Delhi High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March, 2024 [Citations 1 - 384]

KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GIRDHAR INDUSTRIES AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1

VINOD KUMAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 2

CIT Versus RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 3

Neelam Azad v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 4

Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 5

Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 6

SANJAY SINGHAL v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 7

HARE KRISHNA PATHAK v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 8

BHAVNEET SINGH v. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 9

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 10

MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 11

AMAR SINGH BHATIA & ANR. v. SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 12

Hyatt International-Southwest Asia Ltd. Versus Additional Director Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 13

R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 14

POOJA SHARMA BAJAJ v. KUNAL BAJAJ & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 15

PUMA SE v. INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 16

RAHUL DILIP SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 17

RS Wires Industries Versus Sales Tax Officer Class 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 18

SUNIL KUMAR ALEDIA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 19

Harshdip Singh Dhillon Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 20

M/S Mittal Footcare Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 21

Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 22

MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 23

T.V.TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. SAMEET THAKKAR & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 24

M/S Angelantoni Test Technologies Srl V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1) & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 25

NILKANTH DAS AND ORS. v. CBSE AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 26

Bar Council Of India Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 27

NIVEDITA JOSHI v. ABHISHEK RAY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 28

M/S BLUE HEAVEN COSMETICS PVT LTD v. MR ANISH JAIN TRADING AS M/S NAVKAR COSMO & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 29

MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 30

NEERAJ SINGAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 31

MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 32

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 33

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Bt Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 34

Amway India Enterprises Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Vat, Delhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 35

KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 36

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 37

A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 38

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. KAVITHA KURUGANTI and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 39

SAINT GURMEET RAM RAHIM SINGH INSAN SHISHAYEVA GADDINASHIN SHAH SATNAM SINGH JI MAHARAJ V/s YOUTUBE LLC AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 40

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VIRENDRA SINGH ADVOCATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 41

NOVARTIS AG v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 42

HARDESH KUMAR v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 43

ARIF KHAN v. THE STATE AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 44

OJAS SATYAWALI THROUGH HIS MOTHER BHAWNA PATHAK v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 45

NASHETA ZAIDI THROUGH GUARDIAN GROUP CAPTAIN IMRAN H ZAIDI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 46

Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 47

KAUM FAQEER SHAH v. MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 48

Jatin Mohanty v. Election Commission of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 49

MR. TARUN TEJPAL AND ANR v. MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 50

CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 51

M/S Een Een Sales Corporation Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 52

VIPUL JAIN v. STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 53

RAVI KAPOOR v. STATE-NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 54

Nipun Malhotra vs Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 55

X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 56

JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 57

SAGA MUSIC PRIVATE LIMITED v. ROGER DAVID & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 58

ALLIED BLENDERS @ DISTILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HERMES DISTILLERY PRIVATE LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 59

PCIT Versus M/S Wig Investament 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 60

Oguljeren Hajyyeva Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 61

Allied-Dynamic JV v. Ircon International Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 62

Simentech India Pvt Ltd v. BHEL 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 63

THE INDIAN EXPRESS P LTD v. THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS WORKERS UNION REGD AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 64

Bejon Kumar Misra v. GNCTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 65

MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 66

NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 67

APOORVA Y K v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 68

DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 69

MAKSOOD AHMAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 70

Vivek Aggarwal v. Hemant Aggarwal 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 71

Jatinder Kaur & Ors v. Late Jagjit Singh & Investament 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 72

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Versus Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 73

Mr. Gajendra Mishra v. Pokhrama Foundation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 74

A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 75

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 76

ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77

KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. MR ASHISH SINGH AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 78

OXFAM INDIA v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 79

SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 80

CPIO v. Girish Mittal 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 81

A.V. PREM NATH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 82

R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 83

AASHISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 84

PIYUSH GUPTA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 85

MS KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 86

Aryan Timber Store Through Its Prop Virender Kumar Versus Sales Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 87

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 88

INFINITI RETAIL LIMITED vs M/S CROMA -SHARE & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 89

Techfab International Pvt Ltd v. MIDIMA Holdings Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 90

SH. FIROZ AHMAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 91

STARBUCKS CORPORATION & ANR. v. NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 92

NEETU GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 93

Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar v. Rahul Gandhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 94

DR. SNEHASHISH BHATTACHARYA & ORS. v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 95

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES v. SOM PAN PRODUCT PVT. LTD. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 96

MOHIT PILANIA v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 97

SK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 98

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 99

MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 100

JAIDEEP SINGH SENGER@ATUL SINGH v. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 101

LEVI STRAUSS AND CO v. NAB PRODUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 102

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 103

LOTUS HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DPKA UNIVERSAL CONSUMER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 104

Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Gunocen Inc 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 105

M/s K.S. Jain Builders v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 106

Vingro Developments Pvt Ltd v. Nitya Shree Developers Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 107

Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Deputy Commissioner of Stamp Registration & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 108

DHARAM NARAYAN GAUTAM v. STATE THROUGH ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 120

SIYA OMAR THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PRIYANKA GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 121

AMIT KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 122

MR MAHENDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 123

Yasin Malik v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 124

CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 125

BAL KISHAN GUPTA v. DDA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 126

CPIO CBI v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 127

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 128

MICHAL BENSON NWAOGU @ CHUNA BENSON v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 129

A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 130

RAVI KUMAR v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 131

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 132

Naman Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 133

Shri Balaji Enterprises & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134

Surya Alloy Industries Ltd Vs Union Of India And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 172

M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 173

SWATI SINGH v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 174

PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. RAAJ UNOCAL LUBRICANTS LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 175

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 176

PRAVEEN@NAVEEN@VICKY v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 177

DEBARATI NANDEE v. MS. TRIPTI GURHA & ANR and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 178

DR. AMIT KUMAR v. BHARATI COLLEGE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 179

M/S S.K Agencies vs M/S DFM Foods 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 180

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 181

VALLABHBHAI PATEL CHEST INSTITUTE v. NISHIKESH TYAGI & ANOTHER 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 182

JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 183

SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 184

RAGHAV AWASTHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 185

TTK PRESTIGE LIMITED v. BAGHLA SANITARYWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 186

VIJAY DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 187

VINOD NAGAR v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 188

Aroh Foundation Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 189

PO v. VP 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 190

GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. ANGLO-FRENCH DRUGS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 191

CASTROL LIMITED v. RAJESH KUMAR TUTEJA, TRADING AS KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 192

NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 193

ASLAM & ORS. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 194

MAHESHWARI DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 195

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 196

Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 197

RV v. NAVBHARAT TIMES & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 198

Varun Sood Versus ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 199

Swashbuckler Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Avdesh Mittal & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 200

M/s NHPC Ltd Vs M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 201

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF DELHI WAQF BOARD v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT (GNCT), DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 202

Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 203

MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 204

Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. vs Samtel Display Systems Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 205

NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 206

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 207

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 208

NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CENTRAL LEGISLATION ON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 209

MOHD. ARSHAD AHMAD v. PRAMOD CHAUHAN SHO P.S. NABI KARIM 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 210

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus S.A.Chitra Ventures Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 211

Prime Interglobe Private Limited vs Super Milk Products Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 212

Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Uniper Global Commodities. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 213

Premoday Khakha v. State and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 214

SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 215

MS. KANISHKA (THROUGH MRS. SANTOSH (MOTHER) v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 216

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Versus Relx Inc 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 217

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 218

ALI MOHAMMED v. DG, CISF AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 219

MRS TEJINDER PAL GUJRAL v. S MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 220

Devender Kumar Kashyap vs Chander Muni. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 221

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 222

DR NAMIT GUPTA v. DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 223

Apshara Garments Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 224

STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. TERIIMERIDOORIYAN.COM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 225

Umaxe Projects Private Limited vs Air Force Naval Housing Board 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 226

Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 227

ASHA CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 228

MOHD ARIF ANSARI v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 229

DEEPAK SEHGAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 230

VISHWAJEET SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 231

UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 232

SETU VINIT GOENKA v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 233

Smriti Irani v. Pawan Khera & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 234

MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 235

J.P. SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 236

ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 237

MS. SUJATA KOHLI v. RAJIV KHOSLA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 238

Aakash Educational Services Ltd Vs M/S Lotus Education & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 239

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

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

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 243

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 266

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

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

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

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

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 271

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 272

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

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

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

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 276

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amanatullah Khan v. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 288

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318

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

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

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

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

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

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 324

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 356

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PCIT Versus Rashmi Rajiv Mehta 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 374

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GIRDHAR INDUSTRIES AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass interlocutory injunction order against two entities from using “Girdhar Khadi” and “BR Khadi” marks in a trademark suit filed by Khadi and Village Industries Commission.

Justice C Hari Shankar however directed the two manufacturers to maintain accounts of the manufacture, stock and sales of their products bearing the two marks and file accounts with the court every three months, pending disposal of the suit.

Accused Can't Be Denied Right To File SLP On Ground Of Unsatisfactory Jail Conduct: Delhi High Court Grants Parole

Title: VINOD KUMAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 2

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to effectively pursue legal remedy by filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which is the last hope for availing justice, cannot be denied to an accused on the ground of “unsatisfactory conduct.”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that such a right cannot be withheld or the remedy denied to an accused on the ground that free legal aid is available in the jail and SLP can be filed from there.

Actual Interest Expenditure Had To Be Adjusted Against Income Earned By Way Of Interest: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 3

The Delhi High Court has held that actual interest expenditure had to be adjusted against the income earned by way of interest.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the assessee has parked its surplus funds in fixed deposits of the bank from which it earned interest income. At the same time, the assessee has also paid interest to the bank. The interest earned has to be netted off with interest expenditure.

Parliament Security Breach: Delhi High Court Dismisses Accused Neelam Azad's Plea Seeking Release From Custody

Title: Neelam Azad v. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 4

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition moved by accused Neelam Azad, arrested over the security breach in the Parliament last month, seeking immediate release from police custody.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that the plea is not maintainable as Azad has already moved bail plea before the trial court.

“…the petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly,” the bench said.

Accused Can't Be Coerced To Reveal Passwords Of Digital Devices While Trial Is Ongoing: Delhi High Court Grants Bail

Title: Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 5

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that an accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the passwords or any other similar details of the digital devices or gadgets seized during investigation while the trial is ongoing, in view of the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that the investigating agency cannot expect an accused to "sing in a tune which is music to their ears", more so when such an accused enjoys the Constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Delhi High Court Closes Proceedings Against Anand Ranganathan In Criminal Contempt Case For Tweets Against Justice S Muralidhar

Title: Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 6

The Delhi High Court has closed the criminal contempt proceedings against author Anand Ranganathan in relation to a suo motu case initiated by the court regarding certain tweets made in 2018 against former Justice Muralidhar.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain noted that the original initiator of the “contemptuous allegations” against the judge, including editor of Tamil political weekly Thuglak and RSS Ideologue S Gurumurthy S Gurumurthy and filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri, have already been discharged in the matter.

Delhi High Court Orders Constitution Of Joint Task Force To Inspect Infra Of Coaching Centres In Mukherjee Nagar

Title: SANJAY SINGHAL v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 7

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Fire Services (DFS) to constitute a Joint Task Force which may examine and inspect all coaching and teaching centres situated in city's Mukherjee Nagar area.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja ordered that the Joint Task Force will draw up a comprehensive report indicating the “infractions and other non-conforming aspects” that may come to its notice on the issue.

[KVS Admissions] EWS Certificate Must Be Obtained From State Where Verification Possible, Not Where School Is Situated: Delhi High Court

Title: HARE KRISHNA PATHAK v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 8

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a candidate applying for admission in a Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) anywhere in the country under the EWS category need not furnish an income certificate issued from the State Government where the school is situated but such certificate is required to be furnished by an officer of the specified rank in the State where such verification is possible.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that KVS being an institution established and controlled by the Central Government, the “appropriate government” for notifying the annual income threshold to decide whether a child belongs to the EWS Category is the Central Government.

Persons With Disabilities Must Be Given Choice To Be Posted At Preferred Place, May Be Exempted From Rotational Transfers: Delhi High Court

Title: BHAVNEET SINGH v. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 9

The Delhi High Court has observed that the State must ensure that transfers and job postings of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) is done in a way that they shall be given the choice to be posted at their preferred place of posting, and may even be exempted from rotational transfers as mandated for other employees.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the State shall also ensure that PwDs are not subjected to unnecessary and relentless harassment by being transferred or posted at places where they are unable to get an environment which is conducive for their working.

Can Issue Anti-Suit Injunction If Matrimonial Proceedings In Foreign Courts Concerning Non-Resident Indians Oppressive: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 10

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Indian Courts can issue anti-suit injunction if matrimonial proceedings in a foreign court, concerning non-resident Indians are oppressive or vexatious.

While dealing with a case under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta flagged the growing trend of invoking jurisdiction of foreign courts by one of the parties, while the other party may prefer to invoke the jurisdiction of Indian courts.

Mahua Moitra Withdraws From Delhi High Court Plea Against Eviction From Govt Bungalow, Will Approach Directorate Of Estates

Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 11

Trinamool Congress leader Mohua Moitra has withdrawn from the Delhi High Court her plea challenging the cancellation of her government accommodation following her expulsion from the Lok Sabha in connection with the 'cash-for-query' allegations.

Moitra's counsel told Justice Subramonium Prasad that the TMC leader will approach the Union Government's Directorate of Estates for considering her case in accordance with the relevant Rules and to permit her to continue occupation of the government accommodation.

As the plea was withdrawn, the court directed the Union Government to take steps to evict Moitra from the government accommodation “only in accordance with law.”

Delhi High Court Fixes Timelines For Interviews, Decision Making Process In Organ Transplant Cases

Title: AMAR SINGH BHATIA & ANR. v. SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 12

The Delhi High Court has fixed timelines to be followed by the Authorisation Committee under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, for conducting interviews and decision-making process in organ transplant cases.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that a time-bound approach is crucial to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of organ transplantation protocols and would also be in furtherance of the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Use Of Trademark Incidental To Advertisement Or Publicity Is A Business Income, Not Royalty And FTS: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hyatt International-Southwest Asia Ltd. Versus Additional Director Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 13

The Delhi High Court has held that the use of trademarks incidental to advertisement or publicity was held as neither royalty nor fees for technical services (FTS) but as business income.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that merely because the extensive services rendered by the assessee in terms of the Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) also included access to written knowledge, processes, and commercial information in furtherance of the services, this cannot lead to the conclusion that the fee received by the assessee was in the nature of royalty as defined under Article 12 of the DTAA.

'Right To Reproductive Choice Includes Right Not To Procreate': Delhi High Court Allows Woman To Terminate Pregnancy After Husband's Death

Title: R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 14

Observing that the right to reproductive choice includes the right not to procreate, the Delhi High Court has allowed a woman to terminate her pregnancy of 29 weeks as she was suffering with extreme trauma after her husband's death.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the woman should be permitted to terminate her pregnancy because allowing her to continue with the same can impair her mental stability as she was showing suicidal tendencies.

Bigamy | Inability To Prove 'Saptapadi' Qua Partner's Second Marriage At Summoning Stage Can't Be Misused To Evade Legal Consequences: Delhi HC

Title: POOJA SHARMA BAJAJ v. KUNAL BAJAJ & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 15

The Delhi High Court has observed that the absence of law making adultery an offence cannot provide individuals a “blanket immunity” where they can marry others in secrecy during subsistence of their first marriage.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added that such individuals cannot later claim that the first partner must prove that the second marriage was solemnized after performing essential rites and ceremonies, even for summoning the individual as an accused for the offence of bigamy, since adultery is no longer an offence.

E-Commerce Platforms Must Protect Intellectual Property Rights Of Sellers, Can't Become Safe Haven For Infringers: Delhi High Court

Title: PUMA SE v. INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 16

The Delhi High Court has observed that an e-commerce platform cannot become haven for infringers and it must protect the intellectual property rights of others.

“E-commerce websites are commercial ventures, and are inherently profit oriented. There is, of course, nothing objectionable in this; but, while ensuring their highest returns, such websites have also to sedulously protect intellectual property rights of others,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Bureau Of Immigration Can't Delete LOC On Its Own Without Originator's Request: Delhi High Court

Title: RAHUL DILIP SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 17

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Bureau of Immigration has not been vested with the jurisdiction to delete a look out circular (LOC) on its own without there being any request from the Originator.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Bureau of Immigration cannot sit as an Appellate Authority and see if there is sufficient material for opening the LOC, as the materials of such nature can only be questioned in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Order Cancelling GST Registration With Retrospective Effect Bereft Of Reasons, Liable To Be Quashed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RS Wires Industries Versus Sales Tax Officer Class

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 18

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling GST registration with retrospective effect, bereft of reasons.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that one of the consequences of cancelling a taxpayer's registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer's customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such a period.

Delhi High Court Orders Maximum Registration Of Construction Workers Under 1996 Law, Calls For Simpler Renewal Process

Title: SUNIL KUMAR ALEDIA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 19

The Delhi High Court has directed the Member Secretary of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board to take proactive steps to ensure that maximum number of construction workers in the national capital are registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that steps should be taken to ensure that renewal and registration process is made simple and all help is extended to illiterate workman in getting himself or herself registered.

Employee Accepted Salary After TDS Deduction, Employer Responsible For Non-Deposit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Harshdip Singh Dhillon Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 20

The Delhi High Court has held that the employee accepted salary after TDS deduction and the employer is responsible for non-deposit of TDS.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the petitioner/employee, having accepted the salary after the deduction of income tax at source, had no further control over it in the sense that thereafter it was the duty of his employer, acting as a tax collecting agent of the revenue, to pay the deducted tax amount to the Central Government in accordance with law.

GST ITC Refund Can't Be Rejected Merely On Ground Of Non-Supply Of Authenticated Document: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Mittal Footcare Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 21

The Delhi High Court has held that an input tax credit (ITC) refund cannot be rejected merely on the grounds of the non-supply of authenticated documents.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the petitioner had uploaded documents; however, the system did not register the documents that were uploaded by the petitioner. The appellate authority records that the petitioner had not submitted any documents, which were submitted along with the reply.

Section 34 Petition Is Non-Est If Filed Without The Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 22

The Delhi High Court has held that non-filing of the arbitral award along with the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act is a fatal defect which renders the filing as non-est.

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that filing of an award along with the challenge petition is not an empty procedural requirement as sans the award, the Court is left absolutely clueless to comprehend the grounds taken in the objection Petition and thereby unable to decide whether the Petition merits Notice to be issued or outright rejection.

Arbitral Tribunal Can Go Beyond To Grant Relief To Aggrieved Party When Contract Illegally Restricts Remedies : Delhi High Court

Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC,

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 23

The Delhi High Court has held that an Arbitral Tribunal can transgress the boundaries of the contract to grant relief to aggrieved party when the contract illegally restricts or does not provide for sufficient remedies.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that in a situation which is not anticipated in the agreement, the tribunal can transgress the boundaries of the agreement and grant relief to the aggrieved party which it is rightfully entitled to. It held that the tribunal cannot withhold a relief merely because of the explicit provision for such a relief in the agreement.

Delhi High Court Holds 'X' User Guilty Of Contempt Of Court For Making 'Defamatory Tweets' Against TV Today Despite Restraint Orders

Title: T.V.TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. SAMEET THAKKAR & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 24

The Delhi High Court recently held an 'X' (formerly 'Twitter') user guilty of committing contempt of court for making “defamatory tweets” against TV Today Network despite restraint orders passed against him in 2020.

Justice Rekha Palli directed Thakkar to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, taking into account that the offending tweets were removed by him and that he had tendered an unconditional apology for making the tweets.

Investment In Shares In Indian Subsidiary 'Capital Account Transaction', Not Income: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Angelantoni Test Technologies Srl V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1) & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 25

The Delhi High Court has held that investment in shares by a company in its Indian subsidiary is a “capital account transaction” which does not give rise to any income. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as income for taxation.

Placing reliance on the earlier decision of Delhi High Court in Nestle SA v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna held:

“It is settled law that investment in shares in an Indian subsidiary cannot be treated as 'income' as the same is in the nature of “capital account transaction” not giving rise to any income.”

School Can't Seek Correction Of Student's Internal Assessment Marks After Uploading On CBSE Website: Delhi High Court

Title: NILKANTH DAS AND ORS. v. CBSE AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 26

The Delhi High Court has observed that once a school uploads the internal assessment marks of a student on the website of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), it cannot seek any correction even if there was an error while uploading the marks.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that utter chaos would result if schools are permitted to commit errors while uploading students' marks on CBSE's website and thereafter, call upon the Board to correct the marks awarded at their end.

Delhi High Court Directs Income Tax Commissioner To Accept BCI's Form No.10 After Condoning Delay

Case Title: Bar Council Of India Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 27

The Delhi High Court has directed the income tax commissioner to accept Form No. 10 submitted by the Bar Council of India (BCI) after condoning the delay.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of the assessee in certain circumstances and authorize the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10.

Artist Nivedita Joshi Files Copyright Infringement Suit Before Delhi HC Against Music Composer, Producer Of 'Life Is Good' Film

Title: NIVEDITA JOSHI v. ABHISHEK RAY & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 28

Artist Nivedita Joshi has filed a copyright infringement suit before Delhi High Court against the music composer and producer of film “Life is Good” which was released in 2022, alleging that the lyrics of the song “Palko ke Palne” written by her in 2011 were used in the movie without informing her.

Justice Anish Dayal directed the film producer, Anand Shukla, to maintain proper accounts of all royalties received on account of dissemination of the song in question, through all possible media.

Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturers From Selling Cosmetic Products Using Similar Packaging Of 'Blue Heaven'

Title: M/S BLUE HEAVEN COSMETICS PVT LTD v. MR ANISH JAIN TRADING AS M/S NAVKAR COSMO & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 29

The Delhi High Court recently restrained two manufacturers from selling cosmetic products under the mark 'Namo Navkar' using imitative and identical packaging of Blue Heaven's eyeliner, mascara and kajal.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the use of identical artwork and packaging is likely to create deception amongst the consumers that the products of the two manufacturers also emanate from that of Blue Heaven.

Special Court Not Barred To Try Offences Against Person Who Ceased To Be MP/MLA At Time Of Commission Of Offence: Delhi High Court

Title: MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 30

The Delhi High Court has observed that Special MP/MLA Courts can try offences pending against sitting or former legislators and there is no bar for trial of a person who had ceased to be an MP or MLA, at the time of commission of the alleged offence.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a plea moved by BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa challenging an ACMM order rejecting his application seeking transfer or return of a complaint filed against him on account of lack of jurisdiction.

Oral Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Proper Compliance Of S.19(1) PMLA For Arrests Made Prior To 'Pankaj Bansal': Delhi High Court

Title: NEERAJ SINGAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 31

The Delhi High Court has observed that oral communication of “grounds of arrest” to an accused is proper compliance of Section 19(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for arrests made prior to the Supreme Court ruling in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, delivered on October 3, 2023.

Justice Vikas Mahajan made the observation while upholding the arrest of Neeraj Singal, former Managing Director of Bhushan Steel Limited, in a money laundering case related to Enforcement Directorate's probe in a bank fraud case.

Delhi High Court Restrains Local Dhabas From Using Registered Trademarks Of Popular Murthal Eatery 'Mannat Dhaba'

Title: MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 32

The Delhi High Court has restrained various local dhabas from using the registered trademarks of popular Murthal based eatery “Mannat Dhaba.”

Justice Anish Dayal passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order against the three defendants running their restaurants under the names Mannat Dhaba, Shri Mannat Dhaba and Apna Mannat Dhaba.

Delhi High Court Keeps In Abeyance Directions To CBI, DRI To Look Into Allegations Of Over-Invoicing By Adani Power

Title: CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 33

The Delhi High Court has put in abeyance its earlier directions to the Union Government, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to “meticulously and expeditiously” look into the allegations of over invoicing of coal imports and equipments by power companies belonging to the Adani Group.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on December 19 last year had directed the authorities to “unearth the actual factual position” and take appropriate actions against the erring power companies including those of Adani Group and Essar Group, if any, as per law.

Income Tax: Denial of 80lA Benefit In 4th Year Of Assessment, U-Turn By Department Is Not Justified: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Bt Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 34

The Delhi High Court has held that the Principal Commissioner Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and fell in error by taking a U-turn in the fourth assessment year, thereby denying the benefit of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that no material was brought on record by the PCIT to show that merely by migration from Internet Protocol-Virtual Private Network (IP-VPN) to National Long Distance-International Long Distance (NLD-ILD) license, a new and different “undertaking” of the assessee within the meaning of Section 80IA(4)(ii) came into existence.

Coconut Oil Sold By Amway As Hair Oil, Not Classifiable As Edible Oil Under DVAT Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amway India Enterprises Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Vat, Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 35

The Delhi High Court has held that coconut oil sold by Amway as a hair oil cannot be classified as edible oil under the DVAT Act.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan, while ruling in favour of the department, observed that the coconut oil is sold by the appellant in small packs, is displayed in the category of hair care, the manner in which it is to be applied to hair, and the purpose for which it is purchased by the consumer leaves no manner of doubt that the coconut oil sold by the appellant is wrongly sought to be classified under Entry 25 of the Third Schedule of the DVAT Act.

Delhi High Court Orders Mandatory E-Filing For Civil & Criminal Cases In District Courts, Digitisation Of Records Of Decided Cases

Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 36

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered that e-filing of pleadings, documents and interim applications be made mandatory in the civil jurisdictions and criminal complaint cases before all the District Courts in the national capital.

Directing that the “Centralised Filing System” for filings related to ongoing and pending cases be implemented in all the District Courts, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said:

“Mandatory e-filing of pleadings, documents and interim applications shall be adhered to in the jurisdictions already notified vide notification no.12/Rules/DHC dated 22nd February, 2022 under e-filing Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2021.”

Wife's Conduct Of Attempting Suicide, Trying To Put Blame On Husband And His Family Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 37

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's conduct of attempting suicide and then trying to put the blame on the husband and his family members is an act of “extreme cruelty.”

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

DV Act | Unproven Allegations Of Illicit Relationship No Ground To Deny Interim Maintenance To Wife: Delhi High Court

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 38

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the wife cannot be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, merely on the basis of allegations of illicit relationship which are yet to be proved during the course of trial.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a husband's plea against a trial court order directing him to pay Rs. 6000 per month to the wife towards rent, alongwith monthly interim maintenance of Rs.11,460 and Rs.9,800 towards the expenditure of both minor daughters.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Upholding Revocation Of PepsiCo's Registration For Potato Variety Used In Lay's Chips

Title: PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. KAVITHA KURUGANTI and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 39

The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge's order which upheld an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority revoking Pepsico India's registration with respect to a potato variety used for making Lay's chips.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma set aside the order passed by the single judge on July 05 last year as well as the order of the Authority and its letter dated February 11, 2022, rejecting PepsiCo's application for renewal of patent registration.

'Prima Facie Defamatory': Delhi HC Asks Journalist & YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh To Remove Video On Ram Rahim Singh, Upload Fresh With Disclaimer

Title: SAINT GURMEET RAM RAHIM SINGH INSAN SHISHAYEVA GADDINASHIN SHAH SATNAM SINGH JI MAHARAJ V/s YOUTUBE LLC AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 40

The Delhi High Court has directed Journalist and YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to take down a video made by him on Dera Saccha Sauda Chief Ram Rahim Singh from all social media platforms.

“The video seems to be prima facie defamatory vis-à-vis the plaintiff (Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh),” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

However, the court granted liberty to the journalist to upload a new video with a disclaimer that its contents are quoted from trial court judgment on Rahim's conviction and the book titled “Dera Sacha Sauda and Gurmeet Ram Rahim” by Anurag Tripathi.

Contempt | Delhi High Court Sentences Lawyer To 6 Months In Jail For Making 'Scandalous Imputations' Against Judges In Pleading

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VIRENDRA SINGH ADVOCATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 41

The Delhi High Court has sentenced a lawyer to six months in jail after finding him guilty of contempt of court for making “contumacious allegations” and “scandalous imputations” against judges of the High Court as well as District Courts in a criminal appeal filed by him on behalf of a rape survivor.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur sentenced the lawyer to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months in Tihar jail, with fine of Rs.2,000.

Patents Act | Pre-Grant Opponent Merely Aids In Holistic Examination Of Patent Application, Can't Intervene In 'Examination Process': Delhi HC

Title: NOVARTIS AG v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 42

The Delhi High Court has held that a pre-grant opponent under the Patents Act, 1970, merely aids the Controller in a holistic examination of the patent application and does not have a right to intervene in the “examination process” of the patent.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that, unlike an adversarial process, the opposition to a patent merely contributes to the overall assessment of the patent application and thus, would not sustain a right of hearing being claimed in the examination process.

Those Harassing Daughter-In-Law For Giving Birth To Girl Child Should Know That Chromosomes Of Their Son Decides Child's Gender: Delhi HC

Title: HARDESH KUMAR v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 43

While dealing with a dowry death case which involved alleged harassment of the daughter-in-law for giving birth to a girl child, the Delhi High Court has observed that perpetrators of such crimes need to be educated that it is their son and not the daughter-in-law whose chromosomes, through union of a married couple, will decide the birth of the unborn child.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the “genetic science” is totally ignored according to which, the genetic determination of gender of the unborn child, involves the combination of X and Y chromosomes, with females possessing XX chromosomes and males having X and one Y chromosome each.

True Love Between Adolescents Can't Be Controlled Through Police Action: Delhi High Court

Title: ARIF KHAN v. THE STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 44

The Delhi High Court has observed that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minor or minors on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the dilemma at times faced by the court can be of trying to justify the State or Police action against an adolescent couple, who marry each other and continue to lead a peaceful life and raise a family, and respect for obeying the law of the land.

School Can't Refuse Admission If DoE Satisfied That Child Is Entitled To Preferential Admission Under EWS/DG Category: Delhi High Court

Title: OJAS SATYAWALI THROUGH HIS MOTHER BHAWNA PATHAK v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 45

The Delhi High Court has observed that once the Directorate of Education (DoE) is satisfied that a child is entitled to preferential admission under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) or Disadvantaged Group (DG) category, the school cannot refuse admission to the child.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that it is the child welfare which is paramount and law cannot countenance a situation in which, despite DoE having found the child entitled to admission, school refuses the same.

CBSE Board Exam | Student Entitled To Full Marks If Examiner Fails To Award Mark But Puts A Tick Against Answer Provided: Delhi High Court

Title: NASHETA ZAIDI THROUGH GUARDIAN GROUP CAPTAIN IMRAN H ZAIDI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 46

The Delhi High Court has observed that a student is entitled to full marks where the examiner fails to award mark in the margin against a particular answer even after entering a tick mark, thereby indicating that the answer is correct.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that consequence of the lapse of the examiner, if any, cannot be visited on the student.

Foreigners Can't Claim Right To Reside And Settle In India, Their Fundamental Rights Limited To Article 21: Delhi High Court

Title: Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 47

The Delhi High Court has observed that foreigners cannot claim right to reside and settle in India and their fundamental rights are limited to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“We may also note that foreign national cannot claim that he has right to reside and settle in India in terms of Article 19 (1) (e) of Constitution of India,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Immediate Financial Assistance, Recovery Of Back Wages For Rescued Child Labourers

Title: KAUM FAQEER SHAH v. MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 48

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions for immediate financial assistance, recovery of back wages and legal proceedings to be followed by the authorities in the post rescue protocol of child labourers in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed that when a rescued child is placed in a childcare or juvenile home under the care of the Delhi Government, a savings bank account shall be jointly opened immediately in the name of the minor, along with the Superintendent or In-charge of the respective Child Care Institution as the temporary guardian.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain BJP Leader's Plea Against Biju Janta Dal For Using Party Symbol In Advertising Welfare Schemes

Title: Jatin Mohanty v. Election Commission of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 49

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea moved by BJP Odisha's General Secretary, Jatin Mohanty, against alleged misuse of public funds by Biju Janta Dal (BJD) while advertising State welfare schemes using its party symbol 'Conch' allotted by the Election Commission of India.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked Mohanty to approach Orissa High Court as everything, including advertising of the schemes, happened there.

Tehelka's Tarun Tejpal To Publish Unconditional Apology For 'Defamatory' Story Against Former Army Officer

Title: MR. TARUN TEJPAL AND ANR v. MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 50

Tehelka magazines's former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal and co-founder Aniruddha Bahal has told the Delhi High Court that they will publish an unconditional apology in a national english newspaper stating that former Major General MS Ahluwalia, who filed a defamation case against them in 2002 over a news report depicting him as a “corrupt middleman” in defence deals, neither asked for nor accepted any bribery.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing an appeal moved by Tejpal and Bahal against an order passed last year by a single judge directing them, as well as Tehelka and a journalist Mathew Samuel to pay Rs. 2 crores to Ahluwalia for defaming him.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against Use Of Ward Volunteers, Village Secretariats For Preparation Of Electoral Rolls In Andhra Pradesh

Title: CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 51

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking direction on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to not utilize the services of Ward Volunteers and Village Secretariats for preparation of electoral rolls in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The PIL was filed by NGO Citizens for Democracy, representing by its Secretary, a retired IAS officer as well as former State Election Commissioner.

Taxpayer Not Provided Opportunity To Object To Retrospective Cancellation Of GST Registration: Delhi High Court Directs Restoration

Case Title: M/S Een Een Sales Corporation Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 52

The Delhi High Court has held that taxpayers are not provided an opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has restored the GST registration of the petitioner to its original number.

Forging Orders Of An Arbitrator A 'Serious Offence': Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

Title: VIPUL JAIN v. STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 53

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of producing a forged and fabricated order purportedly passed in an arbitration proceeding, before the Delhi Police.

Justice Navin Chawla said that forging an order, which may be of an arbitrator, is a serious offence.

Delhi High Court Denies Parole To Convict In Journalist Soumya Vishwanathan, Jigisha Ghosh Murder Cases

Title: RAVI KAPOOR v. STATE-NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 54

The Delhi High Court has denied parole to Ravi Kapoor, convicted for the murder of journalist Soumya Vishwanathan and IT executive Jigisha Ghosh and various other cases.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed Kapoor's plea taking into account his criminal history, the gravity of the offence committed by him and his overall conduct inside the jail premises.

Kapoor, who is currently serving life sentence in the cases, had moved the plea seeking parole for four weeks on the ground of maintaining social ties with his family and for undergoing a knee surgery.

India One Of Few Countries With Prior Censorship, Scenes Deleted Before Film Release: Delhi High Court Declines PIL Against 'Aankh Micholi'

Title: Nipun Malhotra vs Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 55

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation claiming that the film “Aankh Micholi”, which released in November last year, is derogatory to people with disabilities.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that Courts generally do not interfere once the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) gives certificate to a film.

Delhi High Court Orders Framing Of Rape Charges Against Man Who Allegedly Gave 'False Promise Of Marriage' To Married Woman, Her Then Husband

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 56

Calling it a “twin promise of marriage”, the Delhi High Court has recently ordered framing of rape and criminal intimidation charges against a man who allegedly assured a married couple that after their divorce he will marry the wife and look after their children, but later refused to do so after entering into physical relationship with the said wife.

“It is thus a case of twin promise of marriage, i.e. to the complainant as well as her husband and family. Had he not promised or represented to her, she would not have entered into physical relations with him,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Halts Construction Of 'Unauthorised Guest House' Near Nizamuddin Dargah And Baoli

Title: JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 57

The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to ensure that no further construction is carried out in an unauthorised guest house near centrally protected Nizamuddin Dargah and Baoli.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora pulled up the authorities and expressed disapproval over the unauthorised construction.

Delhi High Court Restrains Singer 'Bohemia' From Making Sound Recordings With Third Parties Without Prior Approval Of Saga Music

Title: SAGA MUSIC PRIVATE LIMITED v. ROGER DAVID & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 58

The Delhi High Court has restrained Pakistani-American rapper and singer Bohemia from engaging with third parties for making any sound recordings or musical works, without prior written approval of a Delhi based music company, Saga Music Private Limited.

Justice Anish Dayal also restrained Bohemia and his agents from posting any defamatory posts or content on social media platforms against the music company which claims that the singer violated terms and conditions of a performance agreement entered between them in 2019.

'Smart Copying': Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturer From Selling Liquor Under 'Peace Maker' Label In Suit By Officer's Choice

Title: ALLIED BLENDERS @ DISTILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HERMES DISTILLERY PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 59

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Karnataka-based manufacturer from selling whiskey and other liquor products under the “Peace Maker” label in a suit filed by alcoholic beverages manufacturer “Officer's Choice.”

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that prima facie, there was a clear attempt to indulge in “smart copying” by the manufacturer which would still be copying.

Transactions Concerning Mutual Funds Not In The Nature Of Investment And Not Motivated By Trade: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Wig Investament

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 60

The Delhi High Court has held that transactions concerning mutual funds were in the nature of investment and not motivated by trade.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the intent has to be ascertained keeping in mind the magnitude and frequency of the transactions, the period for which shares are held, the purpose for which they are held, and how transactions are disclosed in the books of account.

Delhi High Court Directs Customs Commissioner To Release Amount After Realising Redemption Fine, Penalty From Seized Foreign Currency

Case Title: Oguljeren Hajyyeva Versus Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 61

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Commissioner to release the remaining amount after realizing the redemption fine and penalty from the seized foreign currency.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that ordinarily, the adjudicating officer needs to give the owner of the goods the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, and if such a fine is not paid within a period of 120 days, such an option will become void. But the goods seized in the present case are nothing else but foreign currency.

Arbitral Award Can't Be Challenged On Ground Of Bias Of Arbitrator If No Challenge Was Made During Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Allied-Dynamic JV v. Ircon International Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 62

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral award cannot be challenged on the ground of bias of arbitrator if no challenge to bias was made during the pendency of arbitral proceedings.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that a party that has fully participated in the arbitral proceedings without raising any challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal on ground of bias, cannot challenge the award directly under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

Pendente Lite And Future Interest Can't Be Included In The 'Aggregate Value Of Claim And Counterclaims' U/S 12 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Simentech India Pvt Ltd v. BHEL

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 63

ThePendente Lite And Future Interest Can't Be Included In The 'Aggregate Value Of Claim And Counterclaims' U/S 12 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court has held that to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to deal with a challenge petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the value of the pendente lite and future interest cannot be included in the aggregate value of the claims and counter-claims to determine the 'Specified Value' as provided under Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA).

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that Section 12(2) of the CCA stipulates that the 'aggregate value' of the claim and any counterclaim in a commercial dispute arbitration forms the basis for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal's Order Increasing Retirement Age Of Indian Express Workers From 58 To 60 Yrs With Effect From 2009

Title: THE INDIAN EXPRESS P LTD v. THE INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS WORKERS UNION REGD AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 64

The Delhi High Court has set aside the order passed by an Industrial Tribunal last year increasing the age of retirement or superannuation of the workers of The Indian Express from 58 years to 60 years with effect from October 15, 2009, with all consequential benefits.

Justice Anish Dayal remanded the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication, after considering all materials which may be placed by the parties in detail to be examined with a fresh nuanced outlook and robust reasoning.

'Matter Already Referred To CBI': Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Court-Monitored Probe Into 'Fake Lab Tests' In Mohalla Clinics

Title: Bejon Kumar Misra v. GNCTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 65

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a court-monitored probe into the allegations of fake laboratory tests being conducted at the moholla clinics set up by the Aam Aadmi Party government in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected an application moved by social activist Bejon Kumar Misra in his pending PIL against “unauthorised pathological labs and diagnostic centres” in Delhi.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Eviction Order Asking TMC Leader Mahua Moitra To Vacate Government Accommodation Immediately

Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 66

The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the eviction order issued to Trinamool Congress leader Mohua Moitra asking her to vacate the government bungalow immediately, following her expulsion from the Lok Sabha in December last year.

Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed Moitra's application seeking stay of the eviction order in view of the pendency of the issue of her expulsion from Lok Sabha before the Supreme Court, and the issue of extension of time to vacate the government accommodation being inextricably linked with that, coupled with the fact that as on date she has no right.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Cop In Contempt Case Over Damages To Trees

Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 67

The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction of a police officer in a contempt case for damaging trees in the national capital during construction work in 2021.

Justice Mini Pushkarna also discharged the notice of contempt issued to the cop as well as three officers of Public Works Department (PWD). All four officials were convicted for contempt in June 2022.

'Sham, Pre-Determined': Delhi High Court Quashes South Asian University's Decision To Expel LLM Student Over Alleged Indiscipline

Title: APOORVA Y K v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 68

The Delhi High Court has set aside two orders issued by the South Asian University expelling an LLM student over alleged acts of indiscipline, observing that the procedure adopted was sham and pre-determined.

“The entire exercise was, therefore, chimerical in character, with the clear intention, already formulated, to send the petitioner out,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Delhi High Court Orders Day To Day Trial In 2017 Haryana Judicial Paper Leak Case

Title: DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 69

The Delhi High Court has asked a trial court in the national capital to expedite the trial in the case concerning the paper leak of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017, and take up the same on a day-to-day basis.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma directed the trial court to dispose of the matter positively on or before April 15 and sought a compliance report on the same.

Person Converting Religion For Marriage Must Be Informed Of Legal Consequences Like Inheritance, Maintenance: Delhi HC Issues Directions

Title: MAKSOOD AHMAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 70

The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual undergoing religious conversion for the purpose of marriage must be fully informed of the legal consequences associated with it and issued a slew of directions to be followed in conversion cases.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that by providing a detailed understanding of the religious and its associated ramifications, the individual must be made aware of the potential shifts in his or her legal standing post-conversion.

Issues Related To Bias Of An Arbitrator And Conduct Of Arbitral Proceedings Cannot Be Determined Under Section 29A Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Vivek Aggarwal v. Hemant Aggarwal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 71

The High Court of Delhi has held that an issue related to the bias of an arbitrator in conducting the arbitral proceedings cannot be determined by a Court while dealing with the application under Section 29A of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh reiterated that the scope of Court's power under Section 29A is limited to the examination of whether the extension should be granted or not. It held that the grievance of a party with the conduct of arbitral proceedings or any other substantive challenge cannot be decided by the Court under Section 29A.

Limitation Period For Appointment Of A Substitute Arbitrator Is 3 Years From The Date When The Right To Apply For Fresh Appointment Accrues: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jatinder Kaur & Ors v. Late Jagjit Singh & Investament

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 72

The High Court of Delhi has held that the limitation period for the appointment of the substitute arbitrator is 3 years from the date when the right to apply for such appointment accrues.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that since the act does not provide for any explicit period for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator, the limitation shall be governed by the residual provision found in Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides a period of 3 years as the limitation period from the date when the right to apply accrues.

Fees Received For Sub-Licensing Sports Broadcasting Rights Attributable To 'Live Feed', Not Taxable As Royalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Versus Fox Network Group Singapore Pte Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 73

The Delhi High Court has held that fees received by assessees for sub-licensing sports broadcasting rights attributable to 'live feed' is not taxable as royalty.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that once the Court came to the conclusion that a live telecast would not fall within the ambit of the expression “work”, it would be wholly erroneous to hold that the income derived by the assessee in respect of “live feed” would fall within clause (v) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A Party Cannot Insist On Fulfilment Of Pre-Arbitral Steps After Terminating The Contract: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mr. Gajendra Mishra v. Pokhrama Foundation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 74

The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot insist on fulfilment of pre-arbitration conciliation once it has itself terminated the agreement. It held that pre-arbitration conciliation provided in the agreement falls with the termination of the agreement.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that once a party has itself proceeded to terminate the agreement without approaching the Project Manager for conciliation, it cannot object to the maintainability of the petition seeking appointment of the arbitrator on the ground of non-fulfilment of pre-arbitral steps.

Findings Of Cruelty Against Wife In Divorce Case No Basis To Deny Her Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 75

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the findings of cruelty against a wife in the divorce proceedings by itself cannot be a basis to deny her maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Justice Amit Bansal also observed that a revision petition would lie to the High Court against an order passed by the Sessions Court in appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Child Suffers Most Casualty In Custody Battle, Loses Everything Due To Polarization Of Family Relations: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 76

The Delhi High Court has recently said that it is the child who suffers the most casualty in custody battle because even if either parent wins, the minor loses everything due to polarization of familial relations.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

“Merely having a child does not make one a 'parent', rather the one who protects the child from being torn in such parental conflicts is the closest to being an 'ideal parent'. The focus should be the child's future and not the parents' past.”

Liquor Policy Scam: Delhi High Court Refuses To Extend Interim Bail Of Businessman Arun Ramachandra Pillai

Title: ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77

The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the interim bail granted to Hyderabad based businessman Arun Ramachandra Pillai in the money laundering case connected to the alleged liquor policy scam.

Pillai was granted interim bail on December 28 last year on the ground of medical condition of his wife who had undergone a surgery.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma however granted extension of three days of interim bail to Pillai, who was asked to surrender on January 20, for travelling back to the national capital and making arrangement of an attendant for his wife, if not made yet.

'Preying On Religious Beliefs': Delhi High Court Orders Suspension Of Website Offering To Sell 'Ayodhya Ram Mandir Prasad' For Free

Title: KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. MR ASHISH SINGH AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 78

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered suspension of a website under the name of “Khadi Organic” which was promoting itself as an “official website for sale of Ayodhya Ram Mandir prasad” on various social media platforms.

The website was offering for delivery of free prasad from the Pran Pratishta ceremony scheduled to be held today at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.

Delhi High Court Stays IT Department's Order Cancelling Tax Exemption Status Of Oxfam India, Care India

Title: OXFAM INDIA v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 79

The Delhi High Court has recently stayed the order passed by the Income Tax department cancelling the tax exemption status of two non-government organisations, Oxfam India and CARE India.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order identical to an interim order passed on August 25 last year in favour of leading public policy think tank, Centre for Policy Research and said that the two NGOs shall also be entitled to identical interim reliefs.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Lokpal Proceedings Against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Chief Shibu Soren

Case Title: SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 80

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere at this stage with the proceedings initiated by Lokpal of India against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chief Shibu Soren in connection with a disproportionate assets case.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the plea moved by Soren challenging the Lokpal proceedings is “premature at this juncture”.

PM Cares Fund: Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Order Directing IT Department To Disclose Details Of Tax Exemption Under RTI

Title: CPIO v. Girish Mittal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 81

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Income Tax (IT) department to provide details regarding the tax exemption granted to the PM Cares Fund under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act (disclosure of information respecting assessees.

Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Former Bureaucrat For Allegedly Inducing False Complaint Against Special Secretary YVVJ Rajshekhar

Title: A.V. PREM NATH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 82

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to quash an FIR against former 1997-batch Danics officer AV Prem Nath, prematurely retired from service in October last year over molestation charges, for allegedly inducing a to file a false complaint against YVVJ Rajshekhar, Delhi Government's Special Secretary (Services and Vigilance), in return for a job.

Justice Amit Sharma said that it is not a case where it can be safely concluded at this stage that no offence is made out against Nath.

Delhi High Court Recalls Order Allowing Woman To Terminate 29 Weeks Pregnancy After Husband's Death

Title: R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 83

The Delhi High Court has recalled its recent order allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy of 29 weeks as she was suffering with extreme trauma after her husband's death.

“The order is recalled,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said while allowing an application moved by the Central Government seeking recall of the order passed on January 04.

CUET | Henceforth Final Answer Key Of Exam Will Be Uploaded Prior To Declaring Result: NTA Assures Delhi High Court

Title: AASHISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 84

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has assured the Delhi High Court that in future, the final answer key for Central University Entrance Test (CUET-UG) exam would be uploaded on its website at least a day prior to the final declaration of result.

Justice C Hari Shankar was given the assurance that the final answer key would be accessible only through the individual login ID and password of the candidate concerned.

“The Court is satisfied with the explanation. The NTA is directed to ensure that these assurances are scrupulously adhered to, in future,” the court said.

Online Single Window System For Seamless Payment To Empanelled Lawyers Will Be Operational Within Two Weeks: Delhi Govt Tells High Court

Title: PIYUSH GUPTA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 85

The Delhi Government has told the Delhi High Court that the Online Single Window System (OSWS) portal for seamless processing of payment of professional fees to the standing counsels will be made operational within two weeks.

The Delhi Government told a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora that the aspect of fee revision, including cap on appearances, of the empanelled lawyers is pending consideration with the Law Minister.

Advertising Part Of Commercial Speech; Exaggerations, Puffery & Hyperbole Can't Be Completely Curtailed: Delhi High Court

Title: MS KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 86

The Delhi High Court has observed that advertising is a part of commercial speech recognized under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and any restraint on such a right can be placed only with some authority of law.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that exaggerations, puffery, and hyperbole are part of advertising that cannot be completely curtailed, except in accordance with law.

GST Registration Can't be Cancelled Retrospectively For Non-Filing Of Returns: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aryan Timber Store Through Its Prop Virender Kumar Versus Sales Tax Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 87

The Delhi High Court has held that GST registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect for mere non-filing of returns.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdev and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that simply because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer's registration is required to be cancelled, with a retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.

Delhi High Court Grants Divorce To Man From 'Non Adjusting Wife' On Grounds Of Cruelty

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 88

The Delhi High Court recently granted divorce to a man on the grounds of cruelty by his wife, observing that she had a “non-adjusting attitude” and no maturity to sort out the differences with him without his public humiliation due to which he suffered mental cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that no fruitful purpose would be served in flogging a dead horse and granted divorce to the husband.

Delhi High Court Orders Centre To Permanently Block Websites Defrauding People On Pretext Of Recruitments At Croma

Title: INFINITI RETAIL LIMITED vs M/S CROMA -SHARE & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 89

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to permanently block access to three websites which were defrauding people by taking money under the pretext of recruiting them at Tata-owned Croma, the electronics retail store chain.

Justice Sanjeev Narula also ordered permanent suspension and disabling of UPI IDs and mobile numbers in respect of the websites.

Delhi High Court Halts PCA Arbitration Over Arbitrator Appointment Breach

Case Title: Techfab International Pvt Ltd v. MIDIMA Holdings Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 90

The High Court of Delhi has stayed a PCA Arbitration between an African and an Indian Entity due to the constitution of the tribunal in violation of the arbitration agreement.

The bench of Justice Anup J. Bhambhani, dealing with a suit seeking anti-arbitration injunction and an application seeking ad-interim injunction, restrained the defendant from proceeding further with the arbitral proceedings in PCA Case No. AA773.

'Stipulation Of Higher Merit Cannot Be Set Aside Because It Restricts Talent Pool': Delhi HC Upholds Stipulations For Appointment As IIM Director

Title: SH. FIROZ AHMAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 91

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation against the stipulation of an additional qualification and higher merit for being appointed as a Director of an Indian Institute of Management (IIM).

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Centre's recent notification making it mandatory for the applicants to have first-class degrees in both Bachelor's and Master's, along with a Ph.D. or equivalent from a reputed institute, for being appointed to the post.

Delhi High Court Orders Suspension Of Google Forms Unauthorisedly Inviting Public To Apply For 'Starbucks' Franchise

Title: STARBUCKS CORPORATION & ANR. v. NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 92

The Delhi High Court has directed Google to suspend URLs of various Google Forms inviting general public to apply for “Starbucks Franchise”. Starbucks does not work on a franchise model in India.

Justice Anish Dayal also said that Starbucks, the multinational chain of coffeehouses, will be at liberty to file an affidavit listing out other similar URLs of Google Forms after which Google may suspend the same.

Delhi HC Upholds Prohibition Of Marriage Between 'Sapindas', Says Incestuous Relations May Gain Legitimacy If Partner's Choice Left Unregulated

Title: NEETU GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 93

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act which states that no marriage can be solemnized between parties who are related to each other as “sapindas”, unless it is sanctioned by usage or custom governing them.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that if the choice of a partner in a marriage is left unregulated, incestuous relationship may gain legitimacy.

Have Deleted Tweet Disclosing Identity Of Minor Rape Victim: Rahul Gandhi To Delhi High Court

Case Title: Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar v. Rahul Gandhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 94

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi told the Delhi High Court that he has taken down his tweet allegedly disclosing the identity and sensitive details about the minor girl, who was raped and murdered in 2021.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was also informed by the counsel appearing for X, formerly Twitter, that the tweet in question has been deleted by Gandhi.

Accordingly, the bench disposed of a PIL moved by Makarand Suresh Mhadlekar, a social activist, seeking legal action and registration of FIR against Gandhi for allegedly disclosing the identity of the minor victim.

South Asian University Enjoys Status Of International Organization, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. SNEHASHISH BHATTACHARYA & ORS. v. SOUTH ASIAN UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 95

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the South Asian University is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it enjoys the status of an international organization having privileges and immunities conferred upon it under various enactments.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the varsity, being an organization deriving its powers from a 2007 inter-governmental agreement, is an international organization where the Government of India does not hold any control over its functioning, administration and finances despite it being situated in India.

Delhi High Court Upholds Stay On Action Against Companies Over 'Surrogate Advertisements' For Promoting 'Vimal Elaichi', 'Dilbagh Pan Masala'

Title: DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES v. SOM PAN PRODUCT PVT. LTD. and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 96

The Delhi High Court today upheld the stay on the show cause notices issued to two companies in 2018 by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) over the allegations of indulging in surrogate advertisements for promoting their products Dilbagh Pan Masala and Vimal Elaichi.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed the appeals moved by DGHS against the trial court orders which granted stay on the show cause notices in the suits filed by the companies.

Judges Also Have Right To Stand By Their Family Member Who May Be A Victim, Can't Be Denied Justice Due To 'Occupational Hazard': Delhi HC

Title: MOHIT PILANIA v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 97

The Delhi High Court has said that a judicial officer by virtue of being a judge does not waive of the fundamental rights which are available to other citizens, including the social and private rights to look after and stand by his or her family.

“Similarly as an accused cannot be denied justice in case a judicial officer or his family member is a complainant in a criminal case, the judicial officer and his family too cannot be denied justice in case, they are victims, as it will amount to denying fundamental, private and social rights to a judicial officer and his family which are otherwise available to other citizens and persons of the community. Being a judicial officer should not result in denial of justice to him or his family in his individual capacity and be merely dismissed as occupational hazards,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On Husband Who Sought Registration Of Fake Rape Case Against Wife's Cousin

Title: SK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 98

The Delhi High Court has imposed of cost of Rs. 25,000 on a husband for seeking registration of a fake rape case against his wife's cousin, alleging that the said cousin raped her. The allegations were denied by the wife.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that prima facie, the proceedings were initiated by the husband with oblique motives and intention to gain some advantage in the matrimonial proceedings against his wife.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Operation & Maintenance Of Special Schools, Hostels For Visually Impaired Children

Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 99

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Delhi Government and its Directorate of Education (DoE) to ensure the smooth functioning, operation and maintenance of seven special schools and hostels in the national capital for visually impaired children.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed that the DoE shall be responsible for providing hostel facilities to all the students admitted to the Special Schools by ensuring timely and quality food, uniform, clothes, recreation facilities and all facilities required for meeting daily needs of the students.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Proceedings Against BJP Leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa In Criminal Defamation Case

Title: MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 100

The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the criminal proceedings against BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa in a criminal defamation case filed by former president of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, Manjit Singh GK.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the trial court order passed on November 29 last year which upheld the summons issued to Sirsa by an ACMM court.

Unnao Rape Case: Delhi High Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of Kukdeep Singh Sengar's Brother Convicted For Death Of Victim's Father

Title: JAIDEEP SINGH SENGER@ATUL SINGH v. CBI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 101

The Delhi High Court has refused to suspend the sentence of the brother of expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Senger, convicted for causing the death of the father of the 2018 Unnao rape victim.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the application moved by Jaideep Singh Senger seeking suspension of his 10-year sentence awarded in March 2020, during the pendency of his appeal against the same.

'Habitual Offenders': Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Manufacturer From Selling Jeans Using Stitching Design Mark Of Levis

Title: LEVI STRAUSS AND CO v. NAB PRODUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 102

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a manufacturing company here from selling denim jeans using a stitching design mark identical and similar to that of Levis Strauss.

Justice Sanjeev Narula decreed the suit filed by Levis Staruss in its favour and permanently restrained the manufacturer, Nab Productions Private Limited, its Directors and Head of Planning and Operations.

Litigant Can't Be Allowed To Take Proceedings Initiated By Victim Under Domestic Violence Act For Granted: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 103

The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant cannot be allowed to take for granted the proceedings initiated by a victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“The DV Act was enacted to provide more effective protection to the rights of women granted under the Constitution, who are the victim of violence, of any kind, occurring within the family. The legislature also noting the victimization of the women has provided a mechanism for grant of maintenance to women who are not in a position to maintain themselves. Such proceedings cannot be taken in such a light manner as pleaded by the petitioner,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction To 'Lotus' In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Deepika Padukone's Self Care Brand's 'Lotus Splash'

Title: LOTUS HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DPKA UNIVERSAL CONSUMER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 104

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an interim injunction order in favour of “Lotus Herbals” in its trademark infringement suit against Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone's self-care brand 82E's “Lotus Splash” gentle face cleanser.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the products are completely dissimilar in appearance with a wide difference in the prices and no case of passing off was made as the only common feature between the two marks is the word “lotus”.

Award Cannot Be Challenged On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator If Appointment Was Not Contested Earlier: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Gunocen Inc

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 105

The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot challenge an arbitral award on the ground of the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator if it did not challenge the appointment at an earlier stage.

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna upheld an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator by observing that aggrieved party did not challenge the award at an earlier stage either by filing an application under Section 11(6) or an application under Sections 13&14 of the A&C Act.

A Party Cannot Challenge An Arbitral Award After Receiving Amount Payable Under It: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s K.S. Jain Builders v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 106

The High Court of Delhi has held that a party that has received payment in terms of an arbitral award cannot challenge the award with respect to the disallowed claims.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that acceptance of payments under the award would estop a party from challenging the award. It held that party after receiving payment cannot repudiate part award detrimental to it.

Group Of Companies Doctrine Cannot Be Applied To Directors Of A Company To Make Them A Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vingro Developments Pvt Ltd v. Nitya Shree Developers Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 107

The High Court of Delhi has held that directors of a company cannot be made parties to arbitration through 'Group of Companies' doctrine. It held that the relationship between the company and its director(s) is that of the 'Principal' and 'Agent' as defined under Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that in terms of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, the agent cannot be made personally liable for acts carried out on behalf of the principal.

Mere Reference Of Dispute To Arbitration Does Not Preclude The High Court From Examining Issue Of Stamp Duty In A Writ Petition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Deputy Commissioner of Stamp Registration & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 108

The High Court of Delhi has allowed a writ petition enabling the petitioner to approach the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to adjudicate/decide on the amount payable on the instrument despite the reference of the dispute arising out of the instrument to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that merely because the arbitral tribunal is empowered to carry out the same exercise, it cannot deprive the High Court from entertaining a writ petition to determine if the state has been deprived of the revenue or not.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award For Transfer Of School's "KashmirHarvard" Domain Name To Harvard College, Imposes 50K Cost

Title: KASHMIR HARVARD EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 118

The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing transfer of a domain name registered by Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute based in Srinagar to the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the United States of America.

Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed with Rs. 50,000 costs the plea moved by the Kashmir based educational institution against the arbitral award passed on March 04, 2023, under the “.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (IDNDRP).

Delhi High Court Upholds Family Court Order Rejecting Husband's Plea For Paternity Test Of Wife, Child Over Allegations Of Adultery

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 119

The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court order which rejected a husband's plea to direct the wife and the child to give their blood samples for conducting a paternity test in order to establish her “adulterous conduct” and the minor being the “pawn.”

A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the husband's appeal and said that whether the wife was involved in an adulterous relationship, as alleged, is an aspect that will have to go to trial.

Delhi High Court Orders Action Against Erring Jail Officers For Illegal Detention Of Man Based On 'Expired Production Warrant'

Title: DHARAM NARAYAN GAUTAM v. STATE THROUGH ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 120

The Delhi High Court recently ordered action to be taken against erring jail officers of Tihar Jail over illegal detention of a man, despite bail and release order issued in his favour on January 20, based on an “expired production warrant” issued against him last year in an out-station case.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain directed that the man be released from jail forthwith, observing that he was kept in illegal detention based on a production warrant in a case pending in a court in Uttar Pradesh's Gautam Buddha Nagar which expired last year.

Frame Guidelines On Living Organ Or Tissue Donations By Minors: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: SIYA OMAR THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PRIYANKA GUPTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 121

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to frame guidelines for reference of the appropriate authority and the State Governments while considering an application for living organ or tissue donations by minors.

Justice Subramonium Prasad ordered that the guidelines under Rule 5(3)(g) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, be framed within two months.

IIT Delhi Students Death: High Court Urges Faculty, Staff To Counsel Students That One Can Do Best Without Succumbing To Performance Stress

Title: AMIT KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 122

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is high time that the faculty as well as staff members of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) make conscious efforts to counsel and encourage students and to make them understand that though scoring good marks and performing best is important but it is not the most important thing in life.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar emphasised that the varsity's faculty must motivate the students that one can certainly give his or her best without succumbing to the pressures or stress of performing better.

Property Seized By ED Must Be Returned If PMLA Probe Continues Beyond 365 Days And Does Not Result In Any Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Title: MR MAHENDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 123

The Delhi High Court has observed that where the investigation under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, extends beyond 365 days and does not result in any proceedings relating to any offence, the seizure of a property will lapse and must be returned to the person from whom it was so seized.

“The continuation of such seizure beyond 365 days, in absence of the pendency of any proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, shall be confiscatory in nature, without authority of law and, therefore, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India,” Justice Navin Chawla ruled.

Ensure Medical Treatment Is Provided To Yasin Malik In Jail Hospital: Delhi High Court To Tihar Jail Superintendent

Title: Yasin Malik v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 124

The Delhi High Court has directed the Tihar Jail Superintendent to ensure that medical treatment is duly provided in the jail hospital to Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, convicted in a terror funding case.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta passed the order in a plea moved by Yasin Malik seeking appropriate directions upon the Union Government and jail authorities to refer him for “necessary medical treatment” to AIIMS or any other hospital physically as he is suffering from cardiac and kidney-related ailments.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking SIT Probe Into Alleged Siphoning Of Funds By Promoters Of Indiabulls Housing

Title: CITIZENS WHISTLE BLOWER FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 125

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking an in-depth, thorough and time bound investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into alleged illegalities, violations and siphoning of funds by the promoters of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IBHFL) and its subsidiaries.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that necessary investigation has already been carried out by National Housing Bank (NHB) and the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs is in the process of conducting further probe in the matter.

DDA Can't Carry Out Demolition On Its Own Whims & Fancies, Must Issue Show Cause Notice & Adjudicate On Objections: Delhi High Court

Title: BAL KISHAN GUPTA v. DDA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 126

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) cannot carry out any demolition on its own whims and fancies and must issue show cause notice and adjudicate the reply or objections raised by a party before initiating such action.

“The respondent (DDA), being the State, is required to follow principles of natural justice and cannot carry out any demolition on its own whims and fancies. Before initiating the process, it is required to issue a show cause notice, call for reply, adjudicate the reply/objections and thereafter carry out any demolition,” Justice Jasmeet Singh held.

CBI Not Exempted Under RTI Act, Must Provide Info On Corruption And Human Rights Violations Except 'Sensitive Investigation': Delhi HC

Title: CPIO CBI v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 127

Rejecting the argument that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is exempted from provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, the Delhi High Court has said that the probe agency must provide information on corruption and human rights violations, except in investigations which are sensitive in nature.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though CBI's name is mentioned in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, it does not mean that the entire enactment is not applicable to the agency.

Adulterous Spouse Not Equivalent To 'Incompetent Parent', Extramarital Affair Not Sole Factor To Deny Child's Custody: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 128

Observing that an “adulterous spouse” is not equivalent to an “incompetent parent,” the Delhi High Court has said that the points for consideration in divorce proceedings and custody matters may be co-related but they are always “mutually exclusive.”

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that an adulterous relationship or extramarital affair of either spouse cannot be the sole determining factor to deny custody of a child, unless it is proved that such relationship is pernicious or detrimental to the minor's welfare.

Foreigners Being Held In Detention Centres Despite Bail, Trial Courts Must Expeditiously Dispose Of Cases Against Them: Delhi High Court

Title: MICHAL BENSON NWAOGU @ CHUNA BENSON v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 129

The Delhi High Court has underscored the need of speedy disposal of cases against foreign nationals who are detained in detention centres despite being admitted to bail, thereby restricting their liberty due to pendency of cases for long period.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the trial courts in the national capital must deal with criminal cases involving foreigners expeditiously, in the interest of equity and fair play, to ensure that their liberty is not restricted or curtailed due to delay in the conclusion of trials.

Wife Pressurising Husband To Fulfil Whimsical Dreams Beyond His Financial Reach Sufficient Mental Strain: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 130

While upholding divorce of a couple on the ground of cruelty by wife, the Delhi High Court has observed that pressurising the husband to fulfil “distant and whimsical dreams” not within his financial reach may create a sense of “persistent dissatisfaction” which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a wife should not be a constant reminder of one's financial limitations and said that one must tread carefully between the needs, wants and desires.

Authority Asking For OBC-NCL Certificate Should Keep Cut-Off Date Of Issuance In Line With Financial Year, Deviation Creates Confusion: Delhi HC

Title: RAVI KUMAR v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 131

The Delhi High Court has observed that an authority asking for OBC-Non Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate should keep the cut-off date of its issuance in line with a particular financial year, as any deviation not only creates confusion and uncertainty but also deprives deserving candidates of reservation benefit.

Person Can't Be Sent To Jail For More Than Three Months Over Recovery Of Maintenance Arrears In Subsequent Execution Petition: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 132

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be sent to jail for more than three months, over non-payment of arrears of maintenance to the spouse, in the subsequent execution petitions filed for recovery of maintenance which may accrue from time to time under the same order.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna analyzed Section 58 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and ruled that the total period in civil prison in execution of a decree in the same suit cannot exceed three months.

Exporters Not Traceable, Customs Broker Can't Be Held Liable After Issuance Of 'Let Export Orders': Delhi High Court

Case Title: Naman Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 133

The Delhi High Court has held that as a customs broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters were not traceable after the issuance of 'Let Export Orders' and the export of the goods out of the country.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Permits Petitioner To Avail Remedy Under S. 37 Of Arbitration Act

Case Title: Shri Balaji Enterprises & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the aggrieved party should avail the alternate remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before approaching the court under Article 226 unless there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.

Further, the bench held that the remedy available to a party under Article 226 is not absolute and is at the discretion of the High Court.

Case Title: Surya Alloy Industries Ltd Vs Union Of India And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 172

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that once a party has agreed to constituting an arbitral tribunal, it is precluded from subsequently opposing the appointment of an arbitrator based on the alleged non-fulfillment of pre-arbitral steps.

Seat Of Arbitration Inferred By Contractual Clauses & Conduct Of Parties, Venue Is Considered Seat In Absence Of Other Indications: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 173

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that mere expression of "place of arbitration" does not automatically indicate the seat and the determination of the seat should be inferred from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties.

The bench held that the seat was in Delhi as the contract clause specified that the venue for arbitral proceedings would be in New Delhi, and it vested exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of law in Delhi for all disputes arising from the Supply Agreement.

Educational Campuses Can't Be Converted Into Platforms To Propagate Party Politics, There Can't Be Any Compromise On Discipline: Delhi High Court

Title: SWATI SINGH v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 174

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that educational campuses cannot be allowed to be converted into political platforms to propagate party politics.

“Discipline in students in educational institutions is of the essence. There can be no compromise in that regard. While there can be no proscription against students engaging in political activities, they cannot be allowed to do so in a manner which would disrupt normal campus life, or the orderly conduct of affairs in the educational institution of which they are a part,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Delhi High Court Allows Examination Of Two Witnesses In US Through Video Conferencing In Commercial Suit

Title: PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. RAAJ UNOCAL LUBRICANTS LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 175

The Delhi High Court has allowed examination of two witnesses in a commercial suit, residing in the United States of America (USA), to be conducted through video conferencing mode as per the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said courts must foster an environment where the reliability of testimony, whether delivered in person or remotely, remains unimpeachable.

Only 6 CT Scan Machines Available In 19 Delhi Govt Hospitals: High Court Constitutes Committee For Ramping Up Medical Infrastructure

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 176

The Delhi High Court has constituted a six-member committee to give recommendations and suggestions for ramping up medical infrastructure and optimization of existing resources in various hospitals in the national capital, either owned by the Delhi Government or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

“With only six CT Scan machines being available in nineteen Delhi Government hospitals (which cater to a population in excess of three crores), the infrastructure needs to be ramped up manifold,” a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.

Criminal Activity Within Jail 'Significant Departure' From Rehabilitative Process, Weighs Against Inmates Eligibility For Parole: Delhi HC

Title: PRAVEEN@NAVEEN@VICKY v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 177

The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal activity within jail premises may be regarded as a “significant departure from the rehabilitative process which may weigh against an inmate's parole eligibility.

“Parole, which is a conditional release from the jail, is granted by the competent authority, and the same is contingent upon several factors including the behaviour of prisoner within the jail premises, and his demonstration of readiness for reintegration into society. Criminal acts committed within the jail premises go against the very purpose of rehabilitation and correcting the prisoners/ convicts,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Right To Adopt Not A Fundamental Right, Prospective Adoptive Parents Can't Demand Their Choice Of Who To Adopt: Delhi High Court

Title: DEBARATI NANDEE v. MS. TRIPTI GURHA & ANR and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 178

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to adopt cannot be raised to the status of a fundamental right within Article 21 of the Constitution of India, nor can it be raised to a level granting Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) the right to demand their choice of who to adopt.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that there is no right at all to insist on the adoption of a particular child before the final order of adoption is passed by the District Magistrate under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Sexual Harassment By Teachers Witnessed Widespread Occurrence, Is A Serious Offence: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. AMIT KUMAR v. BHARATI COLLEGE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 179

The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of sexual harassment by teachers with their students has witnessed a widespread occurrence which is a serious offence and abuse of a position of power.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said teachers are gifted with the power to impart wisdom and shape the minds of children who are the future and it is imperative that such power is not misused.

Arbitration Clause Does Not Cease With Contract Termination, It Is An Independent Agreement: Delhi High Court Allows S. 11 Application

Case Title: M/S S.K Agencies vs M/S DFM Foods

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 180

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta dismissed the notion that the arbitration clause would cease to exist with the termination of the contract. The bench emphasized that the arbitration clause, as part of the contract, should be treated as an independent agreement.

Mitsubishi Corporation Not Liable To Deduct TDS On Sum Which Was Not Chargeable To Tax In India: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 181

The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee, Mitsubishi Corporation, is not liable to deduct TDS under Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act where the sum paid was not chargeable to tax in India.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher has observed that the assessee could have taken recourse to the DTAAs qua the reformulated question since the provisions contained therein were more beneficial. Therefore, the business connection test had no relevance once it was established that MC Metal (Thailand) and Metal One (Singapore) did not have a PE in India.

Poor Labourers Forced To Fight Tooth And Nail To Get Justice, Sorry State Of Affairs In Constitutional Courts: Delhi High Court

Title: VALLABHBHAI PATEL CHEST INSTITUTE v. NISHIKESH TYAGI & ANOTHER

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 182

The Delhi High Court has said that it is a sorry state of affairs in the Constitutional Courts of the country that the poor labourers are forced to fight tooth and nail to get justice for themselves.

While dealing with a case which took more than two decades to reach to a conclusion leaving a poor worker in a “state of profound uncertainty”, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said:

Illegal Construction Ongoing In Delhi At Unprecedented Scale, DDA And MCD Must Put Structural Reforms In Place: Delhi High Court

Title: JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 183

Observing that illegal and unauthorised construction is going in the national capital at an unprecedented scale which is unheard of, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) must put structural reforms in place to deal with the issue.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that in today's time, the MCD is continuing to use tapes and strings to seal a building which is why sealing and demolition action is not having a deterrent effect.

Delhi High Court Dismisses JMM Chief Shibu Soren's Appeal Against Single Judge Order Refusing To Interfere With Lokpal Proceedings

Case Title: SHIBU SOREN v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 184

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal moved by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Chief Shibu Soren against a single judge's order refusing to interfere with the proceedings initiated by Lokpal of India against him in connection with a disproportionate assets case.

A division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar found no reason to interfere with the single judge's order which held that the writ petition filed by Soren was premature.

'Involves Facets Of Freedom Of Press & Right To Know': Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Block The Print's Article On RAW

Title: RAGHAV AWASTHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 185

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking direction on the Union Government to block an article published by digital news platform 'The Print' on Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), observing that the publication involves facets of freedom of press as well as right to know.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected a plea moved by lawyer Raghav Awasthi seeking framing of guidelines that no media outlet is permitted to publish any source-based speculation as to whether any government officer or diplomat posted abroad is working for Indian Intelligence Agency.

Should've Been Diligent About Protecting Trademark: Delhi HC Denies Plea For Additional Documents To Prove Use Of Mark After Two Years Of Filing Suit

Title: TTK PRESTIGE LIMITED v. BAGHLA SANITARYWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 186

In a trademark dispute between TTK Prestige Ltd and Baghla Sanitaryware, the Delhi High Court dismissed an application by TTK Prestige Ltd seeking to submit additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while emphasizing the necessity for diligence in presenting evidence and adhering to strict deadlines under the Commercial Courts Act.

Reasonable & In Best Interest Of Child's Welfare: Delhi HC Grants One Month Parole To Life Convict For Accompanying Son To Board Examinations

Title: VIJAY DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 187

The Delhi High Court has granted one month's parole to a murder convict, sentenced to life imprisonment, for accompanying his son for Board examinations, observing that his presence is both reasonable and in the best interest of the child's welfare.

Bar On Grant Of Bail Under Section 37 Of NDPS Act Can't Be Invoked Where Evidence Against Accused Is Unbelievable: Delhi High Court

Title: VINOD NAGAR v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 188

The Delhi High Court has said that the bar provided under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cannot be invoked in a case where evidence against the accused “appears to be unbelievable” and “does not seem to be sufficient for the purpose of conviction.”

“The Courts are not expected to accept every allegation made by the prosecution as a gospel truth,” Justice Amit Mahajan said while granting bail to a man in an NDPS case.

Mere Deduction Of TDS By Donor On Grants Would Not Disentitle The NGO From Sections 11 Exemption: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aroh Foundation Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 189

The Delhi High Court has held that a mere deduction of TDS by a donor on grants would not disentitle the assessee-NGO from exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

Doctrine Of Absolute Privilege Prohibits Entertainment Of Claims Against Judges, Lawyers For Statements Made During Judicial Proceedings: Delhi HC

Title: PO v. VP

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 190

The Delhi High Court has observed that the doctrine of absolute privilege prohibits entertainment of claims made against judges, counsel, witnesses or parties qua judicial proceedings in Courts or tribunals.

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said that the privilege extends to witness statements, testimonies, and documents properly used and regularly prepared for use in judicial proceedings.

Appearing On VC From Moving Vehicle Unacceptable, Undermines Formalities Of Judicial Process: Delhi High Court

Title: GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. ANGLO-FRENCH DRUGS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 191

The Delhi High Court has recently expressed displeasure with a lawyer who joined court proceedings through virtual conferencing mode in a moving vehicle, observing that such appearance “undermines the formalities of judicial process.”

Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing a commercial suit in which the defendant's counsel joined the proceedings through a video conferencing mechanism from a moving vehicle.

'Deceptive Similarity': Delhi HC Awards ₹12 Lakhs To Castrol In Trademark Infringement Suit Against 'Newcast Roi Racing' Engine Oil Manufacturer

Title: CASTROL LIMITED v. RAJESH KUMAR TUTEJA, TRADING AS KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 192

The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 12 lakhs as costs and damages to Castrol Limited while decreeing its suit against two individuals manufacturing engine oil products under the mark “Newcast Roi Racing.”

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that although the defendants' mark may seemingly appear distinct from Castrol, it was strategically presented in a manner that creates a deceptive similarity to the latter's registered trademark.

After Settlement, Nokia Withdraws Patent Infringement Suits Against Oppo, Vivo From Delhi High Court

Title: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 193

Nokia Technologies Oy has withdrawn the patent infringement suits filed by it against Chinese smartphone manufacturers Oppo and Vivo, after a settlement was arrived at between them.

Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed as withdrawn the suits as well as the counterclaim filed by the parties, in terms of the Litigation Settlement Agreement.

Delhi High Court Calls For Meeting To Resolve Issue Of Non-Payment Of Salaries Of Delhi Waqf Board's Imams, Muazzins Since May 2022

Title: ASLAM & ORS. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 194

The Delhi High Court has ordered for conduct of a meeting to resolve the issue of non-payment of salaries since May 2022 to the Imams, Muazzins and Muftis at the mosques registered with the Delhi Waqf Board.

Justice Sachin Datta directed the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board and the Delhi Government's Principal Secretary of Finance Department to convene a meeting and resolve the issue regarding payment of salaries.

Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Used For Settling Property Disputes: Delhi High Court

Title: MAHESHWARI DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 195

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Senior Citizens Act was enacted for the protection of the senior citizens and cannot be used for settling property disputes.

“The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted with the objective to provide a mechanism to secure maintenance and ensure welfare of senior citizens left bereft of support, financial or otherwise. The Act being a social legislation, ought to be construed liberally and its provisions should be implemented in light of the aims and objectives with which the Act was enacted, which for all intents and purposes in the immediate case herein is to ensure that a senior citizen without any semblance of support is not further deprived of the property and so that there is no threat to their life,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Raising Voice Against Alleged Cruelty Does Not Mean Complainant Is Not Interested In Continuing With Marriage: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 196

The Delhi High Court has observed that raising a voice against alleged cruelty does not, in any way, indicate that the complainant is not interested in continuing with the marriage or is not ready to adjust.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that what is important is whether the allegations leveled are premised upon facts or concocted.

Delhi High Court Orders Expeditious Trial Of Shashvat Nadkarni's Suit Against Ex-BharatPe MD Ashneer Grover Over Unpaid Shares

Title: Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 197

The Delhi High Court ordered an expeditious trial of the suit filed by BharatPe's co-founder Shashvat Nakrani seeking to restrain the fintech company's former Managing Director Ashneer Grover from alienating, transferring, or creating any third-party rights in the “unpaid shares” bought from him.

A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal requested the single judge, before whom the matter is pending, to frame issues in the suit on February 28, the date fixed for the next hearing.

Delhi High Court Orders Media Houses, Social Media Platforms To Take Down 'Defamatory Morphed Images' Of Bihar BJP MLA

Title: RV v. NAVBHARAT TIMES & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 198

The Delhi High Court has recently directed various media houses, social media platforms and search engines to take down allegedly defamatory and morphed images of a woman BJP MLA from Bihar.

Passing an interlocutory order in the MLA's suit, Justice Prateek Jalan directed the media houses, social media platforms and an individual, a political associate who she claimed circulated the photos, not to publish the images or other pictures of similar nature.

TDS Prosecution Can't Be Initiated Against Any Office Holder In Corporate Without Establishing Administrative Connection: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Varun Sood Versus ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 199

The Delhi High Court has held that TDS prosecution can't be initiated against any office holder in a corporation without establishing an administrative connection.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar has observed that merely because a person holds an office in a corporate entity, it would not be sufficient to place him as a principal officer until and unless he is established to be connected with the management or administration of the company.

Arbitration Clause In Unstamped Letter Of Intent Is Valid, Independent And Binding Agreement; Delhi High Court Allows Section 11 Petition

Case Title: Swashbuckler Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Avdesh Mittal & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 200

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma rejected an argument that a letter of intent was a non-binding agreement and noted that the arbitration agreement contained in the letter of intent should be treated as an independent and binding agreement. Further, it held that the referral court at Section 11 stage should not examine or impound an unstamped instrument and should leave it for determination by the arbitral tribunal.

Partial Setting Aside Of An Arbitral Award Valid U/s 34 If Part Is Independent And Doesn't Affect Other Components: Delhi High Court Allows Execution Petition

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 201

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that partial setting aside of an award is valid and justified as long as the part proposed for annulment is independent and can be validly incised without affecting other components. The bench held that it held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the Court considers the power to partially set aside, it does not amount to a modification or variation of the entire award.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea To Offer Prayers On Shab-E-Barat At Site Of Demolished 600-Yr-Old Mosque In Mehrauli

Title: THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF DELHI WAQF BOARD v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT (GNCT), DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 202

The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking permission to offer prayers and visit the graves on the occasion of Shab-e-Barat at the site of recently demolished 600-year-old mosque, Masjid Akhonji, in city's Mehrauli area.

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

Arbitral Award Lacking Adequate Reasoning Is Inherently Flawed With Patent Illegality: Delhi High Court Allows Section 34 Petition

Case Title: Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 203

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mohan Kumar Ohri held that an arbitral award lacking adequate reasoning suffers from the inherent flaw of patent illegality. It emphasized that a reasoned order should be proper, intelligible, and adequate, and failure to adhere to these standards can lead to challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Mahua Moitra's Plea To Restrain ED From Allegedly Leaking 'Confidential, Unverified Info' To Media On FEMA Probe

Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 204

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea moved by Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra seeking to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from leaking any “confidential or unverified information” to the media in relation to the investigation against her under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).

Arbitral Award With Internal Contradictions Is Perverse And Patently Illegal; Delhi High Court allows Section 34 Petition

Case Title: Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. vs Samtel Display Systems Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 205

The Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta held that an award suffering from internal contradictions is considered perverse and patently illegal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

No Jagran Or Religious Program Will Be Held In Kalkaji Temple Without Permission: Delhi High Court After Accident Resulting In Lady's Death

Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 206

The Delhi High Court has ordered that no jagran or religious program will be held in the premises of city's Kalkaji mandir without permission of the Administrator, who has been appointed by the Court and given full management and control of the temple.

'Freedom Of Movement Is Police's Problem, Court Can't Take Cognizance': High Court On Delhi University's Plea Against Protest By Professor

Title: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 207

The Delhi High Court disposed of a plea moved by the Delhi University against protests carried out by Dr. Ritu Singh, a former professor of the varsity, and her followers in the North Campus.

Delhi High Court Objects To Filing Of Appeal On Behalf Of 'Missing' Person, Says Such Practice Can Lead To Catastrophic Consequences

Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 208

The Delhi High Court has recently objected to the filing of an appeal on behalf of a person who went missing even before the impugned order was passed by the trial court, observing that such practice, if allowed, can lead to catastrophic consequences.

Denying Benefits To Construction Workers Citing Their Failure To Pay Contribution To Renew Registration Is Incorrect: Delhi High Court

Title: NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CENTRAL LEGISLATION ON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 209

The Delhi High Court has ruled that denial of benefits to construction workers by the Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board on the ground that the worker has failed to pay contribution to renew his or her registration after the validity of the registration has come to an end is incorrect.

Provide Assistance To Hazrat Baqi Billah Mosque's Imam, Ensure Unhindered Observance Of 'Shab-E-Barat': High Court To Delhi Police

Title: MOHD. ARSHAD AHMAD v. PRAMOD CHAUHAN SHO P.S. NABI KARIM

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 210

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to provide police assistance to the Imam of Masjid Dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Baqi Billah, situated in the city's Paharganj area, and to ensure that the festival of Shab-e-Baraat is carried out unhindered.

AO Lacks Jurisdiction To Pass Draft Assessment Order In Absence Of " Any Variation In Income Or Loss ": Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus S.A.Chitra Ventures Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 211

The Delhi High Court has held that the AO, under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, would have no jurisdiction to pass a draft assessment order in the absence of "any variation in the income or loss returned," which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee.

No Need For Notice To Invoke Fresh Arbitration Where Analogous Arbitral Proceedings Going: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

Case Title: Prime Interglobe Private Limited vs Super Milk Products Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 212

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that in cases where there are analogous arbitration proceedings related to other agreements, there is no need to invoke fresh arbitration by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. It held that there isn't a notice requirement under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Court Cannot Determine Admissibility, Relevancy, Materiality, And Weight Of Any Evidence Under Section 27 of A&C: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Uniper Global Commodities.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 213

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the court under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot determine the admissibility, relevancy, materiality, and weight of any evidence, as doing so would amount to impermissible interference with the Tribunal's proceedings.

Minor's Rape Case: High Court Denies Default Bail To Delhi Govt's Suspended Women & Child Department Officer, Wife

Title: Premoday Khakha v. State and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 214

The Delhi High Court on Monday denied default bail to Delhi Government's suspended Women and Child Development Department officer Premoday Khakha, accused of raping a minor girl over several months and impregnating her. Court also denied relief to Khakha's wife.

'No Different From You Or Me': Delhi High Court Calls For Using Term 'Differently Abled' For Persons With Disabilities

Title: SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 215

Observing that those who suffer from disabilities as recognized by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, are no different from anyone, the Delhi High Court has said that the more appropriate term to use for such persons would be “differently abled” rather than “disabled”.

“The RPWD Act, and all laws which strive to provide support to a person suffering from a disability, merely seek to neutralize the disability, so that the person's ability matches those of the rest of his peers, and they stand on an equal footing. This is the heart of the theory of equal opportunity, which pervades Article 14 and, indeed, the Constitution as a whole,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

CBSE Has No Right To Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall After Issuing Admit Card, Expected To Be Vigilant: Delhi High Court

Title: MS. KANISHKA (THROUGH MRS. SANTOSH (MOTHER) v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 216

The Delhi High Court observed that the Central Board of Secondary Examination (CBSE) is expected to be vigilant regarding the entitlement of the students to appear in the examination.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that the CBSE has no right to stop a student from entering the examination hall, after issuing admit card.

Subscription To Legal Database Can't Be Construed Transfer Of Copyright, Subscription Fee Is Not Royalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Versus Relx Inc

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 217

The Delhi High Court has held that subscription to legal databases cannot be construed as a transfer of copyright.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the subscription fees of the legal database LexisNex piad by an Indian subscriber neither comprise a transfer of copyright nor do they include a transfer of a right to apply technology and other related aspects, which are spoken of in Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA.

Fill Vacancies In Child Welfare Committees & Juvenile Justice Boards By April 15: High Court To Delhi Govt

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 218

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to complete the formalities of the selection process for filling vacancies in all the Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) in the national capital by April 15.

CISF Personnel Can Be Deployed Anywhere In India Or Abroad As Per Requirements; Operational Exigencies Can't Be Sidelined: Delhi High Court

Title: ALI MOHAMMED v. DG, CISF AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 219

The Delhi High Court has said that Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel can be deployed anywhere in India or abroad as per operational requirements and the administrative or operational exigencies can never be sidelined or disregarded.

'Charity Begins At Home': Delhi HC Holds Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee's Top Officials In Contempt Over Non-Payment Of Teachers' Salaries

Title: MRS TEJINDER PAL GUJRAL v. S MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 220

The Delhi High Court has found the President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee guilty of intentionally not complying with a 2021 ruling that ordered payment of arrears of salaries to teachers and staff of Guru Harkrishan Public School (GHPS), in view of fixation of their pay under the 6th and 7th Pay Commission.

Party Providing Wrong Address During Proceedings Cannot Argue Incorrect Arbitration Notice U/s 21 A&C: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Devender Kumar Kashyap vs Chander Muni.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 221

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Rekha Palli held that when a party provides its incorrect address in proceedings cannot be permitted to urge that the invocation notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not served at the correct address.

Concealing Income To Avoid Paying Maintenance Or Claim Exorbitant Amount In Matrimonial Cases Is Unfortunate: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 222

The Delhi High Court has said that it is unfortunate that in matrimonial litigations, the parties do not come out with their true income.

“Effort is always made to conceal the true income by the husband in order to avoid payment of maintenance to the wife and the child. On the other hand, effort is made by the wife to claim exorbitant amount as the income of the husband,”Justice Navin Chawla said.

High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Mandatory Registration Of Allopathy Practitioners With Delhi Medical Council

Title: DR NAMIT GUPTA v. DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 223

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging a notice issued by the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) directing any person practicing allopathy, the modern scientific system of medicine, in the national capital to be mandatorily registered with it, as per the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997.

Delhi High Court Quashes SCN & Order Lacking Reasons For Retrospective Cancellation Of GST Registration

Case Title: Apshara Garments Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 224

The Delhi High Court has quashed the show cause notice, which was lacking reasons for retrospective cancellation of GST registration.

Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic Injunction Restraining Rogue Websites From Illegally Streaming 'Copyrighted Content' Of STAR Channels, Hotstar

Title: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. TERIIMERIDOORIYAN.COM & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 225

The Delhi High Court has granted a dynamic injunction in favour of Star India as it restrained 21 rogue websites from illegally streaming its content, including TV shows and movies broadcasted on STAR channels and OTT platform Disney+ Hotstar.

Application Under Section 29(A) A&C Act Doesn't Constitute Express Waiver In Writing U/s 12(5) To Challenge Arbitrator's Ineligibility: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Umaxe Projects Private Limited vs Air Force Naval Housing Board

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 226

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that filing of the Section 29(A) application by a party did not amount to a waiver of its right to challenge the arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that filing an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act for an extension of the mandate did not amount to an express waiver in writing under Section 12(5).

Delhi High Court Orders Third-Party Audit Of MCD, DDA Public Toilets

Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 227

The Delhi High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to get an audit done from a Union Government empanelled third-party auditor.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Jan Sewa Welfare Society to ensure the availability of hygienic public urinals with clean water and electricity supply in the city.

“Purely A Govt Function": Delhi High Court Refuses To Order Opening Of 24 Hours PAN India Doordarshan Channel For Sindhi Community

Title: ASHA CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 228

The Delhi High Court has refused to direct the Union Government and Doordarshan to open a new 24 hours PAN India Doordarshan channel for the Sindhi Community, observing that it is purely a governmental function.

S.8 UAPA | Intent Of Notifying Place 'Used For Unlawful Association' Is Not To Seize Properties Of Innocent Owners: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD ARIF ANSARI v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 229

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the intent of notifying a place under Section 8 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is to ensure that it is not used for unlawful activities and is not to seize properties of innocent owners who are neither members of the unlawful association nor involved in unlawful activities.

Take Steps To Fill Vacancies In Municipal Taxation Tribunal: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: DEEPAK SEHGAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 230

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to fill up the vacancies in the Municipal Taxation Tribunal and ensure that it is in place.

“It is hoped and expected that expeditious steps shall be taken in this regard,” Justice Sachin Datta said in an order passed on February 14.

Section 37 Of NDPS Act Doesn't Fetter Grant Of Bail On Ground Of Undue Delay In Completion Of Trial: Delhi High Court

Title: VISHWAJEET SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 231

The Delhi High Court ruled that Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, does not fetter grant of bail to an accused on the ground of undue delay in the completion of trial.

Cordelia Cruise Case: Delhi High Court Modifies CAT Order, Sets Aside Direction To Pass Speaking Order Before Initiating Action Against Sameer Wankhede

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 232

Modifying an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in August last year, the Delhi High Court has set aside the direction of passing a reasoned and speaking order before any action is initiated against Sameer Wankhede on the basis of an enquiry report in relation to the Cordelia cruise drugs case, after granting a personal hearing to him.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Normalization Procedure Based On Percentile Score Adopted For JEE Mains

Title: SETU VINIT GOENKA v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 233

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea challenging the normalization procedure based on percentile score adopted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) for JEE (Mains) examination for entrance into the various Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs).

Smriti Irani v Congress Leaders: Delhi High Court Modifies Injunction Order On Taking Down Of Content By Social Media Intermediaries

Case Title: Smriti Irani v. Pawan Khera & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 234

The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction order passed in 2022 in favour of Union Minister Smriti Irani in her defamation case against three Congress leaders, on the aspect of taking down of content by social media intermediaries.

SCBA Meeting On Nomination Of Women Advocates As Executive Members Will Be Conducted Within Two Months: Delhi High Court Told

Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 235

The Delhi High Court was told that the General Body Meeting of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to discuss the aspect of nomination of women advocates as its Executive Members will be conducted within two months.

Title: CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER v. KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 240

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 241

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

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

Title: RESHMA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 242

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

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 243

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 244

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 245

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 246

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

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

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 247

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

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

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

Title: X v. SQUINT NEON & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 248

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 249

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 250

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

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

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

Case Title: Jagdish Bansal Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 251

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 252

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 253

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

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

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

Case Title: M/s MAC Associates vs Parvinder Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 254

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 255

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

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

Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 256

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 257

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 258

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

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

Case Title: Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 259

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 260

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 261

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

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

Case Title: Union Of India Vs NCC Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 262

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 263

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 264

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 265

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 266

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 267

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 268

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

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

Title: MOHAMMAD HAKIM AND ANR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 269

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 270

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

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 271

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

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 272

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

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

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

Case Title: Tata Motor Limited vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 273

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 274

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

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

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

Title: RAJEEV DAGAR v. STATE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 275

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

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 276

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 277

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 278

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 279

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 280

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 281

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

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

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

Title: RITIKA PRASAD v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 282

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

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

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

Case Title: Max Healthcare Institute Limited Versus UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 283

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 284

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

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

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

Title: SANJAY JAIN v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 285

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 286

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 287

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

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

Title: Amanatullah Khan v. ED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 288

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

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

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

Title: HARISH YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 289

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 290

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

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

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

Title: PRASAR BHARTI v. DISH TV INDIA LTD.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 291

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 292

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 293

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

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

Title: RAVI RANJAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 294

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 295

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 296

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 297

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

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

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

Title: MANVIR @ MANISH v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 298

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 299

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 300

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 301

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 302

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 303

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 304

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 305

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 306

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

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

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

Case Title: SFDC Ireland Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 307

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

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

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

Case Title: Navisite India Pvt Ltd vs CIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 308

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 309

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 310

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 311

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

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

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

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

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 312

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

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

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

Title: Sakshi v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 313

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 314

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 315

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 316

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

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

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

Title: PRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317

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

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318

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

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

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

Case Title: MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES V. DILIP JAIN

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 319

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 320

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 321

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 322

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 323

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

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 324

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 325

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

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

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

Title: VEDPAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 326

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 327

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 328

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 329

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

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

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

Title: GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 330

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 331

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

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

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

Case Title: G & S International Versus Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 332

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 333

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

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

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

Title: SYED ABU ALA v. NCB

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 334

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 335

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 336

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

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

Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 337

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 338

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 339

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 340

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

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

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

Case Title: Apex Buldsys Limited v. IRCON International Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 341

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

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

Case Title: Avdhesh Mittal Vs Deepak Vig.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 342

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

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

Case Title: Srf Limited Vs Jonson Rubber Industries Limited.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 343

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 344

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 345

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 346

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

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

Title: GANGA SARAN v. THE COMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 347

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 348

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 349

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 350

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

Citizenship Act Prevails Over Passport Manual: Delhi High Court

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 351

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 352

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

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

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

Case Title: Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 354

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 355

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 356

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 357

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

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

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

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Kanohar Electricals Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 358

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360

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

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

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

Case Title: Rani Construction v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 361

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

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

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

Case Title: Dharamvir & Company v. DDA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 362

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 363

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 364

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

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

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

Title: WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW PUNJABI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 365

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

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

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

Title: PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD v. SANJAY JAIN & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 366

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

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

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

Title: KIRTI v. RENU ANAND & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 367

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

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

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

Case Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 368

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 369

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 370

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 371

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

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

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

Title: ARPIT BHARGAVA v. GNCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 372

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 373

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

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

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

Case Title: PCIT Versus Rashmi Rajiv Mehta

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 374

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 375

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 376

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 377

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 378

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 379

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 380

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

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

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

Case Title: Fusionnet Web Services v. Yash Fiber Network

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 381

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 382

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 383

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384

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