Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 04 To September 10, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 785 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 812

NOMINAL INDEX

CASA2 STAYS PVT LTD v. BBH COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 785

MOHD. IRSHAD & ANR. v. NADEEM 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 786

RAVI BHUSHAN UPADHYAY v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 787

THE SURGICAL MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 788

RAJESH KUMARI v. DHIRAJ & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 789

Mamta v. Pradeep Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 790

PREETI v. VIKAS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 791

VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 792

AARIF HUSSAIN v. SHRI AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 793

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. BABITA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 794

GLOBAL MUSIC JUNCTION PVT. LTD. v. SHATRUGHAN KUMAR AKA KHESARI LAL YADAV & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 795

Jindal Stainless Ltd Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 796

RAHUL MOHOD v. THE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 797

PW v. RW 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 798

M/S Frequent Logistics Services PVT. LTD. v. Commissioner Goods and Service Tax Department And ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 799

AMAN GUPTA v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 800

National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 802

Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 803

WASIM AHMAD & ORS. v. GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 804

DR. S. JAITLEY & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 805

THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY v. THE VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 806

Gopal Corporates LLP Versus Commissioner Delhi-East 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 807

PCIT Versus Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 808

NIPUN SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 809

SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 810

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. v. AJIO ONLINE SHOPPING PVT LTD AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 811

Captain Arvind Kathpalia v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 812

Principles Of Natural Justice Not Violated When The Opportunity To Make Oral Submission Is Not Availed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CASA2 STAYS PVT LTD v. BBH COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 785

The Delhi High Court has held that the principles of natural justice are not violated when the opportunity to make oral submissions on an issue was granted but not availed by the party. It held that no party has the absolute right to insist on his convenience in every respect.

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that an Arbitrator has a right to manage the proceedings and to give directions to the parties to be present on a particular date, time and place and this would be sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice.

Father’s Second Marriage After First Wife's Death Doesn't Per Se Disqualify Him From Being Child’s Natural Guardian: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD. IRSHAD & ANR. v. NADEEM

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 786

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere second marriage of the father, when he lost his first wife, cannot be held per-se a disqualification from his continuing to be a natural guardian of his child.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also observed that even the disparity in the financial status cannot be a relevant factor for denying the custody of a child to the natural parent.

Courts Can’t Be Used As "Matrimonial Facilitators" For Pressurizing Rape Accused To Get Married To Victim Or To Obtain Bail: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAVI BHUSHAN UPADHYAY v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 787

The Delhi High Court has observed that courts cannot be used as “matrimonial facilitators” for pressurizing the accused to get married to the victim or be denied bail in sexual assault cases.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma added that courts can also not be used by the accused for obtaining bail by asking the complainant to appear before the court and state that he was ready to get married to her.

‘Clearly A Policy Matter’: Delhi High Court Upholds Centre’s Decision Notifying All Medical Devices As Drugs

Case Title: THE SURGICAL MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 788

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of a 2020 notification issued by the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare notifying all medical devices, intended for use on human beings or animals, as drugs within the meaning of Section 3(b)(iv) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the Union Government, in its wisdom, thought it fit to bring all medical devices within the ambit of the expression “drug”, which is clearly a policy matter.

Acrimonious Relationship Between Parents No Ground To Deny Chance To Re-Establish Bond Between Mother And Child: Delhi High Court

CaseTitle: RAJESH KUMARI v. DHIRAJ & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 789

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the relationship between the parents has turned acrimonious, resulting in FIRs and making serious allegations against each other, cannot be a ground to deny an attempt at re-establishing the bond between a mother and her minor child.

Justice Navin Chawla set aside a family court order denying custody of a 10 year old minor child to the mother, observing that the interest of the child would lie in receiving the love and affection from both parents, though they may be warring with each other.

Marriages Often Don't Work Due To Incompatibility But Legal Mandate To Show Either Spouse's 'Fault' For Divorce Makes Parties Suffer: Delhi HC

Case Title: Mamta v. Pradeep Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 790

The Delhi High Court has made some striking observations with respect to the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 not recognizing incompatibility of a married couple as a ground for divorce, leaving such couples to "suffer acrimonious relationship" with no exit.

" Unless the opposite party was shown to be at fault, whether it was for ‘Adultery’, ‘Cruelty’, ‘Desertion’ or other grounds as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no divorce can be granted. With the passage of time, experience has shown that many a times, the marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed. However, since only Fault Theory prevails, these parties end up warring with each other for years to come only because they have no way of exiting this relationship " a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.

While Ascertaining Acts Of Mental Cruelty, Courts Must Look At Married Life As A Whole And Not Few Isolated Incidents: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PREETI v. VIKAS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 791

The Delhi High Court has observed that while looking at acts of 'mental cruelty', the courts must look at the married life of a couple as a whole and not merely a few isolated incidents.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also observed that mere filing of an FIR by wife is not sufficient to prove the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment without being proved by cogent evidence.

Acid Attack Cases Most Grievous Crimes Which Send Shockwaves, Court’s Role In Deciding Accused's Bail Plea Vital: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 792

The Delhi High Court has observed that acid attack cases, “characterized by their sheer brutality and devastating consequences”, are among the most grievous crimes which send shockwaves through communities and thus, the role of a court in granting or denying bail to the accused is of vital significance.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that such attacks often result in life-altering injuries, causing not only physical pain but also emotional scars that may never heal.

Delhi High Court Grants 7 Weeks Time To Centre For Complying With Order Extending HRA Benefit To All Personnel Of Paramilitary Forces

Case Title: AARIF HUSSAIN v. SHRI AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 793

The Delhi High Court has granted seven weeks time to the Union Government for complying with a division bench judgment passed in December last year extending the benefit of House Rent Allowance (HRA) to every personnel in the paramilitary forces, irrespective of the rank, as per their entitlement.

Justice Jasmeet Singh passed the order in a plea seeking contempt action against the authorities for failing to comply with the judgment.

Gender-Based Assumption In Favour Of Female Accused Without Valid Ground Goes Against Core Principles Of Justice System: Delhi High Court

Case Title: THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. BABITA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 794

The Delhi High Court has observed that gender based assumptions in favour of a female accused, without any substantive basis or valid grounds, goes against the core principles of our justice system.

“ Our legal system is founded on the principle of gender neutrality, unless otherwise provided, where each individual, regardless of their gender, is held accountable for their actions in accordance with the law. Presumptions based on gender have no place within this framework, unless provided by law, as they undermine the pursuit of truth and justice,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

SRA 2018 Made Specific Performance Of Contract General Rule Rather Than Exception, Legislative Shift Towards Stronger Enforcement Of Contracts: Delhi HC

Case Title: GLOBAL MUSIC JUNCTION PVT. LTD. v. SHATRUGHAN KUMAR AKA KHESARI LAL YADAV & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 795

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, has changed the nature of specific relief from an equitable, discretionary remedy to a statutory remedy and has made specific performance of a contract a general rule rather than an exception.

A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that the 2018 Amendment Act has brought the Indian Specific Performance Act in line with the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, as it aspires to achieve “harmonization in international law governing commercial contracts.”

Delhi High Court Limits Adjustment Of Tax Refunds Against Disputed Demands At 20%

Case Title: Jindal Stainless Ltd Versus DCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 796

The Delhi High Court has limited the adjustment of tax refunds against disputed demands to 20%.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the action of the AO in adjusting the refund due to the petitioner/assessee for AY 2022–23 against the disputed demands for AYs 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2014–15 was not only hasty but was also contrary to law.

Delhi Govt Addressing Immediate Healthcare Requirements Of Animals, Investing In Training Of Veterinary Personnel: High Court Observes

Case Title: RAHUL MOHOD v. THE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 797

The Delhi High Court has said that the Delhi Government is addressing the immediate healthcare requirements of animals and is also investing in the training and skill development of veterinary personnel through construction of a veterinary college.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also said that the government is seized of the threat posed by Canine Distemper virus and Parovirus in animals and is actively vaccinating them for the same.

‘Mental Cruelty’ Wide Enough To Include ‘Financial Instability’ Of Spouse: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PW v. RW

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 798

The Delhi High Court has ruled that term “mental cruelty” is wide enough to take within its ambit the “financial instability” of a spouse.

“In the present case, it is easy to decipher the mental trauma as the appellant [wife] was working and the respondent [husband] was not working. There was a huge disparity in the financial status of the appellant and the respondent. The endeavours of the respondent to be able to sustain himself had admittedly failed. Such kind of financial instability is bound to result in mental anxiety on account of husband being not settled in any business or profession which resulted in other vices, can be termed as a constant source of mental cruelty to the appellant. The term “mental cruelty” is wide enough to take within its ambit the “financial instability”” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

GST | Show Cause Notice Must Clearly Indicate Reasons For Which Registration Cancellation Is Proposed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Frequent Logistics Services PVT. LTD. v. Commissioner Goods and Service Tax Department And ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 799

The Delhi High Court has recently set aside show cause notice proposing to cancel GST registration and the consequential order cancelling the same on the ground that reasons for cancelling registration of assesee were not clearly mentioned in the show cause notice.

A bench comprising of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held:  “At the least, the Show Cause Notice must clearly indicate the reasons for which an adverse order is proposed to be passed in order for the noticee to respond to the same.”

Issuing Fake Invoices For GST Evasion Is Economic Offence Which Needs To Be Viewed Seriously, Poses Threat To Country’s Economy: Delhi High Court

Case Title: AMAN GUPTA v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 800

The Delhi High Court has observed that issuing fake invoices and e-way bills for GST evasion is an economic offence involving loss to the public exchequer which needs to be viewed seriously.

Justice Amit Bansal made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a chartered accountant accused of forgery and GST evasion by creating false invoices issued by non-existent entities.

Use Term ‘Staff Contribution’ Instead Of Service Charge, Amount Can’t Be More Than 10% Of Total Bill: Delhi HC To Members Of Restaurant Association

Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801

The Delhi High Court has directed the members of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India to only use the term “Staff Contribution” for the amount being charged as “service charge” currently.

Justice Prathiba M Singh added that the amount being charged as “staff contribution” shall not be more than 10% of the total bill amount excluding the GST component.

Defence Ministry Cannot Suspend An Entity Indefinitely Without Adhering To Safeguards For Banning Under Guidelines On Business Dealings: Delhi HC

Case Title: DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 802

The Delhi High Court has observed that indefinite suspension of an entity under the Union Ministry of Defence’s 2016 guidelines for penalties in business dealing, without resort to the safeguards prescribed for banning, would not be permissible.

The guidelines were issued on November 21, 2016. They provide for suspension and debarment of suppliers for violation of defense procurement processes.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the suspension is a subset or species within debarment or banning and not an independent measure and that suspension cannot be read in isolation but has to be read as a part of the banning process.

Section 100A CPC Bars Second Appeal Where Single Judge Heard Appeal From Original Or Appellate Decree Or Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 803

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars the filing of a second appeal where a Single Judge had heard an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that the restraint on a further appeal shall operate notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent of a High Court or any other law for the time being in force.

Do Ten Pro Bono Cases: Delhi High Court To Lawyer While Quashing FIRs Lodged Against Him By Ex-Wife

Case Title: WASIM AHMAD & ORS. v. GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 804

The Delhi High Court recently directed a lawyer to do ten pro bono cases while quashing two FIRs registered against him by his former wife, after they amicably settled the disputes and got talaq.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma quashed the FIRs registered under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as under Section 354 IPC and 10 of the POCSO Act.

The cases were registered by the wife due to matrimonial disputes between her and the husband. After a settlement was entered between them, they were granted Talaq-E-Mubarat.

Criminal Courts May Allow Accused To Appear Virtually If Circumstances Warrant, Integrity Of Trial Should Not Be Compromised: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DR. S. JAITLEY & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 805

The Delhi High Court has observed that courts should be flexible in embracing modern technology and allowing virtual appearance in criminal trials, provided they do not compromise the integrity or fairness of the trial.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that where the criminal trial can proceed effectively with the accused remaining present before the court through an alternative means such as vide-conferencing and representation by legal counsel, courts should be flexible in considering such prayers made by the accused.

Delhi HC Denies Interim Relief To Ivy League Princeton University In Trademark Suit Against Hyderabad-Based 'Princeton' Schools & Colleges

Case Title: THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY v. THE VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 806

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because several Indians may have studied in the prestigious Princeton University in the United States would not amount to “use” by the American Ivy League college of its “Princeton” mark in India for providing its services in terms of the Trade Marks Act.

“ Reference to Indian students studying at Princeton, howsoever large the number, cannot amount to the plaintiff providing services, in India, under the PRINCETON mark. Opening of centres in the plaintiff-institution in the US, dealing with Indian subjects, Indian studies, or Indian cultural activities, too, does not reflect use, by the plaintiff, of the PRINCETON mark in India prior to 1991,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of Rule 8 of Chewing Tobacco And Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules 2010

Case Title: Gopal Corporates LLP Versus Commissioner Delhi-East

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 807

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 8 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 (CTUT), which deals with the alteration in the number of operating packing machines.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that Rule 8 notes that in case a machine is added to the production capabilities existing in a factory, the number of operating packing machines for the month shall be deemed to be the maximum number of packing machines installed and existing on any day during that month. 

Undisclosed Income Taxed In The Hands Of Flagship Company Can’t Be Again Subjected To Tax In The Hands Of Assessee Companies: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 808

The Delhi High Court has held that undisclosed income taxed in the hands of flagship companies cannot be again subjected to tax in the hands of assessee companies.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that since the undisclosed income, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, had already been taxed in the hands of the flagship company Surya Food & Agro Ltd., it cannot be again subjected to tax in the hands of the respondents or assessee companies in the form of application of the income as their share capital.

Banks Can’t Use Look Out Circulars As Measure To Recover Money From Creditors: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NIPUN SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 809

The Delhi High Court has observed that banks cannot use Look Out Circulars (LOCs) as a measure of recovering money from creditors just because they feel remedy available under law is not sufficient.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that LOC can be issued only when there are sufficient reasons. He added that if there is a condition precedent for issuance of such LOC, the same must be provided therein.

Patent And Trademark Agents Do Not Come Within Ambit Of BCI Or Advocates Act, Regulatory Authority Need Of The Hour: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 810

The Delhi High Court has observed that patent and trademark agents do not come within the ambit of the Bar Council of India or the Advocates’ Act, 1961. Justice Prathiba M Singh added that there is no supervisory or regulatory authority over trademark and patent agents which appears to be the 'need of the hour'.

The bench thus sought to know the manner in which the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks intends to regulate or supervise the functioning of trademark and patent agents.

High Court Directs Delhi Police’s Cyber Cell To Probe 'Large Scale Operation' Of Collecting Money Under AJIO’s Name

Case Title: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. v. AJIO ONLINE SHOPPING PVT LTD AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 811

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police’s Cyber Cell to investigate “unscrupulous individuals” involved in “large scale operation” of collecting money under the name of fashion and lifestyle brand AJIO, by way of scratch coupons and prize money.

“….the Court is convinced that this appears to be a large-scale operation carried out by unscrupulous individuals with the intention of collecting money under the name of ‘AJIO’ and ‘AJIO Online Shopping Private Limited’. The letters and the scratch cards, etc., are so convincing that any customer or recipient would be unable to distinguish between the Plaintiffs' (Ajio’s) communications and those of the said entity or person,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

Person Exonerated In Disciplinary Proceedings Can't Be Subjected To 'Double Jeopardy' By Continuing Criminal Action For Same Offence: Delhi HC

Case Title: Captain Arvind Kathpalia v. GNCTD & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 812

The Delhi High Court has said that a person cannot be subjected to double jeopardy by initiating criminal proceeding after he has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding on same allegations.

The case pertains to a pilot of Air India who was facing criminal proceeding for forgery even after the disciplinary case against him was closed by the department.