Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 13 To November 19

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

NOMINAL INDEX

Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

Union of India & Anr. v. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax LiveLaw (Del) 1122

Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

DR ZAHEER AHMED v. PREETI SUDAN SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

Continuing To Contest The Suit Does Not Waive The Right To Arbitration When A Section 8 Objection Was Raised In Written Submissions And Arguments: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot be deemed to have waived off its right to arbitration merely because it continued to contest the suit when it had specifically raised objection to the maintainability of the suit due to the presence of the arbitration agreement.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that when a party takes a specific objection predicated on Section 8 in the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) seeking leave to defend the suit and that objection, thereafter, is reiterated in the written statement and arguments. It cannot be said that the party has waived the right to arbitration.

Before Issuing Summons U/S 138 NI Act, Only Prima Facie View On Presence Of Basic Ingredients Of The Offence Necessary: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116

Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently upheld summoning orders passed in a complaint case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that evidence need not be gone into by the MM while conducting inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of NI Act.

“At the stage of issuance of summons, for the purpose of Section 202 of the CrPC read with section 145 of the NI Act, the learned MM is only required to examine whether the basic ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been prima facie made out by the complainant and supported by the pre-summoning evidence led on behalf of the complainant.”

No Separate Application Under Section 8 Of The A&C Act Is Required When The Objection Is Duly Raised In The Written Submissions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

The Delhi High Court has held that once a party has duly taken objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit due to the presence of the arbitration clause between the parties in its written statement, it would be sufficient compliance of Section 8 of the A&C Act and there is no need for a separate application.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that once an arbitration clause has been extracted by a party in its written submission to object to the jurisdiction of the Court, the mere fact that the party did not separately request that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration, would be of little consequence.

Interested Party Cannot Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally, Award Passed By An Ineligible Arbitrator A Nullity: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1118

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party interested in the dispute cannot unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, and if any Award is passed as a result of such unilateral appointment, the same would be a nullity.

The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain, noted that the respondents’ nomination of the Arbitrator was without reference to the court in terms of Section 11 of A&C Act.

Interpretation Of Contract Primarily A Matter For Arbitrator To Determine, Scope Of Section 34 Arbitration Act Limited: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently allowed restoration of an arbitral award, noting that it was not within the scope of the Single Judge u/s 34 of A&C Act to re-interpret the contract between the parties and substitute the finding of the Arbitrator’s despite it being plausible and well-reasoned.

The court referred to Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI and said:

“…a change that has been brought in by the Amendment Act, 2015 is that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in short that the arbitrator's view is not even a possible view to take”.

Govt Can Only ‘Monitor’ MRP Of Non-Scheduled Formulations Under Drugs (Price Control) Order, Not Fix Or Revise It: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1120

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently held that the government only has power to “monitor” the maximum retail price (MRP) of non-scheduled formulations, and not to fix or revise it. It was added that in case there is an increase in the MRP beyond this limit, the consequences are prescribed in Para 20 itself.

The judgment came to be passed in a batch of LPAs filed by pharmaceutical companies, bringing into question interpretation of Para 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 (DPCO 2013), which deals with monitoring of non-scheduled formulations’ MRP.

Delhi High Court Rejects Interim Plea To Reopen Roshanara Club Sealed By DDA

Title: SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121

The Delhi High Court has rejected an application seeking opening of city’s 100-year-old Roshanara Club, which was sealed and locked by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in September.

A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the interim application filed in the petition moved by a member of the club Manish Aggarwal.

Wrongful Application Of Foreign Contribution By Trust Not In Accordance With Trust’s Objective: Delhi High Court Upholds Reassessment

Case Title: Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1122

The Delhi High Court has upheld the reassessment proceedings against a trust for wrongful application of foreign contribution, which was against the objective of the trust.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the AO based its opinion on tangible and concrete information in the form of the petitioner’s trust deed and the statement of the managing trustee that certain identified foreign contributions received by the petitioner were utilized for a purpose divergent from its object as disclosed in the trust deed. The wrongful application of the exemption availed under Section 11 or Section 12 of the Income Tax Act in relation to such funds would undoubtedly result in the AO forming the subjective satisfaction that the wrongly availed exemption vis-à-vis foreign contributions escaped income for the purpose of assessment under the Income Tax Act.

Court Won’t Insist For Bank Guarantee If Enforcement Of Award Is Not Frustrated In Section 9 Petition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123

The Delhi High Court held that the Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act would not order furnishing of Bank Guarantee (BG) to secure the claims of a party pending the arbitration proceedings, unless it shown that the order party is alienating its assets or acting in a manner that would frustrate the enforcement of the Arbitral Award.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that an order under Section 9 directing furnishing bank guarantee to secure the claims is akin to an order of attachment before judgment as provided under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. It held that the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act is not unduly bound by texts of CPC, however, it cannot pass any order in disregard to the principles of CPC.

Pendency Of Vigilance Inquiry No Impediment To Travel Abroad: Delhi High Court

Title: RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124

The Delhi High Court has observed that pendency of a vigilance inquiry cannot be an impediment for an individual to travel abroad.

Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while granting relief to a woman, accused in a corruption case, to travel abroad from November 29 to December 14 for her honeymoon.

Frame Policy On Online Sale Of Drugs Within Eight Weeks, Else Joint Secretary Should Appear: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: DR ZAHEER AHMED v. PREETI SUDAN SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Union Government to frame within eight weeks the policy to regulate online sale of drugs or medicines.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that if the policy is not framed within the stipulated time, the concerned Joint Secretary dealing with the subject shall remain present in court on the next date of hearing.

Yemen Supreme Court Dismissed Malayali Nurse's Appeal Against Death Sentence : Centre Informs Delhi High Court

Title: PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that the Supreme Court in Yemen on November 13 had dismissed the appeal of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya against the death sentence imposed on her for murdering a Yemeni national. The final decision now lies with the President of the Yemen, the Centre added.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the mother of Nimisha Priya seeking permission to travel to Yemen to negotiate with the victim’s family by paying blood money.

Delhi High Court Directs Acko General Insurance To Take Down Social Media Posts Using St+art India’s ‘Humanity’ Mural

Title: ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127

The Delhi High Court has directed insurance company Acko General Insurance to take down its social media posts using a mural titled “Humanity” in a copyright infringement suit filed by St+art India, an organization that works on art projects in public spaces.

As the insurance company agreed to take down the social media posts and other online postings using the mural, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:

“…accordingly, it is directed that the Defendant shall take down the said listings within 72 hours. Specific URLs displaying the said mural on the Defendant’s posts, if any, may also be communicated to the Defendant by the Plaintiffs. The above order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.”

Delhi HC Accepts Litigant’s Apology For Non-Disclosure Of Order Before Lower Court, Sets Aside Order Imposing Cost Noting There Was No Malice

Case Title: Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court recently accepted a litigant’s unconditional apology for failing to produce the court’s stay order before the District Judge at the time of listing for final arguments.

“…the mistake is definitely a serious one since order of the higher Court ought to have been necessarily communicated to the Court upon which the said order would have been binding,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Pulls Up MCD For Not Taking Possession Of Public Park Alleged To Be Illegally Occupied By Jama Masjid Authorities

Title: MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129

The Delhi High Court on Friday pulled up the Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to take possession of a public park near city’s Jama Masjid, observing that a statutory authority cannot lose possession of a public park.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by MCD’s counsel that the Shahi Imam or Jama Masjid authorities are allegedly in illegal possession and have locked the park in question.

Arbitration | Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Steel Manufacturer-Arcelormittal In Section 9 Petition Against GAIL, Says Prima Facie Case Not Made Out

Case Title: ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1130

The Delhi High Court recently denied urgent interim relief to leading steel manufacturer-ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (petitioner) in a claim against GAIL India Ltd., observing that the scope of enquiry u/s 9 of A&C Act was limited to prima facie examination of the issue, which was not established in the petitioner’s favour.

The petitioner had approached the court seeking stay over a Notice issued by GAIL, statedly to terminate the LNG Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) entered by the two. It further sought directions for GAIL to deliver LNG in accordance with the LSPA.

TRU Can’t Issue Clarification Regarding Classification Of Polypropylene Woven And Non-Woven Bags Under Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1131

The Delhi High Court has held that the Tax Research Unit (TRU) cannot issue clarification regarding the classification of polypropylene woven and non-woven bags under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the department could not point out any provision of the CGST Act, in terms of which the TRU could be said to have been clothed with the authority or jurisdiction to render a clarification with respect to the classification of goods and articles. The Board appears to be the sole recipient of the authority. There is no authority vested in the TRU to issue the clarification.

Excise Policy: Delhi High Court Allows PMLA Accused To Interact With Daughter Suffering From Paranoid Schizophrenia Through VC, Denies Interim Bail

Title: AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

The Delhi High Court on Friday allowed businessman Amit Arora, accused in the PMLA case related to the excise policy scam, to interact with her 16 years old daughter suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia through video-conferencing for half an hour twice a week and wished her “complete psychological recovery” as well as a “life time of positive mental health.”

While Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the interim bail plea moved by Arora on the ground of his daughter’s mental health condition, the court made arrangement for VC meetings and said that the psychological injury that some children may suffer in such cases need healing.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Extend Hospital Stay Of Amandeep Singh Dhall In Excise Policy Case, Asks Jail Authorities To Ensure Treatment

Title: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the duration of medical treatment of businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, Amandeep Singh Dhall, who is an accused in the excise policy scam case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the pleas moved by Dhall in both the cases registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking extension of duration of his medical examination and treatment at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, pursuant to order passed by the court.

Coal Scam: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash ED Summons To West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak

Title: MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from summoning West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak in future in connection with the coal smuggling case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that it was rather surprising that Ghatak himself had not appeared before the ED on 11 occasions out of 12 to give the information that was being sought by the probe agency.

Concealment Of Income Above Rs.50 Lakhs, Extended Period Of Limitation Would Apply: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

The Delhi High Court has held that an extended period of 10 years would apply in serious tax evasion cases where there was evidence of concealment of income above Rs. 50 lakhs.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that, as per the Memorandum, in “normal cases”, no notice was intended to be issued if 3 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant AY. Notice, beyond the prescribed 3 years from the end of the relevant AY, could be issued only in a few specific cases. One such example, which is given in the bill, is where the AO was in possession of evidence that escaped income amounted to Rs. 50 lakhs or more.

Delhi Gymkhana Club Exigible To Tax Under Delhi Tax On Luxuries Act, 1996: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136

The Delhi High Court has held that Delhi Gymkhana Club is exigible to tax under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996, as it stood during the assessment period in question, extended its application also to the provision of residential accommodation in a club and, in any case, did not at the relevant time exclude the provisioning of accommodation to members of a club from the expression “luxury”. In fact, the word “luxury” did not even exist in the statute book prior to its insertion by virtue of the 2012 Amendment Act.

AO Lacked Tangible Material To Form A Belief That Income, Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment: Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice

Case Title: Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137

The Delhi High Court has held that AO did not have the tangible material on record that could have persuaded him to form the belief that income, otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia, the AO, did not employ diligence while triggering the reassessment proceedings against the petitioner or assessee. Because AO realized that the information received by him from ITO (Nahan) concerned the preceding period, he attempted to commence reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act by simply comparing the “source of funds” reflected under various heads in the balance sheets for the preceding AY and the AY in issue.

Delhi High Court Restrains Kerala Based Furniture Store From Using ‘IKEA’ Mark In Trademark Infringement Suit

Title: INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Kerala based furniture store “Ikea Luxury Furniture” from using the mark “Ikea” either as a trademark or trade name on hoardings, including stationery, banners, handbills, and promotional materials.

Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational furniture company, Inter IKEA Systems BV. It sought protection of its mark ‘IKEA’.

Constitute Committee To Supervise Implementation Of Pay Commission Recommendations On School Staff : High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1139

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to constitute a High Powered Committee to supervise implementation of recommendations prescribed in 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) regarding payment of salaries and arrears to staff of private unaided schools and recognized private unaided minority schools in the national capital.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ordered that the Committee shall be constituted at Central and Zonal levels.

Will Can Be Suspected Only When Substantial Changes Are Introduced By Cuttings And Overwriting: Delhi High Court

Title: MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

The Delhi High Court has observed that only where it is found that there are substantial changes sought to be introduced to a Will by cuttings and overwriting on it, it can be open for the Court to conclude that the Will is suspect and has to be rejected.

Justice Rekha Palli observed that the effect of cuttings and overwriting in a Will would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

IPD Rules Do Not Bar Taking Additional Documents On Record After Filing Of Reply Or Counter-Statement To Rectification Petition: Delhi High Court

Title: BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141

The Delhi High Court has ruled that its Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, do not contain any provision which bars taking additional documents on record after reply or counter-statement is filed by the respondent to the rectification petition.

“The IPD Rules do not contain any provision which proscribes taking of additional documents on record, unlike the Original Side Rules, which does contain such a provision, in Rule 147 in Chapter VII,” Justice C Hari Shankar held.