Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 18 To December 24, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1300 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1341

NOMINAL INDEX

INDIWAR PARIJAT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1300

PCIT Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1301

ARIF v. STATE and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1302

MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1303

PCIT Versus M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1304

CIT Versus Hersh Washesher Chadha 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1305

M/S KUEHNE + NAGEL PVT. LTD. v. MR. PREM SINGHEE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1306

THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v. SHEELA ABHAY LODHA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1307

KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1308

DR. ARUN MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1309

Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1310

ATMARAM SARAOGI v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1311

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1312

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1313

NITIN GARG v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1314

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1315

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v. MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES AND ANR. & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1316

AMRIT LAL WADHERA & ANR. v. SAROJ SUNEJA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1317

SHISHIR CHAND v. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1318

KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1319

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1320

BHARAT NAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1321

Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1322

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1323

JASPREET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1324

WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. BAJAAR LLC AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1325

PCIT Versus B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1326

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1327

Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1328

VINOD KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1329

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CRIME-III, DELHI v. SHADAB 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1330

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1331

MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1332

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1333

TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. KABIR SHANKAR BOSE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1334

KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1335

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1336

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1337

NCLT BAR ASSOCIATION THR ITS SECRETARY GENERAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1338

R.K. GUPTA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1339

Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1340

The Hershey Company v. Atul Jalan trading as Akshat Online Traders 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1341

Insurance Company Has No Contractual Or Other Relationship With Transferee Of Offending Vehicle: Delhi High Court

Title: INDIWAR PARIJAT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1300

The Delhi High Court has observed that an Insurance Company has no contractual or other relationship with transferee of the offending vehicle in a road accident.

“The registered owner cannot absolve himself of the liability by contending that he had transferred the offending vehicle to a third person prior to the date of the accident,” Justice Navin Chawla said.

High-End KPO Services Provider Can't Be Compared With ITeS, Which Is BPO Services Provider: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1301

The Delhi High Court has held that the high-end knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) services provider cannot be compared with the information technology-enabled services (ITeS), which fall under the category of BPO services provider.

Delhi Riots: High Court Grants Bail To Two Men, Denies Bail To One In Rahul Solanki Murder Case

Title: ARIF v. STATE and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1302

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men and denied bail to one in a 2020 North-East Delhi riots case where a bystander, Rahul Solanki, lost his life due to a gunshot injury.

Justice Amit Bansal granted bail to Arif and Anish Qureshi, who have been in custody since March 09, 2020, observing that the trial is likely to take a long time and they cannot be kept under incarceration for an indefinite period.

2024 Lok Sabha Polls: Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Urgent Implementation Of 'Women's Reservation Bill'

Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1303

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking urgent implementation of the “Women's Reservation Bill, 2023” to ensure the reservation of 33% seats for women in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted liberty to the petitioner, a lawyer, Yogamaya MG, who withdrew the plea after some arguments, to approach the Supreme Court before which a similar petition has been filed.

No Upward Adjustment Required To Be Carried Out For Amount Received By Sony India From Its AE: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1304

The Delhi High Court has held that no upward adjustment concerning advertising, marketing, and promotion expenses (AMP) ought to have been made as the comparables chosen by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had a net margin lower than that registered by the assessee, Sony India.

S. 69A Of Income Tax Act Can Only Be Invoked Where Books Of Account Are Maintained: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus Hersh Washesher Chadha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1305

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked where books of account are maintained.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the assessee is a non-resident Indian, and his source of income in India is interest on bank accounts and interest on income tax refunds. He is not obliged to maintain any books of account in India.

'Wilful' Disobedience For Contempt Excludes Casual, Bona Fide Acts, Does Not Encompass Negligent Actions: Delhi High Court

Title: M/S KUEHNE + NAGEL PVT. LTD. v. MR. PREM SINGHEE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1306

The Delhi High Court has observed that “wilful” disobedience of a judicial order by a contemnor excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.

“Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with malice or without a justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same,” Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.

Judicial System Can't Function If Parties Are Allowed To Resile From Their Undertaking Without Any Reasons: Delhi High Court

Title: THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v. SHEELA ABHAY LODHA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1307

The Delhi High Court has observed that the judicial system cannot function if the parties are permitted to resile from the undertaking given by them without any reasons.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that there is solemnity and seriousness attached to court proceedings and parties cannot give undertakings without intending to honour them, or at least, they must make sincere and conscious efforts to comply with the same.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10K Costs On Litigant Claiming Ownership Of Territory Between Ganga & Yamuna From Agra To Gurugram

Title: KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1308

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on one Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh who claimed property rights on the territory of Agra, running between rivers Yamuna and Ganga, to Meerut and other places including 65 revenue estates of Delhi, Gurugram and Uttarakhand.

Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed Singh's plea seeking a direction on the Union Government to adopt the process of merger, accession or enter into treaty with him for his claimed territory and pay the due compensation to him.

Insolvency Resolution Professional Not 'Public Servant' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. ARUN MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1309

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) does not fall within the meaning of “public servant” under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that it is not necessary that all duties which are broadly defined as “public duty” would encompass within itself “public character”.

Decision To Cancel GST Registration With Retrospective Effect Must Be Based On Some Objective Criteria: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1310

The Delhi High Court has held that the decision to cancel the GST registration with retrospective effect must be based on some objective criteria.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on account of non-filing of returns for a period of six months. 

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Replace Term 'Central Government' With 'Union Government' In Laws, Notifications

Case Title: ATMARAM SARAOGI v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1311

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation for using the expression "Union Government" instead of "Central Government" in all legislations, orders, notifications, Rules, executive actions and circulars.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the two terms can be used interchangeably and it was not a case of PIL.

Look Into Allegations Of Over-Invoicing By Power Firms Including Adani, Essar Groups: Delhi High Court To CBI, DRI

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1312

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to “meticulously and expeditiously” look into the allegations of over invoicing of coal imports and equipments by several power companies, including those of Adani Group and Essar Group.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the authorities to “unearth the actual factual position” and take appropriate actions against the erring companies, if any, as per law.

Delhi High Court Constitutes Monitoring Committee To Periodically Review Recruitment Of Public Prosecutors

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1313

The Delhi High Court has constituted a monitoring committee to periodically review the recruitment of public prosecutors for trial courts here.


A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that cases are piling up in the trial courts due to lack of public prosecutors.

Vivo Money Laundering Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas Of Three Accused Alleging Illegal Detention In Jail Sans Judicial Order

Title: NITIN GARG v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1314

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas filed by three accused, in a money laundering case registered against smartphone manufacturer Vivo, alleging illegal custody in Tihar jail for want of judicial order remanding them to judicial custody.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur rejected the habeas corpus pleas moved by Nitin Garg, Pranay Rai and a Chinese national Guangwen Kuang alias Andrew.

Time For Filing Written Statement Can Be Extended By Family Courts If Exceptional Circumstances Shown: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1315

The Delhi High Court had said that the time period of filing written statement, being in the realm of procedural law, can be extended under the Family Courts Act, 1984, if the applicant spells out exceptional circumstances or disability faced by him or her in filing the same.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta however underscored that ordinarily, the time schedule for filing the written statement needs to be followed to deal with family disputes in an expeditious manner.

Is Plaintiff Entitled To Complete Refund Of Court Fees Where Dispute Settled Privately Without ADR Mechanism? Delhi High Court To Decide

Title: V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v. MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES AND ANR. & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1316

The Delhi High Court is set to decide as to whether a plaintiff in a civil suit would be entitled to complete refund of court fees or only to half of it, where the dispute is settled with the defendant privately, without intervention of any ADR mechanism.

Justice C Hari Shankar referred the question to a division bench, observing that the issue may have to be decided in the light of Sections 16 and Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, as well as different judgments of the Supreme Court and division benches on the issue.

When Tenant Is Absent From Tenanted Premises, Summons Must Be Served At Alternative Address: Delhi High Court

Title: AMRIT LAL WADHERA & ANR. v. SAROJ SUNEJA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1317

The Delhi High Court has said that where the tenant is undeniably absent from the address of tenanted premises, temporarily or permanently, court should make every sincere endeavour to serve summons upon the tenant at an alternate address.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that summoning by way of publication should only be resorted to when the circumstances are such that it leaves no scope for any other course of action.

Increasing Abuse Of RTI Act Has Led To Paralysis And Fear Among Government Officials: Delhi High Court

Title: SHISHIR CHAND v. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1318

The Delhi High Court has said that it has been coming across various cases where the abuse of Right to Information Act, 2005, has led to “paralysis and fear” among Government officials.

“The Act was brought into to provide for secure access to information to every citizen, and to prevent corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable. However, this Court is now seeing increasing abuse/misuse of the RTI Act…,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Delhi High Court Directs CISF To Amend Rules To Allow Recruitment Of Women As Drivers Within Six Months

Title: KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1319

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to amend its recruitment Rules to allow recruitment of women as drivers in the force, within six months.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by Union Government's counsel that it was not possible to give a definite timeline to the court within which the Recruitment Rules for CISF shall be amended.

Decide Plea To Link Properties With Aadhaar Within Three Months: Delhi High Court To Centre, Delhi Govt

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1320

The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre and the Delhi Government to decide within three months a public interest litigation seeking linking of property documents with Aadhaar by treating it as a representation.

A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia disposed of the plea moved by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, observing that it is a policy issue which has to be decided by the concerned authorities.

'Not In Good Taste': Delhi High Court On Rahul Gandhi's Speech Against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Directs ECI To Take Action

Title: BHARAT NAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1321

The Delhi High Court has said that the speech made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on November 22 in Rajasthan's Nadbai against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and calling him, along with Home Minister Amit Shah and Gautam Adami as “pick pocketors”, was “not in good taste.”

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by Advocate Suruchi Suri, the counsel representing Election Commission of India (ECI), that a show cause notice was issued to Gandhi on November 23.

Delhi High Court Constitutes Committee Headed By Retired Judge To Examine Issues Regarding Forests

Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1322

The Delhi High Court has constituted an inter-departmental committee headed by a retired judge of the court to examine the issues regarding forests in the national capital.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that for effective discharge of its responsibilities, the Committee may call for any documents from any persons, government or any other official.

Having Different Religious Beliefs And Not Performing Religious Duties Per Se Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1323

While dealing with a divorce case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties per se would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient to severe a marital tie.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that fasting or not fasting on “Karwachauth” may be an individual choice and if dispassionately considered, may not be termed as an act of cruelty.

FIRs In Rape Cases With Minors Not Mere Printed Papers But Reflection Of Trauma Suffered By Victim: Delhi High Court

Title: JASPREET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1324

The Delhi High Court has said that the FIRs in cases involving sexual assault and rape committed upon minors are not mere printed papers, but a trauma writ large, experienced by a living human being, which is difficult to be portrayed on a piece of paper.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in cases of sexual assault of minor victims, the extreme stressful situation and life-turning experience faced by a victim should not be dealt with in mechanical manner by courts.

Delhi High Court Restrains US Based Company From Using 'Winzo Games' Mark, Orders Deactivation Of 'Winzos' Google Chrome Extension

Title: WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. BAJAAR LLC AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1325

The Delhi High Court has restrained a US based company, offering an application “Winzos!” on Apple and Google App Stores and an associated website, from using “Winzo” or “Winzo Games” mark.

Justice Prathiba M Singh also ordered deactivation of www.winzos.com extension on Google Chrome Webstore.

Power To Extend Time For Submitting Audit Reports U/S 142(2c) Belongs Exclusively To AO And Can't Be Exercised By CIT: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1326

The Delhi High Court has held that the power to extend the time for submitting audit reports under Section 142(2c) belongs exclusively to the AO and cannot be exercised by CIT.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the Assessing Officer alone has the jurisdiction to extend the deadline for filing audit reports under Section 142(2C); a higher authority, such as the CIT, is not permitted to do so.

Limitation Period To Pass Fresh Assessment Order Expired: Delhi High Court Accepts Returned Income For 12 Years

Case Title: Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Versus PCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1327

The Delhi High Court has accepted the returned income for 12 years as the limitation period to pass a fresh assessment order has expired.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the time limit fixed as per Section 153(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act or the time limit fixed by the amended provision, i.e., Section 153(3), as of today, the AO is bereft of jurisdiction and hence would have no legal locus to pass an assessment order.

Family Courts Must Ordinarily Be Lenient In Matrimonial Disputes And Not Apply Rules Of Procedure Strictly: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1328

The Delhi High Court has allowed a wife's petition against closure of her right to cross-examine her husband in divorce proceedings, observing that Family Courts must strike a delicate balance between need for expeditious disposal and giving of fair opportunity to a party to present case.

Recording of Prosecutrix's Testimony Through Two-Way Video Conferencing Not Adverse, No Denial Of Right To Fair Trial Of Accused: Delhi High Court

Title: VINOD KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1329

The Delhi High Court has observed that recording of testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual assault cases through “two-way video conferencing facility” is not adverse nor does it amount to denial of accused's right to fair trial or effective cross-examination.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that recording of the victim's testimony will still have to be subjected to the “tradition parameters of reliability” and will be tested on the touchstone of credibility on the basis of cross-examination.

Delhi High Court Pulls Up Special NDPS Judge For Repeatedly Summoning Senior Cops, Sends Matter To Inspection Committee

Title: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CRIME-III, DELHI v. SHADAB

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1330

The Delhi High Court has pulled up a Special NDPS judge in the national capital for repeatedly summoning senior police officials and even issuing bailable warrants against a Deputy Commissioner of Police, observing that there was a “complete breach of judicial discipline.”

Justice Amit Bansal said that the judge has been repeatedly passing orders that are in “teeth of a detailed judgment” delivered by a Coordinate Bench where adverse remarks made by the same judge against high-ranking police officials were expunged.

Delhi High Court Order Deputing One Clinical Child Psychologist In Each Family Court Complex

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1331

The Delhi High Court directed its Registrar General to take necessary steps for deputing at least one Clinical Child Psychologist in each Family Court Complex, who would be in a better position to provide counselling sessions to minor children as and when required or as directed in respective cases.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the report submitted by the Clinical Child Psychologist on evaluation or counselling can be shared with the concerned Family Court in a sealed cover, which would enable such court to form an appropriate opinion for custody or visitation rights in custody cases.

Delhi High Court Forms Committee For Improving Healthcare Facilities In Prisons, Says Every Inmate Has Inherent Right To Humane Treatment

Title: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1332

The Delhi High Court has formed a Committee for giving suggestions to improve the health care facilities in prisons in the national capital, observing that every prison inmate has an inherent right to life and humane treatment.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the committee will also inform the court as to whether facilities are available in the jail hospital to deal with emergency situations such as cardiac arrest and hemorrhages, “as the first few minutes in such eventuality are crucial to save life of a person.”

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Expeditious Disposal Of Criminal Cases Against MPs, MLAs

Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1333

The Delhi High Court has issued directions for expeditious and effective disposal of criminal cases pending in the designated courts against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue Court to ensure almost equal pendency of the criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the designated courts, at the same level.

Information On Interception Or Phone Tapping Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. KABIR SHANKAR BOSE & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1334

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the information in relation to interception or tapping or tracking of a phone is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that any order passed by the Government in relation to interception or phone tapping is passed when an authorized officer is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign states or public order, and information on the same would be exempted under RTI Act.

Convict Has Fundamental Right To Parenthood And Procreation, Incarceration Does Not Make Him Lesser Citizen: Delhi High Court

Title: KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1335

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a convict has the right to parenthood and procreation and such an individual does not become a lesser citizen only due to the incarceration.

“While, Judiciary in Bharat, has always stubbornly refused to hold that prisoners have no fundamental rights, this Court following the same tradition as handed over by judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court respectfully takes the intent to interpret the constitutional rights in favour of upholding and including new situations and challenges holds that right to parenthood and procreation is fundamental right of a convict in peculiar circumstances of a case,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Solicitor General Of India's Opinion To Government Fiduciary In Nature, Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1336

The Delhi High Court has accepted a submission that the advice tendered by the Solicitor General of India to the Union Government and government departments is done in the nature of fiduciary, and hence, the disclosure of such information would fall under the exception of Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Subramonium Prasad found no infirmity with Union Government's submission and said and that the relationship between the Solicitor General of India and Government of India is that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary.

Harassing Husband Publicly, Portraying Him As 'Womanizer' Extreme Cruelty: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1337

The Delhi High Court recently upheld divorce granted to a married couple on the ground of cruelty by the wife, observing that her act of harassing and humiliating the husband publicly and portraying him as a “womanizer” in his office is an act of extreme cruelty to him.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which has the impact of publicly tarnishing the image of the other, is nothing but acts of extreme cruelty.

Consider Proposal For Installing Biometric Machine To Facilitate Access Of Lawyers To NCLT: Delhi High Court To Centre

Case Title: NCLT BAR ASSOCIATION THR ITS SECRETARY GENERAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1338

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to consider on priority basis the proposal for installation of a biometric machine to facilitate the access of lawyers to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) premises.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna also directed the Land and Development Office (L&DO) to process the proposal within eight weeks.

SFIO Not Barred From Investigating IPC Offences, Conducting 'Further Probe': Delhi High Court

Title: R.K. GUPTA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1339

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is not barred from investigating offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or conducting further investigation in accordance with law after the Investigation Report has been submitted.

“From a conjoint and harmonious reading of the relevant provisions of the CrPC and the present Act, as quoted hereinabove, it cannot be said that the SFIO is barred from investigating an offence under the IPC. SFIO is not barred from conducting a ̳further investigation' in accordance with law,” Justice Amit Sharma observed.

Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Freebit's 'Improved Earpiece', Imposes Cost Of 5 Lakhs For Suppressing Material Facts

Case Title: Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1340

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by leading supplier of in-ear products “Freebit AS”, observing that it had suppressed material facts and the suit patent was vulnerable to revocation.

Referring to the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022, Justice Prathiba M Singh explicated that, “it is necessary, to the extent possible, for a plaint to include details of corresponding foreign patent applications, as well as information relating to any orders passed by a Court or Tribunal concerning the same or substantially similar invention as asserted in the suit.”

Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Freebit's 'Improved Earpiece', Imposes Cost Of 5 Lakhs For Suppressing Material Facts

Case Title: The Hershey Company v. Atul Jalan trading as Akshat Online Traders

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1341

Taking strict view of the food safety and public health concerns highlighted, the Delhi High Court recently directed detailed investigation into the re-packaging and sale of expired food products in Delhi, including counterfeit chocolates of leading brand Hershey's.

Going through the material brought on record, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the way in which expired products were being reintroduced into markets appeared to be coordinated and systematic.