Delhi High Court Quarterly Digest: July To September, 2024 [Citations 734 - 1080]

LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 734

K Kavitha v. CBI, ED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 735

Bibhav Kumar v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 736

RAKESH YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 737

X Corp v. Rajat Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 738

CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 739

CA RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 741

PINTU DAS v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 742

DONGGUAN HUALI INDUSTRIES CO. LTD vs. ANAND AGGARWAL AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 743

ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 744

M/S KG MARKETING INDIA v. MS. RASHI SANTOSH SONI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 745

Social Jurist v. Gnctd & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 747

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 Versus Maharaji Education Trust 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 748

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ADEEL FEROZE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 749

HARINDERJIT SINGH v. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 750

Harsh Dhanuka HUF Versus PCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 752

Aarti Fabricott Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 753

TESLA INC. v. TESLA POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 754

MRS. R. v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 755

SUBLIME SOFTWARE LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756

HARISH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 757

RAJAN TEWARI v. DURGESH KUMAR PATHAK & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 758

CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 759

Delhi Medical Association & Anr. vs. Govt NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 760

Ajay Gautam v. DCPCR & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 762

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRADEEP AGGARWAL 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 763

Growth Techno Projects Limited Vs Ishwar Industries Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 764

GUJARAT OPERATIONAL CREDITORS ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 765

DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 767

BANTU v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 768

VINOD v. STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 769

SHABNAM BURNEY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 770

Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 771

Deepa Chawla Vs Raheja Developers Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 772

BIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 774

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 775

PCIT Versus Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 776

Lily Packers Private Limited Vs Vaishnavi Vijay Umak and connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 777

GJ (JV) Comprising of M/S Godara Construction Company M/S Jandu Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 778

Murari Lal Agarwal Vs Kmc Construction Limited & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 780

M/S Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt Ltd Vs M/S Sel Manufacturing Co Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 781

Nafees Ahmed Vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 782

BPT Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indraprastha Ice And Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 783

Reliance Communications Limited Vs Unique Identification Authority Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 784

Deepak Sinha vs. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 785

Bar Council of Delhi v. Govt. ofN.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 786

Olive Traders Versus The Commissioner, CGST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 787

The Deputy Commissioner Of Police Vs Score Information Technologies Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 789

Mr.Rajan Chadha & Anr Vs Mr.Sanjay Arora & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 790

SH. REHAN ELAHI & ANR. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 791

Welspun Enterprises Ltd Vs Kasthuri Infra Projects Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 792

Sanyam Bhushan vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 1675/2022 & CONNECTED MATTERS) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 794

Aeiforia Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs Continental Carbon India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 795

Bimla Sachdev vs. Subur & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 796

Shri S. Rabban Alam v. CBI Though Its Director 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 797

Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Deepak And Co 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 799

PRINCE v. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800

ANIL KUMAR HAJELAY & ORS. v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 801

SAHIL VIKLANG SAHAYTARTHA SAMITI & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 802

AMITA SACHDEVA & ORS. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 804

M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd Vs Manav Sethi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 805

Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 806

Nishesh Ranjan and Anr. vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 807

M/S Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 808

M/S Ktc India Pvt. Ltd Vs Randhir Brar & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 809

Gae Projects (P) Ltd. Vs Ge T&D India Ltd. (Formerly Alstom T&D India Ltd.) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 810

DHANYA RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. GALAXY ZOOM INDIA OVT LTD & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 812

CIT Versus A.T. Kearney Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 813

Priyam Sharma vs. State NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 814

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR v. RAVINA YADAV AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 815

Anjali Birla v. X Corp. and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 817

M/s Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd Vs Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 818

Noble Chartering Inc. vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 819

M/s BPL Limited vs M/s Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 820

SH. RITESH KUMAR v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 821

SH SUNNY SACHDEVA v. ACP NORTH RTI CELL AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 823

ABDUL AZIZ v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 824

ADIDAS AG v KESHAV TULSIANI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 825

ANUPAM GAHOI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 826

RAVI PRAKASH SONI v CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 827

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited vs Friends Inc. and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 829

Trans Engineers India Private Limited Vs Otsuka Chemicals (India) Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 830

Vijendra Singh Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 831

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. M/S RAM NIWAS GOEL 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 832

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS v. NETFLIX ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES INDIA LLP & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 833

SUNAYANA SIBAL & ORS. v GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 835

Simran Kumari v. BCI & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 836

TULIR CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 837

SD Windlesh v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 838

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 839

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD vs. BHAVNEET SINGH 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 840

BLOOM INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v CBSE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 841

Arvind Kejriwal v. Dept of Delhi Prisons & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 842

SAURAV PORWAL & ANR. V. THE STATE & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 843

DR. CHINMAY ANKLESHWARIA vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 844

Samir Malik v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 845

ISHA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 846

LAKSHAY JAISWAL vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 847

Aradhya Export Import Consultants Pvt Ltd Verses Commissioner Of Customs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 848

RAHUL KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 849

CIT(E) Versus NIIT Foundation 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 850

Civil Safety Council of India v. UOI & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 851

Resident Doctors Association, AIIMS (Rishikesh) & Ors. v. Ram Kishan Yadav alias Swami Ramdev & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 853

Krishan Kumar & Anr Vs Shakuntla Agency Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 854

Sharad Bhansali & Anr. Vs Mukesh Aggarwal & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 855

RAJATARANGINI INDIA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. SANJAY SHARMA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 856

X v. THE INDIA TODAY GROUP & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 857

Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited Vs Union Of India Through Executive Engineer Cpwd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 858

JV Creatives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, Gurugram Zonal Unit, Gurugram And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 859

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 860

Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 861

OCL Iron and Steel Limited vs Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 862

VANDANA v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS AMAR COLONY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 863

ANASTASIIA PIVTSAEVA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 864

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 865

MR CHIRAGUDDIN v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 866

Mitsubishi Corporation Versus ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 867

A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 868

M/S Plus91 Security Solutions Vs Nec Corporation India Private Limited (Erstwhile Nec Technologies Private Limited) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 869

SUMAN VIJAY v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 870

ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 871

Bibhav Kumar v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 872

Kutumb v. State & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 873

P v. State & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 874

SANCHIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 875

Maruti Traders vs Itron India Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 876

Vedanta Limited Versus ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 917

Shree Bhavani Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 918

JagatMitra Foundation v Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 919

SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 920

JCB INDIA LIMITED AND ANR v. THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 921

Honasa Consumer Limited Vs Rsm General Trading Llc 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 922

RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHNEER GROVER 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 923

M/S Chinar Steel Industries Vs Ircon International Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 924

MOHAMMED ZUBAIR v. STATE OF GNCT & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 925

Amit Jain vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh & Anr (Crl.A. 1248/2019) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 926

GUNJAN AS GUARDIAN OF PIHU v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 927

ESS Singapore Branch Versus DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 928

Raj Kumari Taneja Vs Rajinder Kumar & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 929

Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs Paramount Communications Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 930

MRS C v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 931

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) vs A K Jain 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 932

ANKUSH & ANR. v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 933

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DHEERAJ WADHAWAN vs. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 991

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arun Pillai v Enforcement Directorate 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1002

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

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

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

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

Jagatmitra Foundation v. UOI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Munna v. MCD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

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

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

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

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

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

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

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

Abhinav Jindal HUF versus ITO 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Hospital vs. DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 734

The Delhi High Court has directed All India Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale to pay Rs. 50 lakhs damages to former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations, Lakshmi Puri, in her defamation suit against him.

Gokhale in his tweets had referred to a property purchased by Puri in Switzerland and raised questions regarding her and her husband, Union Minister Hardeep Puri's assets. He had also tagged Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman in the tweets and sought an ED inquiry.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To BRS Leader K Kavitha In CBI, ED Cases Relating To Alleged Liquor Policy Scam

Title: K Kavitha v. CBI, ED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 735

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to BRS leader K Kavitha in the money laundering and corruption cases related to the alleged liquor policy scam.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected Kavitha's pleas seeking bail in the cases registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Bibhav Kumar's Challenge To Arrest In Swati Maliwal Assault Case Maintainable: High Court Issues Notice To Delhi Police

Title: Bibhav Kumar v. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 736

The Delhi High Court has accepted the maintainability of a plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bhibhav Kumar challenging his arrest in the alleged Swati Maliwal assault case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma pronounced the order which was reserved for judgment on May 31. Notice has been issued to the Delhi Police.

Quashing Sexual Violence Cases Based On Monetary Payments Would Imply 'Justice Is For Sale': Delhi High Court

Title: RAKESH YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 737

The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal cases involving allegations of sexual violence cannot be quashed on the basis of monetary payments as doing so would imply that “justice is for sale.”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while rejecting a plea moved by a rape accused seeking quashing of an FIR registered by a woman on the ground that the matter was amicably settled between the parties and that she agreed to settle her claims for Rs. 1.5 lakhs.

'You'll Have To Comply': Delhi HC To X Corp In Appeal Against Single Judge Direction To Remove Tweets Against Journalist Rajat Sharma

Title: X Corp v. Rajat Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 738

X Corp. (formerly Twitter) has moved the Delhi High Court against a single judge order which directed removal of tweets made by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera alleging that senior journalist Rajat Sharma used abusive language on air during a show on the election result day.

The court, with the consent of both the parties, clarified that the single judge order is an ad interim order and that the injunction application will be taken up by the single judge for hearing and disposal on July 11.

'Needs Medical Help': Delhi High Court Raps Litigant Who Sought Disqualification Of Prime Minister Narendra Modi From Contesting Elections

Title: CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 739

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order rejecting a plea seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Narendra Modi from contesting the Lok Sabha elections.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the appeal filed by Captain Deepak Kumar.

Upper Side Of Age Must Be Considered In POCSO Cases Where Victim's Age Is Estimated Through Bone Ossification Test: Delhi High Court

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 740

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in cases under the POCSO Act, the court is required to consider the upper side of the estimated age of the victim where the age of is proved through bone age ossification test.

“In such cases of sexual assault, wherever, the court is called upon to determine the age of victim based on "bone age ossification report", the upper age given in "reference range‟ be considered as age of the victim,” a division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed.

SC Collegium's Reasons For Rejecting HC Judges' Appointment If Published, Will Be Detrimental To Those Whose Names Were Recommended: Delhi HC

Title: CA RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 741

The Delhi High Court recently observed that publication of reasons by the Supreme Court Collegium for rejection of the recommendations made by the High Court Collegium for elevation of Judges to the High Court will be detrimental to the interests and standing of people whose names have been recommended by the High Courts.

A division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said that the collegium deliberates and decides on the basis of information which is private to the individual being considered.

Judiciary Taking Firm Stand Against Child Sexual Harassment Encourages Victims, Their Families To Report Crimes: Delhi High Court

Title: PINTU DAS v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 742

The Delhi High Court has observed that when the judiciary takes a firm stand against child sexual harassment, it encourages victims and their families to report such crimes and reduces the stigma associated with seeking justice and ensuring that cases are handled with the utmost seriousness.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that victim and victim's family shaming must not be allowed as it will be a deterrent and road block in the real victims reporting such offences to the authorities.

Trademark Registration Does Not Confer Immunity From Challenges, When Allegations Of Passing Off Are Substantiated: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DONGGUAN HUALI INDUSTRIES CO. LTD vs. ANAND AGGARWAL AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 743

Finding that the contents of the plaint sufficiently demonstrate the Plaintiff's rights in the trademark “HUALI”, as well as their prior and extensive use of the same, the Delhi High Court held that the Plaintiff holds the seniority in usage rights of the “HUALI” trademark.

Therefore, the High Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, exporting, offering for sale, advertising/ displaying, directly or indirectly, their products under the trademark “HUALI”.

Litigants Keeping Disputes Alive For Malafide Reasons Has Tendency Of Keeping Courts' Docket Heavy: Delhi High Court

Title: ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 744

The Delhi High Court has recently said that the conduct of the litigants to keep the dispute alive for mala fide reasons has the tendency of keeping the docket of the Courts heavy to the detriment of other litigants whose cases have been pending for years.

Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while quashing two complaints filed in 2016 under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a man.

Delhi High Court Refers To Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita For First Time While Dealing With Forgery In Trademark Dispute

Title: M/S KG MARKETING INDIA v. MS. RASHI SANTOSH SONI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 745

The Delhi High Court has referred to Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the first time after it came into effect on July 01, while dealing with the issue of forgery and fabrication of documents by a party in a trademark infringement dispute.

In a ruling passed on July 02, Justice Prathiba M Singh dealt with a suit wherein two newspaper advertisements relied upon by the plaintiff, KG Marketing, were forged and fabricated.

Services Provided By IMG Utilized By BCCI Outside India, Income Not Liable To Be Taxed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: International Management Group (Uk) Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, International Taxation, New Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 746

The Delhi High Court has held that services provided by International Management Group (IMG) are utilized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) outside India, so the income determined as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) cannot be deemed to accrue in India and therefore cannot be taxed in India.

High Court Appreciates Delhi Govt's DoE For Distributing Textbooks In All Govt Schools

Title: Social Jurist v. Gnctd & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 747

The Delhi High Court has appreciated the Delhi Government's Directorate of Education for complete distribution of textbooks in all the government schools in the national capital.

Accordingly, the court closed the PIL filed by NGO Social Jurist, arguing that students in the MCD schools are being deprived of statutory benefits like uniform, writing material, notebooks etc.

Order Of ITSC Final And Conclusive For AY For Which Application Has Been Filed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 Versus Maharaji Education Trust

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 748

The Delhi High Court has held that the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) is final and conclusive for a particular assessment year (AY) for which the application has been filed.

WhatsApp Conversations Can't Be Read As Evidence Without Mandatory Certificate Under Evidence Act: Delhi High Court

Title: DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ADEEL FEROZE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 749

The Delhi High Court has observed that WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act, 1872.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea moved by Dell International Services India Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission upholding the District Commission's order refusing to take on record its written statement on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation.

Need To Enhance Disciplinary Mechanisms Against CA Firms, ICAI Must Be Strengthened By Notifying 2022 Amendment Act: Delhi High Court

Title: HARINDERJIT SINGH v. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BENCH III THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 750

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is a need for enhancing and strengthening the disciplinary mechanisms against firms of Chartered Accountants (CAs) as well as to enhance the accountability and transparency of such firms.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said there is an imminent need for strengthening the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) by expeditiously notifying the amendments passed by the Chartered Accountants, the Cost and Works Accountants and the Company Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 2022.

Prepare And Notify Code Of Conduct To Regulate Patent And Trademark Agents Within 6 Months: Delhi High Court To CGPDTM

Title: SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 751

The Delhi High Court has asked the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to prepare a draft Code of Conduct to regulate Patent and Trademark Agents and to put it on its website within two months for stakeholder consultation.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed that the Code of Conduct be then notified within six months and latest by December 31.

ITSC Empowered To Make Income Tax Addition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Harsh Dhanuka HUF Versus PCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 752

The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) does not lack jurisdiction to make an addition, which has also been duly recorded in the terms of settlement.

AO Can't Review Its Own Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aarti Fabricott Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 753

The Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot review its own order.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed in the extract of the impugned corrigendum that no new material has been found by the department, which would warrant reopening the assessment.

Delhi High Court Refers Elon Musk Owned Tesla's Trademark Infringement Suit Against Gurugram-Based 'Tesla Power India' To Mediation

Title: TESLA INC. v. TESLA POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 754

The Delhi High Court has referred to mediation the trademark infringement suit filed by Tesla Inc., owned by Elon Musk, against a Gurugram-based company, Tesla Power India Private Limited and its US counterpart.

Medical Professionals Must Offer Expert Opinions Without Fear Of Legal Repercussions In MTP Cases: Delhi High Court

Title: MRS. R. v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 755

The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases seeking medical termination of pregnancy (MTP), medical professionals in the medical board must offer their expert opinions without fear of legal repercussions.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that medical professionals must focus on providing the best possible medical guidance in such sensitive matters.

“The Court must therefore before parting emphasise that the opinion of the Medical Board in such cases of termination of pregnancy is of considerable importance for assisting the Courts in arriving at a just order,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Against Blocking Of 'Briar' Messaging App In Jammu & Kashmir Over Terror Suspicion

Title: SUBLIME SOFTWARE LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 756

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea against the blocking of open-source messaging application “Briar” by the Union Government in Jammu and Kashmir over threat to national security and sovereignty.

Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by Sublime Software Limited which developed the app challenging the Union Government's blocking order.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Examine 30-Yr-Old's Health Condition For Administration Of Passive Euthanasia

Title: HARISH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 757

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a 30 years old man seeking constitution of a Medical Board to examine his health condition for administration of passive euthanasia.

Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by the man who suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest house and has been confined to his bed since 2013 due to diffuse axonal injury with Permanent Vegetative state, Quadriplegia with 100% disability.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Reject Plea Challenging Election Of AAP's Durgesh Pathak In Assembly Bypolls 2022

Title: RAJAN TEWARI v. DURGESH KUMAR PATHAK & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 758

The Delhi High Court has refused to reject a plea challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party leader Durgesh Kumar Pathak in the Assembly by-elections of 2022.

Pathak was declared as a winner from Rajinder Nagar constituency by defeating his nearest rival by a margin of 11,468 votes.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging 'Cartelization' In Air India-Vistara Merger

Title: CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 759

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea against the merger of Vistara Airlines and Air India Limited over allegations of cartelization and bid rigging.

Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by former Air India Pilot, Captain Deepak Kumar, observing that the allegations are unsubstantiated and not supported by any evidence.

Safety Of Patients, Staff Is Of Paramount Importance: Delhi High Court Directs Inspection Of Nursing Homes For Fire Safety Compliance

Case title: Delhi Medical Association & Anr. vs. Govt NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 760

The Delhi High Court has directed the Directorate General of Health Services, Delhi Fire Service and Delhi Development Authority to form a Joint Committee and immediately inspect the private nursing homes to demine whether they are following fire safety norms or not.

"No Public Interest": Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Action Against Dalai Lama For Kissing Minor Boy On Lips

Title: CONFEDERATION OF NGOS & ANR. V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 761

The Delhi High Court has rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking action against Dalai Lama allegedly molesting a boy child by kissing on his lips in February last year.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela took judicial notice of the fact that Dalai Lama has expressed his apology to those who have been offended by his action.

Ensure Publicity Of Child Helpline Number To Deal With Child Begging: Delhi High Court To Authorities

Title: Ajay Gautam v. DCPCR & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 762

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government and the Delhi Police to ensure that publicity is given to the child helpline number 1098 to deal with incidents of child begging in the national capital.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL filed by Ajay Gautam seeking requisite steps to eradicate the problem of child beggary and related problems in and around Delhi.

Contempt: Delhi High Court Sentences Man To 'Sit In Court Till Rising', Imposes ₹1 Lakh Fine

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRADEEP AGGARWAL

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 763

Holding a man guilty of contempt for filing a writ petition for “personal gain”, the Delhi High Court has sentenced him “remain present in the Court till its rising”.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma ordered the sentencing considering the man's medical condition, age and the fact that he expressed remorse and apologised for his conduct.

Time From Filing Section 34 Petition To 2015 Amendment Excluded From Limitation Period For Enforcing Arbitral Awards: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Growth Techno Projects Limited Vs Ishwar Industries Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 764

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held the time period starting from the filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act till the amendment to the Arbitration Act in 2015, stands excluded from the counting of the limitation period for the enforcement of the arbitral award.

Delhi High Court Requests NCLAT Chairperson To Examine Viability Of Recording Of Proceedings Before NCLT Benches, NCLAT

Title: GUJARAT OPERATIONAL CREDITORS ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 765

The Delhi High Court has requested the Chairperson of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to examine the viability of recording of proceedings of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) benches across the country as well as the former.

Non-Custodial Parent Must Have Visitation Rights To Ensure Contact With Child, Joint Parenting A Norm: Delhi High Court

Case title: Amit Sharma vs. Sugandha Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 766

The Delhi High Court has observed that in custody matters, a parent without the custody of their child is entitled to visitation rights so as to maintain the bond with their child. The Court stated that joint parenting is the norm and emphasised that the best interest of the child needs to be taken into consideration while determining custody.

Delhi High Court Upholds FSSAI Regulation To Enhance Statutory Warning Size On Pan Masala Packages

Title: DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 767

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Regulation issued by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in October 2022 enhancing the size of statutory warning on pan masala packages from 3mm to 50% of front-of-pack of the label.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the plea filed by Dharampal Satyapal Limited, licensed manufacturer of Pan Masala brands namely, Rajnigandha, Tansen, and Mastaba.

BNSS Heralds A 'Transformative Era' In Criminal Justice, Promotes Transparent System Aligned With Principles Of Fairness: Delhi High Court

Title: BANTU v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 768

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the British-era Code of Criminal Procedure, heralds a transformative era in the criminal justice.

Police Must Commence Investigation Immediately In Missing Children Cases Without Waiting For 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

Title: VINOD v. STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 769

The Delhi High Court has directed all the police stations in the national capital to ensure that there shall be no waiting period for 24 hours to start inquiry or investigation in cases of missing children.

Delhi High Court Directs DDA Vice Chairman To Remove Encroachments, Illegal Construction On Yamuna River Bank

Title: SHABNAM BURNEY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 770

The Delhi High Court has directed the Vice Chairman of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to remove all the encroachments and illegal construction on the Yamuna river bank, river bed and drains flowing into the river.

Delhi High Court Directs Congress Leaders To Immediately Delete 'Defamatory Tweets' Against Rajat Sharma

Title: Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 771

The Delhi High Court has directed Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera to immediately delete “defamatory tweets” against senior journalist Rajat Sharma latest by 7 PM today, in compliance of an interim order passed on June 14.

Arbitration Clauses Require Explicit Reference In Subsequent Agreements: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Deepa Chawla Vs Raheja Developers Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 772

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that for an arbitration clause to be enforceable in subsequent agreements, it must be explicitly referenced within those agreements.

Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement Invalidated By Subsequent Verbal Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mukesh Khurana Vs Rahul Chaudhary

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 773

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the arbitration clause in a lease agreement ceases to exist if the lease terminates and a new verbal tenancy agreement is established.

Swati Maliwal Assault Case: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused Bibhav Kumar

Title: SH. BIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 774

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's close aide Bhibhav Kumar in the alleged Swati Maliwal assault case.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta rejected Kumar's bail plea, observing that though he happens to be only designated as a personal secretary to the Chief Minister but he yields considerable influence.

Loans Extended By NOIDA Is Not Commercial Activity, Eligible For Section 10(46) Exemption: Delhi High Court

Case Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Versus Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 775

The Delhi High Court has held that the loans and advances extended by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) are not commercial activities and are eligible for exemption under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act.

TPO Lacks Jurisdiction To Question Commercial Expediency Or Genuineness Of Need: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 776

The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory authority conferred upon the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) can only extend to an examination of the appropriateness of the method adopted for the purposes of determining arm's length pricing (ALP) or evaluating the enlistment of comparables. However, the TPO would neither be justified nor could it be countenanced to have the jurisdiction to question commercial expediency or genuineness of need.

Disputes Related To Lock-In Periods In Employment Contracts Are Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Lily Packers Private Limited Vs Vaishnavi Vijay Umak and connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 777

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Arbitrator Panel Restricting Nominee Selection To Railways' Officers and Suggested Names Is Not Valid: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GJ (JV) Comprising of M/S Godara Construction Company M/S Jandu Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 778

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that panel comprising of serving or retired officers of Railways not only restricted the party's choice but also compelled it to choose its nominee from amongst four names suggested by the Railways.

Uploading Of Notices By GST Department Under Heading 'Additional Notices' Is Sufficient Service: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kamla Vohra Versus Sales Tax Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 779

The Delhi High Court has held that the uploading of notices by the GST department under the heading 'additional notices' amounts to sufficient service.

Specific Reference To Arbitration Clause Needed In 'Two-Contract Case' For Incorporation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Murari Lal Agarwal Vs Kmc Construction Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 780

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in a 'two-contract case', a specific reference to the arbitration clause in an earlier contract is necessary for its incorporation into the main contract between the parties.

A 'two-contract case' refers to a situation where there are two separate contracts involved and the parties seek to incorporate terms, including an arbitration clause, from one contract into another.

Invoices Containing Arbitration Clauses Which Show Mutual Acceptance Are Prima Facie Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt Ltd Vs M/S Sel Manufacturing Co Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 781

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that when parties engage in actions based on invoices containing arbitration clauses, demonstrating mutual acceptance, an arbitration agreement may be inferred directly from those invoices.

Coercion In Disputes Must Be Examined By Arbitral Tribunal, Referral Court's Jurisdiction Limited By Section 11(6A): Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nafees Ahmed Vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 782

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that coercion, or its absence in a dispute is a complex question, purely of fact, which has necessarily to be examined by the arbitral tribunal. The bench held that with the introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the jurisdiction of the referral court is now circumscribed.

Arbitrator Not Required To Provide Detailed Reasons When Granting Request To Summon Witnesses Under Section 27(1) of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BPT Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indraprastha Ice And Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 783

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that while exercising power under Section 27(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant a request to summon a witness, the arbitrator is not required to offer detailed reasons when granting such a request.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Reliance Communications' Petition, Upholds Arbitrator's Calculation Of Call Minutes Based on Total Call Seconds

Case Title: Reliance Communications Limited Vs Unique Identification Authority Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 784

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has dismissed a petition filed by Reliance Communications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the arbitrator correctly divided the total number of call seconds by 60 to determine the number of call minutes. The bench noted that the company is not entitled to a whole minute if the call lasted only part of a minute.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Analyse Electro Homeopathic Prescriptions For Recognition As Alternative Medicine

Case title: Deepak Sinha vs. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare & Anr. (W.P.(C) 11217/2021)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 785

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition that sought to direct the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory, Ministry of Ayush to analyse certain Homeopathic prescriptions, in order to enable the Inter-Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to decide on the recognition of Electro Homeopathy as an alternative system of medicine.

Water Logging During Monsoon: High Court Orders Joint Inspection Of Bar Council Of Delhi's Office By Civic Authorities

Title: Bar Council of Delhi v. Govt. ofN.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 786

The Delhi High Court has directed the civic authorities in the national capital to conduct a joint inspection of the office of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), situated at Siri Fort Institutional Area, over the issue of water logging due to heavy rain in the monsoon season.

GST Registration Cancelled On Allegation Of Non-Existent Entity; Delhi High Court Directs Assessee To Furnish Documents

Case Title: Olive Traders Versus The Commissioner, CGST

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 787

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration and permitted the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice, since the only allegation against the petitioner is that it was found to be non-existent.

Aggrieved Third Party Beneficiaries Of Domain Names Cannot Challenge Arbitration Award U/s 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mukesh Udeshi vs Jindal Steel Power Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 788

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that only parties to an arbitration agreement can challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was further held that 3rd-party beneficiaries of domain names in India, who are impacted by the arbitral award, lack the standing to challenge the award.

Arbitral Tribunal Can Award Compensation For Breach If Contract Is Incapable Of Specific Performance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner Of Police Vs Score Information Technologies Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 789

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that the arbitral tribunal may exercise its power to award compensation for breach if a Contract has become incapable of specific performance.

Disobedience Of Interim Measures Due To Insolvency Proceedings Is Not Contempt: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mr.Rajan Chadha & Anr Vs Mr.Sanjay Arora & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 790

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has held that disobedience of interim measures granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to insolvency proceedings does not warrant contempt charges.

Take Steps For Online Registration Of Muslim, Christian Marriages Under Compulsory Marriage Order: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: SH. REHAN ELAHI & ANR. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 791

The Delhi High Court has recently expressed displeasure with the Delhi Government over its failure to issue administrative instructions, despite a judicial order passed nearly three years ago, regarding online registration of marriages solemnized under Muslim and Christian Personal Laws under the Compulsory Registration of Marriage Order, 2014.

Courts Must Refrain From Interim Orders Once Arbitral Tribunal Is Constituted Unless Urgency Demands: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Welspun Enterprises Ltd Vs Kasthuri Infra Projects Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 792

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is in place, ordinarily a court should refrain from dealing with the matter even for the purposes of passing interlocutory orders unless the order is demonstrably one which cannot await the application of mind by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Identical Marks For Medicines Could Mislead Customers, Delhi High Court Restrains Rebanta Healthcare From Using Dr Reddys' Registered Trademark

Case Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited vs Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 793

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that using visually and phonetically identical marks for medicines could confuse the general public, especially when the products serve different medical purposes.

Petitions U/S 482 CrPC Filed With Delay Or To Overcome Expired Limitation Of Alternate Remedy Cannot Be Entertained: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sanyam Bhushan vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 1675/2022 & CONNECTED MATTERS)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 794

The Delhi High Court has observed that failure to avail alternate remedy on the ground of ongoing settlement process is not a reason for the court to exercise its discretionary power to quash the complaint cases.

Magistrate's Clear Application of Mind Necessary For Issuance of Summons Under Section 138 Of NI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aeiforia Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs Continental Carbon India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 795

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that the issuance of summons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires a clear application of mind. The bench held that this application of mind must be evident upon reading the summoning order; the appellate or revisional court should not have to speculate about the considerations of the Magistrate who issued the summons.

Delhi High Court Holds DDA And Its Officials Guilty Of Contempt In Land Allotment Case

Case title: Bimla Sachdev vs. Subur & anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 796

The Delhi High Court has held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and its officials, the Vice Chairman and the Deputy Director (Land Disposal), to be in contempt of the court's orders in a case relating to land allotment.

Only If Appeal Is 'Pending' Before Enforcement Of BNSS, Can It Be Continued Under CrPC: Delhi High Court's "Possible Interpretation"

Title: Shri S. Rabban Alam v. CBI Though Its Director

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 797

Giving a “possible interpretation” of Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the Delhi High Court said that only if an appeal is pending before the new law came into force, can such an appeal be continued under the Cr.P.C.

Moin Qureshi Case: Delhi High Court Upholds PMLA Proceedings Initiated Against Businessman Sathish Babu Sana

Title: SATHISH BABU SANA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 798

The Delhi High Court has upheld the money laundering proceedings initiated against Businessman Sathish Babu Sana in relation to the PMLA case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi and other persons.

Arbitrator's Findings As Per Evidence And Testimony Is Not Perverse, No Need To Interfere: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Deepak And Co

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 799

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that findings made by an arbitrator which are consistent with the documentary evidence and admissions made during cross-examination are reasonable and not perverse.

FIR Lodged Under IPC But Anticipatory Bail Plea Filed After Enforcement Of New Criminal Laws, Delhi High Court Says BNSS Should Apply

Title: PRINCE v. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800

The Delhi High Court has observed that procedure with respect to anticipatory bail pleas filed in relation to FIRs lodged prior to enforcement of new criminal laws should be governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, if the date of filing such application is on or after July 1, 2024.

High Court Asks Delhi Govt To Implement Hybrid Courts Project On Priority Basis, Says No Cabinet Approval Required

Case Title: ANIL KUMAR HAJELAY & ORS. v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 801

The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Delhi Government to expedite grant of financial sanction of Rs. 387 crores and to implement on priority basis the project for having hybrid hearing in the 691 Courts in the national capital.

'High Time To Think What DDA Has Done To Delhi': High Court Expresses Displeasure Over Failure To Beautify District Park

Title: SAHIL VIKLANG SAHAYTARTHA SAMITI & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 802

The Delhi High Court has castigated the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for failing to take any time-bound beneficial measures for beautification of a District Park in the national capital, observing there is no proper concrete walking track or multi game courts there.

“Unhesitatingly, it is manifest that the respondent/DDA does not know what to do with this site in question. Is it not high time that the respondent/DDA must ponder over what they have done to this city in terms of providing recreational activities open to all? How they intend to make Delhi a "smart city"?,” Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.

Interim Measures U/s 17 Of Arbitration Act Affecting Third-Party Rights Is Appealable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprise Limited Vs Domus Greens Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 803

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that a third party, whose rights for a registered charge are affected by an arbitral award, can challenge such award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Delhi High Court Declines PIL Against YouTube Vloggers Uploading Videos Of Women, Minor Girls Without Consent

Title: AMITA SACHDEVA & ORS. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 804

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking removal of videos of women and minor girls uploaded on YouTube without their consent.

The PIL was withdrawn as the division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan expressed disinclination to entertain the plea.

Section 11(6) Petition Not Maintainable Without Prior Section 21 Notice In Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd Vs Manav Sethi & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 805

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that a Section 11(6) petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable unless it is preceded in the first instance by a Section 21 notice.

Delhi High Court Upholds Demolition Of Shiv Temple Near Yamuna Flood Plains, Says Eco-Sensitive Zone Must Be Protected From Encroachment

Case Title: Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 806

The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge Bench concerning the demolition order issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a Shiv Temple located near Yamuna Flood Plains. The court asserted that as the Yamuna River Floodplain is an eco-sensitive zone, it needs to be protected from encroachments and illegal constructions.

Intention To Arbitrate Must Be Assessed Holistically In Transactions Involving Interlinked Agreements, Even If Some Agreements Lack Explicit Arbitration Clauses: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nishesh Ranjan and Anr. vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 807

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that in a composite transaction involving multiple interlinked agreements, courts should assess the intention to arbitrate holistically and refer disputes to arbitration even if some agreements lack explicit arbitration clauses.

Decree Holder Not Entitled To Interest For Period Between Deposit of amount and its Release : Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 808

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the Decree Holder is not entitled to interest on the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor for the period between the date of deposit and the date of release permitted by the court.

'Subsequent Shareholders' Do Not Qualify As 'Association Or Body of Individuals' Under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Ktc India Pvt. Ltd Vs Randhir Brar & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 809

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that “subsequent shareholders,” each holding a specific number of shares and having the right to exit the company under defined conditions while undertaking individual rights and obligations, do not qualify as an "association or body of individuals" under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Arbitrator Must Determine Validity Of Coercion Claims In Settlement Agreements, Termination Of Arbitration Improper: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gae Projects (P) Ltd. Vs Ge T&D India Ltd. (Formerly Alstom T&D India Ltd.)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 810

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that claims of coercion or economic duress in a settlement agreement require examination by an arbitrator to determine their validity. The bench held that the Arbitrator's summary dismissal of the claimant's plea and the termination of arbitration proceedings without a trial were improper.

Filing Of Pending Application For Compulsory License Does Not Entitle Applicant To Infringe Owner's Copyright: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs Al-Hamd Tradenation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 811

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna granted an interim injunction against Al-Hamd Tradenation, restraining it from using Phonographic Performance Limited's copy-righted sound recordings. Even though Al-Hamdhad applied for a compulsory license of those recordings which was pending approval, it was not entitled to use Phonographic Performance Limited's sound recordings without obtaining its license by paying the requisite license fee.

Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'Defamatory' YouTube Videos, Articles Against Dhanya Rajendran

Title: DHANYA RAJENDRAN & ANR. v. GALAXY ZOOM INDIA OVT LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 812

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of YouTube videos and news articles containing “defamatory” statements against The News Minute founder, Dhanya Rajendran, in respect of the “Cutting South” event hosted last year.

Not Permissible For TPO To Engage In Restructuring Of Transaction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus A.T. Kearney Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 813

The Delhi High Court has held that it is not permissible for the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to engage in the restructuring of a transaction.

Concerning That Law Students Are Fighting In Such A Manner: HC Declines Anticipatory Bail To Delhi University Student Accused Of Assaulting Peers

Case title: Priyam Sharma vs. State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 814

While refusing anticipatory bail to a law student involved in a fight against other students, the Delhi High Court expressed its dismay at the incident and remarked “It is quite unfortunate that the complainant as well as the petitioner party who are law students have indulged in the fight. It is a matter of great concern that the students of law are fighting in such a manner.”

Re-Examine CCS Rule Denying Maternity Leave To Female Govt Servant Having More Than Two Children: Delhi High Court To Authorities

Title: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR v. RAVINA YADAV AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 815

The Delhi High Court has said that it expects the government authorities to re-examine the sustainability of Rule 43 of the CCS(Leave) Rules which denies maternity leave to a female government servant if she has more than two surviving children.

Delhi Riots: High Court Orders CBI Investigation Into Death Of Man Forced To Sing National Anthem

Title: Kismatun v. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 816

The Delhi High Court has transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the investigation into the death of 23 year-old Faizan, who was allegedly forced to sing national anthem during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani allowed the plea moved by Kismatun, Faizan's mother, seeking SIT investigation into her son's death. The plea was filed in 2020.

Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Social Media Posts Against UPSC Qualification Of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla's Daughter

Title: Anjali Birla v. X Corp. and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 817

The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of social media posts against IRPS Officer and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla's daughter, Anjali Birla, alleging that she cleared UPSC exam in her first attempt by indulging in corrupt practices and misusing her father's position.

Act of God Does Not Justify Retention Of Performance Bank Guarantee Without Suffering Legal Injury: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd Vs Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 818

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal has held that a force majeure event specifically an Act of God beyond the control of the concerned party doesn't require retention of performance bank guarantee.

Disputed Contract, Can't Be Challenged U/s 34 Of Arbitration Act Unless finding are Unreasonable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Noble Chartering Inc. vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 819

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that the interpretation of a disputed contract falls within the arbitral tribunal's domain and is not subject to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless the interpretation is unreasonable.

Courts Can't Undertake Independent Assessment Of Award In Appeal U/s 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s BPL Limited vs M/s Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 820

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma reiterated that while entertaining an arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the role of a court is limited to ascertaining whether the exercise of power under Section 34 has exceeded the scope of the provision. In such cases, the High Court held that courts cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award.

Educational Institutions Are Strong Pillars Of Democracy, Can't Be Machines Producing Individuals Chasing Marks Or Degrees: Delhi High Court

Title: SH. RITESH KUMAR v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 821

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that schools, universities and academic institutions are strong pillars of democracy as well as the entire country and are not meant to be machines producing individuals whose aim is only to chase marks, courses or degrees.

Delhi High Court Orders Office Space, E-Library For Public Prosecutors In Each District

Title: Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 822

Observing it is high time to adapt to technological advances, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to create digital library for public prosecutors in each district in the national capital.

Information Seeker Has No Locus Standi In Penalty Proceedings Against Public Information Officer U/S 20 Of RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: SH SUNNY SACHDEVA v. ACP NORTH RTI CELL AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 823

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that an information seeker has no locus standi in the penalty proceedings initiated against a Public Information Officer, under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Objections On Sunehri Bagh Masjid Removal Will Be Considered As Per Law: NDMC To Delhi High Court

Title: ABDUL AZIZ v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 824

The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) has informed the Delhi High Court that the public objections against the proposed removal of Sunehri Bagh mosque will be considered in accordance with law.

Delhi High Court Rejects Textile Firm's Sindhi Breakdown Of Word "Adidas" To Defend Trademark Infringement Suit

Case title: ADIDAS AG v KESHAV TULSIANI AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 825

The Delhi High Court recently permanently restrained a textile firm and its partners from using the 'Adidas' mark, after the German sports and apparel wear company filed a trademark infringement lawsuit.

Plea To Quash FIR Lodged Under IPC If Filed After July 1 Should Be Governed By BNSS: Delhi High Court

Title: SH. ANUPAM GAHOI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 826

The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a matrimonial case filed against a husband by his wife in 2018 while treating his plea for quashing of the FIR filed under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS).

[RTI Act] Delhi HC Denies Son's Plea For Details Of Deceased Father's Bank Locker, Says 'Larger Public Interest' Doesn't Include Individual Interests

Case title: RAVI PRAKASH SONI v CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 827

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal against a single-judge bench's order upholding the Central Information Commission's (CIC) refusal to grant information to a man pertaining to a bank locker of his deceased father under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

Delhi High Court Discharges Man In Contempt Case For Defaming Judges On Social Media, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Fine

Title: SUDHA PRASAD v. UDAY PAL SINGH

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 828

Accepting unconditional apology, the Delhi High Court has discharged a man who was held guilty of criminal contempt of court for posting a video on social media defaming the judges and claiming that they were doing “illegal acts.”

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Restrain Friends Inc. From Using 'PETER ENGLAND' Trademark

Case Title: Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited vs Friends Inc. and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 829

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna granted an interim injunction to restrain Friends Inc., an apparel store, from using the registered trademark “PETER ENGLAND” owned by Aditya Birla Retail and Fashion Limited. It was held that Aditya Birla Retail was likely to suffer irreparable harm in case an injunction was not granted.

Misunderstanding Of Basic Contractual Framework Vitiates Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Trans Engineers India Private Limited Vs Otsuka Chemicals (India) Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 830

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that an award with misreading/misunderstanding of the basic contractual framework vitiates it at its root and makes it vulnerable to challenge under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Revoking Suspension Of Customs Broker Licence Can't Restrict Dept. From Inquiring For Imposition Of Penalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vijendra Singh Versus Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 831

The Delhi High Court has held that the revoking suspension of license cannot restrict the customs department from inquiring for imposition of penalty.

Evolve Protocol To Scrutinize Pleadings Before Filing: Delhi High Court To MCD

Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. M/S RAM NIWAS GOEL

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 832

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to evolve a protocol to scrutinize the pleadings and averments before they are filed in courts and ensure that they align with the law of the land.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Netflix Release Of 'Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper' Show On ICAI's Plea

Title: THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ORS v. NETFLIX ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES INDIA LLP & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 833

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to stay the release of “Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper” show on OTT platform Netflix. In an order passed on July 16, Justice Navin Chawla saw trailer of the show and observed that it did not refer to the profession of Chartered Accountancy in any manner.

Non-Signatories Can Be Included In Arbitration Beyond Group Company Ties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rbcl Piletech Infra Vs Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 834

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held the inclusion of a non-signatory in arbitral proceedings is not solely dependent on the non-signatory being part of the same group of companies as the signatory.

Citing Inability Of Authorities To Prevent Cattle Feeding On Garbage, Delhi HC Orders Shifting Of Dairies Located Near Landfill Site

Case title: SUNAYANA SIBAL & ORS. v GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 835

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered the shifting of the Bhalaswa dairy colony–located near a landfill site, to the Gogha dairy colony within four weeks, after taking note of the “inability of statutory authorities” to prevent cattle from feeding on garbage in the area.

Decide Plea For Payment Of Minimum Stipend To Junior Lawyers Within Six Weeks: Delhi High Court To BCI

Title: Simran Kumari v. BCI & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 836

The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to decide within six weeks a representation regarding payment of minimum stipend to junior lawyers hired by advocates and senior advocates.

Delhi HC Refuses To Halt Streaming Of 'To Kill A Tiger' Netflix Documentary In PIL Over 'Disclosure' Of Minor Rape Survivor's Identity

Title: TULIR CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 837

The Delhi High Court has refused to stop the streaming of Netflix documentary “To Kill a Tiger" based on the gang-rape of a 13 year old minor victim in a village in Jharkhand.

Ensure Fencing After Removal Of Encroachments Around Yamuna Floodplains: Delhi High Court To DDA Vice Chairman

Title: SD Windlesh v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 838

The Delhi High Court has directed the Vice Chairman of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to ensure that there is fencing around the Yamuna River floodplains area as and when unauthorised constructions and encroachments are removed to avoid similar incidents in future.

Services Provided Outside To Indian Customers In Connection With Right To Use Of Process Can't Be Taxed : Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation Versus Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 839

The Delhi High Court has held that the receipts from Indian customers for services provided outside' Indian Territory in connection with use or right to use of process or equipment by the assessee company cannot be taxed as royalty.

Burden To Prove Administrative Urgency In Cases Relating To Transfer Of Disabled Employee Lies On Employer: Delhi High Court

Case title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD vs. BHAVNEET SINGH

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 840

In a case relating to the transfer of a disabled employee, the Delhi High Court has observed that the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 take precedence over any employment and contractual arrangements. The Court stated that disabled employees cannot be transferred unless there is an administrative urgency, with the burden of proving such urgency resting on the employer.

Schools Play Vital Role In Education, Must Ensure Examinee's Documentation Is Completed Within Time: Delhi HC Provides Relief To Class 10, 12 Students

Case Title: BLOOM INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v CBSE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 841

The Delhi High Court recently directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to open its online portal to accommodate 45 class 10th and 12th students studying in a Delhi school to appear in their improvement and compartmental exams.

Delhi HC Permits Arvind Kejriwal Two Additional Meetings With Lawyers, Says 'Special Situations Call For Special Remedies'

Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Dept of Delhi Prisons & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 842

Observing that special situations call for special remedies, the Delhi High Court has allowed the plea moved by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is in judicial custody in the alleged liquor policy scam, for granting two additional meetings with his lawyers through virtual conferencing in a week.

Delhi High Court Orders Accused To Do Community Service At Gurudwara, Says Offence Of Outraging Woman's Modesty Can't Be Compromised

Title: SAURAV PORWAL & ANR. V. THE STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 843

While quashing a 2014 case against two men for allegedly assaulting and outraging modesty of a woman after settlement between them, the Delhi High Court has directed them to do community service of one month in the city's Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Sahib.

Incorrect To Deny MD Seat To Candidate Solely Due To Administrative Fault: Delhi High Court To AIIMS

Case title: DR. CHINMAY ANKLESHWARIA vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 844

The Delhi High Court observed that denying a MD seat (Doctor of Medicine) to a candidate solely due to administrative fault and inefficiency would be unjust and against the principle of merit-based selection. The Court asserted that filling available vacancies is in the best interests of public health and institutional efficiency.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Against Centre's Notification Declaring June 25 As 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas'

Title: Samir Malik v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 845

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL against a recent notification issued by the Union Government declaring that 25th of June every year be observed as 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas' on the anniversary of the proclamation of Emergency in 1975.

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of RPF Candidate Denied Job Due To Pregnancy, Orders ₹1 Lakh Costs To Recently Injured Woman Staff

Title: ISHA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 846

Ruling in favour of a woman who was denied appointment as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force in 2019 due to her pregnancy, the Delhi High Court imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on the Central Government to be paid to a lady employee who recently got injured when a portion of the roof in the court building fell on her.

Non-Bailable Warrant U/S 73 CrPC Cannot Be Issued To Produce Accused Before Police For Investigation: Delhi High Court

Case title: LAKSHAY JAISWAL vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 847

The Delhi High Court has ruled that issuance of a non-bailable warrant under Section 73 CrPC by a Magistrate, for the production of the accused before the police for investigation is illegal, as such a warrant could only be issued for the production of the accused before a court.

Failure To Carry Out Physical Verification Of Veracity Of Exporter Alone Is No Basis To Suspend License Of Custom Broker: Delhi HC

Case Title: Aradhya Export Import Consultants Pvt Ltd Verses Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 848

The Delhi High Court held that a custom broker cannot be held guilty of having failed to discharge the obligation placed in terms of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR 2018, simply because he has not carried out physical verification of the veracity of the exporter.

Delhi High Court Orders CBI Probe Against Litigant Who Filed Repeated Pleas Alleging Unauthorised Constructions

Title: RAHUL KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 849

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered inquiry to be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a litigant who repeatedly filed petitions, including PILs, alleging unauthorised constructions, some of which were never listed in court.

Educational Activities Neither Business Nor Profession, Covered Under Section 2 (15) Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT(E) Versus NIIT Foundation

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 850

The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee is carrying on educational activities that are covered by the provisions of Section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act, and it is neither business nor profession of the assessee.

It Is Not Permissible To Compare Competing Trademarks By Dissecting Its Parts: Delhi High Court Rules Against Loreal

Case Title: Loreal India vs. Rajesh Kumar Taneja Trading

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 852

While emphasizing that the object of examination is to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the Trademarks Act, the Delhi High Court held that no interference with the registration of the trademark would be warranted, unless it is prima facie established that the registration of the trademark falls foul of the provisions of the Act.

Delhi High Court Directs Baba Ramdev To Take Down Claims Blaming Allopathy For Covid-19 Deaths And Promoting Coronil

Case Title: Resident Doctors Association, AIIMS (Rishikesh) & Ors. v. Ram Kishan Yadav alias Swami Ramdev & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 853

The Delhi High Court has directed Yoga guru Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna to remove their statements claiming that allopathy was responsible for deaths of lakhs of people in COVID-19 and that Patanjali's Coronil is a “cure” for virus.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani passed order in the interim injunction application moved in a suit filed by various doctors' associations in 2021.

Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Can't Be Used To Seek Re-Litigation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Krishan Kumar & Anr Vs Shakuntla Agency Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 854

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a “second bite at the arbitral cherry”.

Article 23A Of Schedule I-A Of Stamp Act Applies To Agreements To Sell Under Section 53A Of Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sharad Bhansali & Anr. Vs Mukesh Aggarwal & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 855

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C.Hari Shankar has held that Article 23A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act applicable in Delhi covers Agreement to Sell to which Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) applies.

PM Modi Interview: Delhi High Court Orders 4PM's Editor-In-Chief To Remove 'Defamatory Tweets' Against The New Indian's Rohan Dua

Title: RAJATARANGINI INDIA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. SANJAY SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 856

The Delhi High Court has recently passed an ad-interim injunction order for removal of “defamatory tweets” posted by Sanjay Sharma, Editor-In-Chief of Lucknow's evening daily, 4 PM Evening Newspaper, and two other individuals against The New Indian's Editor-In-Chief Rohan Dua in relation to his interview with Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the 2024 general elections.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Directing Removal Of Articles, Posts About Criminal Case Against Acquitted Businessman

Title: X v. THE INDIA TODAY GROUP & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 857

Passing a john doe order, the Delhi High Court has recently ordered removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X, formerly Twitter, regarding a criminal case registered against him in 2018 after his honourable acquittal the next year.

Arbitrators Must Separately Calculate Fees For Claims And Counterclaims In Ad Hoc Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited Vs Union Of India Through Executive Engineer Cpwd & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 858

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has set aside computration of fee by an arbitration on the basis decision in Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd which was later set aside in ONGC Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723.

ITC Claimed On Alleged Fake Supplies; Delhi High Court Upholds Dept's Action In Provisionally Attaching Bank Account

Case Title: JV Creatives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, Gurugram Zonal Unit, Gurugram And Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 859

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Commissioner's action of provisionally attaching the petitioner's bank account, to the extent of Rs. 26.91 lakhs being the amount of input tax (ITC) claimed in respect of allegedly fake supplies.

'Adulterer' Not Necessary Party To Divorce Petition, Decree Can Be Passed In His Or Her Absence: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 860

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that an alleged adulterer, being a third party and suspected of having an affair with a spouse, is not a necessary party to a divorce petition.

A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said that a decree can be passed in the absence of such an individual.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL For Dual Citizenship For Indian Diaspora

Title: Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 861

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking grant of dual citizenship for Indian diaspora, holding their citizenship presently at some other foreign country.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the issue falls within the domain of the Parliament and it is not for the court to decide or pass directions on it.

Stakeholders Can't Impose Penalties, Claim Dues From Corporate Debtor After Approval Of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court

Case Title: OCL Iron and Steel Limited vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 862

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held once a resolution plan is accepted, the stakeholders cannot impose penalties or claim dues from the Corporate Debtor based on past liabilities.

Title: VANDANA v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS AMAR COLONY & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 863

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), in a habeas corpus petition involving exceptional circumstances, can be directed to provide the Aadhar data about a missing person, even without being afforded a prior hearing.

A division bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that in a habeas corpus case, there is a sense of urgency with which the Court has to act as the missing person could be in danger.

Husband's Alleged Involvement In Criminal Case No Ground To Deny Security Clearance To Spouse For OCI Registration: Delhi High Court

Title: ANASTASIIA PIVTSAEVA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 864

The Delhi High Court has recently held that mere familial relationship with an accused, without evidence of direct involvement in the alleged crime, is no ground to deny security clearance to a spouse for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration.

“Mere association or familial relationship with an accused, without concrete evidence of direct involvement or complicity in the alleged crimes, does not substantiate the grounds for denying security clearance under Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act and neither does it withstand the test of arbitrariness and reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Finalize Technical Solution To Sync ICJS System With Police Criminal Database: Delhi High Court To NIC, State Crime Record Bureau

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 865

The Delhi High Court has called for finalization of the technical solution to sync the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) system, which stores case data, with the criminal database of the Police, to avoid any discrepancies.

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused Of Sending Obscene Messages To Woman, Asks Him To Do Community Service For Three Months

Title: MR CHIRAGUDDIN v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 866

While quashing a 2014 case registered against a man for allegedly sending obscene messages to a woman after settlement with her, the Delhi High Court has recently directed the man to do community service for three months in order to “atone for his sins.”

Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the man to do one month of community service each in an old age home, LNJP hospital and an orphanage respectively, from September 09 to November 30.

AO Can't Disregard ITAT's Direction To Re-examine Issue By Referring To CBDT Circular: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mitsubishi Corporation Versus ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 867

The Delhi High Court has held that the assessing officer (AO) cannot disregard the direction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to re-examine the issue by referring to the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

Major Child Entitled To Maintenance Under Hindu Marriage Act Till He Is Pursuing Education And Not Financially Independent: Delhi High Court

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 868

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a child is entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, till the time he is pursuing his education and does not become financially independent.

“In our considered view, a child who is pursuing his education would be entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the HMA even after he attains the age of majority, till the time he is pursuing his education and is not financially independent,” a division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said.

Arbitral Tribunal's Decision To Award Damages For Loss Of Profit Is Patently Illegal If It Contradicts Contract: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Plus91 Security Solutions Vs Nec Corporation India Private Limited (Erstwhile Nec Technologies Private Limited)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 869

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that an Arbitral Tribunal's decision to award damages for loss of profit is vitiated by patent illegality if it contradicts the express terms of the agreement between the parties.

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Teacher For Slapping 3-Yr-Old Who Failed To Recite 'ABCD'

Title: SUMAN VIJAY v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 870

The Delhi High Court has recently quashed an FIR against a teacher who allegedly slapped a three-year-old child who failed to recite “ABCD” after the parties entered into a settlement.

Quashing the FIR filed by the minor's mother in 2015, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the complainant and the teacher intend to put a quietus to the case which arose over a “minor issue” and has been pending for a period of 9 years.

Uploading Of Empaneled Lawyers' Fee Bills On 'Online Single Window System' Must Be Made Smooth, Without Glitches: Delhi High Court

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 871

The Delhi High Court has observed that uploading of fee bills of government empaneled lawyers on the Online Single Window System (OSWS) portal set up by the Delhi Government should be made smooth and without any glitches.

Delhi High Court Upholds Bibhav Kumar's Arrest In Alleged AAP MP Swati Maliwal Assault Case

Title: Bibhav Kumar v. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 872

The Delhi High Court has upheld the arrest of Chief Minister's close aide Bibhav Kumar in the alleged AAP MP Swati Maliwal assault case.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected the plea filed by Kumar.

Delhi High Court Orders CBI To Probe Death Of Three Civil Aspirants In Coaching Centre Tragedy

Title: Kutumb v. State & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 873

The Delhi High Court has ordered Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the deaths of three civil services aspirants due to drowning in a IAS coaching centre basement in Rajendra Nagar.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the direction looking at the “seriousness of incident and that it may involve corruption by public servants.”

Delhi High Court Upholds Acceptance Of Police's Cancellation Report In Rape Case Against BJP Leader Shahnawaz Hussain

Title: P v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 874

The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order accepting the cancellation report filed by the Delhi Police last year in a rape case filed against BJP leader and former Union Minister Syed Shahnawaz Hussain.

'X' Corp Does Not Perform 'Public Function', Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Title: SANCHIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 875

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that X Corp, formerly Twitter, does not perform “public function” or discharges public duty and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the social media platform operates as a “private entity” under “private law” and does not carry out any governmental duties or obligations.

Principles Of Equity And Fairness Not Applicable To Commercial Matters, Relief Is Governed By Contract: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Maruti Traders vs Itron India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 876

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C Hari Shankar has held that commerce is devoid of equity. The bench held that commercial transactions are driven by a harsh reality, and the principle of universal brotherhood does not extend to commercial dealings. In these transactions, there is no obligation on the arbitrator for fairness, kindness, or equity, and no court can mandate such qualities.

Amount Paid For Obtaining Mining Rights In E-Auctions Can't Be Construed As Income; Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order

Case Title: Vedanta Limited Versus ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 917

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment order and held that the amount paid for obtaining mining rights in e-auctions cannot be construed as income.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the Department of Mines and Geology had merely provided to the AO the total amount paid by the petitioner for obtaining mining rights in the e-auctions that were conducted.

Section 80-IA(7) Deduction Can't Be Denied For Failure To Digitally File Audit Report: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shree Bhavani Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 918

The Delhi High Court has held that the deduction under Section 80-IA(7) of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for the mere failure of the assessee to digitally file an audit report.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that Audit Report was duly furnished to the AO and was available to be scrutinised and examined by that authority during the assessment proceedings, the provisions of Section 80-IA(7), as it stood prior to the amendments introduced in 2020, would be recognized to have been substantially fulfilled.

Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Decide Plea Against "Illegal" Online Sale Of Hookahs Without Proper Health Warning

Case title: JagatMitra Foundation v Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 919

The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to treat as a representation a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking immediate action against the "illegal online sale of hookahs" on e-commerce platforms without specific health warnings.

During the hearing a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela orally said to the counsel appearing for the Centre, "He (petitioner) is highlighting a very important point. You must decide it. He is saying that the field is covered by a statutory provision. It is not being implemented. Which is the implementing agency. You must lay down a standard of procedure".

Word 'Approved' By PCCIT For Reopening Of Assessment Not Enough, Reasons Necessary, Delhi High Court

Case Title: SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 920

The Delhi High Court has held that mere appending of the word “approved” by the PCCIT while granting approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act to the reopening under Section 148 is not enough.

Competition Commission Of India Must Honour Outcome Of Mediation, Settlements Between Parties: Delhi High Court

Title: JCB INDIA LIMITED AND ANR v. THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 921

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) must honour the outcomes of mediation and respect the settlements reached between the parties.

A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said regulatory authorities such as the CCI are no exception to mediation process and settlements.

Court Has Power To Grant Anti-Enforcement Injunction Against Proceedings In Foreign Court Which Threaten Arbitral Process Initiated In India: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Honasa Consumer Limited Vs Rsm General Trading Llc

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 922

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that when proceedings in a foreign court, or a decree issued by a foreign court, threaten the arbitral process that may be initiated in India, the court has the authority under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to restrain the party from continuing with the foreign proceedings or enforcing the potentially prejudicial decree.

Delhi High Court Refers Employment Agreement Dispute Between BharatPe, Ashneer Grover To Arbitration

Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHNEER GROVER

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 923

The Delhi High Court has referred to arbitration the dispute between former Managing Director of BharatPe, Ashneer Grover, and the fintech company concerning an employment agreement entered between them in August 2021.

Section 29A Time Limit Does Not Apply To Arbitral Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Chinar Steel Industries Vs Ircon International Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 924

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that time limit under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable to arbitral proceedings “commenced” as per Section 21 prior to 2015 amendment.

Delhi High Court Directs Man To Put Apology For Posting 'Offensive Tweet' Against Alt News' Mohd Zubair

Case Title: MOHAMMED ZUBAIR v. STATE OF GNCT & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 925

The Delhi High Court has directed a man named Jagdish Singh to put an apology on X Corp, formerly Twitter, for posting an “offensive tweet” against Alt News co founder Mohammed Zubair by calling him a “jihadi” in 2020.

[Cheque Dishonour] Accused Often Get Away Due To Lack Of Evidence, Courts Must Acknowledge Friendly Cash Loans Between Parties: Delhi HC

Case Title: Amit Jain vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh & Anr (Crl.A. 1248/2019)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 926

While hearing a matter on cheque bounce under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, the Delhi High Court recently said that it would be prudent for courts to acknowledge that friendly cash loans are provided between parties without an existing document trail, with accused often getting acquitted because the complainant is unable to prove the existence of a debt.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For 'Accessible' EWS/DG Category Admissions In Private Unaided Recognized Schools

Title: GUNJAN AS GUARDIAN OF PIHU v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 927

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to ensure “respectful and accessible” admissions of students in all private unaided recognized schools under the EWS/DG category in the national capital.

Justice Swarana Kanta also directed all the stakeholders to ensure that there is a seamless merger of EWS and non-EWS students in the schools, as per the spirit of Right to Education Act.

AO Ought To Grant TDS Credit In Compliance Of ITAT's Directions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ESS Singapore Branch Versus DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 928

The Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) ought to grant TDS credit in compliance with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT's) directions.

Court's Role Under Section 11(5) Or 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Limited To Verifying Arbitration Agreement And Timely Filing: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Raj Kumari Taneja Vs Rajinder Kumar & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 929

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held when a Court exercises jurisdiction under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it has to only ensure the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and to confirm that the petition under these sections has been filed within three years of the service of a Section 21 notice.

Excise Duty Disputes Non-Arbitrable Only When Involving Sovereign Functions Including Determination Of Tax Rate Or Liability: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs Paramount Communications Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 930

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a dispute regarding excise duty is only non-arbitrable when it involves a sovereign function, such as determining tax liability or the rate at which duty must be paid to revenue authorities.

Delhi High Court Allows Medical Termination Of Pregnancy For Woman In Live-In-Relationship

Title: MRS C v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 931

The Delhi High Court has recently permitted a 27-year-old woman, a single mother abandoned by her husband, to undergo medical termination of a 22-week pregnancy arising from a live-in relationship.

Consumer Protection Regulations Must Be Interpreted To Align With Overarching Goal Of RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) vs A K Jain

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 932

The Delhi High Court observed that the absence of explicit prohibition on third parties from accessing information related to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 as a gap in the regulatory framework and this the Regulations should be interpreted in line with the RTI Act's goal of enhancing transparency.

Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators Or Loudspeakers To Echo Whatever Is Written In Chargesheet: Delhi High Court

Title: ANKUSH & ANR. v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 933

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that Courts cannot be silent spectators or loudspeakers to echo whatever has been presented before them in the chargesheet.

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 983

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

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

Title: Sameer Mahendru v. ED and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 984

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

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

Title: Somnath Bharti v. Bansuri Swaraj and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 985

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 986

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 987

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

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

Case Title: Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 988

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 989

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 990

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

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

Case title: DHEERAJ WADHAWAN vs. CBI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 991

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 992

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 993

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

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

Case Title: Union Of India Vs Arsh Constructions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 994

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 995

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 996

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

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

Case Title: Divine Infracon Private Limited Vs DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 997

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

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

Case Title: Meenakshi Agrawal Vs M/S Rototech

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 998

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 999

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1000

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1001

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

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

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

Case title: Arun Pillai v Enforcement Directorate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1002

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1003

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1004

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1005

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1006

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

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

Case Title: Jagatmitra Foundation v. UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1007

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1008

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

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

Case title: Parvinder Singh v CBI and other cases

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1009

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1010

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1011

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1012

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1013

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

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

Title: SONU RAJPUT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1014

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

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

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

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1015

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

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

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

Case Title: VIJAY KAUSHIK Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1022

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

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

Title: Amit Arora v. ED and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1024

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

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

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

Title: Munna v. MCD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

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

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

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

Title: X v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

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

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

Title: RB v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

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

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

Title: ADNAN NISAR v. ED & other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1033

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1034

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

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

Maliwal was then the Chairperson of DCW.

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

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

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

Case Title: M/s SS Enterprises versus Principal Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

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

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

Case Title: PCIT versus RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

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

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

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

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

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

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

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

Case Title: Christian Michel James v. CBI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

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

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

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

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

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

Case Title: Abhinav Jindal HUF versus ITO

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

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

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

Case title: Rajiv Oberoi vs. Rajesh Gupta

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

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

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

Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. RAHIL HITESHBHAI CHOVATIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

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

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

Title: SHUBHAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1068

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

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

Case Title: International Hospital vs. DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

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

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

Title: STATE THROUGH RPF v. DHARMENDRA @ DHARMA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

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

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

Case Title: Director of Income Tax versus ANZ Grindlays Bank

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

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

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

Case title: Sanat Kumar v/s Sanjay Sharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

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

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

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