Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 16 To September 22, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

NOMINAL INDEX

Hari Kishan Sharma vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

VIJAY KAUSHIK Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

M/S Chauhan Construction Co. versus Commissioner of DGST and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

PURVI DELHI VAIDEHI TRUST (PDVT) vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

The Milestone Aviation Asset Holding Group vs. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

ANASTASIA MIRJANA JOJIC OBEROI & ORS. v/s RAJARAMAN SHANKAR & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1022

Amit Arora v. ED and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1024

Munna v. MCD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

X v. State & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

RB v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. MOVIESMOD.BET & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

PRATEEK & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

ADNAN NISAR v. ED & other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

DR ANKIT SHARMA & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

Prime Interglobe Private Limited v. Super Milk Products Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. v. VISHNU KUMAR BADETIYA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1033

JAGTAR SINGH JOHAL @ JAGGI v. NIA and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1034

Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. cs. Bio Logic And Psychotropics India Private Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

M/s PGL Estatecon Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Jyoti Enterprises 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036

Grand Motors Sale And Services Pvt Ltd v. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037

SURMILA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

Swati Maliwal v. State and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

M/s SS Enterprises versus Principal Commissioner 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

PCIT versus RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.v. EX/NK CHINNA VEDIYAPPAN 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

Income Tax Refund Can't Be Denied To Taxpayer For Discrepancy In Form 26AS Filed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hari Kishan Sharma vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

While observing that tax was duly deducted by the Land Acquisition Collector but was not disclosed for some reasons and hence the credit was not reflected in Form 26AS, the Delhi High Court held that the assessee/ petitioner cannot be penalized for the mere reason that the Form 26AS suffered from a discrepancy.

By Participating In Selection Process, Candidates Do Not Get Indefeasible Right To Get Appointment, Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: VIJAY KAUSHIK Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Writ Petition which challenged a judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Petitioner had sought seniority from the year 2007 despite being appointed in the year 2009, contending that he was entitled for appointment in the year 2007 itself.

A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia held that the petitioner who participated in the selection process for the post of Sub Inspector had no vested right to claim appointment for the recruitment process of 2007, since he was already appointed in the year 2009.

In Absence Of Specific Reasons, GST Registration Can't Be Cancelled With Retrospective Effect : Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Chauhan Construction Co. versus Commissioner of DGST and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

Finding that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) did not mention any particulars, which would provide any clue to the taxpayer/ petitioner as to the reasons for cancellation of its GST registration, the Delhi High Court quashed the SCN as well as the order, by which the GST Commissioner had cancelled the GST registration of petitioner with retrospective effect.

No Vested Legal Right To Allotment Of Public Site By Merely Making Online Booking: Delhi High Court

Case title: PURVI DELHI VAIDEHI TRUST (PDVT) vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

The Delhi High Court has observed a vested legal right for allotment of a public site/public park does not arise merely because the site has been booked online by paying the required amount.

“There is no vested legal right to allotment of a public site or park by merely applying 'online' followed by payment of the booking amount,” the court said.

Treaty Provisions Prevails Over Income Tax Act – Receipts From Aircraft Leasing Is Not Taxable As Royalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Milestone Aviation Asset Holding Group vs. ACIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

The Delhi High Court held that consideration received by Assessee from aircraft leasing activity is not taxable as royalty either u/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act or under India-Ireland DTAA.

Delhi High Court Orders Interim Restraint On Transfer Of Late Oberoi Group Chairman's Company Shares In Daughter's Suit Against Family Members

Case title: ANASTASIA MIRJANA JOJIC OBEROI & ORS. v/s RAJARAMAN SHANKAR & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1022

In an interim order passed last week, the Delhi High Court has restrained the transfer of Oberoi group's former chairman late PRS Oberoi's shares in EIH Limited–which runs the Oberoi and Trident hotel chain–and its two holding companies, except one specific class of shares, after Oberoi's daughter moved a lawsuit seeking an injunction on the said transfer.

Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Amandeep Singh Dhall, Amit Arora

Title: Amit Arora v. ED and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to businessmen Amandeep Singh Dhall and Amit Arora in the money laundering case connected to the alleged excise policy scam case.

Arora was granted interim bail on medical grounds in August. He is the director of Gurugram-based company Buddy Retail Pvt. Ltd. On the other hand, Dhall, who is the businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, was denied bail in the CBI case in June.

Land For Jobs Scam: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Lalu Yadav's Aide Amit Katyal In PMLA Case

Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1024

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's close aide Amit Katyal in a money laundering case related to the alleged land-for-jobs scam case.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the investigations qua Katyal already stood concluded and the Prosecution Complaint was also filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Delhi High Court Directs MCD To Pay ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Parents For Death Of Their Son Due To Its Negligence

Title: Munna v. MCD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation to the parents of a minor child, who passed away after a lantern/slab fell on him from the premises owned by MCD.

A single bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found the MCD to be negligent in maintaining safe conditions of its premises and invoked the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' to place liability on the MCD.

Delhi High Court Orders Over ₹9 Lakh Compensation To Minor Who Was Sexually Abused By Father, Calls It Essential Part Of 'Curing Justice'

Title: X v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

The Delhi High Court has recently directed the DSLSA to pay Rs. 9.65 lakh of compensation to a minor rape victim who was sexually abused and assaulted by her father in 2018. The minor was 17 years of age at the time of the incident.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Charges Framed Against Mother For Failing To Report POCSO Case Against Daughter

Title: RB v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a trial court order framing charges against a mother for failing to report offences under POCSO Act against her 16-year-old daughter who was allegedly raped by her father.

Justice Anish Dayal observed that the mother who was herself the victim of sexual abuse by her husband, had become the accused by applying Section 21 of the POCSO Act, wholly insulated from the background facts and circumstances of the case.

Delhi High Court Passes 'Dynamic+' Injunction To Protect Copyrighted Works Of Warner Bros, Netflix & Others

Title: WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. & ORS. v. MOVIESMOD.BET & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

The Delhi High Court has recently passed a dynamic+ injunction to protect the copyrighted works of Warner Bros, Netflix, Disney and other global entertainment companies.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee was dealing with a suit filed by global entities against 45 rogue websites seeking to restrain them from hosting and streaming their copyrighted works in various movies and shows.

Abysmal State Of Affairs That Litigants Prefer False Complaints In Matrimonial Disputes: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR

Title: PRATEEK & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that it is an “abysmal state of affairs” that litigants have resorted to preferring false complaints in matrimonial disputes against the opposite party, thereby making a mockery of the judicial system.

Offence Committed In Foreign Country Can Be Treated As Predicate Offence Under PMLA When Proceeds Of Crime Travels To India: Delhi HC

Title: ADNAN NISAR v. ED & other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

The Delhi High Court has held that an offence committed in a foreign country under laws of that nation can be treated as a predicate offence under PMLA if it has “cross border implications” and the proceeds of the crime have travelled to India.

Service Bond Is Not A Contract Of Employment, Delhi High Court Upholds ESIC's Decision To Reduce Bond Period From Five/Three Years To One Year Post Qualification

Case Title: DR ANKIT SHARMA & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by the Petitioners challenging the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which upheld the decision of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Dental College and Hospital in Rohini, Delhi. ESIC had reduced the service bond period to one year From Five/Three Years after attaining the qualification as per the revised policy.

Both Parties Are Entitled To Get The Benefit Of The Latter Part Of Section 34(3) While Computing The Period Of Limitation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prime Interglobe Private Limited v. Super Milk Products Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 34 petition, has held that any party can benefit from the second part of Section 34(3) when calculating the limitation period. The statute's language does not specify who should request under Section 33. Therefore, the benefit of calculating the limitation period from the date of disposal of the Section 33 application is available to both parties.

Delhi Is Of Migrants, Benefit Of Reservation To Any Category Can't Be Denied: High Court

Title: DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. v. VISHNU KUMAR BADETIYA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1033

The Delhi High Court has recently held that the national capital, being a Union Territory, is of migrants and benefit of reservation to any particular category cannot be denied.

“It is also not in dispute, NCT of Delhi being Union Territory for all purposes, except for running administration, is of migrants, therefore, benefit of reservation to any category cannot be denied,” a division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia said.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To British National Jagtar Singh Johal In Murder, UAPA Cases

Title: JAGTAR SINGH JOHAL @ JAGGI v. NIA and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1034

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to British national Jagtar Singh Johal in seven murder and UAPA cases being probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the bail appeals filed by Johal in the UAPA cases alleging series of targeted killings during 2016-2017 in Ludhiana and Jalandhar Districts of Punjab.

Delhi High Court Restrains Businesses From Using Amul's Trademark On Their Pharmaceutical Products, Directs Payment Of ₹5 Lakhs In Damages & Costs

Case title: Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. cs. Bio Logic And Psychotropics India Private Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of Amul, against businesses dealing in pharmaceutical products, from using 'AMUL' trademark on their products. The Court imposed costs and damages of Rs. 5 lakh against them for infringing Amul's well-known trademark.

Delhi High Court Stays Arbitral Awards Due To Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator

Case Title: M/s PGL Estatecon Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Jyoti Enterprises

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036

The Delhi High Court bench presided by Justice C. Hari Shankar has stayed the execution of two arbitral awards, holding that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent, without court intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act, rendered the arbitration proceedings invalid ab initio.

Since Seat Is Fixed, Only Court Having Territorial Jurisdiction Over Seat Has Jurisdiction Over Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Grand Motors Sale And Services Pvt Ltd v. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that when the seat of the arbitration is contractually fixed, only those Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the seat would have the curial jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Following the dictum in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd, the court held that the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition.

'Urban Planning Failure': Delhi High Court On Parking Issue In Residential Colonies, Calls For Policy Based Response From Municipal Authorities

Title: SURMILA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

Calling it an “urban planning failure”, the Delhi High Court has said that the issue of parking space in residential colonies in the national capital requires a policy based response from the municipal authorities.

“The absence of dedicated parking spaces in residential colonies is a civic issue that requires a policy- based response from municipal authorities rather than judicial intervention in individual disputes,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

DCW Appointments: Delhi High Court Dismisses Former Chairperson Swati Maliwal's Plea Against Framing Of Corruption Charges

Case Title: Swati Maliwal v. State and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal challenging a trial court order framing corruption charges against her for allegedly abusing her official position by illegally appointing various acquaintances, including AAP workers, in the Chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) between August 6, 2015 to August 1, 2016.

Maliwal was then the Chairperson of DCW.

Profits Attributable To Permanent Establishment Can't Be Ignored On Basis Of Global Income Or Loss Earned/ Incurred By Cross Border Entity: Delhi HC

Case Title: HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

Referring to Article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between the Government of United Arab Emirates and the Republic of India, the Delhi High Court held that the right of the Holding company (source State) to allocate or attribute income to the Permanent Establishment (PE) cannot be restricted on the basis of the global income or loss that may have been earned or incurred by a cross-border entity.

Department Can't Issue SCN Simply Alleging Misstatement, Without Pointing Out Specific Fact Of Suppression By Taxpayer: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/s SS Enterprises versus Principal Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

Finding that the Show cause notice (SCN) issued to the petitioner/assessee did not set out any intelligible reasons for cancellation of its GST registration, the Delhi High Court quashed the said SCN.

Staff Welfare Expenditure Incurred By Employer As Per SEBI Guidelines Is Revenue Expenditure: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT versus RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

Emphasizing that shares which is subject to a lock-in stipulation, could not be sold in an open market, the Delhi High Court held that valuation report obtained by the employer for ascertaining its withholding tax obligations during allotment of such shares to its employees as a perquisite, cannot be considered for purpose of Fair Market Value (FMV) of those shares.

Pension Regulations For Army Applicable To Defence Security Corps Service, Delhi HC Allows Condonation Of Shortfall In Service For Pension Benefits

Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.v. EX/NK CHINNA VEDIYAPPAN

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli & Justice Shalinder Kaur, while deciding a writ petition held that the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 are also applicable to DSC service, hence allowed the condonation of shortfall in DSC service for the pension benefits.