Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 15 To April 21, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 451 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 472

NOMINAL INDEX

PRAGATI SHRIVASTAVA v. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 451

Rajiv Channa Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 452

Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigal Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 453

Lease Plan India Pvt Ltd v. Rudrakash Pharma Distributor 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 454

VEERPAL @ TITU v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 455

Akhil Gupta v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 456

M/s Advance Stimul v. GAIL India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 457

DRSYEDA SAIYIDAIN HAMEDA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 458

GAURAV BHATIA v. NAVEEN KUMAR & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 459

ROUSE AVENUE BAR ASSOCIATION v. THE BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 460

AARUSHI GUPTA v. STATE GNCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 461

Magnum Steels Ltd v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 462

NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 463

NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 464

SIKANDER SINGH THAKUR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 465

M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 466

Sunshine Capital Limited Versus DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 467

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 468

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 469

Videshi Kumar v State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 470

Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd v. Shivaa Trading 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 471

M/S Jain Cement Udyog (Through Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) Versus CBIC 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 472

Right To Be Identified By One's Name Fundamental To Individual's Identity: Delhi High Court

Title: PRAGATI SHRIVASTAVA v. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 451

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that name of an individual is an identity marker and the right to be identified by one's name is fundamental to one's very identity.

“It partakes, therefore, of a primordial necessity, and the Court has, when petitioned in that regard, to ensure that the request, if genuine, is acceded to,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Acquittal From Predicate Offence Would Lead To Cessation Of Consequential Proceedings Including Attachment Under PMLA: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Rajiv Channa Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 452

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that if the elementary foundation i.e., the scheduled offence is itself removed, consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shall also fall.

The division bench comprising Justices Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav And Yashwant Varma observed, “the appellant-Jeevan Kumar had already been acquitted of the scheduled offence, there can be no action for money-laundering against the other appellants in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. An inference can plausibly be drawn from the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus which means that upon removal of the foundation, the work collapses.”

Arbitrator Can Award Compensation On 'Guesswork' When Loss Is Difficult To Prove Subject To Maximum Amount Payable Under LD Clause: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigal Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 453

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitrator is empowered to award compensation to an aggrieved party that has suffered losses on the basis of 'rough and ready method' or 'guesswork' when the loss is difficult to prove.

The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal held that as long as there is material available with the arbitrator that damages have been suffered, but it does not give him an insight into the granular details, he is permitted the leeway to employ honest guesswork and/or a rough and ready method for quantifying damages.

Service On Whatsapp Number And Email Address Mentioned In The Agreement Constitutes A Valid Service: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Lease Plan India Pvt Ltd v. Rudrakash Pharma Distributor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 454

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that service of the petition on the WhatsApp number and the Email address mentioned in the agreement between the parties constitutes a valid service.

False Implication In Child Abuse Cases More Painful Than Rigours Of Trial And Imprisonment: Delhi High Court

Title: VEERPAL @ TITU v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 455

While acquitting a man in a POCSO FIR as there were “serious flaws and gaps” in the prosecution case, the Delhi High Court has observed that a false case of an alleged child abuser suffers a blot to social stigma which is more painful than the rigours of trial and imprisonment.

“A child abuser in the eventuality of false implication even continues to suffer a blot of social stigma which is much more painful than the rigours of a trial and imprisonment,” Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.

Insistence On Pre-Arbitral Steps Would Be Meaningless When The Respondent Fails To Give Reply To Notices Issued By The Petitioner: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Akhil Gupta v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 456

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh of Delhi High Court has held that pre-arbitral steps providing for resolution of disputes through mutual talks or through Ombudsman would lose its relevance when a party fails to give reply to notices issued by the other party seeking amicable settlement.

Notice Of Dispute To MSEF Council Under Section 18 Of MSMED Act Can Be Considered As Notice Of Arbitration Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Advance Stimul v. GAIL India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 457

The High Court of Delhi has held that a notice given by a party invoking jurisdiction of MSEF Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act can be considered to be a notice of arbitration required under Section 21 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation and M/S Silpi Industries, the position of law with respect to an entity not registered under the MSMED Act at the time of contract was not clear, therefore, the party wrongly invoking jurisdiction of MSEF Council cannot be faulted if it was due to uncertainty in law.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Dissolution Of Maulana Azad Education Foundation

Title: DRSYEDA SAIYIDAIN HAMEDA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 458

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the Union Government's decision to dissolve the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF) which was set up in 1989 for promoting education among educationally backward minorities.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna rejected the public interest litigation (PIL) moved by Dr. Syeda Saiyidain Hameed, John Dayal and Daya Singh.

Defamation: Delhi High Court Directs Take Down Of Tweets Against Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, Orders YouTube Videos To Be Made Private

Title: GAURAV BHATIA v. NAVEEN KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 459

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed an ad-interim injunction order in favour of Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia in his defamation suit against various YouTube channels and X users for posting allegedly “defamatory content” against him over an assault on him last month during a lawyer's strike at the Gautam Budh Nagar District & Sessions Court.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna disposed of Bhatia's application seeking interim relief in his defamation suit against the YouTube channels and X users.

'Central Delhi Court Bar Association' Shall Be Recognized As Court Annexed Bar Association For Rouse Avenue Court: Delhi High Court

Title: ROUSE AVENUE BAR ASSOCIATION v. THE BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 460

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central Delhi Court Bar Association shall be the recognized as the Court annexed Bar Association for the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex in the national capital.

“This, we hold is dehors the power of the Bar Council of Delhi to constitute a Bar Association under the Bar Association (Constitution, Recognition & Conduct of Election) Rules, 2019,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said.

If A Lover Commits Suicide Due To Love Failure, Lady Cannot Be Held For Abetment Of Suicide: Delhi High Court

Title: AARUSHI GUPTA v. STATE GNCT OF DELHI and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 461

The Delhi High Court has observed that where a lover commits suicide due to love failure, the lady cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide of the man.

Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that for the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.

Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act And RDDB Act Are Complimentary, Can Continue Parallelly: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Magnum Steels Ltd v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 462

The High Court of Delhi has held that proceedings under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act are complimentary to each other and both the proceedings can continue parallelly.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that since both the proceedings are complimentary, there would be no application of principle of election of remedies and the secured creditor can avail both the remedies together.

Non-Adjudication Upon An Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter Would Make The Arbitral Award Opposed To 'Public Policy': Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 463

The High Court of Delhi has held that non-adjudication, by the arbitral tribunal, upon an issue that goes to the root of the matter would make the arbitral award opposed to public policy. It held that such an award would be set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

An Arbitration Award With Contradictory Findings Is Liable To Be Set Aside Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 464

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration award, in which the tribunal rendered findings contrary to its own observations, falls within the rubric 'Public Policy' under Section 34 of the Act.

Delhi High Court Quashes Centre's Circular Banning Sale And Breeding Of 'Dangerous & Ferocious Dogs'

Title: SIKANDER SINGH THAKUR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 465

The Delhi High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying prohibiting the import, breeding and selling of several “dangerous and ferocious” dog breeds.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora quashed the circular issued on March 12 after the Union Government's counsel said that there was no objection if the same is set aside with a direction to issue a fresh circular after giving an opportunity to all the stakeholders to raise their objections.

NFAC Can't Sustain Invocation Of Penalty Proceedings Based On Their Own Failure To Lodge Claim Under IBC Within Time: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 466

The Delhi High Court has held that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) cannot sustain invocation of penalty proceedings based on their own failure to lodge a claim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) within time.

Failure Of Dept. To Comply With ITAT's Order: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Remove Demands, Penalty From ITBA portal

Case Title: Sunshine Capital Limited Versus DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 467

The Delhi High Court has held that the Department has failed to comply with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT's) Order in passing a fresh assessment order within the stipulated time.

Delhi High Court Orders Implementation Of Immediate Measures To Optimize Existing Medical Resources In Govt Hospitals

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 468

The Delhi High Court has directed the Secretary and Principal Health Secretary of the Delhi Government to implement immediate measures for optimization of existing resources in various government hospitals in the national capital within 30 days as recommended by a six-member expert committee.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora directed the two officials to indicate a road map as to how they intend to implement the intermediate and long term measures within the timeline stipulated by the court appointed Expert Committee.

Making Derogatory Complaints To Spouse's Employer To Harm Professional Reputation Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 469

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that making derogatory complaints to the employer of the spouse to harm professional reputation and financial well-being amounts to cruelty.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that making such complaints demonstrates a lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is crucial for a healthy marriage.

Delhi HC Acquits Two Men Sentenced To Life For Allegedly Committing Murder 26 Yrs Ago; Emphasizes Insufficiency of "Last Seen Together" Evidence

Case Title: Videshi Kumar v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 470

While overturning the conviction and life sentence of two individuals accused of a murder over 26 years ago, the Delhi High Court has acquitted them of all charges, while ruling that being "last seen together" with the victim is insufficient grounds for guilt.

In their ruling on the appeals against the trial court's October 2001 decision, Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain stated that the fact that the accused and victim worked together meant their being together wasn't necessarily unusual. They also expressed doubts about the reliability of the witnesses' testimonies.

An Award Issued By Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Can Be Contested For Invalidity Of Appointment, Even By The Appointing Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd v. Shivaa Trading

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 471

The High Court of Delhi has held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator can be challenged on ground of invalidity of such appointment and consequent lack of jurisdiction even by the party who made such an appointment.

GST Registration Cancellation Passed Solely For Non-Filing Of Reply: Delhi High Court Remits The Matter For Re-Adjudication

Case Title: M/S Jain Cement Udyog (Through Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) Versus CBIC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 472

The Delhi High Court has held that GST registration cancellation passed solely for non-filing of reply is unsustainable.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the matter was liable to be remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication.