- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Delhi High Court Monthly Digest:...
Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: January 2022
Nupur Thapliyal
1 Feb 2022 11:11 AM IST
This digest contains a total of 66 important judgments and orders of the Delhi High Court for the month of January reported by Live Law. 1. Arrest In Breach Of 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines : Delhi High Court Sentences Police Officer To One Day ImprisonmentCase Title: RAKESH KUMAR v. VIJAYANTA ARYA (DCP) AND ORSCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court held...
This digest contains a total of 66 important judgments and orders of the Delhi High Court for the month of January reported by Live Law.
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR v. VIJAYANTA ARYA (DCP) AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court held a police officer guilty of contempt of court for arresting a man in violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar. The Court sentenced the police officer to one-day imprisonment for contempt of court.
Justice Najmi Waziri also imposed a fine of Rupees 2000 on the police officer and directed him to pay costs of Rupees 15,000 to the petitioner, who had suffered incarceration for 11 days before release on bail.
In the judgment, the Court observed that subsequent release or acquittal of an innocent is no reparation to the loss of reputation and personal liberty caused by illegal arrest.
Case Title: xyz v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 2
Observing that reproductive choice is a facet of reproductive rights of a woman and a dimension of her personal liberty, the Delhi High Court has allowed termination of 28 weeks foetus of a 33 year old woman. The foetus was suffering from various abnormalities including Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) with Absent Pulmonary Valve Syndrome (APV).
Justice Jyoti Singh also observed that the mother cannot be deprived of the freedom to take a decision to continue or not to continue with the pregnancy in the backdrop of the foetal abnormalities brought forth in the Medical Opinion of the Board.
"As repeatedly held by the Courts, in the judgements referred above, reproductive choice is a facet of reproductive rights of a woman and a dimension of her 'personal liberty', enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus the Petitioner cannot be deprived of the freedom to take a decision to continue or not to continue with the pregnancy, in the backdrop of the foetal abnormalities brought forth in the Medical Opinion of the Board," the Court said.
Case Title: FUTURE RETAIL LTD. Vs. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 3
The Delhi High Court has held that the High Court, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot dictate to a duly constituted Arbitral Tribunal, the manner and the procedure of carrying out the arbitration proceedings.
On the aspect of the limited scope of interference under Article 227 over Arbitral Tribunal's procedure, Justice Amit Bansal added that there is only a small window for interference with orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227.
The observations came while the Court dismissed the two petitions moved by the Future Group challenging the two orders passed by the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal.
The impugned orders deferred the hearing in the plea filed by Future Group seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings instituted by Amazon. Future Group sought a direction that the the Arbitral Tribunal should first hear its applications to abort the proceedings before final hearing of the matter. Turning down this plea, the High Court said that Article 227 cannot be invoked to challenge the case management orders passed by an Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: VANDANA SINGH v. SATISH KUMAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 4
The Delhi High Court this week dissolved marriage between a couple on the ground of cruelty, observing that the husband treated the wife as his 'overseas wife', only to use her as a temporary companion and that their marital bond was beyond repair.
Observing that continuation of such a matrimonial bond is sufficient to cause immense mental cruelty to the wife, Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh said that there was no reason to keep the moribund marriage alive.
"The objective of the institution of marriage is to bring two souls together, who embark on the adventurous journey called life. They share experiences, smiles, sorrows, achievements and struggles. They uplift and support each other in all situations with their emotional, mental and physical presence. On this journey of life, they create personal, social and spiritual bonds, everlasting memories, future plans, through which they co-exist in the society," the Court said.
"An essential aspect of marriage is being present in each other's life, physically and emotionally. It is not to say that every marriage, where the couple stays apart from each other for work or other obligations consensually, is a broken one. However, a marriage where there is neither sharing of emotions, nor of dreams, joys, sorrows, memories (happy or sad), is merely a legal bond," it added.
Case Title: CHARU SONEJA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 5
Reiterating that personal liberty is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms, the Delhi High Court has observed that once bail is granted to an accused pending completion of the Trial, the same must only be retracted in the face of grave and exacerbating circumstances.
Analyzing the difference between an order 'rejecting' an application for bail and an order for 'cancellation' of bail, Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that the party challenging bail already given needs to demonstrate, by showing evidence and instances, that the person enlarged on bail has been threatening the victim and may consequently cause personal harm to the victim or her family, is tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses to the extent that it would vitiate the Trial and lead to a miscarriage of justice.
"Personal liberty is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms. Once granted to an accused pending completion of the Trial, it must only be retracted in the face of grave and exacerbating circumstances," the Court said.
Case Title: BHIKAM MASIH v. M/S TRIG DETECTIVES PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 6
The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant ought not to suffer merely because a wrong entry or a wrong date is entered in it's Advocate's court diary, thereby precluding his appearance before the Court on the fixed date.
Justice Pratibha M Singh however added that the Court or the Tribunal would have to examine as to whether the said wrong entry is merely an excuse or whether it is genuine.
"Advocates who appear before a court of law usually have the practice of maintaining their court diary. The entries in the same are maintained by court clerks working with advocates. In the said diary, the previous date, the number and name of the case, is entered. Some advocates' offices or court clerks also enter the forum where the case is listed. Once the matter is over, the next date is entered in the diary. In the diary, on the date to which the matter is adjourned, the case name is again entered. In this process, it is usual for a wrong entry to take place, due to inadvertence by the court clerk or counsel," the Court said.
Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 7
The Delhi High Court has held that the bidding process for disinvestment of then national airline, Air India, was not rigged in favour of the Tata Group.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the bidding process saw keen competition with seven Expression of Interests and two bidders, and it cannot be said that the process was tailor made to facilitate the Talace Private Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Sons, which emerged as the highest bidder.
Holding thus, it dismissed the petition filed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, seeking quashing of the disinvestment process, on the ground that the bid process was arbitrary, corrupt, against public interest and rigged in favour of Tata group.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses BJP MP Subramanian Swamy's Challenge To Air India Disinvestment Process
Case Title: Rajat Jain and Ors. v. UPSC & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 8
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea seeking postponement of UPSC Civil Services Mains Examination, 2021 scheduled from January 7 to January 16, 2022, in view of Covid-19 third wave and spread of the new Omicron variant.
Justice V Kameswar Rao said, "I find, the press release do indicate that the UPSC is conscious of the prevailing situation and the safety and convenience of the candidates. Preparations for such an important exam are made well in advance maintaining confidentiality and secrecy in respect of answer sheets and question papers and all preparations being in place, it shall not be in public interest to interdict the process. The apprehension of 19 petitioners cannot outweigh the interest of thousands of other candidates, (apart from public interest), who have toiled themselves to prepare themselves for the examination."
Going through the averments made in the petition, the Court was of the view that they were general in nature without any specific details.
Case Title: Hamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 9
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, when rectification proceedings are pending, the suit against infringement of Trademark has to be stayed, pending final disposal of such proceedings.
Justice Asha Menon thus stayed the suit filed by Hamdard Dawakhana, against alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'Rooh Afza'. The Bench observed, " In the light of Section 124(1)(b)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the suit is stayed pending the final disposal of the rectification application filed by the plaintiffs. On the conclusion of those proceedings, either side may move an application for listing of the suit before the court."
Case Title: MILASH ARROL NORONHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 10
The Delhi High Court has held that the Medical Manual (Manual of Medical Examination and Medical Standard for Various Entries into Army, TRG Academies and Military School) cannot be stated to be the sole repository of all ailments that may make a person medically unfit for appointment in the Armed Forces.
A bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manmohan added that the Medical Manual cannot lay down all the complex ailments or grounds that would make a candidate unfit for appointment to Armed Forces, whose demands are most extracting with the personnel being posted to extreme weather conditions.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a law graduate who had applied for the post of Judge and Advocate General (JAG) in 'JAG ENTRY SCHEME 27TH COURSE (OCT 2021)'. After completing two stages of the selection process, he was recommended as the top candidate in his batch, for a medical examination.
Case Title: SANGEETA THAPA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 11
The Delhi High Court has allowed termination of pregnancy of a 28 year old woman whose gestational period had exceeded 28 weeks after taking note of her mental and emotional distress apart from the foetus abnormalities.
Justice Rekha Palli relied on a recent order of a coordinate bench wherein the Court allowed termination of 28 weeks foetus of a 33 year old woman observing that reproductive choice is a facet of reproductive rights of a woman and a dimension of her personal liberty. The Court had also observed that the mother cannot be deprived of the freedom to take a decision to continue or not to continue with the pregnancy in the backdrop of the foetal abnormalities brought forth in the Medical Opinion of the Board.
The petitioner in this case had sought medical termination of her pregnancy on the ground that the foetus was suffering not only from Edward Syndrome (Trisomy 18) but also from non-ossified nasal bone and bilateral pyelectasis.
Case Title: RAM NAWAL v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 12
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to a man for raping a 5 year old minor victim in a POCSO case. The Court observed that penetration is sufficient in order to constitute an offence under Section 376 (rape) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and that presence of the semen is not necessary.
"Undoubtedly, as per the FSL and DNA fingerprinting report neither any semen was detected nor were the alleles from the appellant accounted in the blood smears or the vaginal smears of the prosecutrix. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, penetration is sufficient and it is not necessary that semen needs to be essentially present," Justice Mukta Gupta observed.
The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment dated 12th January, 2018 wherein the appellant was convicted under sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. Sec. 6 of prescribes the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Case Title: POONAM SETHI v. SANJAY SETHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 13
The Delhi High Court has observed that a father cannot abdicate his responsibility of looking after his unmarried daughters and that he has a duty and obligation to maintain them, including taking care of their expenses towards education and marriage.
A Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh added that 'Kanya Daan' is a solemn and pious obligation of a Hindu Father, from which he cannot renege.
The Court thus directed the father to pay a sum of Rs. 35 Lakhs and 50 Lakhs towards the expense of marriages of his two daughters.
It allowed an appeal filed by the wife challenging a Family Court order, though granting her divorce on the ground of cruelty, however, denying maintenance for herself and the two major daughters.
Case Title: SWATANTRA KUMAR JAYSAWAL v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 14
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a Government Servant containing allegations of rape, observing that such an FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties and their subsequent marriage as it does not waive off the offence alleged.
Reiterating that the act of rape is not an act against individual but is an offence against the society, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar was of the view thus: "In the present case, the petitioner is a Government Servant, working as Superintendent with Customs & CGST department, Govt. of India, holding a Gazetted post. So being a Government Servant, he is expected to maintain high moral rectitude and decent standard of conduct in his personal/private life and not bring discredit to his service by his misdemeanours."
It added, "In fact a Government servant has all the more responsibility as far as his conduct is concerned towards the society. Rape not only destroys the personality of the victim but it also scars the mental psyche of the victim which remain embedded on the mind of the victim for years together. The charges of rape are of grave concern and cannot be treated in a casual manner."
Case Title: VST Industries Ltd. v. Rudra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 15
The Delhi High Court has upheld the ex-parte interim injunction order against TOPAZ, a cigarette brand, allegedly passing off its goods as that of another cigarette brand, TOTAL, by adopting deceptively similar packaging/ trade dress.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait decided not to interfere with the impugned order, stating, " the basic background colour of the packaging / cigarette box is shade of dark metallic black and dark blue colors, which is identical. Both the boxes also contain ribbed lines which run across their respective surfaces. The front and back view of the packaging is in similar font and even the placement of letter is similar."
It added, "Plaintiff's TOTAL branded cigarettes sticks have the words 'Dual Flavor' mentioned in golden letters and defendants have mentioned the words 'Twin Flavor' on their TOPAZ cigarette and font, style, colour and placement of matter of both the sides is exactly similar. All these points were weighed in the mind of the Court when this Court had prima facie opined to grant restraint order in favour of plaintiff."
Case Title: Kumar Piyush Pushkar v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 16
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL challenging public advertisements issued by the Delhi Government wishing Christmas to the citizens, allegedly to promote the political interests of the Aam Aadmi Party.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh noted that a representation in this regard is already pending consideration before the Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising (CCRGA), constituted at the directions of the Supreme Court.
Thus, it ordered, " A Committee is already constituted by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner has already preferred a representation before the said committee and the same is pending consideration. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition."
17. Delhi High Court Sets Up Confidentiality Club To Look At Third-Party Agreements
Case Title: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 17
To maintain necessity of industry confidentiality, a single judge bench of Delhi High Court has allowed for the constitution of a confidentiality club comprising of eight lawyers and two experts to inspect third-party agreements and documents to look into alleged infringement of patents in a case pertaining to patented technology relating to radio communication.
Among the series of cases filed by Philips against Chinese companies for allegedly infringing their "Standard Essential Patent" (SEP), an interim order was pronounced on Saturday in Philip's suit against Vivo.
The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, assembling, importing, selling, offering for sale, advertising including through their and third-party websites, mobile phones including the models mentioned in the plaint and any further or other devices or models inclusive of UMTS enhancements and LTE technologies that result in alleged infringement of the plaintiff's patents. The plaintiff had filed an interim application seeking interrogatories to be submitted and production of certain documents under Order 11 Rules 2 and 14, read with S.151, CPC, from defendants No. 1 and 2.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. All India Petroleum Dealers Association Registered & Ors., LPA 24/2021; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. All Haryana Petroleum Dealers Association Registered & Ors., LPA 20/2021 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. Bihar Petroleum Dealers Association & Anr., LPA 31/2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 18
The Delhi High Court has upheld the power of Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) to formulate Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDGs) in public interest, i.e., for the benefit of the consumers as well as to protect the rights of the employees at Retail Outlets (ROs).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed, " MDG is a Guideline issued by the OMCs, Instrumentalities of the State to regulate the R.O. Dealers." It added that the ROs are bound by such guidelines.
" The relationship between the OMCs and the Dealers is governed by the Dealership Agreements, under which, more particularly Clause 43 thereof, the Dealers have undertaken to be bound and to comply with the rules and regulations of the Government, including the directives issued by OMCs and thus the MDGs formulated by the OMCs, are binding on the Dealers."
Case Title: AMR-BBB Consortium v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd; ARB.P. 1247/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 19
The Delhi High Court recently allowed an application seeking appointment of sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the claimant allegedly exhausted its remedy by approaching the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
As the Respondent party submitted that disputes are arbitrable and it has no objection if this Court appoints an Arbitrator, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait allowed the application filed under Sections 11(6) and 10(2) of the Act.
The Arbitrator is directed to ensure compliance of Section 12 of the 1996 Act before commencing the arbitration and to decide the fee after consulting with the parties. The petition was filed by a Consortium of two companies against a Public Sector Undertaking.
Case Title: Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 14528/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 20
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Central government's recent 'faceless assessment scheme', launched with an aim to eliminate the human interface between the taxpayer and the income tax department, does not mean that the assess shall not be given a personal hearing.
The division bench comprising of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla observed, " a quasi judicial body must normally grant a personal hearing as no assessee or litigant should get a feeling that he never got an opportunity or was deprived of an opportunity to clarify the doubts of the assessing officer/decision maker. After all confidence and faith of the public in the justness of the decision making process which has serious civil consequences is very important and that too in an authority/forum that is the first point of contact between the assessee and the Income Tax Department."
It added that the identity of the assessing officer can be hidden/protected while grating personal hearing by either creating a blank screen or by decreasing the pixel/density/resolution.
Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court has held that the State was unjustified in restricting an individual's right to travel abroad by issuance of a Look Out Circular when it could not establish any evidence that the right would be 'detrimental to the economic interests of India'.
Justice Rekha Palli was hearing a Writ Petition filed by a businessperson of garment manufacturing based in Delhi to quash a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him by the Respondents, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Income Tax Department.
The Court noted that the LOC had remained in force for almost three years, during which period, the respondents have admittedly not taken any further action against the petitioner.
Case Title: Union of India v. Hemant Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 22
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the extension of limitation by the Supreme Court would apply to decisions rendered by the Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
While hearing an appeal filed against an order of the Appellate Authority which had dismissed an appeal filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation, Justice Pratibha M Singh clarified that the extension of limitation by an order of the Supreme Court dated 23.09.2021 would apply to decisions of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
It further directed that the same be communicated to all the other authorities under the Act, so that the benefit of the computation of the period of limitation is extended to all and multiplicity of proceedings as has happened in the present case is avoided.
Case Title: JATINDER PAL SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has observed that if illegally intercepted messages or audio conversations pursuant to an order having no sanction of law are permitted, it would lead to manifest arbitrariness and would promote scant regard to the procedure and fundamental rights of the citizens.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh thus set aside two orders passed by Special Judge which had framed charges against one Jatinder Pal Singh in 2012 in a case registered by CBI, on the basis of evidence gathered through such illegal means.
The case alleged that there was a criminal conspiracy with the object to show favor qua recognition of the courses and grant of permission pertaining to Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Patiala as mandated by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the relevant MCI Regulation and Rules for admission into 4th year of the MBBS course for the academic session 2011-2012.
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. SMT ANITA DEVI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 24
The Delhi High Court has observed that the insurance company cannot avoid it's liability of compensating the deceased's family, even if the offending vehicle was stolen and was being unauthorisedly driven by someone else.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva added that in order to avoid the liability, the insurer must establish that there was a willful breach on the part of the insured.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the order passed by the Tribunal which had directed the insurance company pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the driver who had stolen the vehicle.
25. "Sending Photograph Of Summons Through WhatsApp Not Overreach Of Judicial System": Delhi High Court
Case Title: ICICI BANK LIMITED v. RASHMI SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 25
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by a Commercial Court to the extent of issuing a show cause notice of criminal contempt after a plaintiff had sent the photograph of summons to the defendant through WhatsApp.
The Court said that the same cannot amount to overreaching the judicial system or running a parallel system with the judicial system.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a plea challenging the Commercial Court order wherein notice was directed to be issued to the ICICI Bank Ltd., the petitioner, through the Chairman, as to why criminal contempt should not be initiated against him for overreaching the process of the Court.
Case Title: Teenu & Anr. v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 26
The Delhi High Court has rapped the Uttar Pradesh police for "complete forgery of documents" regarding place of arrest of two individuals who were family members of a man, who had married a woman against her family's wishes.
The father and brother of the man, who married a woman against her family's wishes, were arrested by the UP Police for kidnapping. The couple, a major, claimed to have married out of their own free will. They alleged that the arrests were made from their residence in Delhi, without informing the Delhi Police.
The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier informed the Court that it had suspended the concerned SHO and Sub Inspector and that a SIT was formed to probe the matter.
Case Title: Surendra Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 27
While granting bail to two men accused of a multi-crore scam, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, "The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial; this object is, thus, neither punitive nor preventative, and a person who has not been convicted should only be kept in custody if there are reasons to believe that they might flee from justice or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses."
Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj v. State, WP (C) 14483/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 28
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking sustainable development in the national capital, by formulation of a 'One Person One Tree' policy.
Noting that the subject matter of drafting policies lies exclusively within the domain of the legislature, the Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the petition. It observed,
" It ought to be kept in mind that predominant role of this court is to interpret the law and not enact the law, except in exceptional cases. Drafting of policy is within the domain of the Respondent. Hence, no case is made out by the Petitioner for issuing a writ of mandamus for drafting a policy."
Case Title: Shafiq Khan & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 29
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal, filed against an order passed by the division bench, with Rs. 5,000 cost.
The Bench comprising of Chief Justice D. N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh made it clear that a "LPA against a division bench order is not tenable in law."
"File the appropriate remedy. A Special Leave Petition or whatever recourse is permissible in law," it orally told the Appellant.
The observation was made in appeal filed against an order dated 12.10.21 passed by the bench in Yuva Sangharsh Samiti v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., WP(C) 6649/2021.
Case Title: ENVIRAD PROJECTS PVT. LTD. v. NTPC LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 30
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that no single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, i.e., unbiased adjudication of dispute between the parties.
Accordingly, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dismissed a unilateral arbitral clause imposed by NTPC, a Public Sector Undertaking, in its contract with the petitioner-company for a power project.
The Court held that the power to appoint an arbitrator in such a circumstance devolves on the Court.
Case Title: Mohd. Tahir & other connect bail pleas v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 31
"It is the Constitutional duty of the Court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power," observed the Delhi High Court while granting bail to 6 accused persons in a riots case.
Justice Subramonium Prasad granted bail to Mohd. Tahir, Shahrukh, Mohd. Faizal, Mohd. Shoaib, Rashid and Parvez in a case alleging that a mob caused vandalism, put on fire a sweet shop as a consequence of which a 22 year old boy namely Dilbar Negi died after sustaining burn injuries. (FIR 39/2020 PS Gokulpuri)
Case Title: Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Satya Pal & Ors., CM (M) 66/2022 and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 32
The Delhi High Court recently observed that filling of claim before Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') does not absolve the Director from his liability under a Decree when he is party in person as well.
The Petitioner, Managing Director of company Shree Shyam Pulp and Board Mills Ltd. had signed a Settlement Agreement where he and the Company were jointly described as "the second party".
The Agreement was to fix non-payment of rent by the Company and vacate the lease premises. When the Company failed to vacate the premises, the Landlords filed execution petitions.
Case Title: NEMI CHAND GOD v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 33
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to provide a safe travel passage to a woman who had married a man against the wishes of her family. The husband was employed in Chennai.
Uniting the woman with her husband, Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J. Bhambhani took note of the fact that both were major individuals and that the woman had married with her own free will and volition, although against the wishes of her parents.
The Court also took note of the marriage certificate dated November 22, 2021 issued by an Arya Samaj Mandir as an evidence of their marriage.
Case Title: MOHIT BANSAL v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 34
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is a clear need for the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to create a framework wherein there is proper disclosure by candidates who apply to become Chartered Accountants, at the inception itself.
Justice Pratibha M Singh said that there is also a need for a continuing disclosure, may be on an annual basis for members to inform the ICAI if there are any criminal cases or conviction against them, so that the ICAI is not kept in the dark.
"The power, discretion and duty of ensuring the purity of the Register of Members is upon the ICAI. Thus, in the case of convictions, the factum of the said conviction and the offences qua which the applicant was convicted ought to be disclosed," the Court said.
Case Title: THE STATE, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA (UIDAI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 35
The Delhi High Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to disclose information of over 400 aadhar card holders who were allegedly issued fake aadhar card certificates for the purpose of enrolment in civil defence training in the city.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a case wherein the investigation revealed that in the year 2019, the then District Magistrate of Shahdara, along with others public servants had committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official position with an ulterior motive to give benefit to ineligible persons, approximately 450 candidates with fake Aadhar Cards who had enrolled for training in Civil Defence.
The case emerged after a complaint was received by city's Anti Corruption Branch alleging that the manner of recruitment of marshals for DTC buses was illegal. It was alleged that the recruitment process was manipulated by the District Magistrate who had issued fake certificates, certifying as Delhi residents for making Aadhaar Cards, to over 400 people from his home state of Rajasthan.
Case Title: PRAMOD v. STATE OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 36
The Delhi High Court has observed that while granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a Court must have "reasonable grounds" to believe prima facie innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.
Section 37 of the Act deals with classification of the offences contained within the Act and provides for cases where bail can be granted to the accused person. It provides dual conditions for bail in case of certain offences: one, prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and two, the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.
37. Unsigned Invoices A Valid Basis To File Summary Suit Under Order 37 Of CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: FLICK STUDIOS PVT. LTD v. GRAVITY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 37
The Delhi High Court has held that unsigned invoices can be a valid basis to file suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 37 of the Code talks about summary procedure and institution of summary suits.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a petition challenging the order dated 12th October, 2021 passed by the District Judge of the Saket Courts whereby the commercial suit filed on behalf of the petitioner was converted from a suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC to an ordinary suit for recovery.
This was done on the ground that the invoices raised by the petitioner on the respondent did not bear the signatures of either parties.
Case Title: COMMODORE PAVAN CHAUHAN v. ANUSHA CHAUHAN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 38
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Family Courts are expected to function so as to bring about a settlement between the parties if possible, adding that the endeavour of the Court cannot simply be to dispose of the matters, one way or another at the cost of sacrificing the cause of justice.
A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside an order passed by a Family Court which had dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Family Court had dismissed the said application after observing that the appellant had failed to lead evidence, closing the right to the appellant to lead evidence.
Case Title: SHRI FAJALUR RAHAMAN v. I.P.G.C.L. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. (W.P.(C) 890/2020) and B S PURIA v. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. & ANR. (W.P.(C) 3495/2021)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 39
The Delhi High Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority, though not competent to impose major penalties of compulsory retirement, dismissal and removal, can initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of the same.
It noted that there is nothing to suggest that the Appointing Authority alone would be the Competent Authority to institute the disciplinary / major penalty proceedings.
The Court indicated that the Director (Technical), being the "Officer (Concerned)" of the Petitioners, designated with issuing major and minor penalties per the DOP, was eligible to issue charge sheet, notwithstanding him not being the Appointing Authority.
Case Title: Huawei Telecommunications (India) Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. WIPRO Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 40
The Delhi High Court has held that the Limitation-period of 3 years for seeking Appointment of Arbitrator commences from the date of expiry of 30 days period, reckoned from date of issuance of the notice invoking arbitration.
Holding thus, it has allowed the Petitioner, Bharat Sachar Nigam Limited (BSNL), to proceed with Arbitration against the Respondent, WIPRO Limited.
Case Title: SULEMAN ABBAS & ORS. Vs. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 41
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the concept of tehbzaari, street hawking and vending does not envisage that the hawker or vendor would fix himself to any particular place or erect any structure whether permanent or temporary on it's own.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also added that there is no question of any hawker or vendor staking a claim to occupy any public space in the name of hawking and vending round the clock by placing a structure, temporary or otherwise, at the site and converting the same into a shop where the hawker or vendor and his goods can permanently remain.
The Court was dealing with a petition seeking directions on North Delhi Municipal Corporation not to disturb or create obstacles in the business activities of the petitioners, a total of 20 traders, on the alternate tehbzaari sites allotted to them vide order dated December 29, 2021.
Case Title: Ankur Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 632/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 42
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking necessary action against frequent blockade of roads in the national capital, in the name of protests.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh directed the concerned Respondents to look into the grievance raised by the Petitioner and decide his representation in according with the law, rules, regulations and government policies, as early as possible.
Moved by lawyer Ankur Bhasin, the petition, while citing various recent events, stated that the city has become a "symbolic protest site" for various pressure groups causing great inconvenience to the common masses by hampering their daily routine.
43. Filing Affidavits Of Personal Assets Not Permitted Under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: GS Sandhu & Anr vs Geeta Aggarwal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 43
The Delhi High Court has held that Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a judgment debtor (company) or its directors to file their list of assets.
Justice Amit Bansal thus set aside the order of the District Judge, Patiala House Courts directing the Directors of the Judgement-Debtor Company ('Petitioner') to file affidavits of personal assets.
" Just because the petitioners are directors of the judgment debtor company, they cannot be directed to disclose their personal assets."
44. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Owner Of 'Cars 24' In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: Global Car Group Ltd. & Anr. V. Mohit Goyal & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 44
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Global Car Group Ltd., owner of the brand Cars 24, against alleged infringement of its trademarks by the Defendants.
Finding a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff, Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Global Car under Order 39 Rules 1, and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court further directed the Defendants are directed to remove/ delete the social media accounts and listings on third-party e-commerce websites maintained under the infringing marks which are identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs'.
Case Title: Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd and Ors vs Shiva Kumar Jindad and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 45
The Delhi High Court has held that sufficiency of evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs is required to be considered during trial and not while deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Holding thus, Justice Prateek Jalan upheld the order of the Civil Judge at Karkardooma Court, refusing to look into the documents produced by plaintiff to establish his claim of title over a disputed land and dismissing the Defendant's application for rejection of plaint.
The Bench observed, " It is well settled that, for the purposes of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is duty bound to consider the contents of the plaint, and not to examine the sufficiency of the evidence or the defence put forth by the defendant."
Case Title: AASHIMA GOYAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 46
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) is entitled to seek information from credible sources before concluding, as to whether or not the concerned candidate for civil services has correctly claimed reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh was dealing with a petition filed by one Aashima Goyal challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal to challenge the decision of DoPT whereby her candidature for Civil Services Examination, 2019 was cancelled.
According to the petitioner, she became aware of her candidature being cancelled only when she received information in December 2020 in response to her RTI application.
Case Title: J. S. Arora v. DVC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 47
The assessment of work and performance of a probationer is the function of the employer and the Court should only invoke its power of Judicial Review where such action is tainted by arbitrariness and capriciousness and the courts should be wary of substituting their opinion on such questions, Delhi High Court noted.
Justice Yashwant Varma, in a case pertaining to alleged unlawful termination of services of a probationer as Director (HRD) of Damodar Valley Corporation, further noted that even the Union government can only interfere in respect of matters which are not provided for in the Regulations framed by the Corporation and where the regulations clearly make provisions for the stipulation of work and assessment of such work and do not envisage any role to be played by Union government with regard to the same, only the corporation itself has the mandate to govern on such issues.
Case Title: DR KARUNAKAR PATRA v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 48
The Delhi High Court has expressed its anguish at how Sections 354A and 506 of IPC were falsely invoked in an FIR at the drop of a hat to register one's displeasure at the conduct of another individual, observing that the aforesaid merely trivializes the offence of sexual harassment.
Justice Subramonium Prasad also added that such false invocation of the said provisions casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment.
The Court made the said observations while quashing an FIR registered under Section 354A (sexual harassment) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) against an Assistant Professor at the University of Delhi, petitioner in the matter.
Case Title: Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. v. Sourabh Jinal & Ors., CS (Comm) 247/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 49
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that "provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC make it clear that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit".
The observation was made by Justice Suresh K Kait, while hearing an application filed by the defendant in a trademark infringement suit, seeking to bring on record certain additional documents.
It may be noted that Order VIII Rule 1(1) provides that the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence.
Case Title: Juhi Chawla and others v Science and Engineering Research Board and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 50
The Delhi High Court has expunged the remarks made by the Single Judge against Bollywood and environmentalist Juhi Chawla while dismissing her civil suit against 5G Roll.
Modifying the impugned order, Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also reduced the cost imposed vide the impugned order from Rs. 20 Lakhs to Rs. 2 Lakhs, observing that the same may be retained as some of the applications filed in the civil suit were indeed completely meritless.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by Chawla and others challenging the single judge decision which had dismissed the civil suit as being defective and not maintainable with a cost of Rs. 20 lakhs.
51. No Bar On Pursuing Criminal Proceedings After Arbitration Has Commenced: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Hero Fincorp Limited v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 51
Observing that commencement of arbitration does not bar a party from pursuing criminal proceedings, the Delhi High Court directed the Police to investigate the complaint lodged by a Non-Banking Finance Company against one of its defaulting borrowers.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, " there is no bar of pursuing criminal proceedings once arbitration has commenced."
In the instant case, the Bench noted that the facts on the face of it prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. It thus added, "Section 154 Cr.P.C provides for the registration of the First Information Report in respect of cognizable offences, which the police is mandated by law to register in writing and thereafter investigate into it."
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Nagpal v. Parveen Kumar Nagpal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 52
The Delhi High Court recently decided an application that was filed under a wrong statutory provision, stating that quoting a wrong provision does not create a bar or stand in the way of Court considering the application.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait relied on Gotham Entertainment Group LLC & Ors. Vs. Diamond Comics Pvt. Ltd. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4009 and Nitish Arora vs. State of Delhi, 2007 (141) DLT 21, to observe, "...under Section 151 of CPC, this Court has inherent power to consider an application wherein a wrong provision is mentioned. It cannot be an obstacle for granting the relief".
Case Tile: Chairman, Arya Girls Senior Secondary School v. Director and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 53
In a ruling that vindicates a terminated probationer battling civil and criminal proceedings by a private aided school for 26 years, the Delhi High Court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs.
Justice Jyoti Singh upheld and partly modified the Order of Delhi School Tribunal, quashing the dismissal order of the School Authorities due to not adhering to the relevant statutory requirements.
The School had failed to conduct an inquiry before termination on allegation of serious Misconduct and did not seek prior permission of the DoE, which is mandatory under Rule 105(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
The probationer was terminated for allegedly forged and fabricated school certificates and graduation degree.
Case Title: MOHD SHAKEEL @ SHAKEEL AHMED v. MST SABIA BEGUM & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 54
The Delhi High Court has observed that while the task of deciding the marital status of the parties has been conferred with Civil Courts, the Court under maintenance proceedings under sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. may not usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that in order to preserve the social intent of sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can render the prima facie finding about the factum of marriage, which will not be a conclusive finding for any other purpose apart from the order on maintenance.
"Thus, the litmus test for determining the marital status of the parties in maintenance proceedings is prima facie satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate and nothing more. It is also pertinent to note that the abovementioned decisions bring out the fact that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are designed to reduce the vagaries of the neglected wife and children," the Court said.
Case Title: ASIF v. STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 55
The Delhi High Court has modified the conviction and sentence of a man from sec. 397 of Indian Penal Code to sec. 392 as the prosecution had failed to prove the use of a deadly weapon.
Justice Mukta Gupta was of the view that the prosecution is required to prove the nature of the weapon of offence used specially in the case of knife or blade.
"In the absence of the use of a deadly weapon being proved by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained and is required to be modified to an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC," the Court said.
Case Title: Amrinder Singh & Raja Through: Spa Holder Sukhjinder Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 56
The Delhi High Court has held that the accused cannot recourse to a third party, such as a Power of Attorney holder, to represent him in criminal proceedings.
Citing the mandatory requirement of personal appearance of the accused in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court noted that the presence of third parties in criminal cases would defeat the very purpose of the criminal justice system.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed a petition under Article 227, Constitution of India read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, seeking quashing of proceedings through the Petitioner's Representative holding his Special Power of Attorney (S.P.A.).
Case Title: Bela Goyal Proprietor of Ispat Sangrah (India) v. VIIPL – MIPL JV (Jaipur) & Ors.,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 57
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that for the purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction of Courts, a company is presumed to carry its business from where its principal office is located.
In the present case, where the Defendant-company claimed to operate from Jaipur, Justice Yogesh Khanna further made it clear:
" the company has its principle office at Delhi; this Court shall have the jurisdiction. Merely by mentioning on the invoices viz. the disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction at Jaipur would not snatch away the jurisdiction of this Court as there was no exclusion clause in the invoices."
Case Title: Avin Dalal v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 15179/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 58
The Delhi High Court recently held that merely because the Petitioner was not granted 15 days' gap between his Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination for recruitment in the Police force, it cannot be said that there was any fault in the procedure adopted.
The Petitioner, a CAPF aspirant, had claimed that even though candidates are granted 15 days period to the candidate to make an appeal before the Review Medical Board, he was forced to submit his appeal on the very same day on which the DME was conducted.
As a consequence, the petitioner could not bring his weight within the permissible limit, thereby being denied an opportunity to be selected.
59. Arbitral Award Is To Be Executed At A Place Where Judgment Debtor Resides, Carries Business Or Has Assets: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Continental Engineering Corporation v. Sugesan Transport Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 59
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an execution petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act by a Decree Holder for an arbitral award because the the Judgment Debtor was carrying out its business in Chennai and it did not have any office or asset within Delhi jurisdiction.
The present petition was filed under Section 36 (the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court) of the Arbitration Act ('the Act'). The Court also relied on Order XXI, Rule 30 of CPC for grant of execution of a money decree.
While going through the assets of the Judgement Debtor, the judge noted that, the Judgement Debtor is a company carrying out its business in Chennai, its primary bank account is based out of Chennai and it does not have any office/ asset located in Delhi. The affidavit of assets filed by the Judgement Debtor also does not disclose an moveable/ immoveable assets within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
60. "Serious Assault On Dignity Of Complainant": Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIR Of Stalking, Sexual Harassment Despite Settlement Between Parties
Case Title: MOHD. NAZIM v. THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 60
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR filed against a man accused of stalking, sexual harassing and circulating morphed photographs of an undergraduate girl, despite settlement between parties.
Considering the nature of offences committed against the girl, Justice Mukta Gupta was of the view that the FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the man later showed repentance for the offences committed as the same was a "serious assault on the fundamental right to live with dignity of the complainant."
61. Fair Trial Is Hallmark Of Criminal Procedure, Court's Duty To Ensure Fair & Proper Opportunities To Accused For Just Decision: Delhi HC
Case Title: KRISHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 61
The Delhi High Court has observed that a fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure which entails not only the rights of the victims but also the interest of the accused.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri added that it is the duty of every Court to ensure that fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case.
"In furtherance of the above, adducing of evidence by the accused in support of his defence is also a valuable right and allowing the same is in the interest of justice," the Court said.
62. S. 3(1)(w) Of SC/ST Act Does Not Come Into Play When Offence Had No Reference To Prosecutrix's Caste : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Joy Dev Nath v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 62
The Delhi High Court has held that to prosecute a person for an offence committed under Section Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must show that the offence was committed in reference to the 'caste' of the victim/ prosecutrix.
Section 3(1)(w) penalizes a person, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent.
" The Complainant does not allege in her complaint that she was sexually victimised by reason of her caste status throughout her relationship with the Petitioner/Applicant," the Court noted in the facts of the instant case. It thus allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused," the Court said.
63. Liquidated Damages Over & Above Actual Damages Cannot Be Awarded By Sole Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bhopal Dal Udyog v. Food Corporation of India, FAO (OS) 415/2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 63
The Delhi High Court observed that in breach of a contract, if the actual damages have been ascertained then the sole arbitrator is not justified in granting liquidated damages over and above such actual damages.
The Bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manmohan observed, " In the present case as the actual damages suffered by the respondent were proven and accepted by the learned Sole Arbitrator, liquidated damages over and above such actual damages could not have been awarded. Accordingly, the Arbitral Award insofar as it grants Rs.8,38,656/- in favour of the respondent is set aside."
64. 'Strong Suspicion' Of Prima Facie Case Based On Materials On Record Sufficient To Frame Charges; Need Not Assess Probative Value Of Evidence: Delhi HC
Case Name: Shakiluddin @ Babloo v. The State CRL.REV.P.-150/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 64
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Revision Petition filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing the charge of murder against the accused-revisionist.
It held that at the stage of framing charges, the Court need not consider the probative value of the evidence. A prima facie view of the materials on record is sufficient for framing charges.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar held: "When the material placed before the Court discloses great suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be justified in framing charge. No roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial was being conducted. If on the basis of materials on record a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists."
65. Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Of 72 Yrs Old Accused In POCSO Case
Case Title: Miss M (Minor) v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., Crl. M. C. 1909/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 65
The Delhi High Court cancelled the bail granted to a 72 years old man, who is accused of raping a 7 years old girl child and is booked for the offence of Rape under Section 376 IPC and Penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The petitioner/ complainant had filed a petition under Article 227, read with Section 439(2) CrPC, assailing the order granting bail to the accused.
While refraining from commenting on the merits of the case, Justice Manoj Ohri observed,
"On a prima facie view of the statements of the child victim during investigation and trial as well as her MLC, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order granting bail to respondent No. 2, as the same suffers from perversity and is unsustainable under the facts and circumstances of the case."
66. Assembly Elections 2022: Delhi HC Refuses To Entertain Congress Leader's Plea To Postpone Polls In Five States Amid Third COVID Wave
Case Title: Jagdish Sharma v. UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 66
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea filed by Congress Leader Jagdish Sharma seeking postponement of polls in States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Manipur, Uttarakhand and Goa in view of the growing cases of new Covid-19 variant Omicron.
The Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh expressed their displeasure and termed the petition as "frivolous" amid decline in the cases. It asked the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the plea and warned that the same will otherwise be dismissed with cost.
Accordingly, the plea was withdrawn from Court.
