Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 14 To August 20, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 682 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 713

NOMINAL INDEX

Oxfam India Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 682

RANJEET KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 683

H&M Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 684

SRI SATYA SAI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICAL SCIENCES SEHORE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 685

THE STATE v. MAIKALE RAM & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 686

Blackberry India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise And CGST Division 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 687

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS INC. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGN, TRADEMARK AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS, & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 688

Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Religare Finvest Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 689

Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. Madhyanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 690

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED v. SHREE AMBA INDUSTRIES 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 691

PCIT Versus ARN Infrastructure Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 692

PCIT Versus Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 693

LK v. OPM 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 694

NARENDER BHUTANI v. ANJALI BHUTANI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 695

MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 696

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD. v. FINECURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD& ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 697

Geeta Sharma vs Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 698

Emami Limited vs Dabur India Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 699

XYZ v. BHARAT PRAKASHAN (DELHI) LTD AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 700

Y.K. Goyal v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 701

R.K. KAPOOR v. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 702

Steelman Telecom Limited v. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 703

RDB AND CO(HUF) v. HARPER COLLINS PUBLISHERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 704

CONFERENCE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (INDIA) (REGD.) v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 705

CCL M A v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 706

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SOUTH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 707

M/S Vikas Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax (GST) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 708

Deepak Khandelwal Proprietor Versus Commissioner Of CGST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 709

Darpan Kohli Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 710

SUMAIYA JAN @ SOUMAYYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 711

M/s G.S. Express Pvt Ltd v. NTPC Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 712

ABHIJIT MISHRA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 713

Delhi High Court Stays Income Tax Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Against Oxfam India

Case Title: Oxfam India Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 682

The Delhi High Court has stayed the income tax reassessment proceedings initiated against Oxfam India.

"A counter-affidavit will be filed within the next six (6) weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed at least five days before the next date of hearing. In the meantime, there shall be a stay on the continuation of the reassessment proceeding till further directions of the court," the bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed.

The assessee/appellant has challenged the reassessment notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

[POCSO Act] Mere Absence Of Injuries On Victim’s Private Parts No Ground To Hold That Penetrative Sexual Assault Did Not Take Place: Delhi High Court

Title: RANJEET KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 683

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere absence of injuries on victim’s private parts cannot be a ground to hold that penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act did not take place.

Justice Amit Bansal made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man for committing rape of a four and a half years old girl in June 2017.

The court observed that the man, who was the minor’s neighbor, was not able to shake the version of the prosecution which had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Delhi HC Quashes Summons Issued To H&M Over Alleged Violation Of 2011 Legal Metrology Rules

Case: H&M Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 684

The Delhi High Court bench led by Justice Amit Bansal quashed a summoning order against H&M Pvt. Ltd., situated at Select City Walk Mall, Saket for violating Section 13(3)(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 [“2011 Rules”].

H&M Pvt. Ltd. is a multinational clothing company based in Sweden that focuses on fast-fashion clothing. Upon being inspected, the Legal Metrology Department wrongfully concluded that H&M Pvt. Ltd. had not followed the mandatory labelling requirements. The High Court held that the 2011 Rules are not applicable on ‘loose garments’. Hence, H&M Pvt. Ltd. was absolved of liability.

Not Permissible To Dilute Time Schedule Of Medical Courses Under Article 226 In Absence Of Any Justifiable Reason: Delhi High Court

Title: SRI SATYA SAI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICAL SCIENCES SEHORE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 685

The Delhi High Court has observed that no dilution of the time schedule with respect to medical courses, which is mandatory and binding on all, is permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in absence of any justifiable reason.

“Undoubtedly, medical education requires facilities and infrastructure of the highest standard as also the adherence to the time schedule for imparting premier education to candidates, thereby ensuring that the community receives the best possible medical practitioners,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.

‘Rip Van Slumber Extended To More Than 27 Yrs’: Delhi HC Refuses To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal Against Acquittal In 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case

Title: THE STATE v. MAIKALE RAM & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 686

Invoking the famous American short story “Rip Van Winkle”, the Delhi High Court has refused to condone the delay of more than 27 years in filing of an appeal by the prosecution against the acquittal of various accused persons way back in 1995 in relation to the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots case.

“In the present case, Rip Van Winklian Slumber has extended to more than 27 years and there is no explanation for this inordinate delay and the grounds taken by the State are not justifiable. Therefore, we find no merit in the present application, and the same is hereby dismissed,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Delhi High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To Process Blackberry’s Claim Of Interest Under Section 11BB Of The Excise Act

Case Title: Blackberry India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise And CGST Division

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 687

The Delhi High Court has directed the adjudicating authority to process Blackberry’s claim of interest under Section 11BB of the Excise Act.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that there is no cavill that the petitioner would be entitled to interest in terms of Section 11BB of the Excise Act from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of an application for a refund if it is not processed within the said period of three months.

Ensure Strict Compliance Of Provisions Dealing With Pre Or Post Grant Oppositions To Patent: Delhi High Court To Controller General

Title: AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS INC. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGN, TRADEMARK AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS, & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 688

The Delhi High Court has requested the Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to ensure strict compliance of the provisions dealing with pre or post grant oppositions to a patent under the Patents Rules, 2003.

“…Controller General is requested to ensure that, hereafter, there is strict compliance with the provisions of the Patents Rules, particularly Rule 57, read with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cipla, while dealing with and processing pre- or post-grant oppositions,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

The Supreme Court in Cipla Ltd v. Union of India held that the report or recommendation of the Opposition Board should be made available to the parties in question before the Controller passes orders under Section 25(4) of the Patents Act.

Borrowers Should Avail Statutory Remedies Under SARFAESI Act Before Invoking Article 226 Against Recovery Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Religare Finvest Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 689

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the SARFAESI Act provides statutory remedies for borrowers, including the right to appeal, and that the court should not interfere in recovery proceedings unless there is a clear violation of law.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav reiterated that the borrower will have to wait till measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the mortgaged property are taken by the creditor. In the interregnum period, the scope for interference in writ jurisdiction is not warranted.

Designation Of Venue Would Override A Generic ‘Exclusive Jurisdiction’ Clause: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. Madhyanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 690

The Delhi High Court has held that a venue where the arbitral proceedings were anchored is essentially the ‘seat of arbitration’ and it would override a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause. It held that a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause is not a contrary indicia that prevents the venue from becoming the seat of arbitration.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that for an exclusive jurisdiction to override a venue clause, it must specifically provide that the Courts at a particular place have exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause which does not refer to arbitration proceedings as such does not override the venue clause.

No Prima Facie Presumption Regarding Validity Of 'Design' On Account Of Its Registration: Delhi High Court Declines Interim Relief To Hero Motocorp

Title: HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED v. SHREE AMBA INDUSTRIES

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 691

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to temporarily restrain a bike manufacturer from selling front fender for its motorcycles in a suit filed by Hero Motocorp alleging that it was a copy of its registered V shaped front fender design fixed to “HERO HF DELUXE” bikes.

Justice Amit Bansal said that Hero Motocorp failed to make out a case for grant of interim injunction in its favour and that irreparable harm will be caused to manufacturer, Shree Amba Industries, if an interim injunction is granted in favour of Hero.

Officer Concerned Not Authorized To Administer Oath, No Evidentiary Value: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus ARN Infrastructure Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 692

The Delhi High Court while upholding the ITAT’s ruling held that the addition of Rs. 10 crore was made purely on the basis of the statement made by directors without corroborative evidence.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that there is a qualitative difference between the statement recorded under Section 133A and Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The statement recorded under Section 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value since the officer concerned is not authorised to administer an oath and record a sworn statement. It is in contradiction with the statement recorded under Section 132(4), which is recorded on oath by an officer who is vested with the necessary powers.

Delhi High Court Deletes BLT Based AMP Adjustment For Yakult Danone For Non-Existence Of International Transaction

Case Title: PCIT Versus Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 693

The Delhi High Court has deleted the Bright Line Test (BLT)-based Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) Adjustment for Yakult Danone for the non-existence of international transactions.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has dismissed the department’s appeal, which challenged the ITAT’s order, and held that the "bright line test" has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed.

False Allegations Of Illicit Relationship Are Ultimate Kind Of Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: LK v. OPM

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 694

Upholding a family court order granting decree of divorce to a husband on the ground of mental cruelty by wife, the Delhi High Court has observed that false allegations of illicit relationship are “ultimate kind of cruelty.”

“False allegations of illicit relationship are the ultimate kind of cruelty as it reflects a complete breakdown of trust and faith amongst the spouses without which no matrimonial relationship can survive,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Delhi High Court Orders Criminal Contempt Action Against Man For Making 'Scandalous Remarks' Against Family Court Judge In Pleadings

Case Title: NARENDER BHUTANI v. ANJALI BHUTANI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 695

The Delhi High Court has directed its Registry to register a case of criminal contempt against a man for making scandalous allegations against a Principal Judge of a family court in the national capital.

“The Registry is directed to register a case of Criminal Contempt against the petitioner and subject to the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, place the same before an appropriate Division Bench of this Court,” Justice Navin Chawla said.

While directing the man to appear in person before the division bench on September 1, the court prima facie observed that the husband was in the habit of making scandalous remarks against the judges in order to browbeat them.

Ensure Availability Of Forces Before Holding Colleges Fests Or Functions: High Court Directs Delhi Police

Case Title: MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I) & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 696

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police and college authorities to ensure that proper police force is available before a fest or function is organized in the institutions in national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also clarified that as and when such functions take place in any college or institution, it shall be the Delhi Police’s duty to ensure the safety and security of the students.

The court passed the order while disposing of a public interest litigation seeking inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation into the alleged instances of molestation and sexual misconduct inside Delhi University’s Gargi College in 2020.

Proprietor Must Establish 'Validity' Of Trademark Registration U/S 28 To Obtain Relief Against Infringement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD. v. FINECURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD& ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 697

The Delhi High Court has ruled that proprietorship of registration in respect of a trademark does not ipso facto entitle to the proprietor the right to obtain relief against infringement of the mark.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that the rights to claim exclusivity over the trademark and to obtain relief against its infringement, as envisaged under Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act, are conditional on the trademark registration being valid.

Can Seniority Guidelines Override Preference For Chartered Accountants In Appointments For Public Sector Enterprises? Delhi HC Refers To Larger Bench

Case Title: Geeta Sharma vs Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 698

The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger bench the issue of whether Seniority Guidelines based on pay scales/Board Level positions can override the preference for Chartered Accountants in the job advertisement for the post of Director (Finance) in Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs).

Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a petition challenging the appointment of Directors (Finance) in Telecommunications Consultants (India) Ltd. (TCIL) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). 

Delhi High Court Restrains Dabur From Selling Its ‘Cool King Thanda Tel’ In A Packing Similar To Emami’s 'Navratna Ayurvedic Oil'

Case Title: Emami Limited vs Dabur India Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 699

The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order restraining Dabur from selling its ‘Cool King Thanda Tel’ in a packing confusingly or deceptively similar to Emami’s 'Navratna Ayurvedic Oil'.

The bench comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar noted that there was a clear attempt by Dabur to make its product appear similar to Emami’s Navratna Ayurvedic Oil and that prima facie, the same was intended to create confusion in the mind of an average consumer.

Delhi HC Orders RSS Weekly ‘Organizer’ To Remove Article Alleging Sexual Exploitation Of Nuns, Hindu Women By Principal Of Christian School

Case Title: XYZ v. BHARAT PRAKASHAN (DELHI) LTD AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 700

The Delhi High Court has directed RSS weekly magazine “Organizer” and another website “The Commune” to remove an article alleging that the Principal of a reputed Christian school in the national capital sexually exploited nuns and Hindu women.

Justice Jyoti Singh passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Principal in his suit against the two publications which published the article titled “Indian Catholic Church Sex Scandal: Priest exploiting nuns and Hindu women exposed” in June this year.

Pre-Arbitration Reference To DRC Would Not Be A Bar To Appointment Of Arbitrator When The Chief Engineer Has Failed To Respond To Notice Of Dispute: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Y.K. Goyal v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 701

The Delhi High Court has held that in a multi-tier dispute resolution clause which provides for pre-arbitration reference to Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), the failure to refer the dispute to DRC would not be a ground to refuse appointment of arbitrator when the Chief Engineer against whose decision an appeal was to be filed before DRC failed to respond to notice of dispute.

The bench of Sachin Datta held in a multi-tier arbitration clause, a party would have no occasion to file an appeal before the DRC when the Chief Engineer has failed respond to that party’s notice of dispute, therefore, not approaching the DRC would be no ground to dismiss the arbitration petition. It further held that it is incumbent upon the Chief Engineer to render its decision within the time period provided in the agreement.

Rainwater Harvesting Should Be Seamlessly Integrated Into Delhi’s Climate Resilience Planning, Authorities Must Explore Innovative Strategies: High Court

Case Title: R.K. KAPOOR v. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 702

Taking note of the “unprecedented weather events” witnessed by the national capital this year, the Delhi High Court has observed that rainwater harvesting should be seamlessly integrated into the city's climate resilience planning for which the authorities must continually explore innovative strategies.

“A persistent focus on educating the public and resident welfare associations about the advantages of rainwater harvesting, coupled with practical implementation guidance, can catalyze a cultural shift towards sustainable water practices,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Equilibrium Is Disturbed Where The Party Drawing Up The Panel Of Arbitrator Is Given A Further Right To Accord Its “Confirmation” To Nomination Made By Other Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Steelman Telecom Limited v. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 703

The Delhi High Court has held that the equilibrium is disturbed where the party drawing up the panel of arbitrator is given a further right to accord its “confirmation” to nomination made by other party.

Justice Sachin Datta held that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE), the appointment of an arbitrator from a panel maintained by the other party is not invalid as it seeks to counterbalance the right of one party to draw a panel of arbitrator with the right of the other party to make the appointment from such a panel, however, it must be a broad panel as held by the Apex Court in Voestalpine Schienen.

Delhi High Court Upholds Single Judge Order Holding Satyajit Ray As First Owner Of Copyright In ‘Nayak’ Movie

Case Title: RDB AND CO(HUF) v. HARPER COLLINS PUBLISHERS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 704

The Delhi High Court has upheld a single judge order which ruled that late director Satyajit Ray is the first owner of copyright in 1966 Bengali film 'Nayak' and that the right to novelize its screenplay is also vested in him.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the appeal moved by RDB and Co. HUF, whose 'Karta' R.D. Bansal had commissioned Ray to write and direct the film, challenging the single judge order passed on May 23.

Regular Drives For Sterlization And Immunization Of Stray Dogs An Important Public Function: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: CONFERENCE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (INDIA) (REGD.) v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 705

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government and civic authorities to continue making efforts for sterlization and immunization of stray dogs in the national capital.

“The respondents are directed to ensure that they continue with their efforts and drive for sterilization and immunization of stray dogs, as the same is an important public function and is required to be performed in all its earnestness,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Jasmeet Singh ordered.

Preliminary Assessment Of Mental & Physical Capacity Of Juvenile To Commit Heinous Offence Must Be Concluded Expeditiously: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CCL M A v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 706

The Delhi High Court has ruled that every preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act in relation to heinous offences committed by a juvenile must be initiated and concluded expeditiously in terms of section 14 of the Act.

“In case of heinous offences, the Juvenile Justice Boards are required to follow the mandate of Section 14(3) and proviso to Section 14(4) in their true spirit and dispose of the proceedings before it expeditiously and without any unnecessary and unreasonable delay,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Ensure No Illegal Dumping Of Plastic, Electrical And Medical Garbage, Take Action Against Defaulting Units: Delhi High Court To MCD

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SOUTH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 707

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to ensure that there is no illegal dumping of electrical, plastic and medical garbage in the national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also directed the civic body to take appropriate action against all the defaulting units under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

Provisional Attachment Of Bank Accounts Adversely Impact Assessee’s Business: Delhi High Court Imposes Rs. 5k Cost On Superintendent Anti-Evasion

Case Title: M/S Vikas Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax (GST)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 708

The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the department and observed that the provisional attachment of bank accounts adversely impacts the assessee’s business.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the communication seeking to place a debit freeze on the petitioner’s account emanated from Superintendent Anti-Evasion and not from the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction in respect of the taxpayer. The communication also does not indicate that it was issued with the authority of the Commissioner.

Notice Lacked Reasons to Show Wrongful Availment Of ITC: Delhi High Court Releases Seized Currency, Other Valuable Assets

Case Title: Deepak Khandelwal Proprietor Versus Commissioner Of CGST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 709

The Delhi High Court has directed the release of the currency and other valuable assets seized from the petitioner during the search proceedings.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act does not specify any particular reasons to show that "input tax credit has been wrongly availed of or utilised."

Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Penalty Notice Issued On The Strength Of A Non-Existent Assessment Order

Case Title: Darpan Kohli Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 710

The Delhi High Court has quashed the penalty notice issued on the strength of a non-existent assessment order.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the department had issued a show cause notice for penalty under Section 271 F on the strength of an assessment order dated May 9, 2023, which was already set aside by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide judgement dated May 31, 2023.

Trial Court Must Give Prima Facie View About Basis Of Framing Charges Against Accused Under Juvenile Justice Act: Delhi High Court

Title: SUMAIYA JAN @ SOUMAYYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 711

The Delhi High Court has said that the trial court is required to give a prima facie view stating that on what basis charges have been framed against an accused under the Juvenile Justice Act.

“Though at the stage of charge the court is not required to pass detailed order. However, the court is required to give prima facie view that on what basis the charges were framed,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.

Clause Restricting Right To Invoke Arbitration To Only 6 Months Invalid; Cannot Restrict To Period Lesser Than Provided Under Limitation Act: Delhi HC Reiterates

Case Title: M/s G.S. Express Pvt Ltd v. NTPC Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 712

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an arbitration clause that restricts the right of a party to a mere of 6 months is invalid. The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna held that the right to invoke arbitration cannot be restricted to a period lesser than that provided under the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court was hearing an application under Section 11(6) filed by G.S. Express Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen between the parties.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PILs Alleging Violation Of Regulatory And Privacy Norms By Google Pay

Title: ABHIJIT MISHRA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 713

The Delhi High Court has dismissed two public interest litigations filed against Google Pay alleging that the payment platform violated regulatory and privacy norms under the Indian law.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the petitions moved by Abhijit Mishra, who sought directions on Reserve Bank of India to direct Google Pay to cease its operations in India for the alleged violation.

One of the PILs moved by Mishra sought direction upon the UIDAI to initiate action against Google Pay for collecting, storing and using the users’ Aadhar information in the violation of the Aadhar Act, 2016.