Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: October 2024 [Citations 1081 - 1192]

KALAWATI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

RAM PREET v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

MANCHU VISHNU VARDHAN BABU ALIAS VISHNU MANCHU v. AREBUMDUM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

RANJEET KUMAR THAKUR v. UOI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

Parikshit Grewal & Ors versus Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

AIR FORCE SPORTS COMPLEX (AFSC) v. LT. GEN S S DAHIYA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

AMIT KUMAR DIWAKAR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

PayU Payments Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs MINTELLECTUALS LLP 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

Avinesh Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

St. Stephan College vs. Vikash Gupta And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

UJWAL GHAI v. DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE (DHCLSC) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

YUDHVEER SINGH YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INESTIGATION THROUGH SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

STATE v. MANPAL & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

MICHAEL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

Mriksha Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

M/s Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited v. M/s Sharda Developers 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

Satish Kumar vs. Union of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

DSSSB and Anr. v. Dinesh Mahawar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

Sunil Kumar Tewatia v Jain Cooperative Bank 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

Emeka Prince Lath vs. State NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS versus PARMILA DEVI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

SMT USHA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. CENTRAL INFOMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

SWARANJIT SINGH NARULA SECURITY AGENCY v. NTPC LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

Hameedullah Akbar@ Faheem Modh Zai vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

Devasia Thomas & Anr. vs. Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

Dalmia Family Office Trust & Anr. vs. Getamber Anand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

SANTOSH KUMAR AND ORS. v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS NEW ASHOK NAGAR AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR versus SHUBHAM PAL ANR ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

GIRRAJ PRASAD GURJAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

ICRI CORPORATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SHOOGLO NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY OMG NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Versus ANAND MOHAN SHARAN & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

Amir Malik vs. Commissioner of GST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

ASHA RANI GUPTA versus RAVINDERA MEMORIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1147

DR. RAJAN JAISWAL v. M/S SRL LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

ANITA GUPTA SHARMA v. CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1150

National Highways Authority of India v. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1151

OBI OGOCHUKWA STEPHEN v. STATE and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1152

HARKISHANDAS NIJHAWAN v. CPIO, SPECIAL BRANCH OF DELHI POLICE & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1153

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. M/S IRB AHMEDABAD VADODARA SUPER EXPRESS TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1154

Apex Body Leh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1155

Shahrukh Pathan v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1156

Punita Bhardwaj vs. Rashmi Juneja 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1157

JHAJHARIA NIRMAN LTD. v. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1158

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. Esys Information Technologies Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1159

UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus JAGDISH SINGH & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1160

BCC DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD v. BHUPENDER SINGH & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1161

Satwant Singh Sanghera v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1162

KKH FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JONAS HAGGARD & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

M/S. M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1164

LALIT MOHAN v. M/S. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO. FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. (NAFED) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

Madhu Koda vs. State Thru CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1166

UNION OF INDIA v. MS KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1167

SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., AND ANR. v. HONG YI F35 AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

AKASH TANWAR v. STATE OF DELHI & ORS and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

Ms CP Rama Rao Sole Proprietor v. National Highways Authority Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1170

SK v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE HQ, ITO, DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1171

Airports Authority of India vs. Delhi International Airport Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

Shamlaji Expressway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1173

HOME AND SOUL PRIVATE LIMITED V. T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1174

DELHI FIRE WORKS SHOPKEEPERS ASSOCIATION v. DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1175

M SAMUNDRA SINGH versus UOI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1176

ANAND MISHRA v/s THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1177

PEC LIMITED v. ADM ASIA PACIFIC TRADING PTE. LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1178

M/S STAR SHARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD. V. PRAVEEN GUPTA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1179

UOI vs. COL (TS) SHYAMA NAND JHA (RETD.) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1180

PANKAJ KUMAR TIWARI v. ED and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1181

NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182

Civil And Sessions Court Stenographers Association (Regd) & Anr vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Dev 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1183

Ram Niwas versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1184

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran vs. The Union Of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1185

Shadab Ahmad v State of NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1186

Union of India vs. OCL Iron and Steel Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

M/s Jain Cement Udyog (Through Its Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) v. Sales Tax Officer Class-II 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1188

SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP V/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1189

Vaibhav Jain vs. Directorate Of Enforcement & Connected Matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1190

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191

M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192

Delhi High Court Rejects Woman's Plea Seeking FIR Into Daughter's Death In 2013 Over Alleged Political Conspiracy Involving Arvind Kejriwal

Title: KALAWATI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a petition filed by a mother seeking registration of FIR into her daughter's death in 2013 pursuant to an alleged political conspiracy involving former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Kumar Vishvas and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) workers.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea filed by Kalawati who challenged the trial court order passed last year rejecting her application seeking registration of FIR under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Prevent Delay In Releasing Compensation To POCSO Survivors

Title: RAM PREET v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

The Delhi High Court has issued directions to prevent delay in releasing compensation by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to the survivors in POCSO cases.

A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma that there is clearly a disconnect between the POCSO Courts and the concerned Delhi State Legal Service Authorities on the issue.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order To Protect Personality Rights Of Indian Actor And Producer Vishnu Manchu

Title: MANCHU VISHNU VARDHAN BABU ALIAS VISHNU MANCHU v. AREBUMDUM & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1107

The Delhi High Court has recently passed a john doe order to protect the personality rights of Indian actor and film producer Vishnu Manchu who is known for his work primarily in Telugu cinema.

Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with Vishnu's suit seeking protection of his name, voice, image, likeness and all other elements of his personality. The suit was filed against the unauthorized use of his personality elements, alleging that the same were used by third parties which was likely to create confusion and deception amongst the public.

Delhi High Court Directs District Courts To Ensure Recording Advocates' Appearances In Order Sheets, Calls For 'Drop Box', 'Chat Box' System

Title: RANJEET KUMAR THAKUR v. UOI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

The Delhi High Court has recently directed all the district courts in the national capital to ensure that the appearances of advocates are properly recorded in the order sheets.

Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Headquarters) to issue necessary instructions to all District Courts on the issue.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order To Protect Trademark Of Master Capital Services, Asks Meta To Block WhatsApp Accounts Misusing Mark

Case title: Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1109

The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte temporary injunction against unidentified individuals, restraining them from using the trademark 'Master Trust', owned by Master Capital Services Limited.

The Court also directed Meta, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunications to block WhatsApp accounts of groups, which are claiming association with Master Capital and asking public to invest funds.

Litigants Must First Approach Administrative Tribunal In Matters Even Regarding Irregularities Concerning Recruitment To Posts Under Union And Not High Court Directly: Delhi High Court

Case Tittle: Parikshit Grewal & Ors versus Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1110

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain held that the Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercised by all the courts in relation to recruitment and matters in relation to recruitment to a civil post under section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act

Air Force Sports Complex Not A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: AIR FORCE SPORTS COMPLEX (AFSC) v. LT. GEN S S DAHIYA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Air Force Sports Complex (AFSC) is not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on the ground that the government does not exercise significant control over AFSC and its operations are not dependant on funding from the government.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Disqualify BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra From Rajya Sabha, Imposes ₹25K Costs

Title: AMIT KUMAR DIWAKAR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1112

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to disqualify Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra from the Rajya Sabha, with costs of Rs. 25,000.

Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by Advocate Amit Kumar Diwakar, who alleged that Mishra, while holding the office of Chairman of BCI, which is a statutory body, cannot simultaneously serve as a sitting member of the Rajya Sabha.

Repudiation Of Claims Making Dispute Non-Arbitrable Is For Arbitral Tribunal To Adjudicate Upon, Not Courts At Section 11 Stage: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PayU Payments Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

The Delhi High Court, following the law laid down in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning, has held that the aspects of non-arbitrability of a claim are for the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate, and courts at Section 11 stage cannot examine the same.

While Adjudicating On Challenges Against Arbitral Tribunals' Orders U/S 17 Of A&C Act, Court Not Strictly Bound By O.38 & O.39 CPC: Delhi HC

Case Title: LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs MINTELLECTUALS LLP

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1114

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in orders passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not bound by the principles underlying Order XXXVIII and XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code.

Worshipper Cannot Claim Injunction To Stop Temple Demolition On Govt Land Without Demonstrating Any Personal Interest: Delhi High Court

Case title: Avinesh Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

The Delhi High Court has observed that a 'worshipper of a temple', who has no personal interest over the temple property, cannot be granted a relief to stop the demolition of the temple built illegally on a land owned by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due To Failure Of Arbitrator To Disclose Conflict, Non-Supply Of Documents

Case Title: FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that the duty of arbitrators of disclosure of any conflicts under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and continuous throughout the proceedings. The court noted that disclosure must be in writing and a verbal disclosure does not suffice. The court also held that there was a violation of section 18 of the Act as the party has not had an opportunity to consider and respond to submissions on evidence furnished by the opposing party.

St Stephen's PG Seats Allocation: Delhi High Court Holds DU Officials Guilty Of 'Wilful Disobedience'

Case title: St. Stephan College vs. Vikash Gupta And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

The Delhi High Court has found Delhi University (DU) officials to be in "wilful disobedience" of its order, where the DU was directed to allocate proportionate number of PG seats to St. Stephan College.

Legal Internships Do Not Amount To Active Legal Practice: Delhi High Court

Title: UJWAL GHAI v. DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE (DHCLSC)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that legal internships undertaken as law students do not amount to “active legal practice” after being enrolled as an advocate.

“Internships undertaken as part of legal education, though valuable in providing practical exposure, do not satisfy the professional experience requirement for practicing law,” Justice Sanjeev Narula observed.

Withholding Bail When Court Deemed It Fit To Release Accused Amounts To Punishment: Delhi High Court

Title: YUDHVEER SINGH YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INESTIGATION THROUGH SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

The Delhi High Court has held that where a Court deems it fit to release an accused on merits, withholding bail amounts to a punishment.

“Therefore, if a Court on merits deems it fit to release an accused on bail, withholding the aforesaid relief will amount to be considered as a punishment,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said.

Prosecution, Legal Departments Must Exercise Due Diligence Before Initiating Cases: Delhi High Court On Frivolous Litigation

Title: STATE v. MANPAL & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

The Delhi High Court has observed that the prosecution and Delhi Government's Department of Law & Legislative Affairs must exercise due diligence before initiating cases and that legal process must not be misused through frivolous litigation.

Forum Shopping Is Abuse Of Legal Process And Cannot Be Condoned: Delhi High Court

Case title: MICHAEL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has held that forum shopping, i.e., such conduct, where the petitioner attempts to choose a forum favourable to them after having already approached the appropriate forum, is an abuse of legal process and cannot be condoned.

Delhi High Court Stays Decision Of Apex Council Which Altered Result Of 'Legends League' Cricket Match After Being Declared

Case Title: Mriksha Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta, while hearing a Section 9 petition under the A&C Act, has granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the communication of Event Technical Committee (ETC) and the Apex Council which allowed the result of a cricket match to be altered after the result has been announced.

Article 227 Cannot Be Invoked When Interrogatories & Discoveries Allowed By Tribunal Are Not In Nature Of Fishing Inquiry: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/s Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited v. M/s Sharda Developers

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of review under Article 227 is extremely narrow; the same cannot be invoked when the interrogatories and discoveries allowed by the tribunal have a co-relation and nexus with the subject matter of the dispute.

Annual Performance Appraisal Report Determining Career Progression Must Be Written By Superior Officers With Impartiality: Delhi High Court

Title: AMIT KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur, held that annual performance appraisal report determining career progression and promotions must be written by superior officers with objectivity, impartiality, fairness and free from any prejudice.

Delhi High Court Orders Reinstatement Of CISF Officer Dismissed After Alleged Conspiracy Involving Sexual Harassment

Case Name: Satish Kumar vs. Union of India & Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

A division bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur ordered the reinstatement of Satish Kumar, a Sub-Inspector (SI) with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), after finding that his dismissal following accusations of conspiring with a female constable in a sexual harassment case was unjustified. The court re-evaluated the evidence presented in the departmental inquiry due to the unique facts of the case, where the main charge against Kumar was tied to a superior officer who had himself been punished for sexual misconduct.

SC Candidates Holding Different States' Certificate Entitled To Claim Job Reservation In Union Territory, Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: DSSSB and Anr. v. Dinesh Mahawar & Others.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

Recently, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain heard a petition impugning the Judgment by Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) which allowed the respondents' Original Applications (“OAs”) and held that the respondents were entitled to be treated as Scheduled Caste candidates based on the certificates held by them, though the certificate was issued outside Delhi.

Labour Court And Registrar Of Cooperative Societies Have Concurrent Jurisdiction For Disputes Relating To Disciplinary Action: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Tewatia v Jain Cooperative Bank

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

Recently, a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju heard a petition impugning the award passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. By the Impugned Award, the complaint filed by the Petitioner on the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was dismissed by the Labour Court, in view of the specific bar as placed by the provisions of Section 70(1)(b) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 [“DCS Act”].

Principle Of Judicial Non-Interference Is Fundamental To Both Domestic & International Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that it is well settled that the principle of judicial non-interference in arbitral proceedings is fundamental to both domestic as well as international commercial arbitration and that the Arbitration Act is self contained code. In this case, a petition under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act) was filed seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.

"Any Objection Regarding Non-Applicability Of MSMED Act Can Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal U/S 16 Of A&C Act": Delhi High Court

Case Title: Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

The Delhi High Court division bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gadela, while hearing an appeal, has upheld the order passed by a single-judge bench wherein it was held that the question of whether an entity was an MSME at the relevant time was to determined by the tribunal under section 16 of A&C Act and not the writ court.

Notice U/S 50 NDPS Act 'Not Necessary' For Search Of Bag As It Was Separate From Accused's Person: Delhi High Court

Case title: Emeka Prince Lath vs. State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

While hearing a bail plea of a man booked for offences under the NDPS Act, the Delhi High Court said that the requirement of Section 50 notice under the NDPS Act would not be "necessary" in respect of the search of a bag which was thrown by the accused in the case, as the bag was separate from the accused's body.

The high court however noted that when the accused's personal search was conducted the provisions of Section 50 had been complied with. For context, Section 50 of the NDPS Act states the conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.

Anganwadi Workers Can Earn From Other Sources As Recompense From Anganwari Work Is Meagre: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS versus PARMILA DEVI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that Anganwadi workers can have a source of additional income apart from Anganwari work. The Bench stated that it is not possible for Anganwadi workers to sustain themselves or their families from the salary earned by them as Anganwari workers and having more sources of income won't be unnatural.

Delhi High Court Grants Compassionate Allowance To Widow Of Dismissed Employee

Title: SMT USHA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

A Division Bench Delhi High Court consisting of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain ruled in favour of Usha Devi, directing the Union of India to grant her compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This decision overturned the rejection of her plea by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had previously denied her request following the dismissal of her husband from government service.

Personal Information Of Employees Like Service Records, Copies Of Promotion & Financial Benefits Can't Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. CENTRAL INFOMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while deciding writ petition held that the personal information of employees like service records, copies of promotion & financial benefits can't be disclosed under the RTI Act.

Delhi High Court Allows Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate Despite Post-Expiry Filing U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act

Case title: SWARANJIT SINGH NARULA SECURITY AGENCY v. NTPC LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a petition filed under Section 29A of the Act is maintainable even if it is filed after the expiry of the arbitrator's mandate.

Further, the court observed that this question is still pending before the Supreme Court due to a conflict of decisions of different High Courts, the view taken by Delhi High Court has not been stayed.

Continuation Of Criminal Proceedings Will Be Exercise In Futility: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Upon Amicable Settlement

Case title: Hameedullah Akbar@ Faheem Modh Zai vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an Afghan national for offences including rape and forgery of valuable security on the ground that the accused and the complainant, a US national, have amicably compromised and the complainant no longer wished to pursue the case.

It stated that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility as even the complainant did not support the prosecution's case.

Delhi High Court Directs BSES To Pay Ex-Gratia Sum Of ₹10 Lakhs To Parents Of Boy Who Died Due To Electrocution

Case title: Devasia Thomas & Anr. vs. Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

The Delhi High Court has awarded an ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the parents of an 18-year-old boy who passed away due to electrocution. It directed the BSES Yamuna Power Ltd to pay compensation to the parents despite finding that the negligence on the part of BSES in maintaining the electric lines could not be prima facie established.

Baseless Allegations Against Arbitrators Must Be Dealt With Strictly, Arbitral Tribunals Can Hold Party In Contempt: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Dalmia Family Office Trust & Anr. vs. Getamber Anand & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

The Delhi High Court division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma has held that Arbitral Tribunals have the same power as a Civil Court in dealing with contempt against itself as per sections 17(2) and 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that baseless allegations against Arbitrators must be dealt with strictly. It observed that the integrity of arbitration cannot be made fragile by giving room to unsubstantiated or speculative allegations against arbitrators.

'Prima Facie Contemptuous': Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI

Title: Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

The Delhi High Court has ordered take down of a page on Wikipedia on the pending proceedings about a Rs. 2 crores defamation suit filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against the platform.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that adverse comments were made against the single judge on the page which was prima facie contemptuous.

Delhi High Court Seeks BCI's Stand On Attendance Requirements For 5-Year LLB Courses In Suo Moto Case Over Student's Suicide

Title: COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

The Delhi High Court has recently sought stand of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding the attendance requirements for five year LL.B. degree courses.

A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma asked the BCI's Legal Education Committee to hold a virtual meeting for finalising its position and directed that an affidavit be filed within two weeks.

Orders Passed U/S 12 Of Guardians And Wards Act Appealable U/S 19 Of Family Courts Act: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

A full bench of Delhi High Court has ruled that the orders passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act would be appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

The full bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli, Justice Jasmeet Singh and Justice Amit Bansal was answering a reference in a minor custody case. The question before the full bench was whether an order passed under Section 12 of the GW Act would be appealable under Section 19 of the FC Act?

Delhi High Court Summons Counselling Centre In-Charge For Failing To Translate Contents Of Settlement In Vernacular Language

Title: SANTOSH KUMAR AND ORS. v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS NEW ASHOK NAGAR AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

The Delhi High Court recently summoned the in-charge of counselling centre, Karkardooma Courts, for failing to translate contents of a settlement agreement to the complainant woman in the vernacular language understood by her.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that though the official language for court proceedings and documentation is English, the concerned authority is duty bound to translate the contents of such documents to a person not well versed with the language.

'OKEY' Is Informal Usage, Slangs Cannot Be Regarded As “Meaningful English Usage”: Delhi High Court

Case Title: STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR versus SHUBHAM PAL ANR ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain was considering an academic issue concerning Combined Graduate Level Examination Tier-II, 2023 conducted by the SSC for recruitment to various civil posts.

Delhi High Court Allows Review Petition, Recalls Direction To Respondents To Appoint Petitioner Due To Low Merit

Case Title: GIRRAJ PRASAD GURJAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1143

A division bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur has allowed a Review Petition filed by the Respondents seeking review of its order directing the Respondent to recall the appointment of a candidate(writ petitioner).

Review was sought on the ground that the candidate had not made his place in the merit list, however, the Single Judge had directed the Respondents to recall his offer of appointment.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Recalculation Of Arbitral Fees, Upholds Separate Fee Calculation For Claims & Counterclaims

Case Title: ICRI CORPORATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SHOOGLO NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY OMG NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1144

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the arbitral tribunal had correctly applied the IVth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in recalculating the fees separately for the claims and counterclaims.

Additionally, the court held that invoking Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature since no award had been made.

'Reasons' To Remit Matter For Fresh Inquiry Need To Be 'Meaningful And Self Speaking', Can't Be Left To Imagination, Delhi High Court

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Versus ANAND MOHAN SHARAN & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1145

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain upheld a judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal stating that the 'reasons' for remitting the matter as is required by Rule 9(1) of the AIS (D & A) Rules need to be meaningful and cannot be left for imagination.

SCN Was 'Gloriously Silent' On Provisions Of GST Act Which Were Allegedly Infringed: Delhi High Court Quashes Order

Case Title: Amir Malik vs. Commissioner of GST

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1146

Finding that the SCN as well as the final order fails to provide any clue with respect to the provision of the statute which was alleged to have been violated or infringed, the Delhi High Court quashes the SCN & the order of cancellation of GST registration.

Approval By DoE Mandatory For Order Of Dismissal Against Teachers In Private Schools, Ex Post Facto Approval Cannot Sustain In Law, Delhi High Court

Case Title: ASHA RANI GUPTA versus RAVINDERA MEMORIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1147

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Justices Sudhir Kumar Jain has recently set aside a teacher's Order of Dismissal from service observing that the ex post facto approval of the Directorate of education in dismissing a teacher from service granted cannot sustain in law as mandated under Section 8(2) of the DSE Act and Rule 120(2) of the DSE Rules.