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

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 784 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 810

NOMINAL INDEX

Reliance Communications Limited Vs Unique Identification Authority Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 784

Deepak Sinha vs. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 785

Bar Council of Delhi v. Govt. ofN.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 786

Olive Traders Versus The Commissioner, CGST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 787

Mukesh Udeshi vs Jindal Steel Power Ltd. and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 788

The Deputy Commissioner Of Police Vs Score Information Technologies Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 789

Mr.Rajan Chadha & Anr Vs Mr.Sanjay Arora & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 790

SH. REHAN ELAHI & ANR. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 791

Welspun Enterprises Ltd Vs Kasthuri Infra Projects Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 792

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited vs Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 793

Sanyam Bhushan vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 1675/2022 & CONNECTED MATTERS) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 794

Aeiforia Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs Continental Carbon India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 795

Bimla Sachdev vs. Subur & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 796

Shri S. Rabban Alam v. CBI Though Its Director 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 797

SATHISH BABU SANA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 798

Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Deepak And Co 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 799

PRINCE v. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800

ANIL KUMAR HAJELAY & ORS. v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 801

SAHIL VIKLANG SAHAYTARTHA SAMITI & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 802

Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprise Limited Vs Domus Greens Private Limited & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 803

AMITA SACHDEVA & ORS. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 804

M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd Vs Manav Sethi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 805

Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 806

Nishesh Ranjan and Anr. vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 807

M/S Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 808

M/S Ktc India Pvt. Ltd Vs Randhir Brar & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 809

Gae Projects (P) Ltd. Vs Ge T&D India Ltd. (Formerly Alstom T&D India Ltd.) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 810

Delhi High Court Dismisses Reliance Communications' Petition, Upholds Arbitrator's Calculation Of Call Minutes Based on Total Call Seconds

Case Title: Reliance Communications Limited Vs Unique Identification Authority Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 784

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has dismissed a petition filed by Reliance Communications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the arbitrator correctly divided the total number of call seconds by 60 to determine the number of call minutes. The bench noted that the company is not entitled to a whole minute if the call lasted only part of a minute.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Analyse Electro Homeopathic Prescriptions For Recognition As Alternative Medicine

Case title: Deepak Sinha vs. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare & Anr. (W.P.(C) 11217/2021)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 785

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition that sought to direct the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory, Ministry of Ayush to analyse certain Homeopathic prescriptions, in order to enable the Inter-Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to decide on the recognition of Electro Homeopathy as an alternative system of medicine.

Water Logging During Monsoon: High Court Orders Joint Inspection Of Bar Council Of Delhi's Office By Civic Authorities

Title: Bar Council of Delhi v. Govt. ofN.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 786

The Delhi High Court has directed the civic authorities in the national capital to conduct a joint inspection of the office of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), situated at Siri Fort Institutional Area, over the issue of water logging due to heavy rain in the monsoon season.

GST Registration Cancelled On Allegation Of Non-Existent Entity; Delhi High Court Directs Assessee To Furnish Documents

Case Title: Olive Traders Versus The Commissioner, CGST

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 787

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration and permitted the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice, since the only allegation against the petitioner is that it was found to be non-existent.

Aggrieved Third Party Beneficiaries Of Domain Names Cannot Challenge Arbitration Award U/s 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mukesh Udeshi vs Jindal Steel Power Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 788

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that only parties to an arbitration agreement can challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was further held that 3rd-party beneficiaries of domain names in India, who are impacted by the arbitral award, lack the standing to challenge the award.

Arbitral Tribunal Can Award Compensation For Breach If Contract Is Incapable Of Specific Performance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner Of Police Vs Score Information Technologies Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 789

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that the arbitral tribunal may exercise its power to award compensation for breach if a Contract has become incapable of specific performance.

Disobedience Of Interim Measures Due To Insolvency Proceedings Is Not Contempt: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mr.Rajan Chadha & Anr Vs Mr.Sanjay Arora & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 790

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has held that disobedience of interim measures granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to insolvency proceedings does not warrant contempt charges.

Take Steps For Online Registration Of Muslim, Christian Marriages Under Compulsory Marriage Order: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: SH. REHAN ELAHI & ANR. v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 791

The Delhi High Court has recently expressed displeasure with the Delhi Government over its failure to issue administrative instructions, despite a judicial order passed nearly three years ago, regarding online registration of marriages solemnized under Muslim and Christian Personal Laws under the Compulsory Registration of Marriage Order, 2014.

Courts Must Refrain From Interim Orders Once Arbitral Tribunal Is Constituted Unless Urgency Demands: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Welspun Enterprises Ltd Vs Kasthuri Infra Projects Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 792

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is in place, ordinarily a court should refrain from dealing with the matter even for the purposes of passing interlocutory orders unless the order is demonstrably one which cannot await the application of mind by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Identical Marks For Medicines Could Mislead Customers, Delhi High Court Restrains Rebanta Healthcare From Using Dr Reddys' Registered Trademark

Case Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited vs Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 793

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that using visually and phonetically identical marks for medicines could confuse the general public, especially when the products serve different medical purposes.

Petitions U/S 482 CrPC Filed With Delay Or To Overcome Expired Limitation Of Alternate Remedy Cannot Be Entertained: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sanyam Bhushan vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 1675/2022 & CONNECTED MATTERS)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 794

The Delhi High Court has observed that failure to avail alternate remedy on the ground of ongoing settlement process is not a reason for the court to exercise its discretionary power to quash the complaint cases.

Magistrate's Clear Application of Mind Necessary For Issuance of Summons Under Section 138 Of NI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aeiforia Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs Continental Carbon India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 795

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that the issuance of summons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires a clear application of mind. The bench held that this application of mind must be evident upon reading the summoning order; the appellate or revisional court should not have to speculate about the considerations of the Magistrate who issued the summons.

Delhi High Court Holds DDA And Its Officials Guilty Of Contempt In Land Allotment Case

Case title: Bimla Sachdev vs. Subur & anr. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 796

The Delhi High Court has held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and its officials, the Vice Chairman and the Deputy Director (Land Disposal), to be in contempt of the court's orders in a case relating to land allotment.

Only If Appeal Is 'Pending' Before Enforcement Of BNSS, Can It Be Continued Under CrPC: Delhi High Court's "Possible Interpretation"

Title: Shri S. Rabban Alam v. CBI Though Its Director

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 797

Giving a “possible interpretation” of Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the Delhi High Court said that only if an appeal is pending before the new law came into force, can such an appeal be continued under the Cr.P.C.

Moin Qureshi Case: Delhi High Court Upholds PMLA Proceedings Initiated Against Businessman Sathish Babu Sana

Title: SATHISH BABU SANA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 798

The Delhi High Court has upheld the money laundering proceedings initiated against Businessman Sathish Babu Sana in relation to the PMLA case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi and other persons.

Arbitrator's Findings As Per Evidence And Testimony Is Not Perverse, No Need To Interfere: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Deepak And Co

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 799

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that findings made by an arbitrator which are consistent with the documentary evidence and admissions made during cross-examination are reasonable and not perverse.

FIR Lodged Under IPC But Anticipatory Bail Plea Filed After Enforcement Of New Criminal Laws, Delhi High Court Says BNSS Should Apply

Title: PRINCE v. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800

The Delhi High Court has observed that procedure with respect to anticipatory bail pleas filed in relation to FIRs lodged prior to enforcement of new criminal laws should be governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, if the date of filing such application is on or after July 1, 2024.

High Court Asks Delhi Govt To Implement Hybrid Courts Project On Priority Basis, Says No Cabinet Approval Required

Case Title: ANIL KUMAR HAJELAY & ORS. v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 801

The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Delhi Government to expedite grant of financial sanction of Rs. 387 crores and to implement on priority basis the project for having hybrid hearing in the 691 Courts in the national capital.

'High Time To Think What DDA Has Done To Delhi': High Court Expresses Displeasure Over Failure To Beautify District Park

Title: SAHIL VIKLANG SAHAYTARTHA SAMITI & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 802

The Delhi High Court has castigated the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for failing to take any time-bound beneficial measures for beautification of a District Park in the national capital, observing there is no proper concrete walking track or multi game courts there.

“Unhesitatingly, it is manifest that the respondent/DDA does not know what to do with this site in question. Is it not high time that the respondent/DDA must ponder over what they have done to this city in terms of providing recreational activities open to all? How they intend to make Delhi a "smart city"?,” Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.

Interim Measures U/s 17 Of Arbitration Act Affecting Third-Party Rights Is Appealable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprise Limited Vs Domus Greens Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 803

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that a third party, whose rights for a registered charge are affected by an arbitral award, can challenge such award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Delhi High Court Declines PIL Against YouTube Vloggers Uploading Videos Of Women, Minor Girls Without Consent

Title: AMITA SACHDEVA & ORS. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 804

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking removal of videos of women and minor girls uploaded on YouTube without their consent.

The PIL was withdrawn as the division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan expressed disinclination to entertain the plea.

Section 11(6) Petition Not Maintainable Without Prior Section 21 Notice In Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd Vs Manav Sethi & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 805

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that a Section 11(6) petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable unless it is preceded in the first instance by a Section 21 notice.

Delhi High Court Upholds Demolition Of Shiv Temple Near Yamuna Flood Plains, Says Eco-Sensitive Zone Must Be Protected From Encroachment

Case Title: Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 806

The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge Bench concerning the demolition order issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a Shiv Temple located near Yamuna Flood Plains. The court asserted that as the Yamuna River Floodplain is an eco-sensitive zone, it needs to be protected from encroachments and illegal constructions.

Intention To Arbitrate Must Be Assessed Holistically In Transactions Involving Interlinked Agreements, Even If Some Agreements Lack Explicit Arbitration Clauses: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nishesh Ranjan and Anr. vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 807

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that in a composite transaction involving multiple interlinked agreements, courts should assess the intention to arbitrate holistically and refer disputes to arbitration even if some agreements lack explicit arbitration clauses.

Decree Holder Not Entitled To Interest For Period Between Deposit of amount and its Release : Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 808

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the Decree Holder is not entitled to interest on the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor for the period between the date of deposit and the date of release permitted by the court.

'Subsequent Shareholders' Do Not Qualify As 'Association Or Body of Individuals' Under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Ktc India Pvt. Ltd Vs Randhir Brar & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 809

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that “subsequent shareholders,” each holding a specific number of shares and having the right to exit the company under defined conditions while undertaking individual rights and obligations, do not qualify as an "association or body of individuals" under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Arbitrator Must Determine Validity Of Coercion Claims In Settlement Agreements, Termination Of Arbitration Improper: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gae Projects (P) Ltd. Vs Ge T&D India Ltd. (Formerly Alstom T&D India Ltd.)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 810

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that claims of coercion or economic duress in a settlement agreement require examination by an arbitrator to determine their validity. The bench held that the Arbitrator's summary dismissal of the claimant's plea and the termination of arbitration proceedings without a trial were improper.