Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 08 To January 14, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 22 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 54

NOMINAL INDEX

Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 22

MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 23

T.V.TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. SAMEET THAKKAR & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 24

M/S Angelantoni Test Technologies Srl V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1) & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 25

NILKANTH DAS AND ORS. v. CBSE AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 26

Bar Council Of India Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 27

NIVEDITA JOSHI v. ABHISHEK RAY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 28

M/S BLUE HEAVEN COSMETICS PVT LTD v. MR ANISH JAIN TRADING AS M/S NAVKAR COSMO & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 29

MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 30

NEERAJ SINGAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 31

MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 32

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 33

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Bt Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 34

Amway India Enterprises Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Vat, Delhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 35

KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 36

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 37

A v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 38

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. KAVITHA KURUGANTI and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 39

SAINT GURMEET RAM RAHIM SINGH INSAN SHISHAYEVA GADDINASHIN SHAH SATNAM SINGH JI MAHARAJ V/s YOUTUBE LLC AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 40

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VIRENDRA SINGH ADVOCATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 41

NOVARTIS AG v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 42

HARDESH KUMAR v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 43

ARIF KHAN v. THE STATE AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 44

OJAS SATYAWALI THROUGH HIS MOTHER BHAWNA PATHAK v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 45

NASHETA ZAIDI THROUGH GUARDIAN GROUP CAPTAIN IMRAN H ZAIDI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 46

Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 47

KAUM FAQEER SHAH v. MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 48

Jatin Mohanty v. Election Commission of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 49

MR. TARUN TEJPAL AND ANR v. MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 50

CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 51

M/S Een Een Sales Corporation Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 52

VIPUL JAIN v. STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 53

RAVI KAPOOR v. STATE-NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 54

Section 34 Petition Is Non-Est If Filed Without The Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 22

The Delhi High Court has held that non-filing of the arbitral award along with the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act is a fatal defect which renders the filing as non-est.

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that filing of an award along with the challenge petition is not an empty procedural requirement as sans the award, the Court is left absolutely clueless to comprehend the grounds taken in the objection Petition and thereby unable to decide whether the Petition merits Notice to be issued or outright rejection.

Arbitral Tribunal Can Go Beyond To Grant Relief To Aggrieved Party When Contract Illegally Restricts Remedies : Delhi High Court

Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC,

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 23

The Delhi High Court has held that an Arbitral Tribunal can transgress the boundaries of the contract to grant relief to aggrieved party when the contract illegally restricts or does not provide for sufficient remedies.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that in a situation which is not anticipated in the agreement, the tribunal can transgress the boundaries of the agreement and grant relief to the aggrieved party which it is rightfully entitled to. It held that the tribunal cannot withhold a relief merely because of the explicit provision for such a relief in the agreement.

Delhi High Court Holds 'X' User Guilty Of Contempt Of Court For Making 'Defamatory Tweets' Against TV Today Despite Restraint Orders

Title: T.V.TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. SAMEET THAKKAR & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 24

The Delhi High Court recently held an 'X' (formerly 'Twitter') user guilty of committing contempt of court for making “defamatory tweets” against TV Today Network despite restraint orders passed against him in 2020.

Justice Rekha Palli directed Thakkar to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, taking into account that the offending tweets were removed by him and that he had tendered an unconditional apology for making the tweets.

Investment In Shares In Indian Subsidiary 'Capital Account Transaction', Not Income: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Angelantoni Test Technologies Srl V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1) & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 25

The Delhi High Court has held that investment in shares by a company in its Indian subsidiary is a “capital account transaction” which does not give rise to any income. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as income for taxation.

Placing reliance on the earlier decision of Delhi High Court in Nestle SA v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna held:

“It is settled law that investment in shares in an Indian subsidiary cannot be treated as 'income' as the same is in the nature of “capital account transaction” not giving rise to any income.”

School Can't Seek Correction Of Student's Internal Assessment Marks After Uploading On CBSE Website: Delhi High Court

Title: NILKANTH DAS AND ORS. v. CBSE AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 26

The Delhi High Court has observed that once a school uploads the internal assessment marks of a student on the website of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), it cannot seek any correction even if there was an error while uploading the marks.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that utter chaos would result if schools are permitted to commit errors while uploading students' marks on CBSE's website and thereafter, call upon the Board to correct the marks awarded at their end.

Delhi High Court Directs Income Tax Commissioner To Accept BCI's Form No.10 After Condoning Delay

Case Title: Bar Council Of India Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 27

The Delhi High Court has directed the income tax commissioner to accept Form No. 10 submitted by the Bar Council of India (BCI) after condoning the delay.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of the assessee in certain circumstances and authorize the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10.

Artist Nivedita Joshi Files Copyright Infringement Suit Before Delhi HC Against Music Composer, Producer Of 'Life Is Good' Film

Title: NIVEDITA JOSHI v. ABHISHEK RAY & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 28

Artist Nivedita Joshi has filed a copyright infringement suit before Delhi High Court against the music composer and producer of film “Life is Good” which was released in 2022, alleging that the lyrics of the song “Palko ke Palne” written by her in 2011 were used in the movie without informing her.

Justice Anish Dayal directed the film producer, Anand Shukla, to maintain proper accounts of all royalties received on account of dissemination of the song in question, through all possible media.

Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturers From Selling Cosmetic Products Using Similar Packaging Of 'Blue Heaven'

Title: M/S BLUE HEAVEN COSMETICS PVT LTD v. MR ANISH JAIN TRADING AS M/S NAVKAR COSMO & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 29

The Delhi High Court recently restrained two manufacturers from selling cosmetic products under the mark 'Namo Navkar' using imitative and identical packaging of Blue Heaven's eyeliner, mascara and kajal.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the use of identical artwork and packaging is likely to create deception amongst the consumers that the products of the two manufacturers also emanate from that of Blue Heaven.

Special Court Not Barred To Try Offences Against Person Who Ceased To Be MP/MLA At Time Of Commission Of Offence: Delhi High Court

Title: MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 30

The Delhi High Court has observed that Special MP/MLA Courts can try offences pending against sitting or former legislators and there is no bar for trial of a person who had ceased to be an MP or MLA, at the time of commission of the alleged offence.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a plea moved by BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa challenging an ACMM order rejecting his application seeking transfer or return of a complaint filed against him on account of lack of jurisdiction.

Oral Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Proper Compliance Of S.19(1) PMLA For Arrests Made Prior To 'Pankaj Bansal': Delhi High Court

Title: NEERAJ SINGAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 31

The Delhi High Court has observed that oral communication of “grounds of arrest” to an accused is proper compliance of Section 19(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for arrests made prior to the Supreme Court ruling in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, delivered on October 3, 2023.

Justice Vikas Mahajan made the observation while upholding the arrest of Neeraj Singal, former Managing Director of Bhushan Steel Limited, in a money laundering case related to Enforcement Directorate's probe in a bank fraud case.

Delhi High Court Restrains Local Dhabas From Using Registered Trademarks Of Popular Murthal Eatery 'Mannat Dhaba'

Title: MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 32

The Delhi High Court has restrained various local dhabas from using the registered trademarks of popular Murthal based eatery “Mannat Dhaba.”

Justice Anish Dayal passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order against the three defendants running their restaurants under the names Mannat Dhaba, Shri Mannat Dhaba and Apna Mannat Dhaba.

Delhi High Court Keeps In Abeyance Directions To CBI, DRI To Look Into Allegations Of Over-Invoicing By Adani Power

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 33

The Delhi High Court has put in abeyance its earlier directions to 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 power companies belonging to the Adani Group.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on December 19 last year had directed the authorities to “unearth the actual factual position” and take appropriate actions against the erring power companies including those of Adani Group and Essar Group, if any, as per law.

Income Tax: Denial of 80lA Benefit In 4th Year Of Assessment, U-Turn By Department Is Not Justified: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Bt Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 34

The Delhi High Court has held that the Principal Commissioner Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and fell in error by taking a U-turn in the fourth assessment year, thereby denying the benefit of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that no material was brought on record by the PCIT to show that merely by migration from Internet Protocol-Virtual Private Network (IP-VPN) to National Long Distance-International Long Distance (NLD-ILD) license, a new and different “undertaking” of the assessee within the meaning of Section 80IA(4)(ii) came into existence.

Coconut Oil Sold By Amway As Hair Oil, Not Classifiable As Edible Oil Under DVAT Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amway India Enterprises Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Vat, Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 35

The Delhi High Court has held that coconut oil sold by Amway as a hair oil cannot be classified as edible oil under the DVAT Act.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan, while ruling in favour of the department, observed that the coconut oil is sold by the appellant in small packs, is displayed in the category of hair care, the manner in which it is to be applied to hair, and the purpose for which it is purchased by the consumer leaves no manner of doubt that the coconut oil sold by the appellant is wrongly sought to be classified under Entry 25 of the Third Schedule of the DVAT Act.

Delhi High Court Orders Mandatory E-Filing For Civil & Criminal Cases In District Courts, Digitisation Of Records Of Decided Cases

Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 36

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered that e-filing of pleadings, documents and interim applications be made mandatory in the civil jurisdictions and criminal complaint cases before all the District Courts in the national capital.

Directing that the “Centralised Filing System” for filings related to ongoing and pending cases be implemented in all the District Courts, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said:

“Mandatory e-filing of pleadings, documents and interim applications shall be adhered to in the jurisdictions already notified vide notification no.12/Rules/DHC dated 22nd February, 2022 under e-filing Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2021.”

Wife's Conduct Of Attempting Suicide, Trying To Put Blame On Husband And His Family Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 37

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's conduct of attempting suicide and then trying to put the blame on the husband and his family members is an act of “extreme cruelty.”

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the decree of divorce granted by a family court, in a divorce petition moved by the husband, on the ground of cruelty by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

DV Act | Unproven Allegations Of Illicit Relationship No Ground To Deny Interim Maintenance To Wife: Delhi High Court

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 38

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the wife cannot be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, merely on the basis of allegations of illicit relationship which are yet to be proved during the course of trial.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a husband's plea against a trial court order directing him to pay Rs. 6000 per month to the wife towards rent, alongwith monthly interim maintenance of Rs.11,460 and Rs.9,800 towards the expenditure of both minor daughters.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Upholding Revocation Of PepsiCo's Registration For Potato Variety Used In Lay's Chips

Title: PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. KAVITHA KURUGANTI and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 39

The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge's order which upheld an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority revoking Pepsico India's registration with respect to a potato variety used for making Lay's chips.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma set aside the order passed by the single judge on July 05 last year as well as the order of the Authority and its letter dated February 11, 2022, rejecting PepsiCo's application for renewal of patent registration.

'Prima Facie Defamatory': Delhi HC Asks Journalist & YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh To Remove Video On Ram Rahim Singh, Upload Fresh With Disclaimer

Title: SAINT GURMEET RAM RAHIM SINGH INSAN SHISHAYEVA GADDINASHIN SHAH SATNAM SINGH JI MAHARAJ V/s YOUTUBE LLC AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 40

The Delhi High Court has directed Journalist and YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to take down a video made by him on Dera Saccha Sauda Chief Ram Rahim Singh from all social media platforms.

“The video seems to be prima facie defamatory vis-à-vis the plaintiff (Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh),” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

However, the court granted liberty to the journalist to upload a new video with a disclaimer that its contents are quoted from trial court judgment on Rahim's conviction and the book titled “Dera Sacha Sauda and Gurmeet Ram Rahim” by Anurag Tripathi.

Contempt | Delhi High Court Sentences Lawyer To 6 Months In Jail For Making 'Scandalous Imputations' Against Judges In Pleading

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VIRENDRA SINGH ADVOCATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 41

The Delhi High Court has sentenced a lawyer to six months in jail after finding him guilty of contempt of court for making “contumacious allegations” and “scandalous imputations” against judges of the High Court as well as District Courts in a criminal appeal filed by him on behalf of a rape survivor.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur sentenced the lawyer to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months in Tihar jail, with fine of Rs.2,000.

Patents Act | Pre-Grant Opponent Merely Aids In Holistic Examination Of Patent Application, Can't Intervene In 'Examination Process': Delhi HC

Title: NOVARTIS AG v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 42

The Delhi High Court has held that a pre-grant opponent under the Patents Act, 1970, merely aids the Controller in a holistic examination of the patent application and does not have a right to intervene in the “examination process” of the patent.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that, unlike an adversarial process, the opposition to a patent merely contributes to the overall assessment of the patent application and thus, would not sustain a right of hearing being claimed in the examination process.

Those Harassing Daughter-In-Law For Giving Birth To Girl Child Should Know That Chromosomes Of Their Son Decides Child's Gender: Delhi HC

Title: HARDESH KUMAR v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 43

While dealing with a dowry death case which involved alleged harassment of the daughter-in-law for giving birth to a girl child, the Delhi High Court has observed that perpetrators of such crimes need to be educated that it is their son and not the daughter-in-law whose chromosomes, through union of a married couple, will decide the birth of the unborn child.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the “genetic science” is totally ignored according to which, the genetic determination of gender of the unborn child, involves the combination of X and Y chromosomes, with females possessing XX chromosomes and males having X and one Y chromosome each.

True Love Between Adolescents Can't Be Controlled Through Police Action: Delhi High Court

Title: ARIF KHAN v. THE STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 44

The Delhi High Court has observed that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minor or minors on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the dilemma at times faced by the court can be of trying to justify the State or Police action against an adolescent couple, who marry each other and continue to lead a peaceful life and raise a family, and respect for obeying the law of the land.

School Can't Refuse Admission If DoE Satisfied That Child Is Entitled To Preferential Admission Under EWS/DG Category: Delhi High Court

Title: OJAS SATYAWALI THROUGH HIS MOTHER BHAWNA PATHAK v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 45

The Delhi High Court has observed that once the Directorate of Education (DoE) is satisfied that a child is entitled to preferential admission under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) or Disadvantaged Group (DG) category, the school cannot refuse admission to the child.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that it is the child welfare which is paramount and law cannot countenance a situation in which, despite DoE having found the child entitled to admission, school refuses the same.

CBSE Board Exam | Student Entitled To Full Marks If Examiner Fails To Award Mark But Puts A Tick Against Answer Provided: Delhi High Court

Title: NASHETA ZAIDI THROUGH GUARDIAN GROUP CAPTAIN IMRAN H ZAIDI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 46

The Delhi High Court has observed that a student is entitled to full marks where the examiner fails to award mark in the margin against a particular answer even after entering a tick mark, thereby indicating that the answer is correct.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that consequence of the lapse of the examiner, if any, cannot be visited on the student.

Foreigners Can't Claim Right To Reside And Settle In India, Their Fundamental Rights Limited To Article 21: Delhi High Court

Title: Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 47

The Delhi High Court has observed that foreigners cannot claim right to reside and settle in India and their fundamental rights are limited to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“We may also note that foreign national cannot claim that he has right to reside and settle in India in terms of Article 19 (1) (e) of Constitution of India,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Immediate Financial Assistance, Recovery Of Back Wages For Rescued Child Labourers

Title: KAUM FAQEER SHAH v. MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 48

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions for immediate financial assistance, recovery of back wages and legal proceedings to be followed by the authorities in the post rescue protocol of child labourers in the national capital.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed that when a rescued child is placed in a childcare or juvenile home under the care of the Delhi Government, a savings bank account shall be jointly opened immediately in the name of the minor, along with the Superintendent or In-charge of the respective Child Care Institution as the temporary guardian.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain BJP Leader's Plea Against Biju Janta Dal For Using Party Symbol In Advertising Welfare Schemes

Title: Jatin Mohanty v. Election Commission of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 49

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea moved by BJP Odisha's General Secretary, Jatin Mohanty, against alleged misuse of public funds by Biju Janta Dal (BJD) while advertising State welfare schemes using its party symbol 'Conch' allotted by the Election Commission of India.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked Mohanty to approach Orissa High Court as everything, including advertising of the schemes, happened there.

Tehelka's Tarun Tejpal To Publish Unconditional Apology For 'Defamatory' Story Against Former Army Officer

Title: MR. TARUN TEJPAL AND ANR v. MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 50

Tehelka magazines's former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal and co-founder Aniruddha Bahal has told the Delhi High Court that they will publish an unconditional apology in a national english newspaper stating that former Major General MS Ahluwalia, who filed a defamation case against them in 2002 over a news report depicting him as a “corrupt middleman” in defence deals, neither asked for nor accepted any bribery.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing an appeal moved by Tejpal and Bahal against an order passed last year by a single judge directing them, as well as Tehelka and a journalist Mathew Samuel to pay Rs. 2 crores to Ahluwalia for defaming him.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against Use Of Ward Volunteers, Village Secretariats For Preparation Of Electoral Rolls In Andhra Pradesh

Title: CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 51

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking direction on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to not utilize the services of Ward Volunteers and Village Secretariats for preparation of electoral rolls in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The PIL was filed by NGO Citizens for Democracy, representing by its Secretary, a retired IAS officer as well as former State Election Commissioner.

Taxpayer Not Provided Opportunity To Object To Retrospective Cancellation Of GST Registration: Delhi High Court Directs Restoration

Case Title: M/S Een Een Sales Corporation Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 52

The Delhi High Court has held that taxpayers are not provided an opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has restored the GST registration of the petitioner to its original number.

Forging Orders Of An Arbitrator A 'Serious Offence': Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

Title: VIPUL JAIN v. STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 53

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of producing a forged and fabricated order purportedly passed in an arbitration proceeding, before the Delhi Police.

Justice Navin Chawla said that forging an order, which may be of an arbitrator, is a serious offence.

Delhi High Court Denies Parole To Convict In Journalist Soumya Vishwanathan, Jigisha Ghosh Murder Cases

Title: RAVI KAPOOR v. STATE-NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 54

The Delhi High Court has denied parole to Ravi Kapoor, convicted for the murder of journalist Soumya Vishwanathan and IT executive Jigisha Ghosh and various other cases.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed Kapoor's plea taking into account his criminal history, the gravity of the offence committed by him and his overall conduct inside the jail premises.

Kapoor, who is currently serving life sentence in the cases, had moved the plea seeking parole for four weeks on the ground of maintaining social ties with his family and for undergoing a knee surgery.