that the services provided by the assessee, Irish Company, to its Indian counterpart were not technical services.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that though the power to grant a TDS certificate was merely a preliminary examination of the issue of taxability and had no implication on the ultimate assessment that might be made, still due consideration should be accorded to the question of chargeability to tax while examining applications made under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITO Can't Retain Amount Deposited By Taxpayer Without Framing Final Assessment Order During Period Of Stay: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Navisite India Pvt Ltd vs CIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 308

The Delhi High Court allowed assessee's petition seeking refund of amounts which was deposited towards part payment of demand raised in pursuance of assessment order for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Shraddha Walkar Murder: Delhi High Court Directs Tihar Authorities To Unlock Accused Aaftab Poonawala For 8 Hrs During Day, Solitary Cell At Night

Title: AAFTAB AMIN POONAWALA v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 309

The Delhi High Court has directed the Tihar jail authorities to unlock accused Aaftab Poonawala for 8 hours during the day like other prisoners, and lodge him in the solitary cell during the night.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order in a habeas corpus plea moved by Poonawala.

Delhi High Court Cancels Man's 'Dolma' Trademark In Plea By 'Dolma Aunty Momos'

Title: DOLMA TSERING v. MOHD. AKRAM KHAN AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 310

The Delhi High Court has cancelled “Dolma” trademark adopted by an individual after the famous “Dolma Aunty Momos” filed a plea against its use.

Justice Anish Dayal directed that the impugned trademark be cancelled and removed from the Trade Marks Register.

Delhi High Court Restrains Ashneer Grover From Making Defamatory Statements Against BharatPe, Orders Him To Take Down Tweets

Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MADHURI JAIN GROVER & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 311

The Delhi High Court has restrained the Former Managing Director of BharatPe, Ashneer Grover, from making defamatory and derogatory statements against the fintech company or its office bearers or officials.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed Grover to take down his tweets, including the one calling the SBI Chairperson petty, within 48 hours.

The court also directed Economics Times to take down its article published recently based on Ashneer Grover's letters written to the RBI Chairman.

How Can Litigants Verify Authenticity Of Judicial Orders? Delhi High Court Issues Directions In Suo Motu Case

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 312

The Delhi High Court has initiated a suo motu case after a forged and fabricated judicial order was allegedly handed over to a female undertrial prisoner by the jail visiting advocate.

While ordering an inquiry into the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued various directions to the concerned stakeholders, including the general public, to verify the authenticity of judicial orders and to exercise caution and diligence when such orders are handed over to them.

[JNUSU Polls] Delhi High Court Appoints Ex-SC Judge Justice V. Ramasubramanian As Observer To Oversee Functioning Of Election Committee

Title: Sakshi v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 313

The Delhi High Court has appointed former Supreme Court judge, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, as an observer to exercise oversight over the activities and functions to be discharged by the Election Committee constituted for elections of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) 2023-24.

Justice Sachin Datta disposed of a plea filed by Sakshi, who has been a student in the varsity since 2021, challenging the process of conducting the elections.

Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'Be The Beer' Trademark In Plea By 'The Beer Cafe'

Title: BTB MARKETING PVT. LTD. v. DEEPSHIKHA SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 314

The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of “Be The Beer” mark from the Register of Trade Marks in a plea filed by food and beverage cafés chain “The Beer Cafe.”

“The impugned mark of respondent No.1 be removed from the register. The website of Registrar of Trade Marks be updated accordingly. The same may be done within a period of four weeks by the Registrar of Trade Marks,” Justice Anish Dayal ordered.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea To Offer Prayers During Ramzan At Demolished 600-Yr-Old Mosque In Mehrauli

Title: MUNTAZMIA COMMITTEE MADARSA BEHRUL ULUM AND KABARSTAN v. DDA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 315

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking permission to offer Tarawih prayers during the month of Ramzan at the site of the recently demolished 600-year-old mosque, Masjid Akhonji, in the city's Mehrauli area.

The mosque, along with Madrasa Bahrul Uloom and various graves, were demolished by the DDA on January 30.

Justice Sachin Datta dismissed the application moved in a plea filed by Muntazmia Committee Madarsa Behrul Ulum and Kabarstan.

Delhi High Court Asks WhatsApp To Explain Mechanism Followed By It For Implementing Directions To Remove Or Block Groups

Title: PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS INDIA LLP & ANR. v. JOHN DOE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 316

The Delhi High Court has asked WhatsApp LLC to file an affidavit explaining the mechanism followed by it to identify a group by its name and the technical difficulties which it would face for implementing directions to remove or block access to the same.

Justice Sanjeev Narula sought WhatsApp's response in a suit filed by Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP, formerly Sequoia Capital India & SEA, against various unknown persons (john doe) alleging that a fraudulent online investment and trading scheme was orchestrated by them.

Pre-Arrest Bail Can't Be Routinely Granted Since Accused May Use It As Shield, Custodial Interrogation To Be Avoided When Accused Joins Probe: Delhi HC

Title: PRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317

The Delhi High Court has said that an order for the grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused to use it as a shield.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that a great amount of humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest, and custodial interrogation must be avoided where the accused has joined the investigation, cooperates with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond.

Court Must Scrutinize Wife's FIR To Determine If Allegations Are 'Case Of Clever Drafting' Or Have Some Element Of Truth: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318

The Delhi High Court has observed that the court must scrutinize the complaint or FIR filed by the wife against the husband and his family members to determine whether the allegations are a “case of cheer drafting” or have some element of truth.

Justice Navin Chawla observed that where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that she would get a complaint properly drafted through her lawyer making specific allegations against each one of them.

Whether A Non-Signatory Guarantor Can Be Impleaded As A Party To Arbitration Is For Arbitral Tribunal To Decide: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES V. DILIP JAIN

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 319

The High Court of Delhi has held that a determination on the impleadment of a non-signatory guarantor to the arbitration proceedings should be made by the arbitral tribunal once the referral court forms a prima facie view on non-signatory being a veritable party.

Tribunals Under Senior Citizens Act Expected To Expeditiously Adjudicate Matters, Amendments To Existing Laws Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 320

The Delhi High Court has observed that the tribunals established under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to protect the rights and interests of the elderly are expected to adjudicate their matters expeditiously in order to provide them support and redressal.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that specific amendments to the existing laws are necessary to ensure the timely resolution of cases involving senior citizens.

Delhi High Court Rejects Lawyer's Plea With ₹1 Lakh Costs, Says Extreme View To Be Taken When Process Is Abused By Members Of Legal Fraternity

Title: LATE AKSHEM CHAND THROUGH LR ATLO DEVI v. SURESH BALA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 321

The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on a lawyer for filing an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and trying to resuscitate the issue of forged and fabricated title documents filed in a civil suit in 2009.

“The applicant is a practising advocate. This Court cannot believe that the applicant is unaware of the law. It is obviously in full knowledge and consciousness of what he is doing, and the manner in which he is abusing the legal process with impunity, that the applicant has filed the present application,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Delhi High Court Paves Way For Ukrainian Woman To Leave India With 5-Yr-Old Child, Rejects Former Husband's Custody Plea

Title: AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA v. MS. GUPTA SNIZHANA GRYGORIVNA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 322

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a former husband challenging a family court order which rejected his guardianship petition seeking custody of his 5 year old minor child, a citizen of Ukraine.

A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said that it is in the best interest of the child, notwithstanding the hostilities in other parts of the country, to remain in the company of the mother and his sibling, also citizens of Ukraine, as it will provide a safe environment to the minor.

Elections For All Bar Associations Shall Be Held In One Day For Uniform Period Of Two Years: Delhi High Court Full Bench

Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 323

A full bench of the Delhi High Court has held that elections to the Executive Committee of all bar associations in the national capital shall be held simultaneously on the same day for a uniform period of two years.

A full bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait clarified that the electoral rolls of all the bar associations shall be prepared as per their own Rules and Bye-Laws.

Forcing Wife To Do Household Chores Even If Her Health Doesn't Permit It Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 324

The Delhi High Court has observed that forcefully asking a wife to do household chores if her health does not permit her to do so amounts to cruelty.

“In our opinion, when a wife indulges herself to do household chores, she does it by affection and love for her family. However, if her health or other circumstances do not permit her to do so, forcefully asking her to do house hold chores would certainly be cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Members Of Town Vending Committee Not 'Frontline COVID-19 Warriors': Delhi High Court

Title: UMESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 325

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that the members of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) in the national capital are not frontline COVID-19 warriors.

Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by a son seeking compensation of Rs. 25 lakh for the death of his father, a TVC member, who succumbed to COVID-19 in May 2021.

Cheating In Govt Exams Undermines Merit-Based Selection; Can Have Detrimental Effects On Public Service: Delhi High Court

Title: VEDPAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 326

The Delhi High Court has observed that cheating in government examinations or resorting to dishonest means to obtain leaked papers not only undermines the merit-based selection process but also erodes public trust in a fair and transparent examination system.

“…cheating in government exams can have far-reaching consequences for society as a whole. It can lead to the recruitment of incompetent or unqualified individuals in key government positions, which can have detrimental effects on public service delivery, governance, and overall development,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Pre-Deposit Of 20% Demand Is Not Precondition For Consideration Of Stay Application During Pendency Of First Appeal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Association Of Software And Services Companies (NASSCOM) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2 (1)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 327

The Delhi High Court has held that a 20% pre-deposit demand is not a precondition for consideration of a stay application during the pendency of the first appeal.

Delhi High Court Rejects Review Plea Against Dismissal Of PIL Against Truecaller With ₹10K Costs

Title: AJAY SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court has rejected a review plea against an order which dismissed a PIL against Truecaller alleging that the global caller ID Platform violates the right of privacy of citizens of India.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the review petition with Rs. 10,000 costs.

'Don't Underestimate Wisdom Of Voters': Delhi HC Rejects PIL To Prosecute Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal, Akhilesh Yadav For 'Misleading Statements'

Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 329

The Delhi High Court has rejected a PIL seeking direction on the Union Government and Election Commission of India (ECI) to register a complaint and prosecute politicians Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Akhilesh Yadav for making allegedly misleading and false statements with an intent to damage India's image and credibility.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora closed the PIL moved by Surjit Singh Yadav, who claims to be a social worker.

Gautam Gambhir's Defamation Suit Against Punjab Kesari Settled Before Delhi High Court

Title: GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 330

The defamation suit filed by former cricketer and BJP MP Gautam Gambhir against Hindi daily newspaper Punjab Kesari and its reporters has been settled before the Delhi High Court.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma disposed of the suit in view of the settlement agreement entered into between both the parties.

Delhi High Court Directs 'Rogue Cyberlocker Websites' To Take Down Listings Of Copyrighted Content Of Netflix, Universal City Studios

Title: WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. DOODSTREAM.COM & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 331

The Delhi High Court has recently directed three alleged rogue cyberlocker websites and their operators to take down the listings of copyrighted content of leading entertainment companies like Netflix, Amazon, University City Studios and others.

Justice Anish Dayal further directed the rogue websites and their operators to disable all features from their platform allowing “regeneration of links and reuploading of infringing content” after takedown.

Tribunal's Discretion To Dispense Obligation To Deposit Duty/Interest Or Penalty In Cases Of Undue Hardships: Delhi High Court

Case Title: G & S International Versus Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 332

The Delhi High Court has held that the proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, gives discretion to the Tribunal in cases of undue hardships to dispense the obligation to deposit the duty, interest, or penalty.

Failure Of AO To Take Concrete Steps To Ascertain The Genuineness And Creditworthiness Of Transactions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 333

The Delhi High Court has held that the AO has not taken any concrete steps to ascertain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act introduces a deeming fiction to the effect that the order passed by the AO shall be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue if the order is passed without making inquiries or verification, which should have been made.

Delhi High Court Permits 73-Yr-Old NDPS Convict To Travel Abroad For Performing Hajj, Says It Is Religious Duty Of Every Muslim

Title: SYED ABU ALA v. NCB

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 334

The Delhi High Court has permitted a 73 year old man, convicted under the NDPS Act in 2010, to travel abroad for a month to Saudi Arabia for performing Hajj or Umrah pilgrimage.

“The Hajj pilgrimage holds immense significance in the Islamic faith, representing one of the five pillars of Islam, and is a religious duty for every Muslim,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Waiver Under Section 12(5) A&C Not Inferred From Conduct Of Party, Even If It Participates In Arbitration: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award

Case Title: Alka Sachdeva vs Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 335

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed the contention that a party can waive its right to object to the arbitrator's appointment through its conduct. It underscored that any waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be explicit and in writing. It noted that there is no room for implying a waiver of rights under Section 12(5) through conduct or any other means.

Unless Clear Contrary Intention, Venue In Arbitration Clause Should Be Seat Of Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court Rejects Section 11 Petition

Case Title: Ved Contracts Pvt Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 336

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that if there are no clear indications to the contrary, the venue specified in an arbitration clause should be considered as the seat of arbitral proceedings. It underscored importance of discerning the intention of the parties by examining the entirety of the contract's terms.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Interim Protection From ED Arrest To CM Arvind Kejriwal In Liquor Policy Case

Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 337

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass orders granting interim protection from coercive action at this stage to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy case.

“We have heard both the sides. However, at this stage, we are not inclined [to pass any order],” a division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said.

Crucial To Recognize Emotional Toll Of Delays In Rape Trials, Victim's Appearances For Deposition Must Be Minimum: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHIT YADAV v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 338

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is crucial to recognize the “emotional toll” of delays in the trial on rape victims and emphasised that their appearances in court for the purpose of deposition must be minimum.

“Recognizing the emotional toll of such delays is crucial in ensuring that survivors are treated with the sensitivity and respect they deserve throughout the legal proceedings which includes expeditious trials and minimum possible essential appearances in the Court for the purpose of deposition,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

2G Scam: Delhi High Court Admits CBI's Appeal Against Acquittal Of A Raja, Others

Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. A RAJA & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 339

The Delhi High Court has admitted the appeal moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the acquittal of former telecom minister and current Lok Sabha MP, A Raja and various others in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Congress Party's Pleas Against Tax Re-Assessment Proceedings

Title: INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - 19 & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 340

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by the Indian National Congress against the initiation of income tax re-assessment proceedings against it for three years (2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17) by the tax authorities.

A division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that Congress had chosen to approach the court only a few days before the time for completion of assessment would expire and at the “proverbial fag end of the proceedings.”

One Party Cannot Appoint 2/3rd Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Apex Buldsys Limited v. IRCON International Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 341

The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel for appointment of arbitrator cannot be restricted to mere 3 names as it would violate broad-based representation. Moreover, one party cannot appoint 2/3rd members of the arbitral tribunal as it would violate principles of neutrality and counter-balancing.

Section 3 A&C | Deemed Service Is Rebuttable, If Party Establishes Delivery Could Not Be Made Despite Fulfilling Conditions u/s 3: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Avdhesh Mittal Vs Deepak Vig.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 342

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to a party isn't merely procedural but confers a substantive right upon them to challenge the award within the statutory period. The bench held that the presumption of deemed service under Section 3 of the Arbitration Act is rebuttable and can be negated if a party establishes that delivery of the written communication could not have been effected despite fulfilling the conditions under Section 3.

Tax Invoices Stating Arbitration Clause Binds Parties To Arbitration: Delhi High Court Refers Parties To Arbitration

Case Title: Srf Limited Vs Jonson Rubber Industries Limited.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 343

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that the tax invoices explicitly containing the arbitration clause and parties without raising any dispute concerning it are legally bound by the arbitration clause.

“In the present case, the parties have a running account which is not in dispute. Two purchase orders may have been placed by the Respondent and various invoices may have been issued by the Petitioner. These invoices clearly state that the terms and conditions listed at the back are applicable. Considering that the parties are in regular business dealings with each other, it cannot be said prima facie that the rear of the invoice was not supplied to the Respondent.”

Once Party Submits Itself To Jurisdiction Of Court And Abandons Section 8 Application, Cannot Seek Reference u/s 8: Delhi High Court

Case Tite: M/S. Assam Petroleum Ltd. & Ors Vs M/S. China Petroleum Technology Dev. Corp. & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 344

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that held that once a defendant submits itself to the jurisdiction of the Court and abandons its application under Section 8, it cannot subsequently seek referral of the disputes to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.

Sub-lease Agreement Excluded Disputes Related To Public Premise From Arbitration, Making Them Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CG Engineering Company Vs Ircon Infrastructure And Services Limited (Ircon Isl) And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 345

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral tribunal should generally be the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability, except in cases where claims were manifestly and ex facie non-arbitrable. It held that Sub-lease Agreement excluded the disputes related to public premise from arbitration, therefore, making them non-arbitrable.

MSMED Act | No Bar In 'filing' Petition Under Section 34 A&C Without Pre-deposit of 75% Award Amount, but Will Not Be 'Entertained' Without Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Central University Of Jharkhand Vs M/S. King Furnishing And Safe Co

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 346

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that there is no bar in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same can be filed without pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. However, the bench held that the petition will not be “entertained” under Section 19 of MSMED Act without the deposit of 75 % of the awarded amount.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Remove Automated Voice Prefixed In Emergency Helpline

Title: GANGA SARAN v. THE COMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 347

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking removal of Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and other computer-generated voice prefixed in Emergency Helpline No. 112.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora that the IVR system in place is best in the current scenario even though it may not be perfect.

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Be Faulted For Disallowing Additional Evidence At The Fag End Especially When The Document Was Already In Possession Of The Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Fortuna Skill Management Pvt Ltd v. M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 348

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot be faulted for disallowing additional evidence at the fag end especially when the document was already in possession of the party.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan also held that arbitral tribunal is not strictly bound by the Indian Evidence Act.

After Final Settlement Of Arbitration Award Is Acknowledged, Claims Of Under Influence And Coercion Can't Be Raised: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Maj. Pankaj Rai vs M/s Niit Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 349

The Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that once an arbitration award has been acknowledged to be fully and finally settled by both the parties, it cannot be challenged on the basis of one-sided nature of the arbitration agreement.

Abhisar Buildwell Judgment Can't Be Construed To Be An Authority To Override Mandate Of Section 245-I: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 350

The Delhi High Court has held that the judgement of Abhisar Buildwell passed by the Supreme Court cannot be construed to be an authority to override the mandate of Section 245-I of the Income Tax Act.

Citizenship Act Prevails Over Passport Manual: Delhi High Court

Title: AKSHAR REDDY VANGA AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY SUBBA REDDY VANGA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 351

The Delhi High Court has said that the Citizenship Act, 1955, prevails over the Passport Manual of 2020, observing that a subordinate legislation cannot override the parent legislation.

Justice Subramaniam Prasad allowed the plea moved by two minor children against the authorities' decision to cancel their Indian passports and not reissuing the same.

Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination 2023 Shall Be Conducted On April 13, 14: High Court

Title: SHAMBHAVI SHARMA v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 352

The Delhi High Court has ordered that the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination (Written) 2023 shall be held on April 13-14.

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal directed its Registrar General to shift the date of examination by about 12 days. The examination was earlier to be held on March 30-31.

Without Copy of Challenged Arbitral Award, Impossible To Consider Grounds To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition

Case Title: Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that failure to file a copy of arbitral award renders the filing under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incomplete. The bench held that without the copy of the challenged award, it is impossible to consider the grounds to set aside the arbitral award.

Parties Assuring Document Execution And Providing Security For Transaction Are Part Of Loan Agreement: Delhi High Court Refers Parties To Arbitration

Case Title: M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Lt Vs Dilip Jain And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 354

The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Jasmeet Singh that the parties which assured document execution and provided security for the transaction are integral part of the loan agreement.

No Privity Of Contract Between Parties, not party to MOU: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 11(4) A&C Petition

Case Title: Mrvs Value Straight Private Limited & Anr. Vs Brightstar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 355

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the Petitioners were not party to Memorandum of Understanding containing the arbitration clause, thus there was no privity of contract between the Petitioners and the Respondent.

Wife Openly Humiliating Husband, Calling Him Impotent Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 356

The Delhi High Court has said that being openly humiliated and called impotent by the wife in front of family members is an act of humiliation causing mental cruelty to the husband.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while granting divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty by the wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

Examination System Doesn't Permit For Students To Be Penalized For Poor Handwriting: Delhi High Court

Title: MADHAV CHAUDHARY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 357

The Delhi High Court has observed that the examination system does not permit students to be penalised for having poor handwriting.

The court however emphasized that students must write properly readable answers and examiners cannot be asked to evaluate completely unintelligible handwritings.

Arbitration Act | To Claim Liquidated Damages, Party Should Establish It Had Suffered Legal Injury As Result Of Breach Committed By Other Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Kanohar Electricals Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 358

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held Liquidated damages, in law, are no different from unliquidated damages that an aggrieved party may claim. In both instances, the aggrieved party is required to demonstrate legal injury.

Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator By Party: Delhi High Cout Set Aside Arbitral Award As It Contravened Section 12(5) A&C And & 7th Schedule

Case Title: M/s Upper India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held aside an arbitral award noting that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. The bench held that that the unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator by Respondent was non-est in law, as it contravened Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Panel Consisting Of 23 Names Cannot Be Considered Broad-Based If It Lacks Arbitrators From Different Backgrounds: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Techno Compact Builders v. Railtel Corporation of India Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360

The High Cout of Delhi has held that a panel consisting of 23 names cannot be considered broad-based if lacks arbitrators from different backgrounds.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that a panel must not only be broad in terms of numbers but should also reflect diversity by having arbitrators from diverse backgrounds.

Membership Of An Arbitral Institution Cannot Be Insisted Upon As A Pre-Requisite For Invoking Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rani Construction v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 361

The High Court of Delhi has held the membership of an arbitral institution cannot be insisted upon as a pre-requisite for invoking arbitration.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that when parties agree to resolve their dispute through an arbitral institution, such an agreement cannot be construed to mean that they have agreed to take its membership.

Mere Delay By Employer Would Not Entitle The Contractor To Damages Unless The Loss Is Pleaded And Proved: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Dharamvir & Company v. DDA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 362

The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the delay in the execution of the work is attributable to the employer, the same would not entitle the contractor to claim damages unless it pleads and proves that such delay resulted in loss to it.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a procedural order passed by the earlier arbitrator, not being a final decision on the merits, does not preclude the substitute arbitrator from deciding the claims on their merits. It held that an order cannot be treated as an interim award when the issue was left to be decided on the merits at a later stage.

Delhi High Court Passes Dynamic+ Injunction, Restrains Rogue Websites From Illegally Streaming IPL Events

Title: VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 363

The Delhi High Court has passed a dynamic+ injunction order and restrained various rogue websites from illegally streaming Indian Premier League (IPL) events without authorisation of Viacom 18.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the legal remedies must remain robust and effective in curtailing copyright infringement, particularly in the fast-paced environment of the internet.

High Court Directs Delhi Police To Ensure Complainants' Personal Information Is Not Put In Pubic Domain On ZIPNET To Avoid Cyber Crimes

Title: MANJU PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS WAZIRPUR & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 364

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to ensure that vital personal information of the complainants in missing cases is not put in the public domain on ZIPNET (Zonal Integrated Police Network) to eliminate the possibility of extortion calls by cybercriminals.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to issue necessary directions to the said effect.

Delhi High Court Restrains Food Outlet From Using 'WOW PUNJABI' Trademark In Infringement Suit By 'WOW! MOMO'

Title: WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW PUNJABI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 365

The Delhi High Court has restrained a food outlet from using the “WOW PUNJABI” mark after the famous eatery WOW! MOMO sued it over trademark infringement.

Justice Anish Dayal said WOW! MOMO made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction in its favour and that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the relief is not granted.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel Registration Of 'Kwikheal' Trademark In Plea By 'Fevikwick'

Title: PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD v. SANJAY JAIN & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 366

The Delhi High Court has refused to cancel the registration of the “Kwikheal” trademark and dismissed a plea filed by Pidilite Industries Limited, an Indian adhesives manufacturing company based in Mumbai.

Justice Anish Dayal observed that even though Pidilite has a statutory right in its registered mark “Fevikwik”, it does not confer an exclusive right over part of the mark in “Kwik.”

Orders Passed By Tribunals Under Senior Citizens Act Also Amenable To Challenge Under Article 227: Delhi High Court

Title: KIRTI v. RENU ANAND & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 367

The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders passed by the tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora relied upon various judgments on the issue and observed that the orders passed by the tribunals as well as the judicial acts by administrative bodies or authorities or persons exercising quasi-judicial functions are all amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

No Interim Relief To Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi High Court Issues Notice To ED On Plea Challenging Arrest And Remand

Case Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 368

The Delhi High Court today issued notice on a plea moved by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and six days of remand in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma however declined the sitting CM any relief for now and issued notice on his interim application seeking immediate release.

Delhi High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Allotment Of Properties Based On 'Forged Documents', Says L&BD And DDA Eroded Public Trust

Title: GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 369

The Delhi High Court has referred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the probe into allotment of various properties on prime locations in the national capital based on “forged recommendation letters” by Land and Building Department (L&BD) and subsequent unauthorised property allocations by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the probe agency to conduct a thorough investigation in respect of all the allotments made on forged documents and take action in accordance with law.

Notify Guidelines To Make Cinema More Accessible For Visually, Hearing Impaired Persons Before July 15: Delhi High Court To MIB

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 370

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to finalize and notify on or before July 15 the guidelines for making cinema more accessible for visually and hearing impaired individuals.

Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the guidelines shall make the provision of accessibility features mandatory in feature films and provide a reasonable period for compliance by all stakeholders, in an expeditious manner.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Another Plea By Congress Party Against Tax Re-Assessment Of Four Years

Title: INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 371

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by the Indian National Congress against the initiation of income tax re-assessment proceedings against it for four years (2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21) by the tax authorities.

A division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav rejected four pleas filed by the Indian National Congress on similar terms as its earlier judgment whereby identical pleas of the political party were dismissed regarding the reassessment proceedings for three years (2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17).

Decide Plea Seeking Wi-Fi Access For All Stakeholders In District Courts Within 8 Weeks: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: ARPIT BHARGAVA v. GNCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 372

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Delhi Government to treat as representation a PIL seeking seamless Wi-Fi access in all district courts in the national capital for the benefit of all stakeholders, including judges, lawyers, media persons and litigants.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the Delhi Government to decide the representation within eight weeks by way of a speaking order, in accordance with law.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL For Removal Of Arvind Kejriwal From Post Of Chief Minister

Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 373

The Delhi High Court has rejected a PIL seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case, from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said the petitioner failed to show any bar in the law which prohibits the arrested CM from holding office. "Show us, where is the prohibition. Show us any legal bar which you're canvassing," the CJ orally said.

Addition Solely Based On Photocopy Of Sale Agreement Is Completely Unjustifiable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Rashmi Rajiv Mehta

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 374

The Delhi High Court has held that an addition solely based on a photocopy of the sale agreement is completely unwarranted and unjustifiable.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the entire foundation of the addition was laid down on the basis of the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell. The original copy of the document has not seen the light of day. There is no other evidence to support the veracity of the recitals made in the alleged agreement. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a sustainable basis for adding to the income of the assessee.

Article 21A Does Not Confer Constitutional Right On Any Child To Be Educated In Particular School Of Choice: Delhi High Court

Title: JIYA THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MS. SUSHMA v. MAHARAJA AGRASEN MODEL SCHOOL & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 375

The Delhi High Court has observed that Article 21A of the Constitution of India is only for free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen and does not confer on any child a constitutional right to be educated in a particular school of his or her choice.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that such a right would arise only if the child applies to the Directorate of Education (DoE) as an EWS (economically weaker section) student for admission in the entry level class for that year and is shortlisted in the computerized draw of lots.

Condonation Of Delay Re- Filing S. 34, A&C Act Application Must Be Allowed If Delay Is Procedural And Curable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Department Of Transport Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs Green City Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 376

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that not every defect leads to the dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and took a liberal approach for condonation of delay. It held that defects were not fundamental in nature and could be termed as curable or procedural.

Application Under Section 29A A&C Can Be Allowed Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Psa Protech And Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Food Corporation Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 377

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be allowed even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

Section 29A deals with the time limit for arbitral award. It specifies that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference. However, parties may extend this period by mutual consent for up to six months.

Sec. 11, A&C Act Petition Must Be Filed In High Court Where Cause Of Action Arose, Not Necessarily At Principle Place Of Business: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Mishra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Vijay Kumar Mishra vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 378

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that such a petition should be filed at the place of the subordinate office of the corporation.

“In the present case as well, the subordinate office of the respondent is situated at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and for the said reason, the State of Madhya Pradesh will have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

MSMED Act | Service Supplier Registered During Ongoing Contract Can Avail Benefits For Services Provided After Registration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nbcc India Ltd Vs Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 379

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a service supplier, upon registering during an ongoing contract, is eligible to avail benefits under the MSMED Act for services provided after registration. It held that it is always open to the arbitrator to decide this issue even as a preliminary issue.

No Writ Against Order Of Tribunal Rejecting Application U/S 16 Of The A&C Act Unless It Shocks The Conscience Of The Court: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Oriel Financial Solutions v. Bestech Advisors Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 380

The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal rejecting an application challenging its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the A&C Act cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless the order is so perverse that it shocks the conscience of the Court.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad reiterated that to protect the sanctity of the arbitral process, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with an order of the arbitral tribunal in exercise of their writ jurisdiction.

Telecom Services - Franchisee Agreement, Not Subject To TDSAT Jurisdiction, Delhi High Court Refers Dispute To Arbitration

Case Title: Fusionnet Web Services v. Yash Fiber Network

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 381

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a mere franchisee responsible for promotion of services provided by the petitioner, ergo, it does not fall under the definitions of licensee, licensor, service provider, or group of consumers as per the TRAI Act. It held that bar under Section 14 only applies in relation to telecommunication services and not to every agreement involving a service provider.

Section 37 A&C | Explanation For Delay Of 191 Days Is Sketchy And Doesn't Corelate Any Event To Specific Dates: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Delhi Msw Solutions Limited vs Amity Software Systems Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 382

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay of 191 days for petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that explanation provided for the delay was sketchy and did not corelate any event to specific dates or time period.

Delhi High Court Directs Arbitrator To Refund 6 Lakh Of 14.5 Lakh Fee Paid By Parties

Case Title: Smt. Manju Gupta & Ors. Vs Shri Vilas Gupta & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 383

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed the arbitrator to refund Rs.6,00,000- of the fees of Rs.14,50,000/- paid by the parties to the arbitrator noting the arbitrator had conducted a total of twelve hearings, of which only three resulted in substantive orders. Moreover, the bench noted that the issues in the arbitral proceedings had not yet been framed, and the arbitral proceedings had been on hold for over a year.

Second Petition Can't Be Filed If First Petition Challenging ITC Reversal Is Unconditionally Withdrawn: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jetibai Grandsons Services India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384

The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner, having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, is precluded from filing the fresh petition seeking the same relief that was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner.