Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 18 To September 24, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 841 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 886

NOMINAL INDEX

DIKSHIKA MEENA vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 841

DD Global Capital v. S E Investment Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 842

Prince Singh v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 843

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. MR. AMAR SINGH BHALLA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 844

MUSKAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 845

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 846

Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 847

MOHD. AMIR JAVED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 848

Sagar & Ors v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 849

IRSHAD ALI v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 850

MD IMRAN AHMAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 851

RD v. VD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 852

PEPSICO INC. & ANR. v. PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 853

ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 854

D v. AK 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 855

ACHAL RANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 856

Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 857

HEMANT JAIN & ANR. vs STATE (GNCTD) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 858

AHIRE AJINKYA SHANKAR v. INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 859

ASHISH BHALLA v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 860

Harish Kumar Gautam v. University of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 861

RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 862

GNCTD v. Sashank Yadav 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 863

VIKAS THAKUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 864

RAJAN & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 865

J v. ND 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 866

DELHI WAQF BOARD v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 867

FAROOQ v. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 868

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. ASHOK KUMAR RAJDEV & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 869

Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 870

S Rajadurai v. State & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 871

JRA INFRATECH v. ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 872

Vivek Khanna v. OYO Apartments Investment LLP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 873

GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 874

KOMAL GUPTA v. AMRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 875

Rahul Gupta v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 876

ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 877

NADEEM MAJID OOMERBHOY vs SH. GAUTAM TANK AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 878

RAM KISHOR ARORA v. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 879

SUHAIL AHMAD THOKAR vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 880

UNION OF INDIA v. MS. KIRAN KANOJIA and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 881

CBI v. SHYAMAL GHOSH & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 882

RAJAN DEVI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 883

ASHOK SINGH BHADAURIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 884

UJJWAL SHORI (THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 885

Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. Versus CIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 886

UPSC Mains: Delhi High Court Declines Aspirant's Plea To Appear In Exam After She Uploaded Incorrect Photo, Signature In Application Form

Case Title: DIKSHIKA MEENA vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 841

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of a Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) aspirant to appear in the forthcoming Civil Services (Main) Examination after her candidature was cancelled for uploading incorrect photograph and signature in the application form.

The petitioner, who had cleared the Preliminary Examination, claimed she had inadvertently uploaded her brother's photo and signature in her application form. She challenged the cancellation of her candidature before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The interim relief sought by her that she be permitted to appear in the Main Examination was rejected by the Tribunal.

Arbitration Clause In Loan Restructuring Agreement, Liability Is Transferred To New Agreements, Binding On Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DD Global Capital v. S E Investment Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 842

The Delhi High Court has held that when earlier loan agreement liabilities are transferred through an agreement, the subsequent loan agreements' arbitration clauses become binding on the parties.

The bench of Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna reiterated that Section 12(5) inserted through the 2015 Amendment to the Act would not apply to an arbitration that had commenced before the amendment came into force. It held that an arbitration commences on the date when the notice of arbitration is issued.

High Court Permits Delhi University To Offer Admissions In Five-Year LLB Courses Based On CLAT Score For Current Academic Year

Case Title: Prince Singh v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 843

The Delhi High Court on Monday passed an interim order and permitted the Delhi University to offer admissions in its newly introduced five-year integrated law courses on the basis of CLAT-UG 2023 score, only for the current academic year.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the interim order considering the fact that classes have already started for this academic year in all other universities.

Delhi High Court Sentences Man To Six Months In Jail For Failing To Pay Dues To Deceased Driver’s Wife, Repeatedly Flouting Undertakings

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. MR. AMAR SINGH BHALLA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 844

The Delhi High Court has sentenced a man to six months of simple imprisonment for failing to pay dues to the wife of his deceased driver and repeatedly flouting undertakings given to that effect to the court.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found the man guilty of committing contempt of court for wilfully disobeying his undertakings of making payment to the widow who had a minor daughter.

Right To Choose Life Partner Can’t Be Affected By Faith Or Religion: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MUSKAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 845

The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual's right to choose a life partner cannot be affected by matters of faith and religion and that the right to marry is an “incident of human liberty.”

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that it is not for the State or the society or even the parents of the parties involved to, in any way, dictate the choice of life partner or curtail and limit such rights of an individual when it involves “two consenting adults.”

Public Prosecutors Should Be Adequately Trained To Shoulder The "Weighty Responsibilities" Of Post: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 846

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to conduct training of the newly recruited public prosecutors in coordination with Delhi Judicial Academy.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that given the distinct role played by the Public Prosecutors, it must be ensured that the new appointees are adequately equipped to “shoulder the weighty responsibilities the post carries.”

Delhi High Court Directs VAT Dept. To Refund Rs. 6.62 Crores To Flipkart

Case Title: Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 847

The Delhi High Court has directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to refund Rs. 6.62 crore to Flipkart along with interest.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the VAT department has acted arbitrarily in making numerous adjustments post-May 31, 2015, thus illegally depriving the petitioner, Flipkart, of the refund as claimed. The various adjustments clearly appear to have been made even though objections before the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) had been duly lodged online by the petitioner. The department thus clearly appeared to have acted contrary to the clear mandate of Section 38 of the DVAT Act.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA For Allegedly Planning Terror Activities, Bomb Blasts

Case Title: MOHD. AMIR JAVED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 848

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man, Mohd. Amir Javed, booked under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, for allegedly planning terror activities in the country.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal said that there was a reasonable possibility that Javed was one of the links in the network of people who were cognizant of the plan to trigger terrorist activity by using bombs and explosives and causing loss of life.

Do Basic Cleaning Work At Four Police Stations: Delhi High Court To Parties While Quashing FIR Based On Settlement

Title: Sagar & Ors v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 849

While quashing an attempt to commit culpable homicide case after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed all 24 individuals involved in the matter to do “basic cleaning work” for three days at four police stations by dividing themselves in four groups.

“The said 24 persons shall be at liberty to decide amongst themselves as to the composition of each group of 6 persons and also the Police Station where each group shall undertake the aforesaid basic cleaning duty,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Head Constable Ratan Lal Murder Case, Says He May Tamper With Evidence

Title: IRSHAD ALI v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 850

The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to an accused in the murder case of Delhi Police’s head constable Ratan Lal during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that there are chances that once out on bail, accused Irshad Ali may influence or threaten the witnesses and is likely to tamper with the evidence which can jeopardise and derail the proceedings thereby, “setting the clock back once again.”

Job Ads Not Complying With Minimum Wages Act Shouldn't Be Carried On 'Rozgar Baazar' Portal: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: MD IMRAN AHMAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 851

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to not publish any job advertisement in its “Rozgar Bazaar portal” which is non-compliant with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula took note of Delhi Government’s submission that steps are being taken to update the software portal so that not a single advertisement reflecting wages below the prescribed minimum wages would be uploaded.

Wife Refused To Fast For 'Karwa Chauth', Didn't Acknowledge Her Husband: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce On Ground Of Cruelty

Title: RD v. VD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 852

The Delhi High Court has ruled that constant rejection and non-acknowledgment of the husband in a marriage by his wife is a source of “great mental agony” for him.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by his wife. The couple got married in March 2011 and started living separated just after six months.

Delhi High Court Restrains Parle From Using ‘For The Bold’ Tagline As Predominant Part Of Advertising ‘B Fizz’ Drink In Suit By PepsiCo

Case Title: PEPSICO INC. & ANR. v. PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 853

The Delhi High Court has restrained Parle from using the tagline “For The Bold” as predominant part of any advertising campaign for its “B Fizz” beverage in a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational chain PepsiCo.

Justice C Hari Shankar passed the interim order in PepsiCo’s suit seeking a permanent injunction against Parle from using the tagline “For The Bold”. The suit is filed by PepsiCo Inc. and PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited.

Child’s Age, Circumstances During Separation With Parent Relevant To Determine Its 'Intelligent Preference' While Appointing Guardian: Delhi HC

Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 854

Observing that a child is the worst victim where there is acrimonious relationship between the parents, the Delhi High Court has said that a minor’s age and the surrounding circumstances of the period of separation from a parent are relevant while considering his or her 'intelligent preference'.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while referring to Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which states that while appointing a guardian, court may consider preference of a minor in case he or she is old enough to form an “intelligent preference”

Family Courts Not Empowered To Grant Divorce On 'Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage', Must Restrict To Statutory Provisions: Delhi High Court

Title: D v. AK

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 855

The Delhi High Court has ruled that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for seeking divorce and that Family Courts must strictly restrict their considerations to the statutory provisions like those under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

While discussing the theory of breakdown of marriage, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for grant of divorce under the enactment.

Cyber-Crimes Proliferating At Alarming Rate: Delhi High Court Denies Relief To Man Booked For Hacking Lawyer's Phone, Duping Him Of Money

Title: ACHAL RANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 856

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that in today’s digital era, cyber-crimes are proliferating at an alarming rate and that such offences are neither bound by border restrictions due to their global reach, nor do they discriminate among their victims.

Observing that cyber-crimes target the elderly, young, businesses as well as the governments in the digital landscape, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “The consequences of cyber-crimes go beyond individual boundaries, impacting numerous unsuspecting victims.”

Delhi High Court Protects Actor Anil Kapoor’s Personality Rights, Restrains Use Of His Name, Image Or Voice Without Consent

Title: Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 857

The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor and restrained various entities from misusing his image, name, voice or other elements of his persona for monetary gains without his consent.

Justice Prathiba M Singh also restrained “other unknown persons” from disseminating various videos, links of which will be uploaded in the order, and directed that the same shall be taken down immediately by all internet service providers.

The court passed interim injunction order in Kapoor’s suit seeking protection of his personality rights. The suit seeks to restrain various entities, including John Does, from violating his personality rights by using his name, acronym ‘AK’, nicknames like 'Lakhan', 'Mr. India ', 'Majnu Bhai' and phrase ‘Jhakaas’ and his voice and images, without his permission for commercial gain.

Delhi High Court Quashes Forgery And Cheating FIR On Compromise, Parties To Distribute Uniform Socks To Police Officers

Case Title: HEMANT JAIN & ANR. vs STATE (GNCTD) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 858

The Delhi High Court, while quashing an FIR for forgery and cheating based on the settlement between the accused and the complainant, has directed the parties to pool in money and purchase uniform socks for the police personnel stationed at 6 police stations in Delhi.

The court has directed the parties to procure uniform socks worth Rs. 48,000 for the police officials posted at Keshavpuram, Bharat Nagar, Model Town, Ashok Vihar, Roop Nagar and Maurice Nagar police stations.

Mere Omission Of Surname In Caste Certificate Doesn't Imply Impersonation: Delhi High Court Quashes Rejection Of Candidature

Title: AHIRE AJINKYA SHANKAR v. INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 859

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to an applicant whose candidature in the Indian Coast Guard was rejected due to the mismatch of surname in the caste certificate issued to him.

The mismatch prevailed in the name of the candidate and his father in the SC Certificate, due to the omission and addition of their surnames, respectively, with the names submitted in the application form.

Once Investigation Is Initiated By SFIO Under Companies Act, Parallel Probe By Separate Agency Not Permissible: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ASHISH BHALLA v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 860

The Delhi High Court has ruled that once an investigation has been initiated by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, a parallel investigation by a separate agency into the affairs of such a company is not permissible.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed so in view of the bar contained under Section 212(2) of the Act which states that where a case has been assigned by the Central Government to the SFIO, no other investigating agency shall proceed with the probe.

High Court Upholds Delhi University’s Decision To Relax Upper Age Limit For Candidates Participating In Student’s Union Elections

Title: Harish Kumar Gautam v. University of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 861

The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi University to relax the upper age limit for undergraduate and postgraduate student candidates participating in Delhi University Student’s Union for the current academic year.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that a one-time age relaxation has been granted for candidates as the elections were being held after a hiatus of three years due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Delhi High Court Directs Meta, Telegram To Suspend Groups And Channels Illegally Circulating Content Of Jawan Film

Title: RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 862

The Delhi High Court has directed Meta and Telegram to suspend or deactivate the groups and channels illegally circulated content of latest film Jawan starring Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan.

Justice C Hari Shankar also directed the two platforms to provide the basic subscriber information and other details relating to the administrators of the groups or channels.

Potential Infringement Of Child's Right To Privacy: High Court Upholds Stay On Aadhar Mandate For EWS Admissions In Delhi Private Schools

Title: GNCTD v. Sashank Yadav

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 863

The Delhi High Court has upheld a single judge order staying two circulars issued by the Delhi Government mandating furnishing of Aadhaar card of a child in the online process for admission in a private school in the national capital under the EWS or DG category.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the issue of obtaining sensitive personal details of a child, as observed by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy case, would have the potential of infringing their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Delhi High Court Enunciates Principles To Be Followed By Magistrates While Taking Cognizance Of Offences, Says Can’t Be A Routine Exercise

Case Title: VIKAS THAKUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 864

The Delhi High Court has recently enunciated various principles to be followed by Magistrates while taking cognizance of offences, observing that the process cannot be a routine exercise.

“If there is such an order taking cognizance then the same would be perfunctory and not reflective of the Magistrate having applied his/her mind. The Magistrate cannot be mechanical in his approach. More so, whence at the end of the day, the Magistrate is setting into motion the judicial machinery against the alleged accused person as it inevitably involves their personal liberty and freedom,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

Provide 100 First Aid Kits To 5 Police Stations: Delhi High Court Directs Parties While Quashing FIR Based On Settlement

Case Title: RAJAN & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 865

While quashing an FIR for attempt to commit culpable homicide and criminal intimidation based on settlement, the Delhi High Court has directed the parties to give 100 first aid kits to Delhi Police personnel deputed in five police stations.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed the three accused and the complainant to give the first aid kits in Ashok Vihar, Keshav Puram, Bharat Nagar, Adarsh Nagar and Model Town police stations within two weeks.

Wife's Misrepresentation About Having 'Sufficient Means' To Set Up Business Not 'Fraud' For Seeking Annulment Under Hindu Marriage Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: J v. ND

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 866

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife’s misrepresentation about having 'sufficient means' to set up business cannot be said to be of the nature as would amount to 'fraud or concealment' of material fact entitling the husband to seek annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observations while dismissing a husband’s appeal challenging a family court order dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud by the wife under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

No Mosque, Graveyard Or Legitimate Delhi Waqf Board Properties To Be Demolished In Mehrauli Archaeological Park: DDA To High Court

Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 867

The Delhi Development Authority has assured the Delhi High Court that no mosque, graveyard or legitimate properties owned by the Delhi Waqf Board will be demolished in Mehrauli Archaeological Park in the national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula took the statement on record and bound the DDA to the same.

Delhi Govt Assures High Court To Minimize Unauthorised E-Rickshaws Plying On Routes Allotted To Gramin Sewa Operators

Case Title: FAROOQ v. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 868

The Delhi Government has told the Delhi High Court that it will continue to take necessary steps to check and minimize plying of unauthorized stage carriages, including e-rickshaws, on the routes allotted to Gramin Sewa operators in the national capital.

Taking note of the assurance, Justice Prateek Jalan disposed of two petitions moved by drivers and operators of Rural Transport Vehicles plying on specific routes under the Gramin Sewa scheme.

Delhi CM Residence Renovation: High Court Asks PWD Officials Facing Show Cause Notices To Approach Central Administrative Tribunal

Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. ASHOK KUMAR RAJDEV & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 869

The Delhi High Court has directed the six PWD officials to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for challenging the show cause notices issued to them by Delhi Government’s Vigilance department over alleged gross violations of rules in renovation work undertaken at official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the petitions moved by the PWD officials before a single judge challenging the show cause notices was not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.

Cost Accountants Not Similarly Placed As CAs, Preference To Chartered Accountants For Finance Director Post Not Arbitrary: Delhi High Court

Title: Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 870

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Cost Accountants cannot be treated at par with Chartered Accountants in matters of public employment.

The court remarked that Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant are not at all similarly placed and are governed by two independent statutes, and that it is for the employer to decide the qualifications for posts, keeping in view the nature of the job for which the advertisement has been issued.

Married Woman Can't Prosecute For Rape On False Pretext Of Marriage: Delhi High Court

Title: S Rajadurai v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 871

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a sexual relationship between two adults, who are legally married to other partners, cannot be considered an act for which legal protection is available.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that an unmarried woman who is induced into a sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage by someone, whom she believes to be legally eligible for marriage, may constitute an offence of rape. However, the court added, that when the victim herself is not legally eligible to marry someone else due to her existing marriage to another partner, she cannot claim to have been induced into a sexual relationship under false pretext of marriage.

Also Read: Live-In Relationship Between Married Individuals Not Criminal, Courts Can’t Impose Their Perception Of Morality On Adults: Delhi High Court

Whether The Arbitration Agreement Is Vitiated By Fraud Should Be Left To The Wisdom Of The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: JRA INFRATECH v. ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 872

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a question as to whether the arbitration agreement is vitiated by fraud should be left to the wisdom of the arbitrator who will be free to decide the same on the basis of the evidence and the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act should not get into such a finding.

Justice Rekha Palli held that merely because a criminal complaint has been lodged against the petitioner for the alleged fraud is not a ground to refer the parties to arbitration when the dispute is squarely and undisputedly covered by the arbitration clause.

Liquidated Damages Provided In The Agreement Cannot Be Awarded To A Party In Absence Of The Proof Of Actual Loss: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vivek Khanna v. OYO Apartments Investment LLP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 873

The Delhi High Court has held that the sum agreed by the parties as liquidated damages would not dispense with the requirement of proof by the party claiming liquidated damages that it actually suffered a loss.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that a sum ascertained as liquidated damages in the contract is not in the nature of penalty, but is a pre-estimate of loss estimated by the parties likely to be suffered by a party in the event of breach of contract by the other party. It held that Liquidated damages are not payable merely as a penalty for breach of contract, if no loss is suffered.

PMLA Does Not Postulate Separate ‘Reason To Believe’ For Each Property Attached Provisionally Under Section 5: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 874

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, does not postulate a separate “reason to believe” for each property which stands attached under the provisional attachment order passed under Section 5(1) of the enactment.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by M/S Gold Croft Properties Private Limited challenging the single judge’s order which upheld the order of PMLA Adjudicating Authority disposing of its application seeking deferment of the proceedings before on the ground that the Bench suffered from “coram non-judice”.

Family Courts Have To Be A Little Liberal, Stringent Test Applicable To Commercial Disputes Can’t Be Applied: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KOMAL GUPTA v. AMRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 875

The Delhi High Court has observed that family courts have to be a little liberal in family disputes and that the stringent test, as may be applicable to commercial disputes, cannot be applied in such cases.

Dealing with a case where a family court closed a wife’s right to file her written statement in the divorce proceedings, Justice Navin Chawla said:

“It is to be remembered that closing of the right to file written statement would result in grave personal consequences to the party concerned. The approach of the learned Family Court, therefore, has to be guided by the object of the Family Court, rather than the technicality of law.”

Filing SLP Before Supreme Court Constitutes ‘Special Circumstance’ Under Delhi Prison Rules For Granting Parole To Convict: High Court

Title: Rahul Gupta v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 876

The Delhi High Court has observed that filing a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court by a convict challenging the conviction constitutes a “special circumstance” for granting parole in terms of Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

“…this Court is of the opinion that the bar contained in Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute. The ground taken herein, i.e., filing on an SLP constitutes a 'special circumstance' in terms of the said rule,” Justice Amit Sharma said.

Family Courts Can’t Compel Parties To Take Divorce If Not Mutually Acceptable: Delhi High Court

Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 877

The Delhi High Court has said that family courts cannot compel the parties to take divorce if not mutually acceptable and that their approach must be reconciliatory.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dismissing a husband’s appeal against a family court order rejecting his contempt petition against the wife for not having abided by the MoU whereby they had agreed to take divorce by mutual consent.

Court Can't Return Finding Of Infringement Against Registered Trademark Holder Without Invalidating Its Registration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NADEEM MAJID OOMERBHOY vs SH. GAUTAM TANK AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 878

The Delhi High Court has ruled that it cannot returning a finding of infringement against the holder of a registered trade mark without invalidating its trademark registration in the first instance.

Justice C. Hari Shankar was hearing a suit for infringement of trademark, where the defendants were subsequently granted registration of the impugned trademark. The court remarked that by operation of Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the registration dated back to 29th April 2004, i.e., the date of filing the application, which was notably before the date of filing of the trademark suit by the plaintiff. Therefore, the court said, it could not hold the defendants to be infringing the plaintiff’s trademark unless the court finds the registration of the defendants’ trademark to be invalid.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Supertech Chairman RK Arora’s Plea Challenging Arrest By ED In Money Laundering Case

Case Title: RAM KISHOR ARORA v. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 879

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition moved by Supertech Chairman Ram Kishor Arora challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that no fundamental rights of Arora were violated and that there was nothing on record to suggest that he was denied right to consult or be defended by a legal practitioner.

“The petitioner here failed to show that the arrest of the petitioner is in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA In J&K Larger Conspiracy Case

Case Title: SUHAIL AHMAD THOKAR vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 880

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal against the Trial Court order denying bail to Suhail Ahmad Thokar, one of the accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), in connection with the Jammu and Kashmir “larger conspiracy” case post revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

The court observed that several pieces of evidence were procured during the course of investigation that suggested the accused’s significant involvement in the larger conspiracy and in activities related to militancy and terrorism. It further noted that as per the chargesheet filed by NIA, the accused had attempted to arrange shelter for two militants associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a banned terrorist organization listed in the First Schedule of the UAPA.

Deeply Unsettling To See Govt Embroiled In Frivolous Litigation: Delhi High Court Calls For Mechanism To Hold Erring Officers Accountable

Title: UNION OF INDIA v. MS. KIRAN KANOJIA and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 881

The Delhi High Court has said that there is an urgent need for a system that prevents unnecessary and frivolous litigation concerning government departments or bodies which should focus on conducting audit of decision-making process to contest cases.

The court added that such a mechanism must also focus of the principles of responsibility and accountability of erring government officials.

Unsubstantiated Judicial Remarks Against CBI Demoralizes Entire Agency: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CBI v. SHYAMAL GHOSH & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 882

The Delhi High Court has observed that unsubstantiated judicial remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation demoralizes the entire agency, calling it India’s “premier investigating agency.”

“…. the function assigned to investigating agency is very sensitive in nature. It is also pertinent to note that the CBI is the premier investigating agency of this country and any observation or remarks which does not have substantive basis, demoralise the entire agency itself,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed.

Derogatory Terms That Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes Must Not Be Used In Pleadings: Delhi HC Recommends Use Of Supreme Court’s Handbook

Title: RAJAN DEVI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 883

The Delhi High Court has said that derogatory terms that perpetuate gender stereotypes and undermine the dignity and rights of individuals based on their gender should not be used in pleadings.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ launched by the Supreme Court recently may be used while drafting pleadings as well as the orders and judgments.

Unnao Rape Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Ex-UP Police Officers Convicted For Custodial Death Of Survivor’s Father

Case Title: ASHOK SINGH BHADAURIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 884

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to two former-Uttar Pradesh Police officers who were convicted in the case involving the custodial death of the Unnao rape survivor’s father.

Ashok Singh Bhadauria and Kamta Prasad Singh (appellants) were convicted by the Trial Court on 04.03.2020, along with co-accused Kuldeep Singh Sengar and 3 others, for several offences including criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and were sentenced to 10 years in jail. Their appeals against the conviction and sentencing order is pending before the court.

Revisit Rules On Domicile Or Permanent Residency Status Of Candidates Seeking Admissions To Educational Institutions: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: UJJWAL SHORI (THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 885

The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government to revisit the existing rules or consider drafting new rules on the eligibility criteria of candidates seeking admissions to educational institutions in respect of their domicile or permanent residency status.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the said rules should determine the criteria for designating someone as a domicile or permanent for admissions and also for granting suitable relaxation to genuine residents of Delhi “who are rendered ineligible due to fortuitous circumstances.”

Tax Authority Based In Delhi Lacks Jurisdiction On Withholding Tax Liability On Share Purchase Transaction: Delhi High Court Quashes Tax Demand Against Sumitomo

Case Title: Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. Versus CIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 886

The Delhi High Court has deleted the tax demand against Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the jurisdiction on the withholding tax liability on the transaction of share purchase by the Assessee was already exercised by the tax authority based in Mumbai, thus the tax authority based in Delhi had no jurisdiction to pass the order.