Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: November 2023 [Citations 1040 - 1192]

Ajay Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

PCIT Versus Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

CIT Versus Indus Towers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. A B SUGARS LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATEL TRADING AS RAKESH PHARMACEUTICALS v. SSS PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. Dabico Airport Solutions Private Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

SATPAL SINGH v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

Vasudev Garg v. Embassay Commercial Project 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

PCIT Versus M/S Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

AJEET SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

ASHOK AGARWAL v. UOI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

POOJA V . SHAH v. BANK OF INDIA & Other Connected Matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

MOHD NASIM v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

Seema v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

New Balance Athletics Inc. v. New Balance Immigration Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Parle Product Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

SUNITA KEJRIWAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

Juniper Hotels Private Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

Sushant Kaushik v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

SHANTANU v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079

ANR International Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

BT (India) Private Limited Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082

National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083

Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084

ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

Aryan Kumar (Minor) through Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088

NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089

Viridian Development Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090

DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091

VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy’s Hospitality Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094

MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095

Tata Steel Limited Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096

Indian Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association v. Director General of Foreign Trade 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097

Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098

ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099

BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100

DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101

Shreyash Retail Private Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax TDS Circle 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1102

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHAHJAHANABAD REDEVLOPMENT CORPORATION (SRDC), GNCTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1103

VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1104

Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

SAKH ALAM @ SHEKH ALAM v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairman & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCTD AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax LiveLaw (Del) 1122

Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

Court on its own motion v. M/s Obssiobn Naaz & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

PCIT Versus M/S Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VICKY AGGARWAL AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1148

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

Trusted Info Systems Private Limited v. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1150

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1151

M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CONCESSIONAIRE OF DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION) v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1152

SHRI NARESH KUMAR V/s THE WIRE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1154

Prasanta Karmakar v. Paralympic Committee of India through its Chariman & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1155

SANJAY KUMAR VALMIKI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1156

Neelu Kumari & Ors v. Om & Anr (Bajaj Alliance Gen Ins Co Ltd) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1157

Varun v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1159

Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1160

AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1161

SUJAAT ALI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS v. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1162

CHHAYA TYAGI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

TARUN KUMAR v. PARMANAND GARG 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

BDR Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1166

Metal Engineering and Forging Company v. Central Warehousing Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1167

Italian Thai Development v. NTPC Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

LAXMI KOHLU GHAR THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH ARUN KUMAR v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

RAJINDER SINGH CHADHA v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1170

Mis Deco Industries India v. JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd through its AO Kumar Gaurav & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1171

Preeti v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

S.427 CrPC | Delhi High Court Directs Sentence Of Man Convicted For Rape And Abetment Of Suicide To Run Concurrently, Not Consecutively

Case Title: Ajay Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. to a man convicted of rape (S. 376 IPC) and abetment of suicide (S. 306 IPC), holding that the causal facts giving rise to the two offences were intrinsically intertwined and could not be segregated into two distinct sets.

The judgment came to be passed in response to an oral application made by the appellant-accused to the effect that his two sentences (RI for 10 years u/s 376 IPC and RI for 7 years u/s 306 IPC) be directed to run ‘concurrently’ instead of ‘consecutively’.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Recruitment: Delhi High Court Directs KVS To Provide 4% Reservation To Disabled Persons Including 1% To Hearing Impaired

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

The Delhi High Court has directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to provide 4% reservation to the disabled persons in respect of the total vacancies, including 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons.

“The exercise of appointing disabled persons, including deaf and hard of hearing persons be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Transfer Pricing | Delhi High Court Excludes Comparables On The Basis Of Functional Dissimilarity

Case Title: PCIT Versus Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

The Delhi High Court has excluded the comparables on the basis of functional dissimilarity in the transfer pricing case.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia excluded three comparables, namely Infobeans Technologies Ltd., Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd., citing clear reasons for their exclusion.

Delhi High Court Allows Income Tax Deduction On Upfront Loan Processing Fee To Indus Towers

Case Title: PCIT Versus Indus Towers Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

The Delhi High Court has allowed income tax deduction on the upfront loan processing fee to the assessee, Indus Towers.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that merely because the loan processing charges were paid upfront but amortized over a period of five years, solely to be in consonance with the mercantile system of accounting, the deduction of the entire charges in a lump sum in the year in which they were paid could not be denied to the respondent or assessee.

'Indian Stag' Liquor Deceptively Similar To ‘Royal Stag’ But No Case Of Passing Off Since Former Only Exported: Delhi High Court

Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. A B SUGARS LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

The Delhi High Court has confirmed an interim order passed in 2019 restraining two manufacturers/sellers from dealing in liquor and alcoholic beverages under the mark “Indian Stag” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Indian whiskey brand “Royal Stag”.

Justice C. Hari Shankar said that the interim order passed by a co-ordinate bench on July 25, 2019 shall remain confirmed pending the disposal of the trademark infringement suit.

Failed Relationship No Ground For Lodging Rape FIR: Delhi High Court

Title: SUSHANT KUMAR v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

The Delhi High Court has observed that if a romantic relationship does not work out, it cannot be a ground of lodging a rape case.

“It is a settled law that if a relationship does not work out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed.

The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a government employee accusing of making physical relations with a woman on the false pretext of marrying her.

Competent Court Can Examine Valuation Of IPR Suit Below ₹3 Lakhs, Transfer To Commercial Courts Not Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATEL TRADING AS RAKESH PHARMACEUTICALS v. SSS PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that it would be open for the competent court to examine the “declared specified value” and the value ascribed to the reliefs claimed in an IPR suit if it is pegged below Rs. 3 lakhs, adding that its undervaluation would have to be evaluated based on the facts of each case.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that the exercise can be legally undertaken by the competent court itself and that such matters need not be transferred to commercial courts for the purpose of value evaluation.

Appointment Of Local Commissioner Cannot Be Sought By One Party To Marshal Better Evidence Against Another: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. Dabico Airport Solutions Private Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

In an application seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner (LC), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that such appointments cannot be sought by parties to equip themselves with ‘best evidence’ in their case against others.

Speaking of Order 26 Rule 10A CPC which empowers a court to issue commissions, Justice C. Hari Shankar said that the provision was invocable only where the court believed that (i) determination of issue(s) in the suit involved scientific investigation, (ii) such scientific investigation could not be conveniently conducted before the court and, (iii) it was necessary or expedient in the interests of justice to issue the commission to conduct the scientific investigation.

Can’t Let Economic Circumstances Of Parents Become ‘Death Warrants’ For Their Daughters In Matrimonial Homes: Delhi High Court On Dowry Death

Title: SATPAL SINGH v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

The judicial system cannot stand by and allow the economic circumstances of a girl's parents to become death warrants and sentences for their daughters in their matrimonial homes, the Delhi High Court has observed while dealing with a dowry death case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that to subject a woman to a life akin to a slave merely because of her marital status is an egregious injustice.

Designation Of Venue Of Arbitration Tantamount To Seat Of Arbitration In Absence Of A Significant Contrary Indicia: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Vasudev Garg v. Embassay Commercial Project

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

The Delhi High Court has held that the venue of arbitration would actually be the seat of arbitration when the agreement does not contain any contrary indicia. It held that clause proving for venue of arbitration would have a superseding effect over a clause providing for exclusive jurisdiction on any other Court if the parties have expressly made the latter subject to the former.

Decide Hindu Sena President’s Representation On ‘Wrong Historical Facts’ About Taj Mahal: Delhi High Court To ASI

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

The Delhi High Court has asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to decide a representation submitted by the President of NGO Hindu Sena alleging that there are “wrong historical facts” in public domain regarding construction of Taj Mahal by Shahajahan.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL filed by President Surjit Singh Yadav seeking removal of allegedly “wrong historical facts” on the monument’s construction by Shahjahan from the history books in schools and colleges.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Award Passed In Defiance Of Supreme Court Order

Case Title: Unison Hotel v. Value Line Interiors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award for having been passed in defiance of the order of the Supreme Court. It held that such an award would be against the public policy and that if the arbitral tribunal is allowed to defy the order of the Supreme Court, it would violate principle of Judicial discipline.

Delhi High Court Upholds ITAT’s Decision On Selection Of Comparables For Determination Of Arm’s Length Price Of An International Transaction

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

The Delhi High Court had upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the selection of comparables for the determination of the arm’s length price of an international transaction.

The Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the Tribunal not only followed the previous orders mentioned above to maintain consistency but also examined the entire material on record to ascertain the comparability of each of the comparables with the case of the respondent or assessee pertaining to AY 2007–08.

Child Sexual Abuse Serious Issue, Perpetrators Should Be Adequately Punished Irrespective Of Background, Domestic Responsibilities: Delhi High Court

Title: AJEET SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

The Delhi High Court has observed that the child sexual abuse is a serious issue, being “pervasive and disturbing”, which deserves adequate attention of every stakeholder directly or indirectly connected with administration of justice and judicial process.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that the issue requires to be addressed with lot of sensitivity and sensibility, adding that it is the solemn duty of the court to award adequate punishment to the accused, irrespective of his social, economic background or other domestic responsibilities.

High Court Directs Delhi Govt, MCD To Strictly Comply With Recent Supreme Court Ruling On Manual Scavenging

Title: ASHOK AGARWAL v. UOI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other civic authorities in the national capital to strictly comply with a recent Supreme Court ruling which called for a complete eradication of the practice of manual scavenging.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the authorities to comply with a last month judgment in Balram Singh v. Union of India and Others wherein the Apex Court directed that the compensation in cases of sewer deaths must be increased to Rs.30 lakhs.

Delhi HC Expresses Displeasure With Police, Hospitals For Not Ensuring Prompt Medical Examination Of Rape Victim Seeking To Terminate Pregnancy

Title: MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

The Delhi High Court has expressed strong displeasure over non-compliance of its directions regarding medical termination of pregnancy of rape victims by the Delhi Police and hospitals in the national capital, observing that it is being complied with only on paper but not in spirit.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the directions were passed in January keeping in mind that every day, every hour, every minute of pregnancy which is a result of sexual assault, is not only traumatic and affects the psychological health of a victim and her family, but also is critical for her physical health and welfare, in case its termination is to take place.

Delhi High Court Refuses To "Throttle" ED Probe At Summons Stage Against Man Who Transacted With Lalu Yadav's Family

Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

While denying relief to a man seeking copy of ECIR in a money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has said that it cannot throttle the investigative process of the Enforcement Directorate at the stage of issuance of summons under PMLA.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea moved by one Amit Katyal, who was not named as an accused in the land for job scam case, seeking quashing of ECIR and a summon issued by ED.

‘Lackadaisical Approach’: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20K Cost On Centre For Failing To Pay Pension To 96 -Yr-Old Freedom Fighter

Title: UTTIM LAL SINGH UOI & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 20,000 cost on the Union Government for its lackadaisical approach and failure to pay “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension” to a 96 years old freedom fighter, who participated in Quit India Movement and other movements associated with the country’s independence.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the inaction of the Central Government is an insult to the freedom fighter Uttim Lal Singh, who was declared as a proclaimed offender, and that his entire land would have been attached in the proceedings initiated by the British Government.

RTI Act | Penalty Imposed On Public Information Officers For Delay In Reply Depends On 'Malice': Delhi High Court

Title: POOJA V . SHAH v. BANK OF INDIA & Other Connected Matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Right to Information Act, 2005, only specifies the maximum limit of penalty to be imposed on Public Information Officers and the said amount may vary depending on malice and degree of inaction on the officials’ part in not providing the information.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though Section 20 of the RTI Act stipulates a maximum penalty of Rs.250 per day to be imposed on the Public Information Officer, however, it does not mean that the maximum penalty has to be imposed on the official.

Road Accident Being 'Unforeseen' No Ground To Let Off Offender For Rash And Negligent Driving: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD NASIM v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

The Delhi High Court has observed that happening of a road accident is an unforeseen incident but it cannot be a ground to let off the offender.

“The happening of an accident is an unforeseen incident but it cannot be a ground to let off the offender. The accident may render the entire family of the deceased in state of destitution,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said.

Commence Procurement Of Medicines For Children With Rare Diseases For Whom Evaluations Are Completed: Delhi High Court To AIIMS

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

The Delhi High Court has directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to commence the process of procurement of medicines for children with rare diseases, for whom evaluations have been completed and who are amenable to treatment, as per the fund of Rs. 50 lakhs allocated per patient in terms of the Rare Diseases Policy.

Justice Prathiba M Singh took note of a report submitted by AIIMS stating that out of the total 32 patients, 14 patients were amenable to treatment, 17 patients were not amenable to treatment and one 1 was under evaluation.

Delhi High Court Allows Daughter Longing To See 90-Yrs-Old Mother To Meet For 10 Minutes

Case Title: Seema v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur on Thursday took a sympathetic view in a daughter’s habeas corpus plea in respect of her mother.

The petitioner-daughter had filed the petition stating that her mother was initially residing with her. However, sometime back, her brother had taken their mother to reside with him.

Delhi High Court Declares “New Balance” And “NB” Trademarks Of US-Footwear Apparel Brand As 'Well-Known'

Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. New Balance Immigration Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court recently declared footwear and apparel brand New Balance’s marks as well-known. It was clarified, however, that there shall be no monopoly in the words “New” and “Balance” if used separately in respect of any other goods or services.

“…the mark “NEW BALANCE” is a unique combination of two distinctive words i.e. “New” and “Balance” which have no connection, allusion or description of the products of the services offered by the Plaintiff. The logo [NB] is also quite distinctive and has been repeatedly enforced by the Court orders against misuse. The global reputation of the Plaintiff’s marks have been proved on record”, the court said.

Explain Pros And Cons Of Medical Termination Of Pregnancy To Rape Victims In Mother Tongue: Delhi High Court Directs Police, Medical Board

Title: MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

The Delhi High Court has directed the investigating officers of Delhi Police and medical board to explain the pros and cons of medical termination of pregnancy to the rape victims and her guardians (in case of minors) in mother tongue, be it Hindi or English language.

“This Court orders that henceforth, in cases of medical termination of pregnancy in rape cases, the pros and cons of the medical termination of pregnancy will be explained in Hindi wherever the victim and her guardian in case of a minor victim understands Hindi, or English where they understand the said language,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Quashes Suspension Of License, Issued To Customs House Agent, Finding Order Illegal

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

The Delhi High Court has held that there was proper verification on the part of the Customs House Agent (CHA) with regard to the genuineness of the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) as well as GSTIN.

Plea For Premature Release Of Convicts Undergone Long Incarceration Must Not Be Dealt With Mechanically: Delhi High Court

Title: HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

The Delhi High Court has said that the application for premature release of convicts who have undergone long incarceration period must not be dealt with in mechanical and clerical manner.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that when the convict has undergone substantial and long period of incarceration, the eventual purpose of imprisonment, including the most serious offences, is reformative and not retributive.

ITR-Filing Date Is Relevant For Calculating Section 143(2) Limitation And Not Defect-Removal Date: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

The Delhi High Court has held that once the return has been found to be valid and only a defect within the meaning of Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act has been found, interest cannot be levied.

[Motor Accident] Insurer Liable To Meet Contractual Liability If It Undertakes To Compensate Insured Vehicle’s Owner: Delhi High Court

Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

The Delhi High Court has observed that an insurance company is liable to meet the contractual liability where it undertakes to pay compensation on the death or injury suffered by the owner of the insured vehicle.

Justice Navin Chawla said that as a general rule, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death or the bodily injury suffered by the owner or borrower or the driver of the insured vehicle.

Wife Making Unsubstantiated Allegations, Waging Legal War Against Husband And His Family Members Is Extreme Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1068

The Delhi High Court has said that the wife making serious and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband and waging a legal war against him by implicating him and his family members amounts to extreme cruelty towards spouse.

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

[OREO v. FABIO] Specific Plea Of Invalidity, Tenable Grounds Essential To Challenge Validity Of Mark U/S 124 Trade Marks Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Parle Product Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

The Delhi High Court recently rejected an application filed by “OREO” proprietor under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act seeking permission to initiate rectification proceedings w.r.t. Parle’s “FABIO” mark registered in Class 30 (biscuits, cookies, etc.).

It opined that for Section 124(1) to apply in a case where the plaintiff seeks to challenge the validity of the defendant’s mark, “firstly, the defendant must raise a Section 30(2)(e) defence by citing the registration of its mark as a defence to infringement and, if the defendant does so, the plaintiff must plead invalidity of the defendant’s mark”.

Veer Ji Malai Chaap Trademark Suit: Delhi High Court Holds Restaurant Owner Guilty Of ‘Subverting’ Injunction By Tweaking Name

Title: VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

The Delhi High Court has held a Meerut based restaurant owner guilty of disobeying a last court order which restrained him from having any online listing on Zomato or Swiggy using the name “Veer Ji Malai Chaap Wale” by “subverting” the injunction and using a different name “Veer Di Malai Chaap Wale.”

“There was a specific direction to the defendant to remove the online listings from Zomato and Swiggy using the id VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE. The defendant has, while removing the said id, engineered a stratagem by which orders can be placed on the same outlet using the new id VEER DI MALAI CHAAP WALE though no such outlet bearing the said name is present at the address,” Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

Delhi High Court Stays Summons Issued To Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s Wife In Case Alleging She Holds Two Voter IDs

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

The Delhi High Court has stayed a trial court order issuing summons to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's wife Sunita Kejriwal in a case alleging she holds two voter IDs.

Justice Amit Bansal issued notice on Sunita Kejriwal’s plea and stayed the trial court order till February 01, 2024, the next date of hearing.

Electricity | Recipient Of Concession With No Vested Right Cannot Seek Continuation Of Waiver: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Juniper Hotels Private Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula recently dismissed a challenge brought against increase in Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO) of Open Access Consumers and imposition of additional surcharges by DERC.

“...the fixation of tariffs through subordinate legislation is within the commission's purview, and no manifest arbitrariness has been demonstrated to call this decision into question”, it said.

Arbitration Act | Scope Of Appeal U/S 37 Limited, Cannot Be Equated With Normal Appellate Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by DCM Ltd. u/s 37 of the A&C Act, refusing to re-examine evidence in view of the limited scope of the provision.

The appeal by DCM Ltd. impugned a judgement by Single Bench of the court, whereby its challenge to an Arbitral Award u/s 34 A&C Act was dismissed.

Regularly Monitor Azad Market To Identify Violators Of Fire Norms: Delhi High Court To MCD

Title: AZAD MARKET RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to conduct regular monitoring of Azad Market area in the national capital to ensure that the violators of fire norms are identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing.

“In this regard, the MCD shall endeavor to conduct regular monitoring of the Subject Area [Azad Market] to ensure that persons found violating the Fire Norms are promptly identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing under Rule 34 of the Delhi Fire Rules,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Prohibition On Carrying E-Cigarettes On Aircrafts

Title: SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the prohibition on carrying e-cigarettes on aircrafts.

After Justice Subramonium Prasad hinted on dismissing the petition with a “six figure cost”, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sutirtha Dutta, withdrew the plea.

The court allowed the withdrawal with a liberty to Dutta to make a representation to the Union Government on the issue.

Fill Vacant Posts Of Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals), Consider Increasing Sanctioned Strength To 570: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Government to take appropriate measures for filling up all the posts of Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) lying vacant, observing that it would greatly assist in disposals of the pending appeals.

“The Union of India may also consider increasing the sanctioned strength of Commissioner (Appeals) substantially at least to the extent of 570 of such posts, to achieve the aims and objects of the Central Action Plan which is formulated every year,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered.

20-Yr-Old College Student Accused Of Raping Professor Granted Anticipatory Bail; Delhi High Court Says Relation Was Out Of Choice, Not Force

Case Title: Sushant Kaushik v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old college student accused of raping his professor, noting that the prosecutrix not only chose to enter a relationship with the applicant on her own, but also to continue with the same for over a year.

“All the aforesaid show the love, care and affection, the prosecutrix had for the applicant … Prima facie, it seems that she was in a relationship with the applicant out of choice and desire rather out of compulsion or force”, the court said.

Simple Touch Not ‘Manipulation’ For Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court

Title: SHANTANU v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a simple act of touch cannot be considered as manipulation for the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act.

Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act states that a person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if he manipulates any part of the child’s body so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any other body part or makes the child to do so with him or any other person.

Delhi High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Private School Teachers, Says Approval From DoE Necessary For Accepting Alleged Resignations

Case Title: Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079

In a relief to teachers of Rao Manohar Singh Memorial Sr. Secondary School, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula today upheld the order of a Single Bench and directed reinstatement in service of the respondent-teachers.

Notably, relying on Kathuria Public School v. Director of Education and Anr., the appellant, a private unaided school, had contended that it was not required to obtain approval from Director of Education for terminating respondents’ services. The court, however, did not agree.

Can Debts Recovery Tribunal Entertain A Claim For Less Than Rs.10 Lakhs Under SARFAESI Act? Delhi High Court Answers

Case Title: IDFC First Bank Limited v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1080

The Delhi High Court recently held that DRT cannot entertain a claim for an amount less than Rs.10 lakhs under the SARFAESI Act.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan added that the SARFAESI Act's remedy under Section 13(10) cannot be availed by a bank independent of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), and the pecuniary limit set out in the RDB Act also applies.

Denial Of Arbitration Clause In Reply To Arbitration Notice Can’t Disentitle A Party To Invoke Section 8 Of The A&C Act In A Suit : Delhi High Court

Case Title: ANR International Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 8 of the A&C Act is mandatory in nature meaning thereby that the Court is bound to refer the dispute to arbitration when there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the respondent makes an application for reference to arbitration before submitting its written statement before the Court.

The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that the Court cannot refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration merely on the ground that the defendant had initially, in reply to Section 21 notice, denied the existence of the arbitration agreement.

CENVAT Credit Refund Can’t Be Denied In Absence Of Self-Assessed Return Having Been Questioned, Reviewed Or Re-Assessed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BT (India) Private Limited Versus UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082

The Delhi High Court has held that a CENVAT credit refund cannot be denied in the absence of the self-assessed return having been questioned, reviewed or re-assessed.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that a self-assessed return also amounts to an “assessment” and unless it is varied or modified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute, it cannot possibly be questioned in refund proceedings.

Court Exercising Powers Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Modify An Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot modify an arbitral award. It held that the Court can either uphold the award or set aside any finding, however, the Court is powerless to modify the award by allowing a relief that was disallowed by the arbitral tribunal.

The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma also held that where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove, the tribunal is empowered to award liquidated amount stipulated in the contract, if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, or reasonable compensation for the said amount loss or damage. The claim for LD in such cases is well within the purview of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Unfortunate That PIL Jurisdiction Abused To Settle Personal Scores: Delhi High Court Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Cost On Litigant

Case Title: Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela recently dismissed the PIL filed by a party while suppressing relationship with the private respondent.

“…this Court is of the firm opinion that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands… the Petitioner was certainly an interested person”, the court said.

High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Operationalize Within One Month Online Portal For Clearing Its Lawyers' Bills

Case Title: ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to immediate take steps for operationalizing the Online Single Window System (OSWS) portal for clearing fee memos of its lawyers and for inaugurating the same within the one month.

Justice Prathiba M Singh asked the Delhi Government to file a report regarding the functioning of the portal and listed the matter for hearing on March 07.

Delhi High Court Restrains Telangana Based Hospital Chain From Using ‘Maxi Cure’ Mark In Trademark Infringement Suit By Max Healthcare

Title: MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED v. MAXI CURE HOSPITALS & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1086

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Telangana based hospital chain from using the mark “Maxi Cure” for its healthcare services in a trademark infringement suit filed by Max Healthcare.

Keeping in view the fact that since Maxi Cure Hospital was using the impugned mark for a hospital, Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the injunction shall come into effect only from February 01, 2024.

Delhi High Court Orders KVS Student Who Failed In Maths Be Promoted To Class-XII, Considers Marks Obtained In Physical Education

Case Title: Aryan Kumar (Minor) through Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court recently allowed a student of Class-XI to be promoted based on marks obtained by him in Physical Education, an additional subject, instead of Mathematics (which he had failed to qualify).

The petitioner’s grievance was that he had been denied promotion on the ground of Article 106 of the KVS Education Code (as amended in 2018), even though respondent No.1/school was bound by CBSE Examination Bye-Laws, 1995, which allow for marks in main subject to be substituted with marks of an additional subject, subject to conditions.

Mother Moves Habeas Corpus Plea In Delhi High Court But Refuses To Take Custody Of Minor Daughter Recovered Pregnant

Case Title: S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently disposed of a habeas corpus petition, where the missing girl, a minor, was recovered but her parents/petitioner refused to take custody in view of her pregnancy.

Notably, the petition was filed by the mother of the girl, seeking directions for her production before the court. It was alleged that a boy had lured the daughter away, established physical relations with her and made public certain illicit videos that he had made of her.

Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturers From Using ‘Nilkranti’ Device Mark In Suit By ‘Nilkamal’, But Holds No Similarity Between Both Marks

Title: NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089

The Delhi High Court has restrained two plastic chair manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” device mark or any other device mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar to the device marks of Nilkamal.

Justice C Hari Shankar however rejected Nilkamal’s prayer in its trademark infringement suit to restrain the manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” as a word mark, either for chairs or for any other item manufactured by them.

Once Licence Is Revoked, Any Use Of Trademark By Ex-Licensee Would Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Viridian Development Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090

The Delhi High Court has held that once the licence is revoked by the licensor, any use of the mark by the ex-licensee would amount to an infringement of the trademark and would deceive the public, inasmuch as the public would be led to believe that the ex-licensee is still connected with the licensor.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an ex-licensee cannot be allowed to use the mark after termination of license. Further, the licensor has a right and duty to ensure the consistency of the goods or services being sold and advertised under its mark and take action against any infringement of the mark.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Judicial Inquiry Into Appointment Of Morarji Desai National Institute Of Yoga’s Director

Title: DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of appointment of Dr. Ishwarappa Veerbhadrappa Basavaraddi as Director of the Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga, an autonomous institution under the Union Ministry of AYUSH.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by one Dr. Ajay Pal who claimed that during his tenure in the institute as an Assistant Professor, he witnessed numerous administrative discrepancies occurring under the directorship of Dr. Basavaraddi.

Delhi High Court Raps Litigant For Pursuing Contempt Against District Judge, Calls It Unmitigated Attack On Courts’ Majesty

Title: VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

The Delhi High Court has warned a litigant for misusing the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as he sought contempt action against a district court judge on the ground that his grievances were not duly addressed.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To “34 Chowringhee Lane” Acquirer, Sets Aside Fetters Put By Arbitrator On Opening Of Franchisees

Case Title: HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy’s Hospitality Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court recently granted relief to “34 Chowringhee Lane” acquirer-HDA Flavours Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the Arbitrator, while dealing with a Section 17 application, should not have interdicted it from creating new franchisees.

“A blanket embargo on the appellant from creating any new franchisee or entering into such business agreements as may be appropriate for the advancement of business, may result in denuding the value of the business on account of stagnation/depletion in market share,” the court said.

Conviction For Committing Sexual Offences No Ground For Denying Benefit Of Furlough: Delhi High Court

Title: GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094

The Delhi High Court has ruled that conviction for committing sexual offences is no ground for denying the benefit of furlough to an otherwise eligible prisoner.

“In this Court’s opinion, merely because a person has been convicted for committing sexual offences, he cannot be denied benefit of furlough, which he is otherwise eligible for, on such erroneous grounds,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Implement Policies On Vocational Training To Children With Special Needs In Letter And Spirit: High Court To Centre, Delhi Govt

Title: MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095

The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre and the Delhi Government to implement their policies on skill learning and vocational training to the children with special needs in letter and spirit with a timely reassessment to counter any challenges that may arise in future.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL moved by a class XII student seeking implementation of a nation-wide policy to impart skill learning and vocational training to children with special needs.

Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Demand Of Rs. 257 Crores Against Tata Steel Ltd.

Case Title: Tata Steel Limited Versus DCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096

The Delhi High Court has quashed the income tax demand of Rs. 257 crore against Tata Steel Ltd. (TSL).

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that a successful applicant is, in law, provided with a “clean slate”; therefore, dues for the period prior to the date when the RP was approved cannot be recovered. The courts have recognized this principle in more than one case.

Retrospective Changes Likely To Devastate Entire Sector, Withdrawal Of Merchandise Exports Scheme Shall Apply Prospectively: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indian Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association v. Director General of Foreign Trade

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently ruled that DGFT’s decision to repeal the MEIS scheme with retrospective effect, combined with their refusal to honour claims for the valid period, was arbitrary and indefensible, both in principle and law.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Prohibition On Chhath Puja Celebration At Yamuna River Banks

Title: Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the Delhi Government's decision of prohibiting devotees from performing Chhath Puja on the banks of Yamuna river.

Observing that the prohibition has been imposed in order to prevent pollution in the river, Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed his inclination to dismiss the plea which was moved by two societies namely Chath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti and Purwanchal Jagriti Manch.

Section 29A Permits Court To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even When Application Made After Expiry Of Time Limit Provided: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 29A of the A&C Act is empowered to extend the mandate of the arbitrator even in cases where the application seeking extension of time is not made within the time limit fixed for the making of the award.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the purport of Section 29A of the A&C Act is clearly not to tie the hands of the parties or the court, and prevent extension of time even where warranted, simply because the petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a few days after expiration of the deadline contemplated under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act.

High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Declare Unencroached Forest Land As ‘Reserved’, Warns Chief Secy Of Contempt In Case Of Failure

Case Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue within two weeks a notification declaring all un-encroached forest land in the national capital as reserved under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that in case the notification is not issued within the stipulated period, the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government shall be liable for contempt action and a notice of contempt will be initiated against him.

DDA Demolitions | Ambit Of Writ Court Does Not Extend To Resolving Intricate Disputes Over Boundary Delineations: Delhi High Court

Title: DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the ambit of a writ court does not extend to resolving intricate disputes over boundary delineations which require thorough examination of documents, surveys, maps, an assessment of their validity and ground study of areas.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that such tasks squarely fall within the expertise and jurisdiction of the statutory authorities which are constituted under relevant land statutes enacted by the State legislature.

Delhi High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The Grant Of An LDC Permitting Deduction Of 0.01% TDS

Case Title: Shreyash Retail Private Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax TDS Circle

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1102

The Delhi High Court has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the grant of a lower deduction of tax certificate (LDC) permitting the deduction of 0.01% TDS.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the reasons furnished by the Respondent/department qua the Application i.e., as to why the Petitioners’ request that TDS should not be deducted at a rate of 0.01%, hinges on broad generalisations in relation to the propriety of projected estimations of revenue and tax liability and accordingly has been had been issued mechanically reflecting non-application of mind.

Chandni Chowk Re-Development Work Should Continue And Be Maintained: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHAHJAHANABAD REDEVLOPMENT CORPORATION (SRDC), GNCTD & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1103

The Delhi High Court has requested the Delhi Government to ensure that the re-development work of city’s Chandni Chowk is continued and maintained.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a suo motu PIL registered last year on the basis of a newspaper report concerning various stages of Chandni Chowk’s development and the delay which occurred in its implementation.

Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Alleging Irregularities In 'Special Olympics Bharat', Directs Compliance Of National Sports Code In Elections

Title: VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1104

The Delhi High Court has asked Special Olympics Bharat to ensure strict compliance with National Sports Development Code, 2011, for all upcoming elections of office-bearers at national and state level.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also asked the national sports federation to comply with the Code for the selection of sportspersons and national coaches for upcoming Special Olympic World Games, 2025.

Throwing On Another Person Any Liquid Or Substance Other Than 'Acid' Not An Offence U/S 326B IPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

"...under Section 326-B of the IPC, an offence is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw ‘acid’ on another person, and not any other liquid or substance,” the Delhi High Court has held.

It thus quashed an FIR registered on allegations of a woman throwing acid on her sister-in-law, observing that the substance thrown was not found to be ‘acid’ and the allegation appeared to be motivated by an ongoing property dispute between the parties.

School Safety Standards: Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Inspections By Child Safety Monitoring Committee

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to be followed by the court-appointed Child Safety Monitoring Committee during the course of its inspections of schools in the national capital, in respect of minimum standards of school safety.

A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered that no member will be allowed to inspect the schools independently and that the three member Committee as a whole headed by the Chairperson will inspect the schools.

Merely Because Complainant Married Accused Does Not Entail Quashing Of Rape, POCSO FIR: Delhi High Court

Title: SAKH ALAM @ SHEKH ALAM v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the complainant married the accused does not entail quashing of an FIR registered for the offence of rape and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain refused to quash an FIR registered under the POCSO Act after the accused and complainant sought its quashing on the ground that they had settled their disputes, got married and were blessed with a son.

Can't Permit All Cases Against CBSE To Be Filed In Delhi When Most Vital Part Of Cause Of Action Arose Elsewhere: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairman & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently dismissed an LPA seeking relief against CBSE, holding that though the Board has its HQs in Delhi, the appellant’s grievance was not directly attributable to it.

Speaking of forum conveniens, the Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, observed:

“…the doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice”.

Finalize Proposal On Establishing Specialized Training Academy For Public Prosecutors Within Four Weeks: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to finalize within four weeks its proposal regarding the establishment of a specialised training academy for public prosecutors.

A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the public prosecutors shoulder weighty responsibilities in the discharge of their duties and directed the Delhi Government to file an affidavit outlining the steps taken by it.

Delhi High Court Directs DCP Legal To Convene Meeting Regarding SOP On Security Measures During College Fests

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Police’s DCP (Legal) to convene a meeting to put in place the standard operating procedure (SOP) regarding the security measures to be followed during college fests that are organised by colleges or Universities in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the representatives of IIT Delhi, Delhi Universities and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University shall also be called in the meeting.

Delhi High Court Seeks DDA’s Stand On CBI Probe Into Allotment Of Properties Based On Forged Recommendation Letters

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

The Delhi High Court has sought stand of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as to whether the matter of allotment of 128 properties, on prime locations in the national capital, based on “forged recommendation letters” by Land and Building Department be referred for further investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the value of the properties, even at an average price, would be in thousands of crores, and that the total value even by conservative estimates could be over Rs. 2000 crores.

Conduct Security And Social Audit Of DUSIB Shelter Homes: High Court To Delhi Govt’s Chief Secretary

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCTD AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government’s Chief Secretary to undertake a security and social audit of all the shelter homes under the supervision of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) to ensure that they are occupied by eligible persons.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the exercise be done positively within six weeks.

Court Exercising Powers Under Section 34 Of A&C Act Cannot Allow Claims Rejected By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot allow claims which were disallowed/rejected by the arbitral tribunal.

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that Section 34 of the A&C Act does not permit the Court to rewrite an arbitral award and the Court can either set aside or upheld the arbitral award.

Once Granted Bail, Accused Must Not Only ‘Join’ Investigation But Also ‘Participate’ In It: Delhi High Court

Title: VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

The Delhi High Court has said that an accused, once granted bail, is always expected to not only join the investigation but also participate in it, while underscoring that there is a palpable difference between “joining” and “participating” in probe.

“In any event, this Court wishes to take note of the fact that in numerous cases pending trial, unfortunately, there is a recent growing trend wherein an accused, despite either making a statement through counsel in the Court or despite conditions being imposed by the Court, merely chooses to ‘physically’ join investigation on paper, without any actual participation,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

Continuing To Contest The Suit Does Not Waive The Right To Arbitration When A Section 8 Objection Was Raised In Written Submissions And Arguments: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot be deemed to have waived off its right to arbitration merely because it continued to contest the suit when it had specifically raised objection to the maintainability of the suit due to the presence of the arbitration agreement.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that when a party takes a specific objection predicated on Section 8 in the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) seeking leave to defend the suit and that objection, thereafter, is reiterated in the written statement and arguments. It cannot be said that the party has waived the right to arbitration.

Before Issuing Summons U/S 138 NI Act, Only Prima Facie View On Presence Of Basic Ingredients Of The Offence Necessary: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently upheld summoning orders passed in a complaint case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that evidence need not be gone into by the MM while conducting inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of NI Act.

“At the stage of issuance of summons, for the purpose of Section 202 of the CrPC read with section 145 of the NI Act, the learned MM is only required to examine whether the basic ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been prima facie made out by the complainant and supported by the pre-summoning evidence led on behalf of the complainant.”

No Separate Application Under Section 8 Of The A&C Act Is Required When The Objection Is Duly Raised In The Written Submissions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

The Delhi High Court has held that once a party has duly taken objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit due to the presence of the arbitration clause between the parties in its written statement, it would be sufficient compliance of Section 8 of the A&C Act and there is no need for a separate application.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that once an arbitration clause has been extracted by a party in its written submission to object to the jurisdiction of the Court, the mere fact that the party did not separately request that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration, would be of little consequence.

Interested Party Cannot Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally, Award Passed By An Ineligible Arbitrator A Nullity: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party interested in the dispute cannot unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, and if any Award is passed as a result of such unilateral appointment, the same would be a nullity.

The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain, noted that the respondents’ nomination of the Arbitrator was without reference to the court in terms of Section 11 of A&C Act.

Interpretation Of Contract Primarily A Matter For Arbitrator To Determine, Scope Of Section 34 Arbitration Act Limited: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently allowed restoration of an arbitral award, noting that it was not within the scope of the Single Judge u/s 34 of A&C Act to re-interpret the contract between the parties and substitute the finding of the Arbitrator’s despite it being plausible and well-reasoned.

The court referred to Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI and said:

“…a change that has been brought in by the Amendment Act, 2015 is that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in short that the arbitrator's view is not even a possible view to take”.

Govt Can Only ‘Monitor’ MRP Of Non-Scheduled Formulations Under Drugs (Price Control) Order, Not Fix Or Revise It: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently held that the government only has power to “monitor” the maximum retail price (MRP) of non-scheduled formulations, and not to fix or revise it. It was added that in case there is an increase in the MRP beyond this limit, the consequences are prescribed in Para 20 itself.

The judgment came to be passed in a batch of LPAs filed by pharmaceutical companies, bringing into question interpretation of Para 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 (DPCO 2013), which deals with monitoring of non-scheduled formulations’ MRP.

Delhi High Court Rejects Interim Plea To Reopen Roshanara Club Sealed By DDA

Title: SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

The Delhi High Court has rejected an application seeking opening of city’s 100-year-old Roshanara Club, which was sealed and locked by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in September.

A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the interim application filed in the petition moved by a member of the club Manish Aggarwal.

Wrongful Application Of Foreign Contribution By Trust Not In Accordance With Trust’s Objective: Delhi High Court Upholds Reassessment

Case Title: Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

The Delhi High Court has upheld the reassessment proceedings against a trust for wrongful application of foreign contribution, which was against the objective of the trust.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the AO based its opinion on tangible and concrete information in the form of the petitioner’s trust deed and the statement of the managing trustee that certain identified foreign contributions received by the petitioner were utilized for a purpose divergent from its object as disclosed in the trust deed. The wrongful application of the exemption availed under Section 11 or Section 12 of the Income Tax Act in relation to such funds would undoubtedly result in the AO forming the subjective satisfaction that the wrongly availed exemption vis-à-vis foreign contributions escaped income for the purpose of assessment under the Income Tax Act.

Court Won’t Insist For Bank Guarantee If Enforcement Of Award Is Not Frustrated In Section 9 Petition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

The Delhi High Court held that the Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act would not order furnishing of Bank Guarantee (BG) to secure the claims of a party pending the arbitration proceedings, unless it shown that the order party is alienating its assets or acting in a manner that would frustrate the enforcement of the Arbitral Award.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that an order under Section 9 directing furnishing bank guarantee to secure the claims is akin to an order of attachment before judgment as provided under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. It held that the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act is not unduly bound by texts of CPC, however, it cannot pass any order in disregard to the principles of CPC.

Pendency Of Vigilance Inquiry No Impediment To Travel Abroad: Delhi High Court

Title: RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

The Delhi High Court has observed that pendency of a vigilance inquiry cannot be an impediment for an individual to travel abroad.

Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while granting relief to a woman, accused in a corruption case, to travel abroad from November 29 to December 14 for her honeymoon.

Frame Policy On Online Sale Of Drugs Within Eight Weeks, Else Joint Secretary Should Appear: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: DR ZAHEER AHMED v. PREETI SUDAN SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Union Government to frame within eight weeks the policy to regulate online sale of drugs or medicines.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that if the policy is not framed within the stipulated time, the concerned Joint Secretary dealing with the subject shall remain present in court on the next date of hearing.

Yemen Supreme Court Dismissed Malayali Nurse's Appeal Against Death Sentence : Centre Informs Delhi High Court

Title: PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that the Supreme Court in Yemen on November 13 had dismissed the appeal of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya against the death sentence imposed on her for murdering a Yemeni national. The final decision now lies with the President of the Yemen, the Centre added.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the mother of Nimisha Priya seeking permission to travel to Yemen to negotiate with the victim’s family by paying blood money.

Delhi High Court Directs Acko General Insurance To Take Down Social Media Posts Using St+art India’s ‘Humanity’ Mural

Title: ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

The Delhi High Court has directed insurance company Acko General Insurance to take down its social media posts using a mural titled “Humanity” in a copyright infringement suit filed by St+art India, an organization that works on art projects in public spaces.

As the insurance company agreed to take down the social media posts and other online postings using the mural, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:

“…accordingly, it is directed that the Defendant shall take down the said listings within 72 hours. Specific URLs displaying the said mural on the Defendant’s posts, if any, may also be communicated to the Defendant by the Plaintiffs. The above order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.”

Delhi HC Accepts Litigant’s Apology For Non-Disclosure Of Order Before Lower Court, Sets Aside Order Imposing Cost Noting There Was No Malice

Case Title: Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court recently accepted a litigant’s unconditional apology for failing to produce the court’s stay order before the District Judge at the time of listing for final arguments.

“…the mistake is definitely a serious one since order of the higher Court ought to have been necessarily communicated to the Court upon which the said order would have been binding,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Pulls Up MCD For Not Taking Possession Of Public Park Alleged To Be Illegally Occupied By Jama Masjid Authorities

Title: MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

The Delhi High Court on Friday pulled up the Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to take possession of a public park near city’s Jama Masjid, observing that a statutory authority cannot lose possession of a public park.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by MCD’s counsel that the Shahi Imam or Jama Masjid authorities are allegedly in illegal possession and have locked the park in question.

Arbitration | Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Steel Manufacturer-Arcelormittal In Section 9 Petition Against GAIL, Says Prima Facie Case Not Made Out

Case Title: ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

The Delhi High Court recently denied urgent interim relief to leading steel manufacturer-ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (petitioner) in a claim against GAIL India Ltd., observing that the scope of enquiry u/s 9 of A&C Act was limited to prima facie examination of the issue, which was not established in the petitioner’s favour.

The petitioner had approached the court seeking stay over a Notice issued by GAIL, statedly to terminate the LNG Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) entered by the two. It further sought directions for GAIL to deliver LNG in accordance with the LSPA.

TRU Can’t Issue Clarification Regarding Classification Of Polypropylene Woven And Non-Woven Bags Under Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

The Delhi High Court has held that the Tax Research Unit (TRU) cannot issue clarification regarding the classification of polypropylene woven and non-woven bags under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the department could not point out any provision of the CGST Act, in terms of which the TRU could be said to have been clothed with the authority or jurisdiction to render a clarification with respect to the classification of goods and articles. The Board appears to be the sole recipient of the authority. There is no authority vested in the TRU to issue the clarification.

Excise Policy: Delhi High Court Allows PMLA Accused To Interact With Daughter Suffering From Paranoid Schizophrenia Through VC, Denies Interim Bail

Title: AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

The Delhi High Court on Friday allowed businessman Amit Arora, accused in the PMLA case related to the excise policy scam, to interact with her 16 years old daughter suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia through video-conferencing for half an hour twice a week and wished her “complete psychological recovery” as well as a “life time of positive mental health.”

While Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the interim bail plea moved by Arora on the ground of his daughter’s mental health condition, the court made arrangement for VC meetings and said that the psychological injury that some children may suffer in such cases need healing.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Extend Hospital Stay Of Amandeep Singh Dhall In Excise Policy Case, Asks Jail Authorities To Ensure Treatment

Title: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the duration of medical treatment of businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, Amandeep Singh Dhall, who is an accused in the excise policy scam case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the pleas moved by Dhall in both the cases registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking extension of duration of his medical examination and treatment at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, pursuant to order passed by the court.

Coal Scam: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash ED Summons To West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak

Title: MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from summoning West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak in future in connection with the coal smuggling case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that it was rather surprising that Ghatak himself had not appeared before the ED on 11 occasions out of 12 to give the information that was being sought by the probe agency.

Concealment Of Income Above Rs.50 Lakhs, Extended Period Of Limitation Would Apply: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

The Delhi High Court has held that an extended period of 10 years would apply in serious tax evasion cases where there was evidence of concealment of income above Rs. 50 lakhs.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that, as per the Memorandum, in “normal cases”, no notice was intended to be issued if 3 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant AY. Notice, beyond the prescribed 3 years from the end of the relevant AY, could be issued only in a few specific cases. One such example, which is given in the bill, is where the AO was in possession of evidence that escaped income amounted to Rs. 50 lakhs or more.

Delhi Gymkhana Club Exigible To Tax Under Delhi Tax On Luxuries Act, 1996: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

The Delhi High Court has held that Delhi Gymkhana Club is exigible to tax under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996, as it stood during the assessment period in question, extended its application also to the provision of residential accommodation in a club and, in any case, did not at the relevant time exclude the provisioning of accommodation to members of a club from the expression “luxury”. In fact, the word “luxury” did not even exist in the statute book prior to its insertion by virtue of the 2012 Amendment Act.

AO Lacked Tangible Material To Form A Belief That Income, Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment: Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice

Case Title: Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

The Delhi High Court has held that AO did not have the tangible material on record that could have persuaded him to form the belief that income, otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia, the AO, did not employ diligence while triggering the reassessment proceedings against the petitioner or assessee. Because AO realized that the information received by him from ITO (Nahan) concerned the preceding period, he attempted to commence reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act by simply comparing the “source of funds” reflected under various heads in the balance sheets for the preceding AY and the AY in issue.

Delhi High Court Restrains Kerala Based Furniture Store From Using ‘IKEA’ Mark In Trademark Infringement Suit

Title: INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Kerala based furniture store “Ikea Luxury Furniture” from using the mark “Ikea” either as a trademark or trade name on hoardings, including stationery, banners, handbills, and promotional materials.

Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational furniture company, Inter IKEA Systems BV. It sought protection of its mark ‘IKEA’.

Constitute Committee To Supervise Implementation Of Pay Commission Recommendations On School Staff : High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to constitute a High Powered Committee to supervise implementation of recommendations prescribed in 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) regarding payment of salaries and arrears to staff of private unaided schools and recognized private unaided minority schools in the national capital.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ordered that the Committee shall be constituted at Central and Zonal levels.

Will Can Be Suspected Only When Substantial Changes Are Introduced By Cuttings And Overwriting: Delhi High Court

Title: MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

The Delhi High Court has observed that only where it is found that there are substantial changes sought to be introduced to a Will by cuttings and overwriting on it, it can be open for the Court to conclude that the Will is suspect and has to be rejected.

Justice Rekha Palli observed that the effect of cuttings and overwriting in a Will would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

IPD Rules Do Not Bar Taking Additional Documents On Record After Filing Of Reply Or Counter-Statement To Rectification Petition: Delhi High Court

Title: BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

The Delhi High Court has ruled that its Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, do not contain any provision which bars taking additional documents on record after reply or counter-statement is filed by the respondent to the rectification petition.

“The IPD Rules do not contain any provision which proscribes taking of additional documents on record, unlike the Original Side Rules, which does contain such a provision, in Rule 147 in Chapter VII,” Justice C Hari Shankar held.

Can A Patent Office Assign A Patent Application Filed Before It To Another Patent Office? Delhi High Court Asks

Case Title: Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

Hearing a case where an application seeking grant of patent, filed before the Bombay Patent Office, was assigned to the Delhi Patent Office, the Delhi High Court on Thursday posed two interesting questions – (i) whether such practice was permissible, and (ii) if permissible, whether it precluded an unsuccessful applicant from filing an appeal before the Delhi High Court.

Statedly, after the appellant’s patent application was assigned to the Delhi Patent Office, not only did the examination took place at Delhi, but also the First Examination Report (FER) was issued at Delhi.

Can't Expect Every Doctor To Know Distinction Between 'Aziwok' And 'Aziwake': Delhi High Court Grants Injunction In Favour Of Dr. Reddy's

Case Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

Finding a prima facie case of infringement, the Delhi High Court recently granted injunction in favour of Dr. Reddy’s-AZIWOK against defendant’s AZIWAKE, noting that the minuscule difference between the two words was too slight to detract from the overall phonetic similarity between them.

“To the ear of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, it is, therefore, clear that the words “AZIWOK” and “AZIWAKE” are phonetically deceptively similar,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Says Contempt Action For Attack On Local Commissioners Maintainable As They Are Extension Of Court

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. M/s Obssiobn Naaz & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

During the hearing of a criminal contempt case initiated in respect of a violent attack on Local Commissioners (LCs) out for inspection in 2014, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court opined that LCs are an extension of the court, and as such, it had jurisdiction to initiate/continue contempt proceedings.

Reassessment Notice Severed At Old Address Despite Knowing Assessee’s New Address: Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order as the notice under Section 148 was improperly served as it was sent to the old address, despite the fact that the department was aware of the new address.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that no notice, under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, was issued to the respondent or assessee before framing the assessment order. Thus, the assessment order, which has been framed without a notice being issued to the respondent or assessee under Section 143(2), is unsustainable in law.

Delhi High Court Directs BCD To Take Action Against Lawyer If Found Guilty Of ‘Manufacturing’ Order Purportedly Passed By IPAB

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VICKY AGGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to take action against a lawyer if he is found guilty of "manufacturing" an order purportedly passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2016.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur however discharged the clients who engaged the lawyer to represent their case before the Board after an unconditional apology was tendered for any inconvenience caused to the court, with an undertaking that they shall be careful while filing any document in judicial proceedings in future.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Murdering Wife, Reiterates Ligature Marks In Case Of Hanging Different From Strangulation

Case Title: Rihan v. The State (GNCTD)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1147

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man being prosecuted under Sections 302 (murder), 498A (cruelty) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) IPC, in relation to his wife’s death.

“In view of the categoric opinion of the doctor that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, it prima facie, appears that the medical evidence is not in accord with the prosecution version”, it said.

Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Conduct Exercise For Improving Infrastructure Of Its Hospitals

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1148

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to undertake an exercise for improvement of infrastructure of the hospitals being controlled and run by it in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna also directed the Delhi Government to file an action taken report stating as to whether the recommendations of the expert committee, which was constituted to enhance operational standards and treatment methodologies within government hospitals, are being implemented.

Seized Cash Should Be Treated As Advance Tax As Per Law, There Was No Default In Payment Of Advance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

The Delhi High Court has held that the seized cash was offered by the assessee, under the regime that was prevailing then, to be treated as the advance tax, and thus there was no default in payment of the advance. Although its payment or adjustment was triggered due to a search action,

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the petitioner had offered Rs. 50 lakhs seized in search to be treated as advance tax. This endorsement is found both in the return on investment (ROI) as well as in the computation sheet accompanying the ROI.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To CERT-IN’s Empanelment Procedure, Reiterates That Courts Ought Not Sit In Appeal Over Expert Decisions

Case Title: Trusted Info Systems Private Limited v. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1150

Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court recently dismissed a litigant’s challenge to the procedure adopted by Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) w.r.t. empanelment of cyber-security firms as IT security auditing organizations.

It was observed that, “…the process of empanelment adopted by the Respondents is extremely technical. The Court cannot be expected to sit on appeal over decisions taken by experts and substitute its own conclusion with one arrived at by the experts.”

Maintenance Provision Under Hindu Marriage Act Is Gender Neutral: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1151

The Delhi High Court has said that the provision for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to a spouse under the Hindu Marriage Act is gender neutral.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Municipal Corporation Order Directing Pacific Mall Not To Charge Parking Fee From Visitors

Title: M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CONCESSIONAIRE OF DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION) v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1152

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order issued by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) in 2018 directing city’s Pacific Mall not to charge parking fee from the visitors.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the charging of parking fee by the mall does not violate the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016, or the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021.

S.76(3) Trademarks Act Does Not Require Both Rival Marks To Be Registered CTMs, Targeted Client Base Relevant To Infringement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Scrum Alliance, Inc v. Mr. Prem Kumar S. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1153

In an application filed by a leading Scrum certification organization, the Delhi High Court yesterday granted interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s mark “CERTIFIED SCRUM MASTER” as well as its logo.

The plaintiff, being registered proprietor of Certification Trade Marks (CTMs) “CERTIFIED SCRUMMASTER”, “CSM” and certain device marks, had filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, claiming that defendants were using marks and logo deceptively similar to that of its own.

Delhi Chief Secretary Gets Interim Relief, High Court Directs ‘The Wire’ To Take Down Alleged Defamatory Article Over Bamnoli Land Acquisition

Title: SHRI NARESH KUMAR V/s THE WIRE & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1154

The Delhi High Court has directed news portal 'The Wire' to take down its article on city’s Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar casting aspersions on him in relation to his involvement in an alleged land acquisition case.

The suit has been filed against the news report titled “Links of Son of Delhi Chief Secretary to Beneficiary's Family in Land Over-Valuation Case Raise Questions”. The story was published on November 09 by reporter Meetu Jain.

Suspension Of Para Swimmer Prasanta Karmakar Accused Of Recording Videos Of Female Swimmers Upheld By Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prasanta Karmakar v. Paralympic Committee of India through its Chariman & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1155

Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court on Monday upheld the 3-year suspension order passed by Paralympic Committee of India in respect of Arjuna Awardee Paralympic Swimmer Prasanta Karmakar, observing that he failed to showcase how the decision of the Disciplinary Committee was unfair.

Reiterating that the scope of judicial review over administrative decisions was limited, the court said,

“It is well settled that when a statute/law/bye-law gives a discretion to an administration to take a decision, the scope of judicial review remains limited and it is not permissible, unless the decision is contrary to law or has been taken without considering the relevant factors or where irrelevant factors have been considered or the decision is one which a prudent man would not have arrived at.”

Depriving Furlough To Convict Undergoing Long Term Imprisonment Is Counterproductive To Reformative Approach: Delhi High Court

Title: SANJAY KUMAR VALMIKI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1156

The Delhi High Court has observed that depriving furlough to a convict, who is undergoing long term imprisonment, would be counterproductive to the reformative approach and would also take away the motivation to maintain good conduct inside the jail.

Justice Amit Bansal said that only on the basis that the convict has committed a gruesome crime many years ago, it cannot be said that the individual’s temporary release on furlough would be against the interest of the society.

Murder Of Employee Doesn't Disentitle Legal Heirs From Claiming Compensation Under Employees’ Compensation Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Neelu Kumari & Ors v. Om & Anr (Bajaj Alliance Gen Ins Co Ltd)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1157

In an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation (EC) Act, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that the fact of an employee being murdered during the course of employment does not disentitle his legal heirs from seeking compensation under the Act.

“…the finding by the Commissioner that murder of an employee during the course of performance of his duties would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 2(1)(n) of the E.C. Act, is flawed. For which reliance can be placed on decision in Rita Devi Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd., as also decision by this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munesh Devi.”

Party Cannot Contest Arbitral Award For Exceeding Reference Scope If It Failed To Object When Alleged Breach Initially Occurred: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aman Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. Orient Lites

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1158

The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot challenge an arbitral award on the ground that the tribunal went beyond the scope of reference when it admittedly did not raise any objection when the alleged breach was first committed by the tribunal.

The bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that the tribunal’s decision to include certain invoices in the claim cannot be challenged under Section 34 as being beyond the reference to arbitration when no such objection was raised before the arbitral tribunal.

Delhi HC Denies Interim Bail To Murder-Accused For Attending PhD Classes, Says Options Available In Judicial Custody To Pursue Educational Goals

Case Title: Varun v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1159

The Delhi High Court has denied prayer of a murder-accused for interim bail to pursue regular PhD classes, noting the gravity of the stated offence and allegations that the complainant had been threatened.

“Undoubtedly, every individual has the right to pursue the education but in the present case the petitioner is an accused of a serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has to be dealt accordingly looking into the gravity of offence.”

Delhi High Court Orders Release Of ₹1 Crore Ex-Gratia Compensation To Kin Of Constable Amit Kumar Who Died On COVID-19 Duty

Title: Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1160

The Delhi High Court recently ordered release of Rs. 1 crore ex-gratia compensation to the wife and father of 31-year-old constable Amit Kumar who passed away during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic while performing his duties.

Noting that the Delhi Government has agreed to release the ex gratia payment, Justice Prathiba M Singh directed:

“The amount in terms of the Cabinet Decision dated 3rd November, 2023 shall now be released to the Petitioner and the father of the deceased within four weeks.”

Delhi High Court Grants Last Opportunity To Govt To Constitute Delhi Pharmacy Council

Title: AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1161

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to constitute Delhi Pharmacy Council within two weeks, as a last and final opportunity.

Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a plea moved by members of the Delhi Pharmacy Council. concerning notifying the results of election of the Council held on November 02, 2021.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Motor Accident Tribunal's Order To Exhume Deceased's Body For DNA Test To Verify Legal Heirs

Title: SUJAAT ALI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS v. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1162

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal directing that the grave of a deceased man be dug up to conduct a DNA test for verifying the claim of compensation by various individuals asserting to be his legal heirs.

Justice Navin Chawla allowed the petition moved by persons claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased Sujaat Ali, who passed away in a motor vehicle accident. They challenged the Tribunal’s order dated December 12, 2022.

High Court Rejects Judge’s Plea Seeking Transfer From DU’s 2-Yr LLM Course To 3-Yrs Course Owing To Her Employment

Title: CHHAYA TYAGI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition moved by a judge seeking her transfer from two-year LLM to the three-year course offered by the Delhi University in order to complete her ongoing studies on account of her employment as a judicial officer.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the three year LL.M. course offered by the varsity is specially designed for people who are employed but it does not stipulate that if any student attains employment in the middle of two year course, he or she can take the advantage of three year course to continue the studies alongwith the employment.

Delhi High Court Upholds Extradition Of Man Charged With Murder Of Family In Oman

Title: MAJIBULLAH MOHAMMAD HANEEF v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1164

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Union Government’s decision to extradite a man charged with murder of a family, including three minor children, in Oman.

Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the petition moved by the accused, Majibullah Mohammad Haneef, challenging a trial court order recommending his extradition to Oman for facing murder trial.

When Tenant Is Evicted For Bonafide Use, Courts Should Refrain From Prescribing Guidelines For Landlord’s Residential Choices: Delhi High Court

Title: TARUN KUMAR v. PARMANAND GARG

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

Granting relief to a landlord who evicted a tenant from his shop for setting up a business for his wife which constitutes as a “bona fide requirement”, the Delhi High Court has said that courts should refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the residential choices of a landlord.

Emphasizing that the tenant cannot dictate as to how the landlord must utilize the property, Justice Jasmeet Singh said:

“The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. It is not within the purview of the courts to impose directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises. Essentially, the courts should refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord's residential choices.”

No Recovery Towards TAS Can Be Made Towards Deductee Even If Deductor Is Undergoing CIRP: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BDR Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1166

The Delhi High Court has held that no recovery towards Tax at Source (TAS) can be made towards the deductee even if the deductor is undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Loss Of Goodwill Is Difficult To Prove, Cannot Be Proved With Mathematical Precision: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Metal Engineering and Forging Company v. Central Warehousing Corporation

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1167

The Delhi High Court has held that it would be difficult for any party claiming loss of goodwill to prove or establish the same with any mathematical precision.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator allowed a party to retain certain amount as penalty, being the genuine pre-estimate of the loss of goodwill without any proof of quantum of actual loss suffered by it.

Court Can’t Grant Unconditional Stay Of Arbitral Award Unless Prima Facie Case Of Fraud: Delhi High Court

Cas Title: Italian Thai Development v. NTPC Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court cannot grant unconditional stay on an arbitration award under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, unless a prima facie case is made out that making of the award is marred by fraud.

‘Brief Order’ Of Advertisement Before Acceptance Of Mark Must Be Available On Trade Mark Registry’s Portal For Litigants’ Reference: Delhi High Court

Title: LAXMI KOHLU GHAR THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH ARUN KUMAR v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

The Delhi High Court has observed that a brief order which has to be passed at the time of directing advertisement before acceptance of a mark should be made available on the online portal of the Trade Marks Registry for reference of the litigants.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that in case such a brief order is not uploaded for all the trademark applications, a copy of the same should still be made available upon litigant’s request via email.

‘Scheduled Offence’ Cannot Exist After Quashing Of FIR: Delhi High Court Quashes PMLA Proceedings

Title: RAJINDER SINGH CHADHA v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1170

The Delhi High Court has quashed PMLA proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against an accused, on the basis of two FIRs registered against him- that were later quashed and compounded after settlement between the parties.

Justice Amit Sharma said that a scheduled offence, after an FIR has been quashed, cannot exist and therefore, if there is no scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering with respect to the same.

Debt Recovery | Extension Of Interim Relief At The Time Of Remand Subject To Prima Facie Finding In Petitioner's Favor: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mis Deco Industries India v. JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd through its AO Kumar Gaurav & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1171

The Delhi High Court recently held that an interim order granted by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ("DRAT") during the pendency of appeal was not required to be extended in pursuance of remand, without a prima facie finding on the need for such an order.

Delhi High Court Allows Plea Of Manual Scavenger’s Widow For Increase In Compensation From 10 To 30 Lacs

Case Title: Preeti v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

The Delhi High Court has allowed plea of a sanitation worker’s widow for enhancement of compensation from Rs.10 lacs to 30 lacs, based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Balram Singh v. Union of India & Ors., whereby directions were issued w.r.t. compensation of dependents of victims who have lost their lives in manual scavenging.

The petitioner had approached the court assailing grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs. Besides enhancement in compensation, she had sought a direction to concerned agencies to provide her full rehabilitation including employment, as well as education to her children and skill training in terms of the decision in Balram Singh.