Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 10 To June 16, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 707 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 725

NOMINAL INDEX

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Versus M/S Care Health Insurance Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 707

INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PRIVATE LTD & ANR. v. RAVINDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 708

AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OFINDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 709

Nirmaan Malhotra vs. Tushita Kaul 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 710

Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 711

Mahesh Gupta vs. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 712

Pitambar Solvex Pvt Ltd And Anr. Vs Manju Sharma And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 713

Indian Spinal Injuries Centre Vs M/S Galaxy India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 714

M/S Talbros Sealing Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Slach Hydratecs Equipments Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 715

RONAK KHATRI & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 716

Continuum Power Trading (Tn) Private Limited Vs Solar Energy Corporation Of India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 717

FAIZYAB MASJID AND MADARSA v. RELIGIOUS COMMITTEE AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 718

STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. MAGICWIN.GAMES & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 719

Vijay Maheshwari Vs Splendor Buildwell Private Limited And Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 720

Dinesh Jindal Vs ACIT and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 721

GE Capital Us Holdings Inc Vs DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 722

PCIT Vs Care Health Insurance Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 723

Vaibhav Singh Sunita Kejriwal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 724

Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 725

Unsettled Claims As Well As IBNR Would Amount To Contingent Liabilities; Section 37 Deduction Allowable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Versus M/S Care Health Insurance Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 707

The Delhi High Court has held that the deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act is allowable on unsettled claims as well as Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR), which would amount to contingent liabilities.

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Journalist Rajat Sharma, Restrains Use Of 'Baap Ki Adalat'

Title: INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PRIVATE LTD & ANR. v. RAVINDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 708

Ruling in favour of senior journalist Rajat Sharma, the Delhi High Court recently restrained an individual from using India TV logo and “Baap Ki Adalat” trademark in the content posted by him on social media.

Justice Anish Dayal also restrained the man, Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, from using the photograph, video and name of Sharma, either as a trademark or logo in the social media posts, audio video content or any services which may result in violation of the journalist's personality rights.

Land For Jobs Scam: Delhi High Court Orders Medical Evaluation Of Lalu Yadav's Aide Amit Katyal Hauled Up In PMLA Case

Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OFINDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 709

The Delhi High Court has constituted a medical board of AIIMS to evaluate the condition of RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's close aide Amit Katyal, who is in custody in a money laundering case related to the alleged land-for-jobs scam case.

Justice Vikas Mahajan was dealing with Katyal's plea seeking his release on humanitarian and medical grounds.

'We Are Living In Era Of Deepfakes': Delhi High Court Says Photos Produced By Husband Alleging Adultery By Wife Must Be Proved In Trial

Case Title: Nirmaan Malhotra vs. Tushita Kaul

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 710

The Delhi High Court has refused to rely on the photographs produced by a man to show that his wife has been living in adultery and to claim that she is not entitled to receive maintenance from him under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal observed that in this era of "deepfakes", it is necessary that the alleged photographs are proved by way of evidence before the family court dealing with the matrimonial dispute.

[Arbitration Act] Non-Disclosure Of Section 9 Petition In Another Matter Can't Be Termed As 'Egregious Fraud': Delhi High Court

Case Title: Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 711

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that non-disclosure of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in another matter cannot be termed as a case of egregious fraud, which would disentitle a party from pursuing its petition under Section 9.

Predictable Application Of Existing Technology To New Context Not "Inventive Step": Delhi HC Rejects Patent To Portable Vehicle Tracker

Case Title: Mahesh Gupta vs. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 712

The Delhi High Court has confirmed an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing patent registration to "Portable Vehicle Management System" which claimed novel features like Real-time Monitoring of vehicle & Assistance, Anomaly Detection, Alert Generation, Detection and Masking of Faces, Portability, etc.

Mere Initiation Of Arbitration Proceedings Doesn't Bar Corporate Debtor From Pursing Remedies Under IBC: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

Case Title: Pitambar Solvex Pvt Ltd And Anr. Vs Manju Sharma And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 713

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that mere initiation of the arbitration proceedings does not bar the corporate debtor from pursuing his other remedies including those under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code.

[Arbitration Act] Mere Sending of Notice Under Section 21 Not Enough, Receipt of Notice Essential: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indian Spinal Injuries Centre Vs M/S Galaxy India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 714

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that merely sending notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not sufficient. It held that receipt of the notice is the prerequisite for the commencement of arbitration proceedings.

Arbitration Clause Valid Despite Even Number Of Arbitrators: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

Case Title: M/S Talbros Sealing Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Slach Hydratecs Equipments Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 715

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the arbitration clause is not invalidated merely on the ground that the number of arbitrators, as per the arbitration clause, was an even number and therefore, was in contravention of Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Delhi High Court Orders Stakeholders Meeting To Assess Drinking Water, Infra Facilities In DU Law Faculty

Title: RONAK KHATRI & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 716

The Delhi High Court has directed that a meeting be convened to assess drinking water and other infrastructural facilities in Delhi University's Faculty of Law, including availability of Wi-Fi in the campus.

While dealing with a plea moved by three students alleging lack of facilities in the varsity, a vacation bench comprising of Justice Amit Sharma impleaded the Bar Council of India and Dean Student's Welfare of Delhi University in the matter.

Clause Of 'Amicable Resolution' Cannot Prevent Invocation Of Arbitration After Sincere Efforts At Settlement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Continuum Power Trading (Tn) Private Limited Vs Solar Energy Corporation Of India Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 717

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that the clause of 'amicable resolution' in the arbitration agreement cannot be read as preventing the parties from invoking the arbitration if the parties have sincerely tried to resolve the disputes amicably. It held that literal compliance with such provisions may be counter-protective.

Delhi High Court Orders To Vacate In One Month Mosque, Madarsa At Hazrat Nizamuddin For Demolition

Title: FAIZYAB MASJID AND MADARSA v. RELIGIOUS COMMITTEE AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 718

The Delhi High Court has ordered vacation of a mosque and madarsa situated at Sarai Kale Khan's Hazrat Nizamuddin which are set for demolition by civic authorities.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Amit Sharma rejected the plea moved by Faizyab Masjid and Madarsa challenging the decision of the authorities of demolition.

Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Unauthorisedly Streaming ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2024

Title: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. MAGICWIN.GAMES & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 719

The Delhi High Court recently restrained various rogue websites from unauthorisedly and illegally streaming the ongoing ICC Men's T20 World Cup 2024.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the plaintiff, Star India Private Limited, made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction.

[Arbitration Act] Scope Of Inquiry In Section 9 Petition Is Limited, Interpretation Of Contract Would Be Within Domain Of Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vijay Maheshwari Vs Splendor Buildwell Private Limited And Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 720

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that under a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of inquiry is very limited to grant interim relief.

Reassessment On Non-Searched Entity Is Governed By Limitation In First Proviso To Sec 149(1) R/w Sec 153C & 153A: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Dinesh Jindal Vs ACIT and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 721

While quashing the reassessment notice issued to the Assessee, pursuant to a search operation conducted against a third party, the Delhi High Court held the same to be barred by limitation under first proviso to Section 149(1) read with Section 153C & Section 153A of Income tax Act.

Non-Payment Of Tax Due To Uncertain Legal Position Existing At Time Of Filing Return Is Outside Scope Of 'Mis-Reporting': Delhi HC Deletes Penalty U/s 270A

Case Title: GE Capital Us Holdings Inc Vs DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 722

While quashing a show cause notice issued by the Department for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A in a vague manner, the Delhi High Court held that categorical finding of 'mis-reporting/ under-reporting' is essential for levy of penalty u/s 270A.

Provisions For Unsettled Outstanding & IBNR Claims Allowable U/s 37 Being Ascertained Liabilities: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Vs Care Health Insurance Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 723

While upholding ITAT's decision deleting disallowance of provisions for unsettled outstanding claims and 'Incurred But Not Reported' (IBNR) claims of health insurance company, the Delhi High Court held that provisions for unsettled outstanding and IBNR claims are not contingent liabilities, and hence allowable u/s 37 of Income tax Act.

Delhi High Court Directs Social Media Platforms To Remove Video Recording Of Court Proceedings Concerning Arvind Kejriwal

Title: Vaibhav Singh Sunita Kejriwal & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 724

The Delhi High Court has directed various social media platforms to take remove audio or video recording of court proceedings when Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal addressed the court personally after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the alleged liquor policy scam.

Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Tweets By Congress Leaders Against Journalist Rajat Sharma

Title: Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 725

The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of tweets made by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera alleging that senior journalist Rajat Sharma used abusive language on air during a show on the election result day.