Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024 [Citations 956 - 1080]

The Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Star Hospitality 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 983

Sameer Mahendru v. ED and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 984

Somnath Bharti v. Bansuri Swaraj and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 985

Anand Gupta & Anr. Vs M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr. And Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 986

RAJATARANGINI INDIA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. ROSHAN RAI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 987

Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 988

SABIB v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 989

MINOR N THR MOTHER P v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 990

DHEERAJ WADHAWAN vs. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 991

Shri Rashter Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 992

Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Deepti Gambhir Proprietor Of S P Distributors And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 993

Union Of India Vs Arsh Constructions 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 994

Thriving Farm Builders Pvt Ltd And Anr Vs Sushil Chaudhary And Air 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 995

Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd v. Hero Solar Energy Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 996

Divine Infracon Private Limited Vs DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 997

Meenakshi Agrawal Vs M/S Rototech 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 998

Bcc Developers And Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 999

Morgan Ventures Limited Vs Nepc India Limited And Other & Ors. And Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1000

X and Ors. v The State and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1001

Arun Pillai v Enforcement Directorate 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1002

Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1003

Shakti Singh Thakur Vs Union Of India And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1004

Kabir Paharia Vs National Medical Commission And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1005

LAMBODAR PRASAD PADHY Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1006

Jagatmitra Foundation v. UOI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1007

BAREILLY HIGHWAYS PROJECT LIMITED. vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1008

Parvinder Singh v CBI and other cases 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1009

SAHIL A. GARG NARWARNA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1010

SPICEJET LIMITED Versus TEAM FRANCE 01 SAS (and connected matter) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1011

COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1012

The General Manager Punjab National Bank And Ors & Ors. Vs. Rohit Malhotra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1013

SONU RAJPUT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1014

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1015

Shutham Electric Ltd. Vs Vaibhav Raheja & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016

Hari Kishan Sharma vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

VIJAY KAUSHIK Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

M/S Chauhan Construction Co. versus Commissioner of DGST and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

PURVI DELHI VAIDEHI TRUST (PDVT) vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

The Milestone Aviation Asset Holding Group vs. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

ANASTASIA MIRJANA JOJIC OBEROI & ORS. v/s RAJARAMAN SHANKAR & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1022

Amit Arora v. ED and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1024

Munna v. MCD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

X v. State & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

RB v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. MOVIESMOD.BET & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

PRATEEK & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

ADNAN NISAR v. ED & other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

DR ANKIT SHARMA & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

Prime Interglobe Private Limited v. Super Milk Products Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. v. VISHNU KUMAR BADETIYA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1033

JAGTAR SINGH JOHAL @ JAGGI v. NIA and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1034

Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. cs. Bio Logic And Psychotropics India Private Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

M/s PGL Estatecon Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Jyoti Enterprises 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036

Grand Motors Sale And Services Pvt Ltd v. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037

SURMILA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

Swati Maliwal v. State and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

M/s SS Enterprises versus Principal Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

PCIT versus RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.v. EX/NK CHINNA VEDIYAPPAN 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

Mr. Sujit Kumar Vs. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And And 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

SUDARSHAN v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

MANISH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

MODERN MOLD PLAST PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. FLIPKART INTERNET PT. LTD. & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

Singhal Singh Rawat versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax (CGST) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

SHAHI IDGAH MANAGING COMMITTEE v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

MS RAJESH WADHWA AND ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

ABHISHEK YADAV v. DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

RAJEEV KUMAR vs. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

DIRECTOR GENERAL, PROJECT VARSHA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY), UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI v. M/S NAVAYUGA-VAN OORD JV 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

Christian Michel James v. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

Abhinav Jindal HUF versus ITO 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

Poonam Mittal v. Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

Rajiv Oberoi vs. Rajesh Gupta 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. RAHIL HITESHBHAI CHOVATIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

SHUBHAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

SHWETA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

Fresh Pet Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1068

International Hospital vs. DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

GEETA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

RAVI KUMAR Versus DEPARTMENT OF SPACE AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

STATE THROUGH RPF v. DHARMENDRA @ DHARMA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

Arn Infrastructures India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. (and connected matters) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

Director of Income Tax versus ANZ Grindlays Bank 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

Sanat Kumar v/s Sanjay Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

EX CHAA MOHAMMED ZULKARNAIN, 550032-Z v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK v. SH. RAJ KUMAR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vadodara Based Cafe From Using Trademark Of 'SOCIAL' Restaurants And Bars

Case Title: Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Star Hospitality

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 983

The Delhi High Court, in an interim order, temporarily restrained an entity operating a Vadodara based restaurant, from using the popular 'SOCIAL' trademark registered by Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, after noting that the entity's mark was similar and was likely to cause confusion to the general public.

Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Sameer Mahendru, Chanpreet Singh In ED Case

Title: Sameer Mahendru v. ED and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 984

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to businessman Sameer Mahendru and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) volunteer Chanpreet Singh Rayat in the money laundering case connected to the alleged liquor policy scam.

Delhi High Court Rejects Somnath Bharti's Prayer To Preserve Burnt Memory Of EVMs Used In LS Polls In Plea Against BJP's Bansuri Swaraj's Election

Title: Somnath Bharti v. Bansuri Swaraj and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 985

The Delhi High Court has rejected the prayer of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti seeking a direction upon the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide him with the burnt memory of all 1489 EVMs used in the Lok Sabha elections 2024 from New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency.

Order In Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Based On Settlement Is Enforceable As Decree : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Anand Gupta & Anr. Vs M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr. And Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 986

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree in accordance with Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Delhi High Court Vacates Interim Order Directing Journalist Abhishek Baxi To Delete Tweet On Rohan Dua

Title: RAJATARANGINI INDIA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. ROSHAN RAI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 987

The Delhi High Court has vacated its interim order directing journalist Abhishek Baxi to delete his tweet against journalist Rohan Dua in relation the latter's interview of olympian Manu Bhaker.

Twelve-Month Period For Arbitral Award Begins From Completion Of Pleadings, Not Statement Of Defense: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 988

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when read with Section 29A(4), implies that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates if the tribunal does not issue the award within twelve months of completing the pleadings under Section 23(4).

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Raping 6-Yr-Old Daughter, Says Long Term Effects Of Child Sexual Abuse Insurmountable

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 989

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of raping his 6-year-old daughter in August last year, underscoring that the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse are, at many times, insurmountable.

Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Issue Instructions To Hospitals To Ensure Identity Of Minor Rape Victims In MTP Cases Is Not Revealed

Title: MINOR N THR MOTHER P v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 990

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to issue appropriate instructions to all hospitals to ensure that the identity of minor rape victims undergoing medical termination of pregnancy is not revealed and the record is kept confidential.

DHFL Bank Fraud Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Ex-Promoter Dheeraj Wadhwan On Medical Grounds

Case title: DHEERAJ WADHAWAN vs. CBI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 991

The Delhi High Court has granted bail on medical grounds to former promoter of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) Dheeraj Wadhwan, who is an accused in the alleged multi crore bank loan misappropriation and cheating case.

Mere Govt Recommendation Doesn't Entitle Individual To Claim DDA Plot In Area Of Choice, Allotment Subject To Availability: Delhi High Court

Case title: Shri Rashter Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 992

The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual cannot claim a particular plot of land in a particular area of his choice as a matter of right, even if recommendations were made by a government authority or agency for allotment of alternate land to the individual.

Arbitration | Absence Of Monetary Claim In Section 21 Notice Doesn't Negate Existence Of Dispute: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Deepti Gambhir Proprietor Of S P Distributors And Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 993

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that due to the broad interpretation of the term "dispute," the court cannot definitively conclude that no dispute exists between the parties, even in the absence of a monetary claim by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Arbitrator Can't Assume Arbitral Seat Without Clear Agreement From Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union Of India Vs Arsh Constructions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 994

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that parties in arbitration can agree to an arbitral seat at a neutral location, different from where the contract was executed, the work was carried out, or the arbitration proceedings were conducted. However, such a decision must first reflect mutual agreement and, secondly, must be documented, either explicitly in writing or recorded by the Arbitrator or the Court in an order.

Non-Compliance With Share Purchase Agreement; Arbitrability Of Dispute Must Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal, Not By Court: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Thriving Farm Builders Pvt Ltd And Anr Vs Sushil Chaudhary And Air

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 995

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that argument claiming the dispute is non-arbitrable due to non-compliance with the Share Purchase Agreement cannot be addressed by the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that such aspects need to be addressed by the arbitral tribunal.

The Arbitral Tribunal May Implead A Non-Signatory To The Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd v. Hero Solar Energy Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 996

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) has held in the affirmative whether the arbitral tribunal may implead a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in the proceedings. Following the ratio in Cox and Kings Ltd v. Sap India Pvt Ltd (Cox and Kings II), it observed that whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement is for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide and not the Section 11 Court.

Estimation Report By DVO Alone Can't Form Basis For Reopening Completed Assessment: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Divine Infracon Private Limited Vs DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 997

The Delhi High Court held that the sole ground for re-opening of assessment u/s 148 by AO being the report/estimate of the Valuation Officer is unsustainable.

Party Ignores Section 21 Notice; Should Seek Court Intervention, Arbitrator Can't Unilaterally Summon Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Meenakshi Agrawal Vs M/S Rototech

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 998

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that if a party seeking arbitration faces a situation where the opposing party does not respond to a Section 21 notice or refuses to agree to arbitration, the only recourse is to approach the Court under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, depending on the circumstances.

The bench held that party cannot unilaterally grant jurisdiction to the arbitrator, even if the arbitrator is already named. Similarly, it held that the arbitrator cannot independently summon the opposing party to attend the arbitration proceedings.

All Arbitration Proceedings Must Be Filed In Court With Jurisdiction Over The Arbitral Seat: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bcc Developers And Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 999

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once the arbitral seat is established, all proceedings, including the initial ones, must be filed only in the court that has jurisdiction over the arbitral seat. The bench held that no other Court is authorized to handle any matters related to the arbitration.

Contempt Proceedings Inappropriate For Resolving Complex Disputed Factual Issues: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Morgan Ventures Limited Vs Nepc India Limited And Other & Ors. And Connected Matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1000

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the contempt proceedings are not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed factual issues such as conducting a detailed accounting analysis to determine the fairness or justification of accounting practices.

Unlike S.125 CrPC, Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act Not Connected With Wife's Inability To Maintain Herself: Delhi High Court

Case title: X and Ors. v The State and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1001

Dismissing a plea moved by a husband and his kin against an order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife under the Domestic Violence Act, the Delhi High Court agreed with the trial court's observation that unlike Section 125 CrPC, maintenance under the DV Act is not linked to the inability of the wife to maintain herself.

The observation came in a plea moved by a man and his family against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts which had dismissed their appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act against the trial court's order.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Hyderabad Businessman Arun Pillai In Money Laundering Case Linked To Excise Policy

Case title: Arun Pillai v Enforcement Directorate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1002

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Hyderabad-based business Arun Ramchandran Pillai in a money laundering case linked to the now scrapped excise policy.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in its judgment, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate and observed that the "triple test" for grant of bail was satisfied by Pillai.

Referral Court Under Section 11 Can't Decide The Arbitrability of Non-Notified Claim: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1003

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding a Section 11 application, has held that a referral court under Section 11 cannot examine the arbitrability of non-notified claims. After the SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning judgment, the arbitral tribunal will decide on the arbitrability of disputes.

Employee's Performance Assessment Must Be Limited To Specified Year, Incidents Beyond Not Ground To Upgrade/ Degrade: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shakti Singh Thakur Vs Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1004

The Delhi High Court has observed that the assessment of an employee for a particular year must be based solely on their performance during that year, and incidents beyond the period covered by the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) cannot be used to either downgrade or upgrade an employee's rating.

Court Cannot Assess "Functional Disability", Domain Of Experts: Delhi High Court Denies Relief To MBBS Aspirant With Missing Fingers

Case Title: Kabir Paharia Vs National Medical Commission And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1005

The Delhi High Court has declined the plea of a medical aspirant with "missing multiple fingers", seeking admission into MBBS course.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made it clear that it cannot delve into expert domains like assessing the "functional disability" of a medical aspirant and "the evaluation of the petitioner‟s ability to pursue the course, and later practice as a doctor, had to be entrusted to the experts in the medical field."

S. 17A PC Act | Preliminary Enquiry Against Unknown Offenders Not Strictly Barred: Delhi High Court

Case Title: LAMBODAR PRASAD PADHY Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1006

In a significant development, the Delhi High Court observed that although there's no bar to initiating preliminary enquiry against unknown public officials under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 no case could be registered against such unknown officials unless previous sanction is obtained from the competent authority.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Writ Seeking Criminal Action Against Packaged Food Manufacturers For Using Excessive 'Added Sugar'

Case Title: Jagatmitra Foundation v. UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1007

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition seeking initiation of criminal proceedings under FSSAI Act against packaged food manufacturers, for using excessive added sugar in their products.

Section 41 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 empowers the Food Safety Officer and Designated Officer to initiate prosecution against violators of the Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.

NCLT In Better Position To Consider 'Unsavoury Practices' Of Banks, Financial Institutions: Delhi High Court

Case title: BAREILLY HIGHWAYS PROJECT LIMITED. vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1008

The Delhi High Court has observed that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is an appropriate authority to consider issues relating to 'unsavoury' practices of banks, calculating compound or penalty interest in a manner which leads to a situation where it becomes difficult to seek a resolution under Section 12A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (for withdrawal of corporate insolvency resolution).

[IAS Aspirants Deaths] Delhi High Court Asks CBI About Reasons For Water Logging Outside Coaching Centre That Day, Calls For Status Report

Case title: Parvinder Singh v CBI and other cases

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1009

The Delhi High Court has questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation about the reason for heavy water logging and the amount of rainfall on July 27 when three civil services aspirants died after drowning in the flooded basement of a coaching centre in Old Rajendra Nagar.

Delhi High Court Asks DDA To Decide On Request For Holding Ramleela On Plot Allotted For Judicial Staff Quarters

Case title: SAHIL A. GARG NARWARNA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1010

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to consider an application for holding Ramleela at a plot in Shahdara, Delhi, which has been acquired by the Delhi Government for the purposes of constructing judicial staff quarters.

Delhi High Court Declines To Interfere With Single Judge Order Directing SpiceJet To Ground Aircraft Engines Due To Non-Payment Of Dues

Case Title: SPICEJET LIMITED Versus TEAM FRANCE 01 SAS (and connected matter)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1011

In a setback to debt-ridden low-cost airline company SpiceJet, the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the Single Judge order directing SpiceJet to ground three aircraft engines for defaulting on payments to engine lessors.

Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Begin Stakeholder Discussions On Requirement Of Mandatory Attendance Norms In UG & PG Courses

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1012

The Delhi High Court in a slew of directions has asked the Secretary, Union Ministry of Education (dealing with Higher Education) to commence within two weeks stakeholder consultations to discuss whether attendance norms should be made mandatory in undergraduate and postgraduate courses.

Appeal/Revision Against NCDRC Order Lies With Jurisdictional High Court: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case title: The General Manager Punjab National Bank And Ors & Ors. Vs. Rohit Malhotra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1013

The Delhi High Court has observed that the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), while considering an appeal or revision against the order of a State Commission other than the State Commission of Delhi, cannot be challenged before it as it lacks jurisdiction over such cases.

Delhi High Court Asks SSB To Consider Gender Neutral Nomenclature Of Posts Earlier Earmarked For Males But Now Open To Female Candidates

Title: SONU RAJPUT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1014

The Delhi High Court has called for amendment of the nomenclature of Seema Sashastra Bal (SSB) posts which were earlier earmarked only for male candidates but are now open to women as well.

A division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur was dealing with a young mother's plea who applied for the post of Constable (Washer Man)-Female under OBC quota in SSB.

Judicial Data Of Criminal Cases Available On ICJS Must Be Synced With Crime Record Bureau: Delhi High Court

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1015

The Delhi High Court has observed that the judicial data related to criminal cases available on the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) portal needs to be synced with the Crime Record Bureau to ensure “accurate availability of data” relating to the accused.

Arbitrator Justified In Treating Loan Admission In Correspondence As Admitted Claim Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shutham Electric Ltd. Vs Vaibhav Raheja & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016

The Delhi High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that when a party makes a clear admission of owing a loan in its contemporaneous correspondence, the arbitrator is justified in treating it as an admitted claim under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

The bench noted that the purpose of this rule is to allow a party to secure a speedy judgment, at least to the extent of the relief that the plaintiff is entitled to based on the defendant's admission.

Income Tax Refund Can't Be Denied To Taxpayer For Discrepancy In Form 26AS Filed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hari Kishan Sharma vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

While observing that tax was duly deducted by the Land Acquisition Collector but was not disclosed for some reasons and hence the credit was not reflected in Form 26AS, the Delhi High Court held that the assessee/ petitioner cannot be penalized for the mere reason that the Form 26AS suffered from a discrepancy.

By Participating In Selection Process, Candidates Do Not Get Indefeasible Right To Get Appointment, Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: VIJAY KAUSHIK Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Writ Petition which challenged a judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Petitioner had sought seniority from the year 2007 despite being appointed in the year 2009, contending that he was entitled for appointment in the year 2007 itself.

A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia held that the petitioner who participated in the selection process for the post of Sub Inspector had no vested right to claim appointment for the recruitment process of 2007, since he was already appointed in the year 2009.

In Absence Of Specific Reasons, GST Registration Can't Be Cancelled With Retrospective Effect : Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Chauhan Construction Co. versus Commissioner of DGST and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

Finding that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) did not mention any particulars, which would provide any clue to the taxpayer/ petitioner as to the reasons for cancellation of its GST registration, the Delhi High Court quashed the SCN as well as the order, by which the GST Commissioner had cancelled the GST registration of petitioner with retrospective effect.

No Vested Legal Right To Allotment Of Public Site By Merely Making Online Booking: Delhi High Court

Case title: PURVI DELHI VAIDEHI TRUST (PDVT) vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

The Delhi High Court has observed a vested legal right for allotment of a public site/public park does not arise merely because the site has been booked online by paying the required amount.

“There is no vested legal right to allotment of a public site or park by merely applying 'online' followed by payment of the booking amount,” the court said.

Treaty Provisions Prevails Over Income Tax Act – Receipts From Aircraft Leasing Is Not Taxable As Royalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Milestone Aviation Asset Holding Group vs. ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

The Delhi High Court held that consideration received by Assessee from aircraft leasing activity is not taxable as royalty either u/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act or under India-Ireland DTAA.

Delhi High Court Orders Interim Restraint On Transfer Of Late Oberoi Group Chairman's Company Shares In Daughter's Suit Against Family Members

Case title: ANASTASIA MIRJANA JOJIC OBEROI & ORS. v/s RAJARAMAN SHANKAR & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1022

In an interim order passed last week, the Delhi High Court has restrained the transfer of Oberoi group's former chairman late PRS Oberoi's shares in EIH Limited–which runs the Oberoi and Trident hotel chain–and its two holding companies, except one specific class of shares, after Oberoi's daughter moved a lawsuit seeking an injunction on the said transfer.

Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Amandeep Singh Dhall, Amit Arora

Title: Amit Arora v. ED and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to businessmen Amandeep Singh Dhall and Amit Arora in the money laundering case connected to the alleged excise policy scam case.

Arora was granted interim bail on medical grounds in August. He is the director of Gurugram-based company Buddy Retail Pvt. Ltd. On the other hand, Dhall, who is the businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, was denied bail in the CBI case in June.

Land For Jobs Scam: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Lalu Yadav's Aide Amit Katyal In PMLA Case

Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1024

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's close aide Amit Katyal in a money laundering case related to the alleged land-for-jobs scam case.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the investigations qua Katyal already stood concluded and the Prosecution Complaint was also filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Delhi High Court Directs MCD To Pay ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Parents For Death Of Their Son Due To Its Negligence

Title: Munna v. MCD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation to the parents of a minor child, who passed away after a lantern/slab fell on him from the premises owned by MCD.

A single bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found the MCD to be negligent in maintaining safe conditions of its premises and invoked the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' to place liability on the MCD.

Delhi High Court Orders Over ₹9 Lakh Compensation To Minor Who Was Sexually Abused By Father, Calls It Essential Part Of 'Curing Justice'

Title: X v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

The Delhi High Court has recently directed the DSLSA to pay Rs. 9.65 lakh of compensation to a minor rape victim who was sexually abused and assaulted by her father in 2018. The minor was 17 years of age at the time of the incident.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Charges Framed Against Mother For Failing To Report POCSO Case Against Daughter

Title: RB v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a trial court order framing charges against a mother for failing to report offences under POCSO Act against her 16-year-old daughter who was allegedly raped by her father.

Justice Anish Dayal observed that the mother who was herself the victim of sexual abuse by her husband, had become the accused by applying Section 21 of the POCSO Act, wholly insulated from the background facts and circumstances of the case.

Delhi High Court Passes 'Dynamic+' Injunction To Protect Copyrighted Works Of Warner Bros, Netflix & Others

Title: WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. MOVIESMOD.BET & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

The Delhi High Court has recently passed a dynamic+ injunction to protect the copyrighted works of Warner Bros, Netflix, Disney and other global entertainment companies.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee was dealing with a suit filed by global entities against 45 rogue websites seeking to restrain them from hosting and streaming their copyrighted works in various movies and shows.

Abysmal State Of Affairs That Litigants Prefer False Complaints In Matrimonial Disputes: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR

Title: PRATEEK & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that it is an “abysmal state of affairs” that litigants have resorted to preferring false complaints in matrimonial disputes against the opposite party, thereby making a mockery of the judicial system.

Offence Committed In Foreign Country Can Be Treated As Predicate Offence Under PMLA When Proceeds Of Crime Travels To India: Delhi HC

Title: ADNAN NISAR v. ED & other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

The Delhi High Court has held that an offence committed in a foreign country under laws of that nation can be treated as a predicate offence under PMLA if it has “cross border implications” and the proceeds of the crime have travelled to India.

Service Bond Is Not A Contract Of Employment, Delhi High Court Upholds ESIC's Decision To Reduce Bond Period From Five/Three Years To One Year Post Qualification

Case Title: DR ANKIT SHARMA & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by the Petitioners challenging the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which upheld the decision of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Dental College and Hospital in Rohini, Delhi. ESIC had reduced the service bond period to one year From Five/Three Years after attaining the qualification as per the revised policy.

Both Parties Are Entitled To Get The Benefit Of The Latter Part Of Section 34(3) While Computing The Period Of Limitation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prime Interglobe Private Limited v. Super Milk Products Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 34 petition, has held that any party can benefit from the second part of Section 34(3) when calculating the limitation period. The statute's language does not specify who should request under Section 33. Therefore, the benefit of calculating the limitation period from the date of disposal of the Section 33 application is available to both parties.

Delhi Is Of Migrants, Benefit Of Reservation To Any Category Can't Be Denied: High Court

Title: DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. v. VISHNU KUMAR BADETIYA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1033

The Delhi High Court has recently held that the national capital, being a Union Territory, is of migrants and benefit of reservation to any particular category cannot be denied.

“It is also not in dispute, NCT of Delhi being Union Territory for all purposes, except for running administration, is of migrants, therefore, benefit of reservation to any category cannot be denied,” a division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia said.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To British National Jagtar Singh Johal In Murder, UAPA Cases

Title: JAGTAR SINGH JOHAL @ JAGGI v. NIA and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1034

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to British national Jagtar Singh Johal in seven murder and UAPA cases being probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the bail appeals filed by Johal in the UAPA cases alleging series of targeted killings during 2016-2017 in Ludhiana and Jalandhar Districts of Punjab.

Delhi High Court Restrains Businesses From Using Amul's Trademark On Their Pharmaceutical Products, Directs Payment Of ₹5 Lakhs In Damages & Costs

Case title: Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. cs. Bio Logic And Psychotropics India Private Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of Amul, against businesses dealing in pharmaceutical products, from using 'AMUL' trademark on their products. The Court imposed costs and damages of Rs. 5 lakh against them for infringing Amul's well-known trademark.

Delhi High Court Stays Arbitral Awards Due To Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator

Case Title: M/s PGL Estatecon Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Jyoti Enterprises

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036

The Delhi High Court bench presided by Justice C. Hari Shankar has stayed the execution of two arbitral awards, holding that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent, without court intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act, rendered the arbitration proceedings invalid ab initio.

Since Seat Is Fixed, Only Court Having Territorial Jurisdiction Over Seat Has Jurisdiction Over Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Grand Motors Sale And Services Pvt Ltd v. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that when the seat of the arbitration is contractually fixed, only those Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the seat would have the curial jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Following the dictum in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd, the court held that the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition.

'Urban Planning Failure': Delhi High Court On Parking Issue In Residential Colonies, Calls For Policy Based Response From Municipal Authorities

Title: SURMILA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

Calling it an “urban planning failure”, the Delhi High Court has said that the issue of parking space in residential colonies in the national capital requires a policy based response from the municipal authorities.

“The absence of dedicated parking spaces in residential colonies is a civic issue that requires a policy- based response from municipal authorities rather than judicial intervention in individual disputes,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

DCW Appointments: Delhi High Court Dismisses Former Chairperson Swati Maliwal's Plea Against Framing Of Corruption Charges

Case Title: Swati Maliwal v. State and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal challenging a trial court order framing corruption charges against her for allegedly abusing her official position by illegally appointing various acquaintances, including AAP workers, in the Chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) between August 6, 2015 to August 1, 2016.

Maliwal was then the Chairperson of DCW.

Profits Attributable To Permanent Establishment Can't Be Ignored On Basis Of Global Income Or Loss Earned/ Incurred By Cross Border Entity: Delhi HC

Case Title: HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

Referring to Article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between the Government of United Arab Emirates and the Republic of India, the Delhi High Court held that the right of the Holding company (source State) to allocate or attribute income to the Permanent Establishment (PE) cannot be restricted on the basis of the global income or loss that may have been earned or incurred by a cross-border entity.

Department Can't Issue SCN Simply Alleging Misstatement, Without Pointing Out Specific Fact Of Suppression By Taxpayer: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/s SS Enterprises versus Principal Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

Finding that the Show cause notice (SCN) issued to the petitioner/assessee did not set out any intelligible reasons for cancellation of its GST registration, the Delhi High Court quashed the said SCN.

Staff Welfare Expenditure Incurred By Employer As Per SEBI Guidelines Is Revenue Expenditure: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT versus RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

Emphasizing that shares which is subject to a lock-in stipulation, could not be sold in an open market, the Delhi High Court held that valuation report obtained by the employer for ascertaining its withholding tax obligations during allotment of such shares to its employees as a perquisite, cannot be considered for purpose of Fair Market Value (FMV) of those shares.

Pension Regulations For Army Applicable To Defence Security Corps Service, Delhi HC Allows Condonation Of Shortfall In Service For Pension Benefits

Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.v. EX/NK CHINNA VEDIYAPPAN

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli & Justice Shalinder Kaur, while deciding a writ petition held that the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 are also applicable to DSC service, hence allowed the condonation of shortfall in DSC service for the pension benefits.

Delhi High Court Quashes POCSO Charges Against 19-Yr Old Boy For Consensual Relationship With Minor Girl

Case title: Mr. Sujit Kumar Vs. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And And

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

The Delhi High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a 19-year old man for offence of rape against a 17-year old girl by taking into account the circumstances of the case, including that the accused and minor had entered into sexual relations consensually, begotten a child together and that the minor's mother had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

The Court noted that the minor girl is staying with her parents along with her child and stated that if FIR is not quashed, it would “adversely affect the minor child who needs protection and care from his parents, and destroy the lives of three individuals, the couple and the new born.”

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Rule Mandating Preservation Of Unused Embryos Solely For Original-Recipient

Title: Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea challenging the Rule which mandates that all unused gametes or embryos shall be preserved by the assisted reproductive technology clinic for use on the same recipient and shall not be used for any other couple or woman.

Vulnerable Witnesses Must Be Protected From Unnecessary Re-Traumatisation In Sensitive Cases: Delhi High Court

Title: SUDARSHAN v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

While dealing with a case under the POCSO Act, the Delhi High Court has observed that vulnerable witnesses must be protected from unnecessary re-traumatization, particularly in sensitive cases.

Emphasising that recalling a victim for additional cross-examination is not a matter to be taken lightly, Justice Amit Mahajan said:

“When a victim, especially a child or someone of tender age, is recalled to the stand, they are compelled to relive the traumatic events associated with the incident. Such repeated questioning can result in significant emotional distress and further psychological harm.”

S.125 CrPC | Wife Not Disentitled To Claim Maintenance Merely Because She Seeks Divorce: Delhi High Court

Title: MANISH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a wife cannot be disentitled from claiming any maintenance merely because she seeks divorce after having left the company of her husband due to sufficient reasons.

Flipkart's 'Latching-On' Feature Can't Be Used To Sell Counterfeit Products Or Mislead Gullible Public: Delhi High Court

Title: MODERN MOLD PLAST PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. FLIPKART INTERNET PT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

The Delhi High Court has observed that the feature of latching-on offered by e-commerce platform Flipkart cannot be used to sell counterfeit products or to mislead the gullible public into purchasing products as emanating from a particular source when they do not do so.

Latching on is the feature whereby an e-commerce platform permits third party sellers to place a listing under an already listed product on the website. 'More sellers' option on a product's page allows a user to see other traders of the same product.

Proper Officer Has No Evidence That Taxpayer Did Not Exist At Principal Place Of Business: Delhi HC Quashes Order Cancelling GST Registration With Retro Effect

Case Title: Singhal Singh Rawat versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax (CGST)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

Pointing out that the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect does not indicate any reason except referring to the SCN, the Delhi High Court quashed the said order and permitted the petitioner to file a response to the SCN.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Installation Of 'Jhansi Rani' Statue Inside Shahi Idgah Park

Title: SHAHI IDGAH MANAGING COMMITTEE v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition against the installation of the statue of “Maharani of Jhansi” inside the Shahi Idgah Park situated at city's Sadar Bazar area.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma rejected the petition moved by Shahi Idgah Managing Committee seeking directions on the civic authorities to not encroach upon the Shahi Idgah, claiming it to be a waqf property.

Lawyers Must Be Sensitized To Not File Frivolous Cases Alleging Sexual Harassment, Outraging Modesty Of Women: Delhi High Court

Title: MS RAJESH WADHWA AND ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

The Delhi High Court has recently called for sensitization of lawyers to ensure that the process of law is not abused by filing frivolous cases for the offences alleging sexual harassment and outraging modesty of women.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that time has come to initiate action against individuals who file frivolous complaints under Sections 354 (outraging modesty of women), 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 354C (voyeurism) and 354D (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, etc. only for ulterior purpose.

Wife Compelled To Leave Matrimonial House Due To Husband's Extra Marital Affair Makes Her Victim Of Domestic Violence: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a husband living with another lady and having a child with her makes the wife victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act.

“No lady can tolerate that her husband is cohabiting with another lady and has a child from her. All these facts make the Respondent/Wife a victim of Domestic Violence. The contention of the Petitioner that the complaint filed by the Respondent/Wife does not come within the four corners of the DV Act cannot be accepted. The Respondent had to leave her matrimonial house because she was unable to tolerate the fact that her husband is living with another woman,” the court said.

POCSO Act: Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Disbursal Of Compensation To Child Victims By DSLSA

Title: ABHISHEK YADAV v. DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

The Delhi High Court has issued directions for disbursal of compensation to the child victims of sexual abuse under the POCSO Act by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal inserted a sixth part (Part F) in the existing SOP framed in the backdrop of Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, which contained five parts.

Application U/S 12 Of Domestic Violence Act Can Only Be Filed Before Jurisdictional Magistrate: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

The Delhi High Court has observed that an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act can only be filed before the jurisdictional magistrate.

Section 12 states that an “aggrieved person” or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act.

Drawing Cheque Of Time-Barred Debt Resurrects Debt Through S.25(3) Of Indian Contracts Act, Triggers Liability U/S 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: RAJEEV KUMAR vs. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

The Delhi High Court had observed that the presentation of a cheque of a time-barred debt itself revives the debt under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It stated that the furnishing of the cheque is in itself an acknowledgement of a debt or liability and thus in case of dishonour of the cheque, the creditor can enforce legal liability and the accused cannot claim that debt has been barred by limitation.

Document Classified As 'Top Secret' Under Official Secrets Act Can't Be Directed To Be Produced By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Title: DIRECTOR GENERAL, PROJECT VARSHA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY), UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI v. M/S NAVAYUGA-VAN OORD JV

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

The Delhi High Court has held that a document classified “Top Secret” and “Protected” under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, cannot be directed to be produced by an Arbitral Tribunal.

Justice Manoj Jain allowed the plea moved by Director General of Project Varsha, Union Ministry of Defence, against an order directing it to submit documents concerning the project in a sealed cover to the Arbitral Tribunal.

AgustaWestland Case: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Christian Michel In CBI FIR

Case Title: Christian Michel James v. CBI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application filed by British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam case.

'We Don't Frame System Of Money Transfers': Delhi High Court On PIL Seeking 'Uniform Banking Code' To Regulate Foreign Exchange Transactions

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to treat as representation a public interest litigation moved by Advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking implementation of a "Uniform Banking Code" for Foreign Exchange Transactions.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice designate, Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Centre to decide the plea after taking inputs from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Reserve Bank of India by way of a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible.

'Can't Get Into This': Delhi High Court On Plea To Include Chapter On 'Dharma' And 'Religion' In School Syllabus

Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to treat as representation a PIL seeking to distinguish between “Dharma” and “Religion” and to include a chapter on the subject in the curriculum of primary and secondary schools.

Taxation And Other Laws Act, 2020 Does Not Alter Sanction Powers For Reopening Conferred U/s 151 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Abhinav Jindal HUF versus ITO

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

The Delhi High Court recently clarified that the TOLA [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020] authorisation merely enables the competent authority to take action within the extended time period which would have otherwise been regulated by Sections 148 and 149, but does not amend the structure for approval which stands erected by virtue of Section 151.

DUSU Elections: High Court Halts Counting Of Votes, Pulls Up Delhi University Over Failure To Discipline Candidates

Title: Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

The Delhi High Court has halted the process of counting of votes for the ongoing Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections of the varsity and other colleges in the wake of candidates indulging in acts of vandalism and defacement of public properties.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice designate Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed that no counting of votes shall take place till the Court is satisfied that the posters, spraypaints and graffitis are removed and public properties are restored.

Power Of Courts To Substitute Arbitrator Under Section 29A(6) Essentially To Further Intent Of Section 29A: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Poonam Mittal v. Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, has held that Sub-section (6) pertaining to substitute the arbitrator is there to further the purpose of Section 29A.

Right To File Section 14 Petition Absolute And Untrammeled By Any Other Considerations: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal, has held that the right of a party to file a Section 14 petition seeking to terminate the mandate of the tribunal is not curtailed because the party had previously filed a Section 16 application before the tribunal and lost.

Contempt Of Court Excludes Negligent Or Thoughtless Actions, Willful Conduct Requires Evil Motive Of Contemnor: Delhi High Court

Case title: Rajiv Oberoi vs. Rajesh Gupta

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

The Delhi High Court has observed that to punish a party for contempt of a court's order, it has to be established that the disobedience of the order was 'wilful' and does not include acts which were done negligently or thoughtlessly.

Bail Can't Be Denied Under PMLA On Mere Assumption That Property Recovered From Accused Must Be Proceed Of Crime: Delhi High Court

Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. RAHIL HITESHBHAI CHOVATIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

The Delhi High Court has recently held that bail cannot be denied under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, merely on the assumption that the property recovered from the accused must be proceed of crime.

[POCSO Act] Teenage Love Falls In 'Legal Grey Area', Debatable If It Can Be Categorized As Offence: Delhi High Court

Title: SHUBHAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that “teenage love” fall in a “legal grey area” and it is debatable if it can be categorized as an offence.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the Court is coming across a number of cases where girls aged more than 17 years elope with boys of their choice and their parents force them to change their statement before the police when they are caught.

Delhi HC Lets Woman Replace Step-Mom's Name In CBSE Records, Cites Fundamental Right To Have One's Identity Linked With Biological Mother

Title: SHWETA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

While dealing with a daughter's case to have her biological mother's name entered in the official records, the Delhi High Court recognized the fundamental right to have one's identity linked with the biological mother.

Mistake Apparent On Record Pertaining To 'Disputed Tax' & 'Tax Arrears' Can Be Rectified Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme: Delhi HC

Case Title: Fresh Pet Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1068

The Delhi High Court held that the once the relief is already accorded to assessee in the original assessment order, then Designated Authority (DA) can rectify the mistake apparent on record by allowing the assessee to file a fresh Form 3 under VSV Act.

Continuation Of Proceedings On Ceased Entity Is Not Curable U/s 292B: Delhi High Court

Case Title: International Hospital vs. DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

While following the decision of Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited [(2020) 18 SCC 331], the Delhi High Court held that the initiation or continuation of assessment or reassessment proceedings after a company cease to exist due to merger pursuant to a Scheme of Arrangement, is not sustainable, and cannot be cured by applying Section 292B.

Delhi High Court Orders ₹2.5 Lakh Compensation For Infant's Death By Dog Bite, Highlights Stray Dog Menace

Title: GEETA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

The Delhi High Court has ordered ex gratia compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakh to a mother for the death of her 5 month old infant child, who was mauled and fatally bitten by a stray dog, leading to his death in 2007.

“Notwithstanding the factual scenario of the present case, before parting, it is pertinent to observe here that the stray dog menace in Delhi is a serious issue affecting human life and dignity,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed.

ISRO Administrative Officer Post, Selection Not Arbitrary, Candidates Participated Without Any Challenge To Process, Can't Question Later; Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: RAVI KUMAR Versus DEPARTMENT OF SPACE AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Petition filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The petitioner had challenged the results finalized by the ISRO against the post of Administrative Officer

Delhi HC Tells Lawyers To Not Use Old Criminal Laws In New Filings, Asks Them To Also Mention New Criminal Laws For Filings In Old Cases

Title: STATE THROUGH RPF v. DHARMENDRA @ DHARMA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

The Delhi High Court has taken a “serious view” of the reliance upon old criminal laws by advocates to file new applications or petitions, despite implementation of new laws with effect from July 01.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh directed the Registry to ensure that the new applications or pleas are filed under the new laws only.

Liberty Given To Revenue In SC's Abhisar Buildwell Judgment To Initiate Reassessment Proceedings Doesn't Overcome Limitation U/S 149 Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

Case title: Arn Infrastructures India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. (and connected matters)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell, which granted liberty to the Revenue Department to initiate reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act- in case of completed/ unabated assessment, if no incriminating material is found during the search- cannot be construed to be an authority to override the limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act.

Credit Card Fees Payable To Foreign Counterpart Of Indian Banking Company Is Not Taxable In India: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Director of Income Tax versus ANZ Grindlays Bank

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

The Delhi High Court held that fees received by the foreign branch of banking company for extending a credit line to the account holder outside India, would not be taxable in India.

Sole Proprietor 'Alone' Liable U/S 138 NI Act For Dishonour Of Cheques Issued To Repay Debt: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sanat Kumar v/s Sanjay Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

While hearing a cheque bouncing case, the Delhi High Court reiterated that in respect of a sole proprietorship firm, the sole proprietor alone can be held responsible for cheques issued by the firm for repaying a debt.

Criminal Conviction Necessary For Forfeiture Of Employee's Gratuity: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

Recently, a Division Bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia considered an appeal pertaining to the issue of alleged "moral turpitude" of an employee of Punjab National Bank (“Bank‟) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and also, whether the Bank was justified in forfeiting the gratuity without a criminal conviction. The Division Bench upheld the decision of the Single Judge, emphasizing that for the forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, a criminal conviction is necessary to establish moral turpitude.

Delhi High Court Confirms Employee's Discharge For Failing To Withdraw Within Time His Voluntary Unwillingness To Serve

Title: EX CHAA MOHAMMED ZULKARNAIN, 550032-Z v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli & Justice Shalinder Kaur, while deciding a writ petition held that employee's discharge from service was legal as he failed to withdraw within time period his voluntary unwillingness to serve.

Harsher Punishment Of Dismissal, Compared To Lighter Punishment For Co-Delinquent In Same Incident, Unsustainable: Delhi High Court

Title: PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK v. SH. RAJ KUMAR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Girish Kathpalia, while deciding a Letters Patent Appeal held that the harsher punishment of dismissal from service as compared to lighter punishment of compulsory retirement for a co-delinquent in same incident is unsustainable.