Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 18 To March 24, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359

NOMINAL INDEX

PRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318

MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES V. DILIP JAIN 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 319

SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 320

LATE AKSHEM CHAND THROUGH LR ATLO DEVI v. SURESH BALA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 321

AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA v. MS. GUPTA SNIZHANA GRYGORIVNA & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 322

LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 323

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 324

UMESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 325

VEDPAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 326

National Association Of Software And Services Companies (NASSCOM) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2 (1) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 327

AJAY SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 328

SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 329

GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS.2024 LiveLaw (Del) 330

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. DOODSTREAM.COM & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 331

G & S International Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 332

PCIT Versus M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 333

SYED ABU ALA v. NCB 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 334

Alka Sachdeva vs Bhasin Infotech And Infrastucture Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 335

Ved Contracts Pvt Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 336

ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 337

MOHIT YADAV v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 338

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. A RAJA & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 339

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - 19 & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 340

Apex Buldsys Limited v. IRCON International Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 341

Avdhesh Mittal Vs Deepak Vig. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 342

Srf Limited Vs Jonson Rubber Industries Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 343

M/S. Assam Petroleum Ltd. & Ors Vs M/S. China Petroleum Technology Dev. Corp. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 344

CG Engineering Company Vs Ircon Infrastructure And Services Limited (Ircon Isl) And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 345

Central University Of Jharkhand Vs M/S. King Furnishing And Safe Co 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 346

GANGA SARAN v. THE COMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 347

M/s Fortuna Skill Management Pvt Ltd v. M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 348

Maj. Pankaj Rai vs M/s Niit Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 349

Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 350

AKSHAR REDDY VANGA AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY SUBBA REDDY VANGA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 351

SHAMBHAVI SHARMA v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 352

Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Lt Vs Dilip Jain And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 354

Mrvs Value Straight Private Limited & Anr. Vs Brightstar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 355

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 356

MADHAV CHAUDHARY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 357

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Kanohar Electricals Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 358

M/s Upper India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359

Pre-Arrest Bail Can't Be Routinely Granted Since Accused May Use It As Shield, Custodial Interrogation To Be Avoided When Accused Joins Probe: Delhi HC

Title: PRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317

The Delhi High Court has said that an order for the grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused to use it as a shield.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that a great amount of humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest, and custodial interrogation must be avoided where the accused has joined the investigation, cooperates with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond.

Court Must Scrutinize Wife's FIR To Determine If Allegations Are 'Case Of Clever Drafting' Or Have Some Element Of Truth: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318

The Delhi High Court has observed that the court must scrutinize the complaint or FIR filed by the wife against the husband and his family members to determine whether the allegations are a “case of cheer drafting” or have some element of truth.

Justice Navin Chawla observed that where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that she would get a complaint properly drafted through her lawyer making specific allegations against each one of them.

Whether A Non-Signatory Guarantor Can Be Impleaded As A Party To Arbitration Is For Arbitral Tribunal To Decide: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES V. DILIP JAIN

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 319

The High Court of Delhi has held that a determination on the impleadment of a non-signatory guarantor to the arbitration proceedings should be made by the arbitral tribunal once the referral court forms a prima facie view on non-signatory being a veritable party.

Tribunals Under Senior Citizens Act Expected To Expeditiously Adjudicate Matters, Amendments To Existing Laws Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 320

The Delhi High Court has observed that the tribunals established under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to protect the rights and interests of the elderly are expected to adjudicate their matters expeditiously in order to provide them support and redressal.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that specific amendments to the existing laws are necessary to ensure the timely resolution of cases involving senior citizens.

Delhi High Court Rejects Lawyer's Plea With ₹1 Lakh Costs, Says Extreme View To Be Taken When Process Is Abused By Members Of Legal Fraternity

Title: LATE AKSHEM CHAND THROUGH LR ATLO DEVI v. SURESH BALA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 321

The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on a lawyer for filing an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and trying to resuscitate the issue of forged and fabricated title documents filed in a civil suit in 2009.

“The applicant is a practising advocate. This Court cannot believe that the applicant is unaware of the law. It is obviously in full knowledge and consciousness of what he is doing, and the manner in which he is abusing the legal process with impunity, that the applicant has filed the present application,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Delhi High Court Paves Way For Ukrainian Woman To Leave India With 5-Yr-Old Child, Rejects Former Husband's Custody Plea

Title: AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA v. MS. GUPTA SNIZHANA GRYGORIVNA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 322

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a former husband challenging a family court order which rejected his guardianship petition seeking custody of his 5 year old minor child, a citizen of Ukraine.

A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said that it is in the best interest of the child, notwithstanding the hostilities in other parts of the country, to remain in the company of the mother and his sibling, also citizens of Ukraine, as it will provide a safe environment to the minor.

Elections For All Bar Associations Shall Be Held In One Day For Uniform Period Of Two Years: Delhi High Court Full Bench

Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 323

A full bench of the Delhi High Court has held that elections to the Executive Committee of all bar associations in the national capital shall be held simultaneously on the same day for a uniform period of two years.

A full bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait clarified that the electoral rolls of all the bar associations shall be prepared as per their own Rules and Bye-Laws.

Forcing Wife To Do Household Chores Even If Her Health Doesn't Permit It Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 324

The Delhi High Court has observed that forcefully asking a wife to do household chores if her health does not permit her to do so amounts to cruelty.

“In our opinion, when a wife indulges herself to do household chores, she does it by affection and love for her family. However, if her health or other circumstances do not permit her to do so, forcefully asking her to do house hold chores would certainly be cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Members Of Town Vending Committee Not 'Frontline COVID-19 Warriors': Delhi High Court

Title: UMESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 325

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that the members of the Town Vending Committee (TVC) in the national capital are not frontline COVID-19 warriors.

Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by a son seeking compensation of Rs. 25 lakh for the death of his father, a TVC member, who succumbed to COVID-19 in May 2021.

Cheating In Govt Exams Undermines Merit-Based Selection; Can Have Detrimental Effects On Public Service: Delhi High Court

Title: VEDPAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 326

The Delhi High Court has observed that cheating in government examinations or resorting to dishonest means to obtain leaked papers not only undermines the merit-based selection process but also erodes public trust in a fair and transparent examination system.

“…cheating in government exams can have far-reaching consequences for society as a whole. It can lead to the recruitment of incompetent or unqualified individuals in key government positions, which can have detrimental effects on public service delivery, governance, and overall development,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Pre-Deposit Of 20% Demand Is Not Precondition For Consideration Of Stay Application During Pendency Of First Appeal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Association Of Software And Services Companies (NASSCOM) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2 (1)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 327

The Delhi High Court has held that a 20% pre-deposit demand is not a precondition for consideration of a stay application during the pendency of the first appeal.

Delhi High Court Rejects Review Plea Against Dismissal Of PIL Against Truecaller With ₹10K Costs

Title: AJAY SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court has rejected a review plea against an order which dismissed a PIL against Truecaller alleging that the global caller ID Platform violates the right of privacy of citizens of India.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the review petition with Rs. 10,000 costs.

'Don't Underestimate Wisdom Of Voters': Delhi HC Rejects PIL To Prosecute Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal, Akhilesh Yadav For 'Misleading Statements'

Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 329

The Delhi High Court has rejected a PIL seeking direction on the Union Government and Election Commission of India (ECI) to register a complaint and prosecute politicians Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Akhilesh Yadav for making allegedly misleading and false statements with an intent to damage India's image and credibility.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora closed the PIL moved by Surjit Singh Yadav, who claims to be a social worker. 

Gautam Gambhir's Defamation Suit Against Punjab Kesari Settled Before Delhi High Court

Title: GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 330

The defamation suit filed by former cricketer and BJP MP Gautam Gambhir against Hindi daily newspaper Punjab Kesari and its reporters has been settled before the Delhi High Court.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma disposed of the suit in view of the settlement agreement entered into between both the parties.

Delhi High Court Directs 'Rogue Cyberlocker Websites' To Take Down Listings Of Copyrighted Content Of Netflix, Universal City Studios

Title: WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. DOODSTREAM.COM & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 331

The Delhi High Court has recently directed three alleged rogue cyberlocker websites and their operators to take down the listings of copyrighted content of leading entertainment companies like Netflix, Amazon, University City Studios and others.

Justice Anish Dayal further directed the rogue websites and their operators to disable all features from their platform allowing “regeneration of links and reuploading of infringing content” after takedown.

Tribunal's Discretion To Dispense Obligation To Deposit Duty/Interest Or Penalty In Cases Of Undue Hardships: Delhi High Court

Case Title: G & S International Versus Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 332

The Delhi High Court has held that the proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, gives discretion to the Tribunal in cases of undue hardships to dispense the obligation to deposit the duty, interest, or penalty.

Failure Of AO To Take Concrete Steps To Ascertain The Genuineness And Creditworthiness Of Transactions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 333

The Delhi High Court has held that the AO has not taken any concrete steps to ascertain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act introduces a deeming fiction to the effect that the order passed by the AO shall be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue if the order is passed without making inquiries or verification, which should have been made. 

Delhi High Court Permits 73-Yr-Old NDPS Convict To Travel Abroad For Performing Hajj, Says It Is Religious Duty Of Every Muslim

Title: SYED ABU ALA v. NCB

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 334

The Delhi High Court has permitted a 73 year old man, convicted under the NDPS Act in 2010, to travel abroad for a month to Saudi Arabia for performing Hajj or Umrah pilgrimage.

“The Hajj pilgrimage holds immense significance in the Islamic faith, representing one of the five pillars of Islam, and is a religious duty for every Muslim,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Waiver Under Section 12(5) A&C Not Inferred From Conduct Of Party, Even If It Participates In Arbitration: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award

Case Title: Alka Sachdeva vs Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 335

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed the contention that a party can waive its right to object to the arbitrator's appointment through its conduct. It underscored that any waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be explicit and in writing. It noted that there is no room for implying a waiver of rights under Section 12(5) through conduct or any other means.

Unless Clear Contrary Intention, Venue In Arbitration Clause Should Be Seat Of Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court Rejects Section 11 Petition

Case Title: Ved Contracts Pvt Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 336

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that if there are no clear indications to the contrary, the venue specified in an arbitration clause should be considered as the seat of arbitral proceedings. It underscored importance of discerning the intention of the parties by examining the entirety of the contract's terms.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Interim Protection From ED Arrest To CM Arvind Kejriwal In Liquor Policy Case

Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 337

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass orders granting interim protection from coercive action at this stage to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy case.

“We have heard both the sides. However, at this stage, we are not inclined [to pass any order],” a division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said.

Crucial To Recognize Emotional Toll Of Delays In Rape Trials, Victim's Appearances For Deposition Must Be Minimum: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHIT YADAV v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 338

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is crucial to recognize the “emotional toll” of delays in the trial on rape victims and emphasised that their appearances in court for the purpose of deposition must be minimum.

“Recognizing the emotional toll of such delays is crucial in ensuring that survivors are treated with the sensitivity and respect they deserve throughout the legal proceedings which includes expeditious trials and minimum possible essential appearances in the Court for the purpose of deposition,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

2G Scam: Delhi High Court Admits CBI's Appeal Against Acquittal Of A Raja, Others

Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. A RAJA & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 339

The Delhi High Court has admitted the appeal moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the acquittal of former telecom minister and current Lok Sabha MP, A Raja and various others in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Congress Party's Pleas Against Tax Re-Assessment Proceedings

Title: INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - 19 & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 340

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by the Indian National Congress against the initiation of income tax re-assessment proceedings against it for three years (2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17) by the tax authorities.

A division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that Congress had chosen to approach the court only a few days before the time for completion of assessment would expire and at the “proverbial fag end of the proceedings.”

One Party Cannot Appoint 2/3rd Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Apex Buldsys Limited v. IRCON International Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 341

The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel for appointment of arbitrator cannot be restricted to mere 3 names as it would violate broad-based representation. Moreover, one party cannot appoint 2/3rd members of the arbitral tribunal as it would violate principles of neutrality and counter-balancing.

Section 3 A&C | Deemed Service Is Rebuttable, If Party Establishes Delivery Could Not Be Made Despite Fulfilling Conditions u/s 3: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Avdhesh Mittal Vs Deepak Vig.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 342

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to a party isn't merely procedural but confers a substantive right upon them to challenge the award within the statutory period. The bench held that the presumption of deemed service under Section 3 of the Arbitration Act is rebuttable and can be negated if a party establishes that delivery of the written communication could not have been effected despite fulfilling the conditions under Section 3.

Tax Invoices Stating Arbitration Clause Binds Parties To Arbitration: Delhi High Court Refers Parties To Arbitration

Case Title: Srf Limited Vs Jonson Rubber Industries Limited.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 343

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that the tax invoices explicitly containing the arbitration clause and parties without raising any dispute concerning it are legally bound by the arbitration clause.

“In the present case, the parties have a running account which is not in dispute. Two purchase orders may have been placed by the Respondent and various invoices may have been issued by the Petitioner. These invoices clearly state that the terms and conditions listed at the back are applicable. Considering that the parties are in regular business dealings with each other, it cannot be said prima facie that the rear of the invoice was not supplied to the Respondent.”

Once Party Submits Itself To Jurisdiction Of Court And Abandons Section 8 Application, Cannot Seek Reference u/s 8: Delhi High Court

Case Tite: M/S. Assam Petroleum Ltd. & Ors Vs M/S. China Petroleum Technology Dev. Corp. & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 344

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that held that once a defendant submits itself to the jurisdiction of the Court and abandons its application under Section 8, it cannot subsequently seek referral of the disputes to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.

Sub-lease Agreement Excluded Disputes Related To Public Premise From Arbitration, Making Them Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CG Engineering Company Vs Ircon Infrastructure And Services Limited (Ircon Isl) And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 345

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral tribunal should generally be the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability, except in cases where claims were manifestly and ex facie non-arbitrable. It held that Sub-lease Agreement excluded the disputes related to public premise from arbitration, therefore, making them non-arbitrable.

MSMED Act | No Bar In 'filing' Petition Under Section 34 A&C Without Pre-deposit of 75% Award Amount, but Will Not Be 'Entertained' Without Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Central University Of Jharkhand Vs M/S. King Furnishing And Safe Co

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 346

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that there is no bar in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same can be filed without pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. However, the bench held that the petition will not be “entertained” under Section 19 of MSMED Act without the deposit of 75 % of the awarded amount.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Remove Automated Voice Prefixed In Emergency Helpline

Title: GANGA SARAN v. THE COMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 347

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking removal of Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and other computer-generated voice prefixed in Emergency Helpline No. 112.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora that the IVR system in place is best in the current scenario even though it may not be perfect.

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Be Faulted For Disallowing Additional Evidence At The Fag End Especially When The Document Was Already In Possession Of The Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Fortuna Skill Management Pvt Ltd v. M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 348

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot be faulted for disallowing additional evidence at the fag end especially when the document was already in possession of the party.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan also held that arbitral tribunal is not strictly bound by the Indian Evidence Act.

After Final Settlement Of Arbitration Award Is Acknowledged, Claims Of Under Influence And Coercion Can't Be Raised: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Maj. Pankaj Rai vs M/s Niit Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 349

The Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that once an arbitration award has been acknowledged to be fully and finally settled by both the parties, it cannot be challenged on the basis of one-sided nature of the arbitration agreement.

Abhisar Buildwell Judgment Can't Be Construed To Be An Authority To Override Mandate Of Section 245-I: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 350

The Delhi High Court has held that the judgement of Abhisar Buildwell passed by the Supreme Court cannot be construed to be an authority to override the mandate of Section 245-I of the Income Tax Act.

Citizenship Act Prevails Over Passport Manual: Delhi High Court

Title: AKSHAR REDDY VANGA AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY SUBBA REDDY VANGA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 351

The Delhi High Court has said that the Citizenship Act, 1955, prevails over the Passport Manual of 2020, observing that a subordinate legislation cannot override the parent legislation.

Justice Subramaniam Prasad allowed the plea moved by two minor children against the authorities' decision to cancel their Indian passports and not reissuing the same.

Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination 2023 Shall Be Conducted On April 13, 14: High Court

Title: SHAMBHAVI SHARMA v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 352

The Delhi High Court has ordered that the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination (Written) 2023 shall be held on April 13-14.

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal directed its Registrar General to shift the date of examination by about 12 days. The examination was earlier to be held on March 30-31.

Without Copy of Challenged Arbitral Award, Impossible To Consider Grounds To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition

Case Title: Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that failure to file a copy of arbitral award renders the filing under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incomplete. The bench held that without the copy of the challenged award, it is impossible to consider the grounds to set aside the arbitral award.

Parties Assuring Document Execution And Providing Security For Transaction Are Part Of Loan Agreement: Delhi High Court Refers Parties To Arbitration

Case Title: M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Lt Vs Dilip Jain And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 354

The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Jasmeet Singh that the parties which assured document execution and provided security for the transaction are integral part of the loan agreement.

No Privity Of Contract Between Parties, not party to MOU: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 11(4) A&C Petition

Case Title: Mrvs Value Straight Private Limited & Anr. Vs Brightstar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 355

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the Petitioners were not party to Memorandum of Understanding containing the arbitration clause, thus there was no privity of contract between the Petitioners and the Respondent.

Wife Openly Humiliating Husband, Calling Him Impotent Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 356

The Delhi High Court has said that being openly humiliated and called impotent by the wife in front of family members is an act of humiliation causing mental cruelty to the husband.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while granting divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty by the wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

Examination System Doesn't Permit For Students To Be Penalized For Poor Handwriting: Delhi High Court

Title: MADHAV CHAUDHARY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 357

The Delhi High Court has observed that the examination system does not permit students to be penalised for having poor handwriting.

The court however emphasized that students must write properly readable answers and examiners cannot be asked to evaluate completely unintelligible handwritings.

Arbitration Act | To Claim Liquidated Damages, Party Should Establish It Had Suffered Legal Injury As Result Of Breach Committed By Other Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Kanohar Electricals Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 358

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held Liquidated damages, in law, are no different from unliquidated damages that an aggrieved party may claim. In both instances, the aggrieved party is required to demonstrate legal injury.

Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator By Party: Delhi High Cout Set Aside Arbitral Award As It Contravened Section 12(5) A&C And & 7th Schedule

Case Title: M/s Upper India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held aside an arbitral award noting that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. The bench held that that the unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator by Respondent was non-est in law, as it contravened Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.