Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 28 To September 03, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 757 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 784

NOMINAL INDEX

Aseem Aggarwal v. Ashi Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 757

ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUN PICTURES A DIVISION OF SUN TV NETWORK LTD.AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 758

RS v. AS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 759

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 760

VARUN BHATIA v. STATE AND ANOTHER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 761

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 762

DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 763

RAMADA INTERNATIONAL,INC v. LA-RAMADA WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 764

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. v. SHEETAL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 765

Siddharth Mishra & Ors. v. UPSC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 766

POOJA SINGH v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 767

Spelndor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 768

RAMESH v. SMT. MEENAKSHI LEKHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 769

Rajeev Chhatwal Versus Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (East) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 770

NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD v. RAM AVTAR GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 771

J BALAJI v. THE HINDU NEW DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 772

DIXITA GOLWALA vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 773

ZAHIR ABDULLAH & ANR v. OMAR ABDULLAH and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 774

PRAFUL BILLORE & ANR. v. BAEROJGAR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 775

MS. N v. STATE & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 776

SHRI ANIL KUMAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 777

SILVERMAPLE HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS vs DR AJAY DUBEY & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 778

A v. S 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 780

Rekha Rani and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 781

Liberty Footwear Company v. Liberty Shoes Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 782

Amit Guglani v. L&T Housing Finance 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 783

UNION OF INDIA v. VANSH SHARAD GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 784

Courts Must Make Judicious Use Of Order VII Rule 11 For Expeditious Disposal Of Petition, Discard Frivolous Litigation : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aseem Aggarwal v. Ashi Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 757

The Delhi High Court recently said that Courts must judiciously use the provision for rejection of plaint, Order VII Rule 11, to dispose of the pleas expeditiously and to discard frivolous litigation.

The division bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed,

“ Scrupulous adherence to provisions of CPC especially provisions like Order VII Rule 11 CPC can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation that could have been nipped in the initial stage itself, also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief, which is never to come their way. This not only leads to dejection amongst the litigants towards the system but also leads to prolonged acrimony between the parties which is not conducive to a robust judicial system and ultimately to a peaceful society.”

Don't Exhibit 'RCB Jersey' In Jailer Movie: Delhi High Court To Filmmakers In Suit By IPL Team

Case Title: ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUN PICTURES A DIVISION OF SUN TV NETWORK LTD.AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 758

The Delhi High Court has directed the filmmakers of Rajnikanth starrer Jailer movie to ensure that from September 01 onwards, none of the theatres exhibit the jersey of IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore, as worn by a contract killer in one of the scenes in the film.

Regarding the movie’s release on television, satellite or any OTT platform, Justice Prathiba M Singh said that an altered version of the film shall be broadcasted or telecasted prior to such release.

Husband Has No Right To Torture Wife And Beat Her Merely Because They Are Married: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RS v. AS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 759

While dissolving a decade old marriage of a couple, the Delhi High Court has observed that no law has given husband the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture merely because they got married.

“ Merely because the parties got married and the respondent was her husband, no law gave him the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Section 34 Petition Filed Without Impugned Award And Statement Of Truth Is Non-Est: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 760

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a Section 34 petition filed unaccompanied by the impugned award and without the statement of truth would not constitute a valid filing. The Court observed that the petition as originally filed was without the impugned award and statement of truth and constituted of only 46 pages, however, the refiled version ran into 1785 pages which included the impugned award, therefore, the original filing would be non-est.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 34 would stop only on the date when the petition is properly filed and a non-est filing would not stop the limitation.

Insulting A Woman Or Not Behaving With Her In A Chivalrous Manner Won’t Amount To ‘Outraging Her Modesty’: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VARUN BHATIA v. STATE AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 761

The Delhi High Court has ruled that insulting a woman, being rude to her and not behaving with her in a chivalrous manner, as she would expect one to behave, will not be covered under the definition of “outraging the modesty of a woman” as per Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“ The Courts will also have to consider, while adjudicating the cases of Section 509 IPC, the background of the complainant before it, as that can also guide the Courts in deciding as to what the complainant in a case, in given circumstances, would have interpreted or would the complainant's modesty with those words could be said to be outraged,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Sending Scanned Copy Of A Signed Arbitral Award Through Email Constitutes A Valid Delivery Under Section 31(5) Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 762

The Delhi High Court has held that an email sent by the arbitral tribunal to the parties wherein the scanned copy of the signed award is attached constitutes a valid delivery of the award under Section 31(5) of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the period of limitation for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act would commence on the date of the subject email and the fact that the award was physically collected on a later date is immaterial qua the limitation.

Delhi High Court Constitutes Fact Finding Committee To Evaluate Drinking Water And Sanitation Conditions In Tihar Jail

Case Title: DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 763

The Delhi High Court has constituted a four member fact finding committee to evaluate the drinking water, sanitation and hygiene conditions in Tihar Jail.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula directed that the members of the committee shall be Advocates Dr. Amit George, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Nandita Rao and Tushar Sannu.

‘Pay ₹5 Lakh Or Face Civil Prison For Repeatedly Breaching Injunction Order’: Delhi High Court To Hotel In Ramada's Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: RAMADA INTERNATIONAL,INC v. LA-RAMADA WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 764

The Delhi High Court has directed a hotel to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with its Registry for repeated breach and “contumacious disobedience” of an injunction order passed against it in a trademark infringement suit filed by international hospitality company Ramada.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that in case the sum is not deposited, Kumar Sambhav, the Director of La Ramada World Resort and Spa, would be taken into custody to suffer incarceration in civil prison for a period of week.

Seek Candidates' Eligibility Proof During Submission Of Application To Avoid Cancellation Of Candidature After Shortlisting: Delhi HC To DSSSB

Case Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. v. SHEETAL

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 765

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to amend its selection process and ask the candidates to upload documents showing their eligibility, caste and other details at the time of submission of the application itself.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta passed the direction to ensure that in case a candidate is unable to upload the said documents after the results are announced, the DSSSB can rely or consider them after they are uploaded at the time of submission of the application and due verification.

Civil Services Exam 2023: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking 10% Reduction In CSAT Cut-Off

Case Title: Siddharth Mishra & Ors. v. UPSC

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 766

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal which refused to order reduction in cut off for Civil Services Aptitude Test 2023 from 33% to 23%.

Referring to a number of precedents including Ranjan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014), the division bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendriatta said,

“ The Tribunal had rightly observed that the said judgments restrain judicial bodies/fora from interfering with competitive selection processes merely on the ground that some of the candidates may have questioned the selection process or the syllabus of the examination, even though they had voluntarily participated in the examination.”

Extortion Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Conman Sukesh Chandrashekar’s Alleged Woman Aide

Case Title: POOJA SINGH v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 767

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a woman, an alleged close aide of conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, accused of assisting him while he was lodged in Tihar Jail through a contractual nursing staff and for helping him run an extortion racket from the prison.

Pooja Singh was employed by Chandrashekar’s wife Leena Maria Paul as manager of her nail artistry salon. Paul is also a co-accused in the case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that Singh was a young woman of about 25 to 26 years and that the Enforcement Directorate did not allege that she used “even a single paisa” for her own benefit.

Court Has Power To Issue Time Bound Directions To Collector Of Stamps To Decide On Unstamped Arbitration Agreements, Purpose Of Section 11(13) Of A&C Act Should Not Be Defeated: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Spelndor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 768

The Delhi High Court has held the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act has the power to issue time bound directions to Collector of Stamps to decide on unstamped arbitration agreements to ensure that the mandate of Section 11(13) of the A&C Act that provides for expeditious disposal of Section 11 petition should not be defeated.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of Union Minister Meenakshi Lekhi In 2019 General Polls

Case Title: RAMESH v. SMT. MEENAKSHI LEKHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 769

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the election of Meenakshi Lekhi, current Union Minister of State for External Affairs, from the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by Ramesh who contested as an independent candidate from the constituency and raised allegations of discrepancies in Lekhi’s election expenditure and her involvement in corrupt election practices.

Section 67(2) Of The GST Act Does Not Empower Seizure Of Currency Available In Premises During Search: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rajeev Chhatwal Versus Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (East)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 770

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 67(2) of the GST Act does not empower the seizure of currency available on premises during a search.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has directed the department to remit the amount seized to the petitioner’s bank account within a period of two weeks, along with accrued interest.

Section 14 Of Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings U/S 34 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD v. RAM AVTAR GUPTA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 771

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which provides for exclusion of time consumed in civil proceedings initiated before a Court not having the jurisdiction, applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh excluded 1239 days spent in prosecuting the petition under Section 34 petition before a Court not having the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court observed that a party prosecuting its case with due diligence, in good faith and under a bonafide mistake before a Court not having the jurisdiction would get the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the time consumed in such proceedings would stand excluded from the purview of limitation.

Industrial Disputes Act | Situs Of Workman’s Place Of Employment Vital To Confer Territorial Jurisdiction On Labour Court: Delhi High Court

Title: J BALAJI v. THE HINDU NEW DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 772

The Delhi High Court has observed that the situs of a workman’s place of employment is a determinative factor in conferring territorial jurisdiction on a labour court although not specified in the Industrial Disputes Act.

“Though the Industrial Disputes Act does not make any reference to the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, however, situs of the place of employment of a workman would be a determinative factor in conferring territorial jurisdiction upon a Labour Court for deciding a labour dispute raised by a workman,” a division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed.

Recovery Of Drugs From Couple’s Bedroom Is Attributable To Both Husband And Wife: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DIXITA GOLWALA vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 773

The Delhi High Court observed that recovery of drugs from the bedroom of a couple is attributable to both the husband and wife.

The court made the observation in a bail plea filed by the woman who was arrested in 2021 after drugs were recovered from the couple’s bedroom at their residence and from the husband’s office premises.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that bedroom is a private space shared by a husband and wife. Therefore, even if ganja is recovered from the couple’s bedroom at the instance of the husband, the recovery was made from the joint space of the couple and thus, it cannot be attributable to the husband alone.

Delhi High Court Directs Omar Abdullah To Pay Maintenance Of ₹1.5 Lakhs Per Month To Estranged Wife Payal

Title: ZAHIR ABDULLAH & ANR v. OMAR ABDULLAH and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 774

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1,50,000 per month to his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.

Justice Subramonium Prasad increased the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 75,000 which was directed by the family court in April 2018.

Delhi High Court Directs Nine YouTube Channels To Take Down ‘Defamatory And Disparaging’ Videos Against MBA Chai Wala

Case Title: PRAFUL BILLORE & ANR. v. BAEROJGAR & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 775

The Delhi High Court has directed nine YouTube channels to take down certain “defamatory and disparaging videos” against cafe chain MBA Chai Wala and its founder Praful Billore.

Justice Prathiba M Singh viewed one of the videos and noted that expressions like “MBA Fraud Wala” and various other derogatory expressions were used by the YouTube channels.

Delhi High Court Directs Registrar To Seek Explanation From Trial Court Judge For Passing Non-Reasoned Order Granting Bail To POCSO Accused

Case Title: MS. N v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 776

The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar (Vigilance) to seek an explanation from a trial court judge for passing a “non-reasoned” order granting bail to a POCSO accused.

“The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court is directed to seek explanation on the administrative side from the concerned Judge, as to the reasons for passing the non-reasoned impugned order, report whereof shall be placed before the concerned Hon‟ble Inspecting Judges Committee of this Court within one week for consideration,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

Sufficient Safeguards In Place: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Procedure Adopted For First Level Check Of EVMs For General Elections

Case Title: SHRI ANIL KUMAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 777

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL against the procedure adopted by the Chief Electoral Officer during the First-Level Checking (FLC) of EVMs and VVPATs to be used in the upcoming Lok Sabha polls in 2024.

The PIL was filed by the President of Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee through Advocates Aljo K. Joseph and Sunil Kumar alleging that sufficient notice was not given to political parties before conduct of FLC and that EVM details were not provided despite asking, thus defeating the whole purpose of the process.

Trademark Infringement | Except In "Most Exceptional Cases", No Ex-Parte Injunction If Defendant Has Been In Market For Some Time: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SILVERMAPLE HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS vs DR AJAY DUBEY & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 778

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in cases where the impugned mark has been used by the defendant for any length of time, the courts must give an opportunity to the defendant to respond to the application for interim injunction filed in a trademark infringement suit before passing any orders.

“ Where the impugned mark has been used by the defendant for any length of time, that sole factor would entitle the defendant to an opportunity to respond, inviting, to the prayer for interlocutory injunctive relief, before orders are passed by the Court thereon,” the bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed.

Making False Allegations Of Dowry Harassment Or Rape Against Husband’s Family Members Is An Act Of Extremely Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: A v. S

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 780

The Delhi High Court has observed that making false allegations of dowry harassment or rape against the husband’s family members is an act of extreme cruelty for which there can be no condonation.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order which held a husband as entitled to divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Not Safe To Prosecute Accused For Abetment Of Suicide When Deceased Was Hyper-Sensitive: Delhi High Court

Title: Rekha Rani and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 781

The Delhi High Court has observed that it will not be safe to prosecute an accused for the offence of abetment of suicide when the deceased was “hyper-sensitive.”

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that in order to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there should be abetment and intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

Section 42 Bars Petitions In Different Courts, Fraud Or Collusion Allegations Can Only Be Examined By The First Court: Delhi HC

Case Title: Liberty Footwear Company v. Liberty Shoes Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 782

The Delhi High Court has decided that if a petition under Section 9 is submitted to any court other than the one where the initial application was made, Section 42 of the A&C Act will prevent it. 

This section grants exclusive jurisdiction to the first court for arbitration-related cases. First court is basically the court where an arbitration petition is filed at the first instance. Section 42 says that if I have filed an application before the Delhi High Court, any other application that I file before any other court say Calcutta, would be barred by limitation.

When There Are Two Interconnected Agreements With Conflicting Arbitration Clauses, The Clause Contained In The Main Agreement Should Be Given Primacy: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amit Guglani v. L&T Housing Finance

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 783

The Delhi High Court has held that when there are two interconnected agreements with conflicting arbitration clauses, the arbitration clause contained in the main/umbrella agreement should be given primacy over the other clause.

Justice Jyoti Singh held that when disputes under two connected agreements had different Arbitration Clauses, the disputes should be resolved under the main or umbrella agreement and the seat of arbitration should be determined as per the clause contained in the main agreement.

Periodically Monitor Status Of Uploading Central Acts, Other Legislations On India Code Portal: Delhi High Court To Law Ministry

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. VANSH SHARAD GUPTA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 784

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to periodically monitor the status of uploading Central Acts and subordinate legislations on “India Code” portal.

“The Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice is directed to periodically monitor the status of uploading the Acts on the India Code portal and ensure that the process is completed seamlessly and in a time-bound manner,” Justice Manmohan ordered.