Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 22 To May 28

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 425 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 451

NOMINAL INDEX

Maj Pankaj Rai v. NIIT Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 425

SMT. CHETNA RATHEE v. CHAHIT KUNDU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 426

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. SHRI. JOGINDER SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 427

Kiran Thakur vs Resident Commissioner Bihar Bhavan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 428

RITVIK SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 429

ANAND v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 430

KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 431

JUSTICE FOR ALL v. LAXMI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 432

DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 433

Carpet Export Promotion Council Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 434

RDB AND CO. HUF v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 435

PROF. DR. SANJEEV BAGAI & ORS. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 436

Satish Chandra Verma v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 437

ADV. SHIV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 438

Shruti Sharma v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 439

RITU CHERNALIA v. AMAR CHERNALIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 440

VK & ANR versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 441

Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited vs National Highway Authority of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 442

DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR PACHAURI v. INDU JAIN & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 443

M/s Vindhya Vasini Construction Co vs M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 444

Central PWD Engineers Assoc. & Anr. V. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 445

SANJAY GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 446

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. & Anr vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 447

KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 448

MR. YUSUFFALI MUSALIAM VEETTIL ABDUL KADER vs MR. SHAJAN SKARIAH & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 449

New Delhi Nature Society v. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 450

INDU KAPOOR v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 451

Reasons For Bias Do Not Fall Under VII Schedule Of A&C Act , Petition Is Abuse Of Process Of Court : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Maj Pankaj Rai v. NIIT Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 425

The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitrator can be removed under Section 14(1)(a) which provides for de jure ineligibility of arbitrator only if his appointment falls within the grounds mentioned under the VII Schedule.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the mandate of the arbitrator on grounds of bias and prejudice cannot be terminated if the test of the Schedule VII is not satisfied as the grounds mentioned therein are the only situations that render an arbitrator de jure ineligible to act as arbitrator.

Family Courts Expected To Not Adopt Hyper-Technical Approach And Close Party’s Right To Cross Examination In Hurried Manner: Delhi High Court

Title: SMT. CHETNA RATHEE v. CHAHIT KUNDU

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 426

The Delhi High Court has observed that the family courts are expected to not adopt a “hyper-technical approach” and close the right of cross examination of a party in a hurried manner while dealing with matrimonial cases.

Justice Rekha Palli made the observation while setting aside an order passed by the family court rejecting a wife’s application for restoration of her right to cross examine the husband, who had appeared as a prosecution witness.

Govt Employee Should Not Be Denied Medical Reimbursement For Emergency Treatment Merely Due To Non-Empanelment Of Hospital: Delhi High Court

Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. SHRI. JOGINDER SINGH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 427

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the medical claim of a government employee for reimbursement of treatment undertaken in emergency should not be denied merely because the hospital was not empanelled with CGHS facility.

A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the test would be to see whether the claimant had actually undertaken the treatment in emergent condition as advised and if the same is supported by record.

No Sympathy Or Compassion For Employees Submitting Forged Documents To Employer: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kiran Thakur vs Resident Commissioner Bihar Bhavan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 428

The Delhi High Court has said that employees who are guilty of submitting forged documents to their employer have to be dealt with in a strict manner. It said such persons are certainly unfit to be employed and no sympathy or compassion can be shown to such an employee.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while upholding the termination order of a woman who was dismissed from services by the Bihar Bhavan for submitting a forged class 8th pass certificate.

The court noted that there was a clear finding made by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner Kiran Thakur that she had failed to prove the authenticity of the Class 8th pass certificate submitted by her.

Ensure Provisions Of RPwD Act Are Followed In Future Admissions: Delhi High Court To Union Govt’s Medical Counselling Committee 

Title: RITVIK SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 429

The Delhi High Court has directed the Medical Counselling Committee to ensure that the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 are followed in admissions to medical courses in future.

The Medical Counselling Committee, an organisation affiliated to Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, is responsible for allotting seats for undergraduate, postgraduate and super-specialty medical and dental courses in government colleges on the basis of a candidate's score in NEET examination.

High Court Upholds Validity Of Order Making Delhi Residence Mandatory Condition For Civil Defence Volunteer Recruitment

Title: ANAND v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 430

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of an order passed by the Delhi Government making “resident of Delhi” as a mandatory condition to become eligible for being a civil defence volunteer.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the plea moved by Advocate Anand challenging the order passed by the Secretary of Delhi Government’s Revenue and Divisional Commissioner on March 18, 2015.

The court said that the authorities are competent to issue necessary directions in respect of the place of residence of a candidate while enrolling a person as a civil defence volunteer.

High Court Sets Aside Delhi Mayor’s Decision For Re-Election Of MCD Standing Committee

Title: KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 431

The Delhi High Court has set aside the decision of Mayor Shelly Oberoi to hold re-election for six members of the standing committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav allowed the pleas moved by BJP councillors Kamaljeet Sehrawat and Shikha Roy challenging the notice issued by the Mayor on February 24.

The court has ordered the Mayor to declare the results of the elections which were held on February 24 fortwith.

Liberal Rules For Filing PIL But ‘Busybodies’ With Oblique Interest Can’t Be Allowed To Waste Precious Judicial Time: Delhi High Court

Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL v. LAXMI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 432

The Delhi High Court has said that while there are liberal rules regarding the locus to file a public interest litigation but it must be ensured that “busybodies, wayfarers or officious interveners” with oblique interests are not allowed to waste precious judicial time.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing a PIL alleging misuse of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to mortgage public land allotted to charitable societies under the Government Grants Act, 1895.

‘Don’t Pose A Flight Risk Owing To Their Professional Standing’: Delhi High Court Permits Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy To Travel Abroad

Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 433

The Delhi High Court has permitted journalists Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel abroad from July 25 to August 15, observing that they don’t pose a flight risk owing to their professional standing.

“Owing to the professional standing of the petitioners [Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy] and their ties to India, they don’t pose a flight risk. The petitioners are permitted to travel abrod,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

The court disposed of an application filed by the Roys and permitted them to travel abroad, subject to the condition that they will provide details of their itinerary to the Registrar of the court.

Rejection Of Application Under SVLDR Scheme Without A Hearing Is Violative Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Carpet Export Promotion Council Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 434

The Delhi High Court has held that the summary rejection of the application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) without affording the opportunity to be heard would violate the principles of natural justice.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that in terms of the SVLDR Scheme, the petitioner would be entitled to the waiver of interest and penalty as it had paid the requisite tax prior to the stipulated date. There is no dispute that the amount as estimated to be payable—that is, tax dues less relief—is nil.

Satyajit Ray First Owner Of Copyright In ‘Nayak’ Movie, Right To Novelize Screenplay Vested In Him: Delhi High Court

Title: RDB AND CO. HUF v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 435

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that late director Satyajit Ray is the first owner of copyright in 1966 Bengali film 'Nayak' and the right to novelize its screenplay is also vested in him.

Justice C Hari Shankar was hearing a suit moved by RDB and Co. HUF, whose 'Karta' R.D. Bansal had commissioned Ray to write and direct the film, seeking to restrain publishing house Harpercollins from novelizing the film written by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay. The book was published in May 2018.

Delhi High Court Stays Rule Permitting Pruning Of Tree Branches Of Girth Size Upto 15.7cms Without Reference To Tree Officer

Title: PROF DR SANJEEV BAGAI & ORS. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST) & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 436

Observing that it would be “creeping legalised genocide of trees”, the Delhi High Court recently stayed a clause which permits regular pruning of tree branches of girth size upto 15.7cms without reference to the Tree Officer.

“Therefore, to ensure that there is no felling of trees for the asking or of chopping of large branches of trees at will to reduce them to a mere pole-like entity (as noted in the photograph at page 15 supra), clause 5 of the Guidelines shall not be given effect to till the next date [May 24],” Justice Najmi Waziri said in an order passed on May 10.

Delhi High Court Rejects Former IPS Officer Satish Chandra Verma's Plea Against Dismissal Order

Title: Satish Chandra Verma v. UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 437

The Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the Union Government dismissing Gujarat IPS Officer Satish Chandra Verma, who probed Ishrat Jahan encounter case, one month before his retirement.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed the pleas moved by Verma against his termination.

Though initially Verma had challenged the departmental enquiry against him, however, he moved an application before the High Court last year to amend his petition to challenge the dismissal order which was passed during the pendency of the matter.

Advocates Appearing On Criminal Side Can’t Claim A Right To Own Arms License: Delhi High Court

Title: ADV. SHIV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 438

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the lawyers appearing on the criminal side for an accused or the prosecution cannot claim a right to own an arms license as it could result in issuance of such licenses indiscriminately.

“An application by an advocate merely based on the ground of appearance on behalf of the accused persons, in the opinion of this Court, would not be sufficient to grant an arms license,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order passed on May 22.

Constitute Selection Committee For Choosing Karate Players To Represent India In Upcoming Asian Games: Delhi High Court To Sports Authority Of India

Case Title: Shruti Sharma v. UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 439

Considering the absence of a recognized National Federation in the field of Karate, the Delhi High Court has directed the Director General of Sports Authority Of India (SAI) to constitute a Selection Committee consisting of players and a senior SAI coach to select a competent team to represent India in the sport of Karate in the upcoming Asian Games.

In the order dated May 18, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the Director General, SAI will constitute a Selection Committee as as stipulated in the letter dated May 15 of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, Government of India “within one week from today”, “which shall, after such constitution proceed with the process of selecting the team as per Indian Olympic Association (IOA) Rules with all earnest”.

Daughter In Law Has No Indefeasible Right In Shared Household, In-Laws Cannot Be Excluded: Delhi High Court

Title: RITU CHERNALIA v. AMAR CHERNALIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 440

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a daughter in law does not have an indefeasible right in a “shared household” and that the in-laws cannot be excluded from the same.

“Thus, the concept of ‘shared household’ clearly provides that the right of the daughter-in-law in a shared household is not an indefeasible right and cannot be to the exclusion of the in-laws,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order passed on May 22.

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Accusing Husband Of Cruelty After Wife Pays Rs 12 Lakh To Him Under Divorce Settlement

Title: VK & ANR versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 441

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR against a husband, who was accused of cruelty by his wife after the couple settled their differences. Besides dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce under mutual consent, the wife also paid her husband an amount of Rs.12 Lakh towards all his claims.

"Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.6 lacs was paid by the respondent no.2 [wife] to the petitioner no.1 [husband] at the time of recording of the statement of the first motion on 06.01.2023 and the remaining amount of Rs. 6 lacs was paid at the time of recording of the statement of the second motion, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the petitioner no.1," the court recorded in the order.

Arbitration: Courts Should Not Grant Injunction In Public Work Projects; Delhi High Court Reiterates Law

Case Title: Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited vs National Highway Authority of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 442

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of Sections 20A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), the courts should grant no injunction relating to infrastructure projects where delay may be caused by such an injunction.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking to staying the operation of a ‘Notice of Intention To Terminate’ issued by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to a contractor, on the ground that the latter had failed to carry out its obligations under the Contract in relation to the strengthening/overlaying work on National Highway-48. The petitioner sought to restrain NHAI from flouting a fresh tender with respect to the said project.

Accepting Unconditional Apology, Delhi High Court Discharges Arnab Goswami, Others In Contempt Case By Former TERI Chief RK Pachauri

Title: DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR PACHAURI v. INDU JAIN & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 443

Managing Director and Editor-in-chief of Republic TV Arnab Goswami has tendered his unconditional apology before the Delhi High Court in a 2016 contempt case moved by former Executive Vice Chairman of TERI R.K. Pachauri against him and others for “fragrant and willful disobedience” of the court’s earlier orders restricting them from publishing certain claims against him.

On May 22, the court discharged Arnab Goswami, Economic Times and Raghav Ohri after accepting their written unconditional apology. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also dismissed the plea against Prannoy roy on merits.

Agreement Providing For Exclusive Appointment Of Party’s Nominee As Arbitrator, Conditional Acceptance; A Case Of Non-Survival Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Vindhya Vasini Construction Co vs M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 444

The Delhi High Court has ruled where the Arbitration Agreement unambiguously provides that in case the stipulated person cannot act as an Arbitrator, the dispute is not to be referred to Arbitration at all, the same reflected the conditional acceptance of Arbitration by the party.

Govt Servants Can’t Be Excluded From Protection Of Fundamental Rights: Delhi High Court On Public Servants’ Right To Form Association

Case Title: Central PWD Engineers Assoc. & Anr. V. UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 445

Observing that government servants "cannot be excluded from the protection" of fundamental rights, the Delhi High Court has set aside the 2019 Memorandum Order (M.O.) that de-recognised the Central PWD Engineers Association. During the pendency of the matter, the Association was granted recognition in 2021.

The decision was not issued with the approval of the Competent Authority, as provided under the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993, but was only taken at the level of DG, CPWD, the court said.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas By Gandhis, Aam Aadmi Party Against Transfer Of Income Tax Assessments To Central Circle

Title: SANJAY GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 446

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bunch of pleas moved by Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Wadra, Aam Aadmi Party and other charitable trusts challenging the decision of Income Tax authorities to transfer their tax assessments to the central circle.

A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed the petitions and observed that transfer was in accordance with law. However, the court clarified that it did not examine the matter on merits. 

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With TRAI's Recommendation For Rs 1050 Crore Penalty On Vodafone, Says TDSAT Can Decide Issue On Merits

Case Title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. & Anr vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 447

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recommendation to impose a penalty of Rs. 1050 crores on Vodafone for failing to provide interconnectivity services to Reliance Jio Infocom Limited under an Interconnection Agreement executed between them.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that both the Central Government’s order dated 29.09.2021, imposing penalty of Rs. 950 Crores on Vodafone Idea, and TRAI’s recommendation dated 21.10.2016, are under challenge before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). Further, the TDSAT had already stayed the order passed by Central Government, the court noted.

Agniveer Vayus Being Recruited In Air Force Without Gender Discrimination: Delhi High Court

Title: KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 448

The Delhi High Court has said that the “Agniveer Vayus” are being recruited in the Air Force without any gender discrimination.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions to allow recruitment of females for the post of Airmen in group "X" and "Y" trade in all the departments of the Indian Air Force.

Delhi High Court Directs Malayalam News Portal To Take Down Defamatory Content Published Against Lulu Group Founder MA Yusuff Ali

Case Title: MR. YUSUFFALI MUSALIAM VEETTIL ABDUL KADER vs MR. SHAJAN SKARIAH & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 449

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to MA Yusuff Ali, Chairman of Lulu Group International, by directing Shajan Skariah, the editor of online Malayalam news portal "Marunadan Malayalee", to remove all defamatory content published against the billionaire businessman from social media within 24 hours.

On failure to do so, YouTube has been directed to take down all such defamatory content posted in the Marunadan Malayalee channel against Yusuff Ali and to suspend the operation of the channel . Further, the Court restrained Skariah from using any platform/social media platforms including YouTube for making any comments/remarks in relation to Yusuff Ali.

Victimization Of Trees: Delhi High Court Sentences Two Senior PWD Officers For Contempt Of Court

Case Title: New Delhi Nature Society v. Rajesh Bansal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 450

The Delhi High Court recently sentenced two senior officers of the Public Works Department to imprisonment after they were held guilty of contempt of court last year for not following judicial orders with regard of protection of trees. The court had earlier directed the PWD to "exercise due caution apropos all its ongoing civil works as well as for all future projects."

Justice Najmi Waziri sentenced the Engineer-in-Chief and Executive Engineer of PWD to four and two months in jail respectively, along with fine of Rs. 2000 each.

Install Requisite Infra For Internet Connectivity, Hybrid Hearings In DRTs: Delhi High Court To Union Govt

Title: INDU KAPOOR v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 451

The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Ministry of Finance to install requisite infrastructure for internet connectivity and facilitation of hybrid hearings at Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in the national capital.

“The court would expect the Administrative Ministry to be mindful of and anticipate the needs of the Bar and the Tribunals in the years to come and install all requisite infrastructure for such needs, including for facilitation of hybrid hearing of cases, as has been directed by the Supreme Court in Sanket Kumar Agarwal (supra),” a division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar said.