Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations 513 - 598]

SH JAGMOHAN KASHYAP v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513

JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE & CULTURE AND ANR v. PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 514

HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TICTOK SKILL GAMES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 515

SH.PANNA LAL v. BHAGMAL KATARIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 516

KARIM HOTEL PVT LTD versus KAREEM DHANANI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 517

RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 518

JUSTICE FOR ALL AND ANR v. VENKATESHWAR GLOBAL SCHOOL AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 519

COLORBAR COSMETICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FACES COSMETICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 520

Panipat Jalandhar National Highway 1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 521

ED v. Jacqueline Fernandez 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 522

NEHA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 523

Shalen Bhardwaj v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 524

Gurjar Samaj Sarv Sangthan Sabha Ekta Samanya Samiti v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 525

Himanshu Shekar v. Prabhat Shekhar 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 526

CJDARCL LOGISTICS LTD. v. RITES LTD AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 527

VIVEK KUMAR YADAV v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 528

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR. v. NORTHERN REGIONAL POWER COMMITTEE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 529

DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 530

SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 531

National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 532

SANJIT BAKSHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 533

RAJESH KAPOOR v. OFFICE OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 534

SMT BABITA SHARMA & ANR. v. THE SHANKAR COOP. URBAN T/C SOCIETY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 535

Juki India Private Limited versus M/s Capital Apparels Technology Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 536

VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 537

RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 538

ADITI BAKHT v. ABHISHEK AHUJA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 539

SARITA BAKSHI v. STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 540

NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 541

ARSHAD AHMAD AND ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542

VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543

CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544

M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545

Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546

JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547

HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT. v. & BEN GROUPO PVT. LTD. & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 548

INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (ITDC) v. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD. (BMEL) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 549

M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550

Charu v. High Court of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 551

In Re: Housing for the Poor in Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 552

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE v. M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 553

DUSHYANT KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 554

PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555

M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556

HARYANA STATE JUDO ASSOCIATION v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 557

MAMTA DEVI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 558

ARUN AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 559

DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. v. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 560

JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 561

YOGESH JAGIA v. JINDL BIOCHEM PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562

MASTER DIVYAM BHATEJA THROUGH FATHER MR VINOD BHATEJA v. BHAI PARMANAND VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 563

UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 564

NAVED v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565

Mukish v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566

BRINDA KARAT AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 567

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 568

SANTOSH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 569

SURENDER @ TANNU @ TANVA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 570

THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 571

HANUMAN BENIWAL AND ORS. v. VINAY MISHRA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 572

VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 573

DEVENDER GUPTA v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 574

Davinder Singh Thapar versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 575

Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited Vs DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 576

KULVINDER SINGH KOHLI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 577

A-ONE REALTORS PVT.LTD. v. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578

SAJID KHAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 579

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. AMAZONBUYS.IN & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 580

Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 581

SAMRIDDHI KHANDELWAL v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 582

Case Title: ANISH SINGH THAKUR v. THROUGH ANUBHAV GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 583

M/S K.B.G. ENGINEERS v. DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 584

HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED v. PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 585

Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586

VINDHYA GURUKUL COLLEGE & ANR. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 587

SWASTIKA GHOSH v. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 588

BABA RAHIM ALI SHAH & ANR. v. SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 589

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. INTRA LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 590

HEETICH MARKETING-UND VERTRIEBS GMBH & CO. KG., & ANR v. GUPTA STORE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 591

DR. MAHENDRA SINGH RANA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 592

ASLAM SHER KHAN v. NARINDER DHRUV BATRA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 594

VOLTAS LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 595

SEHNAZ v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 596

PANKAJ JAIN v. PARUL JAIN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 597

Pink City Expressway Private Limited versus National Highways Authority of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 598

1. Right To Claim Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act & U/S 125 CrPC Not Mutually Exclusive: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SH JAGMOHAN KASHYAP v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not mutually exclusive.

Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the aggrieved person can seek interim maintenance before the Magistrate while also seeking a permanent maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

"The only caveat is that maintenance granted by one court will be factored in by the other court before granting or refusing maintenance," the Court said.

2. Party Alleging Contempt Can't Call Upon Court To Interpret Judicial Order Differently From The Manner In Which It Reads: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE & CULTURE AND ANR v. PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 514

The Delhi High Court has observed that a party approaching the Court alleging contempt, cannot call upon the Court, in a contempt jurisdiction, to interpret the judicial order differently from the manner in which it reads and that only those directions which are plainly self-evident have to be taken into account to determine the violation or disobedience.

Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a plea alleging contempt of judicial orders passed in a trademark infringement case, thereby seeking direction to hold the respondents guilty of gross, deliberate and continuing contempt of the orders.

3. Use Of Competitor's Trademark As Keyword For Promoting Business On Search Engines/ App Store Violates Rights Of Trademark Owner: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TICTOK SKILL GAMES PVT LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 515

The Delhi High Court has observed that the use of keywords for promoting a business using competitor's trademark would be violative of the rights of the trademark owner.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that there would be no difference in the use of trade marks as a keyword on search engines as opposed to use as a keyword on App store searches.

"So long as the key words are being used for promoting a business, using a competitor's trade mark, the same would be violative of the rights of the trade mark owner," the Court said.

4. Restoration Applications Are To Be Dealt With Liberally, Right To Represent One's Cause Before Court Is A Fundamental Right: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SH.PANNA LAL v. BHAGMAL KATARIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 516

The Delhi High Court has observed that the restoration applications are to be dealt with liberally as the right to represent one's cause before a Court is a fundamental right.

Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge which had dismissed a restoration application filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner contended, in the restoration application, that on the date when he was absent for the hearing, the proceedings were taken up virtually and that he was unable to join the proceedings.

The Senior Civil Judge, in passing the impugned order, had proceeded solely on the ground that, as per the dates of physical hearing, notified by High Court, the matter was taken up on physical hearing on 30th October, 2021 when the petitioner was absent.

5. Karim's v. Kareem's: Delhi High Court Restrains Businessman From Infringing Trademark Of Old Delhi's Mughlai Food Outlet

Case Title: KARIM HOTEL PVT LTD versus KAREEM DHANANI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 517

Coming to the aid of Old Delhi's popular Mughlai food outlet "Karim's", the Delhi High Court has restrained Mumbai based businessman Kareem Dhanani from opening any further restaurants under deceptively similar marks, till August 8.

Justice Prathibha M. Singh further directed Dhanani to ensure that in the restaurants run by him or by his franchises, no representation is made to the customers that it is associated with the Karim's at Jama Masjid.

6. No Further Exemptions Be Granted To NSFs Not Complying To Sports Code, Fairness & Legitimacy Need To Imbue All Governmental Affairs: Delhi HC

Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 518

Observing that fairness and legitimacy need to imbue all governmental affairs, the Delhi High Court has observed that it is imperative that no further exemptions be granted to or lenience be shown to National Sports Federations who are not complying with the Government of India's National Sports Code, 2011.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that no NSF or Sports Entity should be seen to be receiving benefits which are unjust.

7. Private Schools Must Fill Up Backlog EWS Seats In Next 5 Yrs: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL AND ANR v. VENKATESHWAR GLOBAL SCHOOL AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 519

The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government to make every endeavour to ensure that the backlog of unfilled EWS seats in private schools, both on private and government lands, is filled-up in the next five years in a phased manner; i.e., 20% of the vacancies each year, in addition to the mandated annual 25% intake.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan further directed the Delhi Government to ensure that the 25% seats in the Economic Weaker Section (EWS) category students shall be filled up on the basis of declared sanctioned strength at the entry level, irrespective of the actual number of students admitted in the General category.

8. Delhi High Court Restrains Faces Cosmetics From Selling Products Under 'Velvette Matte' Trademark In Suit Filed By Colorbar Cosmetics

Case Title: COLORBAR COSMETICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FACES COSMETICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 520

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Canada based company Faces Cosmetics from selling and manufacturing its products under the mark 'Velvette Matte' in the trademark infringement suit filed by Colorbar Cosmetics.

Justice Pratibha M Singh granted ad interim ex parte injunction in favour of Colorbar Cosmetics Private Limited by restraining Faces Cosmetics India Private for manufacturing, selling and offering for sale cosmetics and other products under the mark 'VELVET MATTE' or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark VELVET MATTE, till September 19, the next date of hearing.

9. Multiple Arbitrations With Regard To Existing Claims On Same Contract Are To Be Avoided: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Panipat Jalandhar National Highway 1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 521

The High Court of Delhi has held that multiple arbitrations with regard to existing claims on same contract are to be avoided.

The Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that permitting the parties to have multiple arbitrations for the adjudication of the existing disputes related to the same contract would entail multiple observations.

The Court further held that there is no absolute bar in terms of Entry 22 to the Vth Schedule against the appointment of the same person as the arbitrator in more than two arbitrations within a period of three years.

10. Delhi High Court Permits Actress Jacqueline Fernandez To Travel Abroad For IIFA Event

Case Title: ED v. Jacqueline Fernandez

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 522

The Delhi High Court yesterday upheld a Trial Court order which had granted permission to Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez to travel abroad to Abu Dhabi, UAE for IIFA Awards events. The development comes in backdrop of a money laundering case being probed by Enforcement Directorate involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain however modified a condition in the trial court order to the extent that the actress shall submit an FDR of Rs. 1 crore alongwith an undertaking that in the case she did not return to the country, the said FDR shall be forfeited in favor of the agency before the concerned Court alongwith surety of Rs. 1 crore.

11. Insistence Of Spousal Consent For Organ Donation Would Impinge Upon Wife's Right To Be In Control Of Her Own Body: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NEHA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 523

The Delhi High Court has observed that insistence of spousal consent for organ donation would impinge upon the right of the wife to be in control of her own body.

Interpreting relevant provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 as well as Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Justice Yashwant Varma further added that a spouse cannot be recognised in law to have a superior or supervening right to control a personal and conscious decision of the donor

12. "They Are Not Above Law": High Court Orders Action Against Delhi Police Personnel For Not Wearing Masks, Riding Two Wheelers Without Helmets

Case Title: Shalen Bhardwaj v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 524

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Police to take action against its officials who are found not following Covid-19 masking policy and violating Motor Vehicles Act by not wearing helmets while riding their vehicles.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed,

"Police officers are equally bound by directions issued by DDMA, as any other citizen. We are of the view that they should lead by example."

13. "Samrat Prithviraj" Film Is Caste Neutral, Does Not Depict King As Rajput Or Gurjar: Yash Raj Films Tells Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gurjar Samaj Sarv Sangthan Sabha Ekta Samanya Samiti v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 525

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a plea against Akshay Kumar starrer "Samrat Prithviraj" for allegedly depicting the ruler as a Rajput King. The plea claimed that Prithviraj Chauhan was a Gurjar King. The film is set to hit the theatres on June 3.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta closed the matter after counsel for Yash Raj Films made a categorical statement that the movie is absolutely neutral and does not refer to any caste, either Rajput or Gurjar.

14. Embargo Under Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act Would Not Apply To A Distant Relative Of The Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Himanshu Shekar v. Prabhat Shekhar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 526

The High Court of Delhi has held that the embargo under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act would not apply to a distant relative of the parties.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that in terms of Explanation 1 and Entry 9 to the Seventh Schedule r/w Section 12(5) only spouse, sibling, child, parent or life partner of a party would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.

The Court observed that the father-in-law of the niece of the parties cannot be held to be a close relative of the parties to attract the rigours of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.

15. Private Company Conceals Info About Blacklisting In Tender Case: Delhi HC Imposes ₹12.5 Crores Cost To Be Utilised For Installation Of Smog Tower In City

Case Title: CJDARCL LOGISTICS LTD. v. RITES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 527

The Delhi High Court today imposed a hefty cost of Rs. 12.5 crores on a private company namely SARR Freights Corporation, for concealing the information about its blacklisting in a tender matter and directed that the said cost shall be utilized for installation and operationalization of a smog tower before the advent of winter season in the city.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the amount of Rs. 12.5 crores shall be deposited by the company with the Registrar General of the High Court within 2 weeks.

The Court said that the smog tower shall be based on the same working and operational guidelines as the Connaught Place smog tower.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the amount of Rs. 12.5 crores shall be deposited by the company with the Registrar General of the High Court within 2 weeks.

16. Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Final Answer Keys Of Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination 2022

Title: VIVEK KUMAR YADAV v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 528

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the final answers keys of the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2022, which was declared after considering the objections raised by various candidates.

A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed four pleas filed the candidates who were unsuccessful in being shortlisted to appear for the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination as the marks secured by them in the preliminary examination fell short of the specified threshold.

17. Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Examine Rival Claims Of Delhi & Haryana For Allocation Of Power From Dadri-II Thermal Plant

Case Title: BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR. v. NORTHERN REGIONAL POWER COMMITTEE & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 529

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre through Ministry of Power to examine the rival claims and consider the validity of the right of the States of Haryana as well as Delhi for continued allocation of Dadri-II power plant.

Justice Yashwant Varma also asked the Centre to explore avenues which may safeguard the interests and projected needs of the two States and take an appropriate decision based on a holistic examination of all the facts that may be placed before it.

18. "No Flight Risk" : Delhi High Court Permits NDTV Promoters Prannoy Roy & Radhika Roy To Travel Abroad Between August 1 To 30

Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 530

The Delhi High Court has allowed NDTV promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel abroad between 1st to 30th August, 2022.

The development came in the backdrop of a Look Out Circulars (LOC) having been issued against the duo by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The LOC in turn was opened pursuant to the registration of two FIRs dated 2 June 2017 and 19 August 2019.

Accordingly, an application was filed by Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy seeking permission from the Court to permit them to travel abroad from August 1 to 30, 2022.

19. [Jahangirpuri Riots] 'Appears To Be Of A Phishing Kind': High Court Dismisses Plea By Accused Alleging Harassment By Delhi Police

Case Title: SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 531

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by an accused in connection with the Jahangirpuri riots seeking directions on the city police not to harass him and his family members in the name of interrogation.

The plea was filed by one Sheikh Ishrafil, who is alleged by the prosecution to be one of the main conspirators and perpetrators of the entire incident, thereby adding that he was evading the process of law. His eldest son was sent to judicial custody, on allegations of being involved in the riots.

20. Once The Ledger Duly Reflects The Amount As Outstanding And Payable, The Period Of Limitation Would Run From The Said Date: Delhi High Court

Case: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 532

The High Court of Delhi has held that acknowledgment of an amount as due and payable under the ledger/statement of accounts, constitutes a fresh cause of action and extends the period of limitation.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the period of limitation for an amount that is shown as outstanding in the book of accounts would get extended from the date of such acknowledgement in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

21. Taking Cognizance Is A Judicial Function, Orders Cannot Be Passed In A Mechanical Or Cryptic Manner: Delhi High Court

Title: SANJIT BAKSHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 533

The Delhi High Court has observed that taking of cognizance is a judicial function and that the judicial orders cannot be passed in a mechanical or cryptic manner.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has added that at time of taking cognizance, a Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the proposed accused or to evaluate the merits of the material collected during investigatio or to pass a detail order giving detailed reasons while taking cognizance. The Court added that the order taking cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind.

22. Delhi High Court Upholds Circular Restricting Foreign Travel Of District Court Employees To Vacations, Public Holidays & Emergencies Only

Case Title: RAJESH KAPOOR v. OFFICE OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 534

The Delhi High Court has upheld a circular stipulating that the city's district court employees can be allowed to visit a foreign country only during Summer Vacations, Winter Vacations, Public Holidays and in case of any exigency.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed a plea challenging the order dated January 31, 2022 passed by the respondent, Office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, whereby it had rejected the application of the petitioner, who held the post of Senior Personal Assistant in the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge at Rohini Courts.

23. Order XXI Rule 26 CPC | Court Not Bound To Decide Application For Stay Of Execution On First Day, Entitled To Seek Reply Of Decree Holder: Delhi HC

Case Title: SMT BABITA SHARMA & ANR. v. THE SHANKAR COOP. URBAN T/C SOCIETY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 535

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no mandate, in law or otherwise, requiring the executing court to decide the application under Order XXI Rule 26 of Code of Civil Procedure for stay of execution proceedings, on the very first day.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Executing Court is entitled to call upon the Decree Holder to file a reply to the application before taking a decision thereon.

24. If MoU Arises Out Of An Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause, Reference Of MoU Is Valid: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Juki India Private Limited versus M/s Capital Apparels Technology Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 536

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an MoU has been signed by the parties for settlement of dues arising under an agreement, arbitration can be sought for violation of the terms of the MoU, even if the MoU does not contain an Arbitration Clause.

The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that since the MoU was a part of the dispute covered by the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement, the dispute between the parties could be referred to arbitration.

25. Mere Gold Smuggling Without Threatening Economic Security Of India Not "Terrorist Act" Under UAPA: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 537

The Delhi High Court has held that mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted bail to nine accused persons who had approached the Court by way of filing an appeal challenging the Trial Court order denying bail to them in a matter involving offences under sec. 16, 18, 20 of the UAPA and under sec. 120B, 204, 409 and 471 of IPC.

26. National Sports Federations To Not Receive Monies From Centre Until Compliance With Sports Code & Judicial Orders: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 538

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Centre to ensure that monies, patronage and other facilities to National Sports Federations will be resumed only when they comply with National Sports Code, 2011 and judicial orders.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that the entire exercise of ensuring compliance is expected to be completed by the end of this month. However, in the interim, the Court said that the assistance provided to sportspersons through the Sports Authority of India will be ensured and wherever necessary, augmented.

27. Conduct Of Judges Noted & Observed, Must Not Act In Any Manner Which Gives Rise To Slightest Of Doubt In Minds Of Lawyers & Litigants: Delhi HC

CaseTitle: ADITI BAKHT v. ABHISHEK AHUJA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 539

The Delhi High Court has said that judges must not act in any manner which gives rise to slightest of doubt in the minds of lawyers and litigants as their conduct is noted and observed by the litigants.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma made the said observation while expressing displeasure over the conduct of a Family judge who had shared his personal mobile number with both the parties and admittedly met one of the parties in chamber, which had unnecessarily given a cause of reasonable apprehension of bias.

28. Amount Spent By A Man To Support His Divorced Sister Must Be Kept In Mind While Granting Maintenance To His Wife: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SARITA BAKSHI v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 540

The Delhi High Court has observed that in India, a brother does not abandon his divorced sister and accordingly, the expenditure borne by him in supporting his sister must be taken into account while passing an order of maintenance in favour of his wife.

" There is no skepticism about the fact that the sister receives maintenance from her husband, but the brother cannot be a mute spectator to her misery if and when she needs his help. Some provision needs to be made in his list of expenditure to support her sibling...though while apportioning the income of the respondent, one portion of income of the respondent cannot be apportioned to the sister, some amount as expenditure on yearly basis has to be kept aside for the divorced sister as moral obligation of the respondent," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

29. Pujaris & Unauthorised Occupants Of Dharamshalas Cannot Claim Vested Right To Remain In Kalkaji Temple Premises: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 541

Observing that the occupants of the dharamshalas and pujaris cannot claim a vested right to remain in city's Kalkaji Temple premises, the Delhi High Court has directed that such dharamshalas shall be vacated on or before 6th June, 2022.

Justice Pratibha M Singh, who was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning redevelopment of the temple premises, added that in case of failure to comply with the direction, the concerned SHO shall take steps, in consultation with the Administrator, to evict the said pujaris and the dharamshala occupants.

30. Quashing Of FIR In Matrimonial Disputes Is Welcome: Delhi High Court Quashes Rape FIR Against Father In Law

Case Title: ARSHAD AHMAD AND ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542

The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial offences, quashing of FIR is welcome as it shows that parties have decided to put an end to the lis as well as to the misery they undergo due to a matrimonial case pending between them.

"The fact that now-a-days Sections 376 and 354 of IPC are being used along with Section 498-A IPC, which later on are compromised and are brought to this Court for quashing, needs to be curbed," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further added.

31. IPR Suits Below Rs. 3 Lakhs Threshold To Be Listed First Before District Judge (Commercial) To Determine Whether Valuation Is Deliberately Undervalued: Delhi HC

Title: VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543

The Delhi High Court has held that in a case where a plaintiff values an IPR suit in the city district courts below the threshold of Rs.3 lakhs, such suits would be listed before the District Judge (Commercial) first in order to determine as to whether the valuation is arbitrarily whimsical or deliberately undervalued.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that it would be mandatory for IPR suits to be ascribed a 'specified value', in the absence of which the valuation of the suit below Rs.3 lakhs would be arbitrary, whimsical and wholly unreasonable.

"This Court is cognizant of the fact that the valuation of intellectual property is by itself a very complex process. It is clarified that the Commercial Court is not expected to value the specific IP on the basis of any mathematical formulae but to broadly take into consideration whether the said IP would be worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs, which is the threshold for the Commercial Court to exercise jurisdiction," the Court said.

32. Re-Examination Can't Be Used To Give Chance To Witness To Undo Statement Made In Cross Examination & Fill Lacunae In Evidence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544

The Delhi High Court has observed that the opportunity of re-examination cannot be used to give a chance to a witness to undo its statement made in cross-examination and fill in the lacunae in evidence.

Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed seeking to injunct the defendants, who were occupants, from unlawfully entering any part of the first floor including the balcony of a Shop on the ground floor of the premises.

Issues were framed in the suit on 2nd August, 2019 and a Local Commissioner was appointed to record evidence of the parties.

33. Show Cause Notice Mailed To The Wrong Email Address: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter To The Assessing Officer For A Fresh Decision

Case Title: M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545

The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has remanded the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh decision as the department mailed the show cause notice to the wrong email address.

The petitioner/assessee submitted that the department alleged that the petitioner's claim for IGST Refund was incorrect and, hence, the amount "is required to be disallowed." An IGST refund, being a balance sheet item, is not a claim made in the profit and loss account and it cannot be termed as "income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment". Hence, in terms of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act as well as the first proviso to Section 148, the show cause notice was patently illegal.

34. Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order Issued Without Considering The Reply Filed By The Assessee

Case Title: Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546

The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has quashed the reassessment order issued without considering the reply filed by the assessee.

The petitioner/assessee stated that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were void ab initio. The proceedings were initiated in the name of "Damian Estate Developers Private Limited", which was a non-existent entity as it had amalgamated with the petitioner company with effect from April 1st, 2016.

35. "Diabolic & Brutal": Delhi High Court Awards Imprisonment For Remainder Of Life To Three For Gang Rape & Murder Of 3-Yr-Old

Case Title: JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547

The Delhi High Court has awarded life sentence (for remainder of life) to three men for gang rape and murder of a three year old minor child observing that the same was done in a diabolic and brutal manner.

Upholding the conviction of the three, a division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna exercised its appellate jurisdiction by awarding life sentence under Section 376(2) and 302 of Indian Penal Code. It observed that the imprisonment of life for the remainder of life would be an appropriate sentence in the facts of the case.

The prosecution case was that an FIR was received 6th January, 2012 informing that a dead body of girl aged about 3-4 years was found in city's Ramesh Nagar. The body was found by an MCD sweeper who took it out while cleaning a nala. The same was identified later by minor's father.

Read Also: Trial Court Cannot Qualify Life Imprisonment Awarded By It To Remainder Of Natural Life: Delhi High Court Reiterates

36. Delhi High Court Awards ₹5 Lakhs Cost In Favour Of Hungarian Company 'Hell Energy' In Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT. v. & BEN GROUPO PVT. LTD. & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 548

The Delhi High Court has awarded a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs in favour of a Hungarian Company engaged in the business of production and sale of energy drinks under the brand names 'HELL' and 'HELL ENERGY' in a trademark infringement suit filed by it.

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed that the said amount be paid by July 15, noting the fact that mediation proceedings between the parties were not successful and also that the Defendants were ex-distributors of the company in question.

37. Entities Under Article 12 Expected To Fully Disclose Relevant Facts Regarding Property/ Assets For Fair Commercial Transactions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (ITDC) v. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD. (BMEL)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 549

Observing that fairness of procedure is in public interest, the Delhi High Court has said that full disclosure of relevant facts and developments apropos a property or asset or a commercial entity, is expected for a fair commercial transaction, especially from entities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan further added that it is expected that actions of such entities would always be imbued with the spirit of fairness.

The Court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ITDC) under sec. 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing its petition under sec. 34 of the Act against an Arbitral Award.

38. Order Passed By The Arbitrator Allowing Meetings As Per Convenience Of Parties, Would Not Change The Seat Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitrator holding that the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted at any other place, would not change the seat of Arbitration as provided in the Arbitration Clause.

The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the Arbitrator cannot decide anything contrary to what has been decided by the parties.

The petitioner M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels was awarded a contract by the respondent Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for hiring services. Thereafter, the respondent terminated the contract vide a notice. The petitioner issued a legal notice invoking the Arbitration Clause and called upon the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator.

39. DJS 2022 | Reserved Category Candidate Can Rectify Bonafide Mistake Of Applying In General Category If No Prejudice Is Caused To Any Person: Delhi HC

Case Title: Charu Kain v. High Court of Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 551

The Delhi High Court has held that a person of a reserved category, committing a bona fide mistake of applying under General category for an examination should be given an opportunity to rectify the same, so long as their action does not cause prejudice to any person.

In this case, the petitioner, who is currently posted as an Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services had appeared for the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2022 as a General Category candidate, instead of a Reserved category (SC) candidate due to a bona fide mistake. Here, had the petitioner been considered as a Reserved Category candidate (SC), she would make the cut off for appearing in the Mains examination as she had secured 119.5 marks, which was above the cut off (115.5 marks) for Reserved Category candidates. However, she did not make the cut off for the General Category which was higher than 119.5.

40. Slum Dwellers Rehabilitation: Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Non-Allotment Of Low-Cost Flats Under JNNURM Scheme

Case Title: In Re: Housing for the Poor in Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 552

The Delhi High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of non-allotment of flats constructed under Centre's Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Scheme, which was to be implemented by the Delhi Government, for rehabilitation of slum dwellers in the city.

Justice Pratibha M Singh noted that a large number of houses were either constructed or partially constructed but the same were yet to be allotted for rehabilitation of slum dwellers.

41. License Of Liquor Vend Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Because Public Sentiment May Be Opposed To Its Location: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE v. M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 553

The Delhi High Court has observed that unless the license of a liquor vend is shown to fall foul of any statutory provision or otherwise established to be in violation of any rule or regulation, the same cannot possibly merit cancellation, merely because "public sentiment" may be opposed to its location.

Justice Yashwant Varma further added that public opinion or sentiment is not a factor relevant or germane under the Delhi Excise Act for locating a liquor vend.

The Court was dealing with a petition preferred by the Department of Excise assailing the order of 28 June 2019 passed by the Financial Commissioner. The impugned order restored the excise license which was granted to the respondent, M/S 2 Bandits Restaurant, setting aside an order in terms of which the same had been cancelled.

42. Court May Note Objections On Oral Evidence During Trial, Admissibility To Be Decided While Pronouncing Verdict & Not At Time Of Examination: Delhi HC

Case Title: DUSHYANT KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 554

The Delhi High Court has observed that the question whether the evidence is to be included or excluded from consideration while pronouncing the final verdict is to be taken at the end and not at the time of examination.

Justice Jasmeet Singh added that where the Court finds that any question put by the defense is inadmissible or not relevant, it should record its observation and thereafter permit the witness to answer the question.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the rejection of questions by the Special CBI Judge of Rouse Avenue Courts, during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness in November 2021.

43. Newspaper Or Agency Engaged In Disseminating News Cannot Be Viewed As Performing Public Function: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555

The Delhi High Court has observed that a newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function.

Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a writ petition filed by one Prakash Singh laying allegations of racial discrimination and harassment against Agence France-Presse, a French private international news agency, against him. The Court dismissed the plea as not being maintainable.

Advocate Raghav Awasthi appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the fact that Agence France-Presse was constituted by an Act of Parliament of France.

It was argued that its essential functions would indicate that it was an autonomous civil entity which had been constituted for the purpose to seek out, in France as well as abroad, the elements of a complete and objective information service and also to place that information at the disposal of users in exchange for payment.

44. Delhi High Court Orders To De-seal Business Premises, Directs Assessee To Produce Documents

Case Title: M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam S. Bamba has ordered the department to de-seal business premises and directed the assessee to produce documents.

The department has sealed the business premises of the petitioner under Section 67 (4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 for the want of documents.

As per Section 67 (4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017, the officer authorised shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle or receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box, or receptacle is denied.

45. Delhi High Court Appoints Former Justice Pankaj Naqvi As Administrator To Handle Affairs Of Judo Federation Of India

Case Title: HARYANA STATE JUDO ASSOCIATION v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 557

The Delhi High Court has appointed former Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Pankaj Naqvi, as administrator to handle day to day affairs of Judo Federation of India.

Justice Yashwant Varma also directed that in the interim, the erstwhile President, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Federation shall extend all cooperation to the Administrator in conducting the affairs of the Federation.

"The Administrator shall be authorized to make appropriate arrangements for the governance of the Federation until elections are held," the Court added.

46. Delhi High Court Asks Parties To Clean Yamuna River For 45 Days, Quashes Assault FIR Based On Compromise

Case Title: MAMTA DEVI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 558

While quashing an FIR registered after a fight resulting in simple injuries, the Delhi High Court directed the complainant as well as the respondent parties to clean river Yamuna for a period or 45 days.

Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the parties to work with Delhi Jal Board Team under the supervision of Member, Drainage.

"At the end of satisfactory service, the petitioners and respondents will be given a certificate by Delhi Jal Board for Yamua Cleaning and this certificate by each of the petitioners and respondents must be placed on record within one week of their receipt," the Court directed.

47. Tendency To File Cases Of Outraging Woman's Modesty In Disputes Between Neighbours To Settle Scores Needs To Be Curbed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: TARUN AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 559

The Delhi High Court has observed that the tendency of filing cases of outraging modesty of a woman under Section 354 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, in the disputes between neighbours to settle scores needs to be curbed.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while quashing an FIR registered under sec. 354, 452, 506, 509, 354B and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The complainant had stated that the parties were neighbours and a dispute had arisen over some misunderstanding, pursuant to which cross FIRs were registered.

48. Institutions That Can't Pay Long Outstanding Salaries For Years Draws Attention To Its Right To Continue As An Employer: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. v. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 560

The Delhi High Court has observed that an institution which cannot pay its long outstanding salaries for years, which are statutorily due, draws attention to its financial stability and its right to continue as an employer.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan was of the opinion that it is for the State Government to look into the matter and ensure that the educational institutions comply with and conform to the strict norms of law.

The Court was dealing with an LPA filed by Delhi Sukh Gurudwara Management Committee concerning non-payment of outstanding amount to teachers paid under the Sixth Pay Commission for the past eight years.

49. S.127 CrPC | Must Consider Husband's Financial Status, Changed Circumstances While Determining Maintenance In Matrimonial Dispute: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 561

The Delhi High Court has observed that the determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the husband and the standard of living that the wife was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income with reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law including the liabilities, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid.

The Court was of the view that the phrase "change of circumstances" referred to in Section 127(1) of CrPC is a comprehensive phrase which also includes change of circumstances of husband.

50. Summoning Of Accused A Serious Matter, Criminal Law Cannot Be Set Into Motion As A Matter Of Course: Delhi High Court

Case Title: YOGESH JAGIA v. JINDL BIOCHEM PVT LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562

The Delhi High Court has observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that a Magistrate is the silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidences before summoning of the accused and must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a practicing Advocate enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi since 1991 and the Respondent Complainant was a real estate development company.

51. Right To Education Under RTE Act Cannot Be Unconditionally Enforced Against Private Unaided Schools: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MASTER DIVYAM BHATEJA THROUGH FATHER MR VINOD BHATEJA v. BHAI PARMANAND VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 563

The Delhi High Court has observed that while the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 guarantees the right to education, however, it nowhere provides that the said right can be unconditionally enforced against a private unaided school.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta upheld the validity of Rules 35 (Striking off the name from the rolls) and 167 (Name of the student to be struck off for non-payment of fees and contributions) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

The plea filed by a minor through his father had challenged the said Rules as being ultra vires to Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 21A read with provisions of Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 and contrary to the provisions of section 75 of Juvenile Justice care and Protection Act, 2015.

52. Party Can Raise Additional Grounds Based On The Award Passed After The Case Is Remitted To Tribunal Under Section 34(4) Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 564

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, after the matter is remanded back to it by the Court under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not a fresh arbitral award that can be challenged by filing a separate petition under Section 34(1).

The Court observed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Delhi High Court for challenging the arbitral award, the matter was remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal by the Court, and that the Tribunal thereafter passed an order.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a party cannot be precluded from raising additional grounds, which had arisen as a result of the subsequent order passed by Arbitral Tribunal, to challenge the arbitral award.

53. Police Post Not A Place Where Public Servants Are To Be Attacked With Fire Arms, Dandas Or By Pelting Stones On Them: Delhi High Court

Title: NAVED v. THE STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565

While denying bail to a man accused of attacking a Police Post and firing at the police officials from an illegal weapon, the Delhi High Court has observed that the Police Post is not a place where the public servants are supposed to be attacked with fire-arms, Dandas and Lathis or by pelting stones on them.

Justice Talwant Singh was of the prima facie view that the FSL report showed that the man was holding a fire-arm in his hand. The Court also noted that a sub inspector, complainant in the matter, was the main target of the attack by the accused persons, who had sustained severe injuries.

The Sub Inspector was the Chowki In-charge, whose place of posting being the Police Post was attacked by a group of people, who were armed with Dandas, Lathis.

54. Non-Examination Of 4-Yr-Old Rape Victim Not Fatal To Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Upholds Life Sentence Under POCSO Act

Case Title: Mukish v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566

The Delhi High Court has upheld life sentence awarded to a man for committing rape on a 4 year old minor girl within his close family.

A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an appeal filed by one Mukish, challenging the Judgment dated 28th November, 2019 and order on point of sentence dated 29th November, 2019 passed by POCSO Judge.

The Court had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and awarded sentence of Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000.

55. Hate Speeches Delivered By Political & Religious Leaders Bulldoze Constitutional Ethos, Warrant Stringent Peremptory Action: Delhi High Court

Title: BRINDA KARAT AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 567

The Delhi High Court has observed that hate speeches especially delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the constitutional ethos and violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also observed that the same is in blatant derogation of the fundamental duties prescribed under the Constitution and therefore warrant stringent peremptory action on the part of Central and State Governments.

The judgment began by referring to a shloka from Bhagwat Gita which states that whatever action is performed by a leader, common men follow in his footsteps; and whatever standards he sets by his acts, are pursued by his subjects.

"The persons who are mass leaders and occupy high offices must conduct themselves with utmost integrity and responsibility. Leaders elected in a democracy like that of India, owe their responsibility not only towards the electorate in their own constituency, but also towards the society/nation as a whole and ultimately to the Constitution. It is they who are the role models for the ordinary masses. Thus, it does not befit or behove the leaders to indulge in acts or speeches that cause rifts amongst communities, create tensions, and disrupt the social fabric in the society," the Court observed.

The observations were made while the Court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by CPM leader Brinda Karat and politician KM Tiwari against a trial court order rejecting their plea for registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the year 2020.

56. Underreporting Of Income Due To Re-Computation Of Disallowance By The AO, Does Not Amount To Misreporting Of Income: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 568

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where the underreporting of income allegedly done by the assessee is due to the re-computation of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, it would not amount to misreporting of income.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed that the underreporting of income by the assessee was due to the increase in the disallowance made under Section 14A, which was voluntarily estimated by the assessee and later recalculated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same material.

The Court held that in some cases underreporting of income may result in misreporting of income, however, the underreporting allegedly done by the assessee would not amount to misreporting of income.

57. Disclosing Elaborate Reasons For Passing 'Interception Orders' May Affect Intelligence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 569

The Delhi High Court has observed that the disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness.

"The disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness which have been universally deemed acceptable for the protection of other facets of public including the source of information leading to the detection of crime or other wrongdoing, sensitive intelligence information and other information supplied in confidence for the purpose of government or discharge of certain public functions," Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.

The Court thus dismissed a petition filed by one Santosh Kumar who had challenged an order passed by Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30th January 2018 which permitted interception of his telephonic calls in the exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419 (A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules 2007.

58. Supplementary Chargesheet Must Disclose Novel Evidence, No Cognizance Where No New Material Discovered By Further Investigation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SURENDER @ TANNU @ TANVA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 570

The Delhi High Court has observed that where no new material or evidence has been discovered by the further investigation, any cognizance taken by the Magistrate may be said to be in contravention to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that there has to be an extent of novelty in the report or Supplementary Chargesheet filed by the Investigating Agency, which leads to discovery of material or evidence in a manner which was not before the Court in the primary report or Chargesheet.

59. If Party's Intention Not To Abandon Patent Application, High Court May Exercise Writ Jurisdiction To Extend Time For Filing Response To FER: Delhi HC

Case Title: THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 571

The Delhi High Court has observed that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction could grant an extension in filing a response to an FER (First Examination Reports), given that the applicant did not have the intention to abandon its patent application.

Justice Pratibha M Singh held that the consequence of a patent being abandoned and the Applicant being deprived of exclusivity for his invention, was quite extreme. Such a consequence should not be imposed on the applicant for no fault of its own.

60. RS Polls | Baseless Allegations That Voting Strategy Of An Individual/ Party Is Sold Off Damages Reputation, Encroaches Right To Privacy: Delhi HC

Case Title: HANUMAN BENIWAL AND ORS. v. VINAY MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 572

The Delhi High Court has observed that alleging that the voting strategy of an individual or of a political party or their nominees has been sold off without any foundational basis, deeply causes irreparable harm, loss and damage to the reputation of such an individual or party concerned and clearly encroaches upon the right of privacy.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that while reputation is an integral part of the dignity of each individual, there is a need for balance between the freedom of speech and expression vis-à-vis the right to reputation.

61. Rajya Sabha Polls 2022: Delhi High Court Dismisses Candidate's Plea To Relax Deadline For Filing Nomination

Case Title: VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 573

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by an individual candidate seeking directions on the Election Commission of India to grant him permission to file Nomination for the candidature of Rajya Sabha Election 2022.

A vacation bench comprising of Justice Poonam A. Bamba rejected the plea of one Vishwanath Pratap Singh after observing that the date for filing of Nomination Forms for the polls were already over. The last date for submission of nomination was May 31.

"It is also not in dispute that the list of candidates for the aforesaid elections has already been published and the said elections are scheduled for 10.06.2022 i.e. today," the Court noted in its order dated June 10.

62. S.19 Prevention Of Corruption Act | 'Failure Of Justice' Is A Facile Expression, Courts Must Be Circumspect While Determining It: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DEVENDER GUPTA v. CBI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 574

In reference to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that a judicial order may be interfered with in case of irregularity in grant of sanction coupled with failure of justice, the Delhi High Court has cautioned,

"The criminal Court, particularly the superior Court, should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or it is only a camouflage."

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed a plea filed by a public servant named as an accused in a CBI case registered under sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

63. Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Against A Deceased Assessee Is Invalid : Reiterates Delhi High Court

Case Title: Davinder Singh Thapar versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 575

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of escapement of income from assessment, against a deceased assessee is invalid in law.

The Division Bench of Justices Jyoti Singh and Anoop Kumar Mendirattaobserved that though the notices were issued by the revenue authorities pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, however, the said order did not deal with the issue of whether the notices could be issued against the deceased assesses. Therefore, the Court quashed the notices issued by the revenue authorities against the deceased assessee.

64. Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order For Not Giving Opportunity To File Objection To SCN

Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited Vs DCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 576

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has quashed the assessment order as the assessee was not given an opportunity to file an objection to the show cause notice.

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the reassessment notices for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 as well as the assessment orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax.

The petitioner contended that the notices and the orders were void as they had been issued in the name of 'Jindal Menthol & Investment Pvt. Ltd.', a non-existing entity as it had merged with the petitioner company with effect from April 1, 2013.

65. Summons U/S 160 CrPC Cannot Be Issued By Police Officer Without Registration Of FIR: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KULVINDER SINGH KOHLI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 577

The Delhi High Court has observed that summons or notices under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be issued by a Police Officer in order to set investigation into motion and that registration of FIR is must for the same.

Section 160 CrPC provides for a Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the said observation while answering the question as to on what stage a notice under Section 160 of Code can be issued.

The Court observed that without registration of FIR, an investigation cannot be said to have been initiated. Furthermore, it said that even for an enquiry to be held legal and valid, the Police Officer has to act in accordance with provisions of the CrPC and he may not act beyond his powers by conducting a preliminary enquiry without making a report to a Magistrate.

66. Plaintiff Not Entitled For Refund Of Court Fees If Parties Are Referred For Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: A-ONE REALTORS PVT.LTD. v. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578

The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaintiff cannot be entitled for refund of court fees in the event of an application under sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being allowed and the parties being referred for arbitration.

Justice Amit Bansal reiterated that a litigant is not entitled to refund of court fees in case of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.

"On the same analogy, the plaintiff cannot be entitled for refund of court fees in the event of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being allowed and the parties being referred for arbitration. The rationale being that the plaintiff has invoked a wrong remedy of filing the suit when it should have invoked the arbitration proceedings," the Court observed.

67. Role Of Accused & Their Position In Relation To Incident & Victim Is Of Utmost Importance In Deciding Case Of "Parity": Delhi High Court

Case Title: SAJID KHAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 579

The Delhi High Court has observed that in deciding the case of parity, the role attributed to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victim is of utmost importance.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta denied bail to one Sajid Khan accused in an FIR registered under sec. 392, 397, 411 and 34 of Indian Penal Code along with sec. 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

It was the case of the prosecution that in April last year, a PCR call was received regarding robbery at gunpoint. During investigation, the complainant informed that while he was present in the office at about 10 AM, 3 boys entered into the office and robbed an amount of Rs.9,98,170 from Mannapuram Finance Ltd. with the help of gun and knife and thereafter fled from the spot.

68. "Causing Financial Loss To Public": Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Using "Amazon" Trademark

Case Title: AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. AMAZONBUYS.IN & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 580

The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of online marketplace Amazon by restraining various vogue websites from using its trademark 'AMAZON'.

Justice Jyoti Singh restrained websites namely https://amazonbuys.com, its Facebook page by the name of Amazon Franchise' and https://estoreamazon.in.

The Court was dealing with a suit filed by Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited and its affiliate arguing that its copyright subsisted in its Website and Domain Name i.e., amazon.in as well as in the overall 'look and feel' of the website 'www.amazon.in'.

69. Delhi High Court Grants Time To DMRC For Payment Of Outstanding Amount Of Arbitral Award To DAMEPL Till August 5

Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 581

The Delhi High Court has granted time to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to ensure payment of the outstanding decreetal amount to Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) on or before August 5.

The development came in connection with the plea filed by DAMEPL seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017.

The High Court on March 10 had directed DMRC to pay the entire decreetal amount of over Rs 4,600 crore along with interest in two equal instalments in two months. The said order was upheld by the Supreme Court on May 5.

DAMEPL had then approached the High Court claiming that despite the direction of payment of the awarded amount, DMRC had paid only a sum of Rs. 166.44 crores to DAMEPL on March 14, 2022, and had not paid any amount thereafter.

70. 'Momentary Lapse, Can't Affect Future Perversely': Delhi HC Grants Relief To NIFT Aspirant Who Inadvertently Disclosed Identity In Entrance Exam

Case Title: SAMRIDDHI KHANDELWAL v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 582

The Delhi High Court has observed that a momentary lapse on the part of the candidate must not be met with such a severe punitive action which would cause grave and irreparable prejudice and affect the candidate's future perversely.

Justice Sanjeev Narula granted relief to a candidate namely Samriddhi Khandelwal by directing National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) to allow her to join the counselling on the basis of her results of the online invigilated or remote proctored NIFT Entrance Exam, 2022.

The said Exam was divided into two parts – a written exam which was held on 06th February and a Situation Test which was to be held from 2nd April 2022 onwards.

71. Delhi High Court Restrains Youtube Channel "Bear & Bulls Capitals" From Posting Defamatory Material Against "Booming Bulls Academy"

Case Title: ANISH SINGH THAKUR v. THROUGH ANUBHAV GUPTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 583

The Delhi High Court has restrained a YouTube channel "Bear & Bulls Capitals" from posting any defamatory or derogatory material against another channel "Booming Bulls Academy", in any manner on any media platform till November 28th, 2022.

Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed by Anish Singh Thakur, the proprietor of "Booming Bulls Academy" which runs an academy that gives training on how to trade in the share market. The plaintiff had a channel on YouTube where the training videos are posted.

It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Anubhav Gupta also ran a channel on YouTube in the name "Bear & Bulls Capitals", which was its competitor.

72. Delhi High Court Appoints Ex-SC Judge Madan Lokur As Arbitrator In Dispute Between Construction Firm & DTTDC

Title: M/S K.B.G. ENGINEERS v. DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 584

The Delhi High Court has appointed former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Madan B. Lokur as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between a partnership firm namely M/S K.B.G. Engineers and Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd (DTTDC) from five different tenders for construction and renovation work in relation to various projects.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was of the view that there was a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties and that none of the disputes sought to be raised by the firm were ex-facie non-arbitrable.

The petitioner firm had approached the High Court by way of filing five petitions under sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes in question.

73. Plea Of 'Passing-Off' Can't Be Negated Solely On Ground That Plaintiff Had Asserted Trademark Rights In Registered Designs: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED v. PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR.

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 585

The Delhi High Court has held that a plea of passing-off cannot be negated solely on the ground that the Plaintiff had asserted trademark rights in the registered designs. A composite suit seeking action in respect of both design infringement and passing off is maintainable.

A single judge bench comprising Justice Jyoti Singh observed that while it is trite that asserting trademark rights in registered designs makes the designs vulnerable, however, where the elements of the design are used as a larger trade dress get-up, presentation through its packaging etc., the passing off claim shall lie.

74. Right To File Objection To SCN Can't Be Denied Due To One Day Delay: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that the right to file an objection to the Show Cause Notice cannot be denied owing to a one-day delay.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notice passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

The petitioner was given time till April 8, 2022, to reply to the show cause notice dated March 30, 2022. The order under Section 148A(d) was issued without taking the petitioner's request for adjournment or detailed response to the Show Cause notice into account.The order proceeded on the basis that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause notice.

75. Practice Of Filing Representations In An Attempt To Extend Cause Of Action To Overcome Delay Should Be Discouraged: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VINDHYA GURUKUL COLLEGE & ANR. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 587

The Delhi High Court has observed that the practice of filing representations, in an attempt to extend the cause of action as a ground to overcome the delay, should be discouraged.

Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Vindhya Gurukul College against the decision taken by Northern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 266th meeting wherein it was granted recognition for only 50 seats (one basic unit) of B.Ed. course, as opposed to the original decision taken in an earlier meeting wherein recognition was granted with an annual intake of 100 seats (two basic units).

The Petitioners had thus sought a direction to restore the recognition in terms of the original decision dated 20th May, 2016 or in the alternative, a direction to the Respondents to decide it's representations.

76. No Arbitrariness: Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas By TT Players Swastika Ghosh & Manush Shah Challenging Their Exclusion From CWG 2022

Case Title: SWASTIKA GHOSH v. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 588

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas filed by table tennis players Swastika Ghosh and Manush Shah seeking their inclusion in the list of 4 selected players for the men's and women's team for the Commonwealth Games 2022.

It was the case of the petitioners that their names were not included in the final selection list by the Selection Committee and the Committee of Administrator despite fulfilling the selection criteria as laid down by the federation.

Taking note of the fact that the Committee of Administrator had weighed different factors, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma refused to interfere in the same while in exercise of its power of judicial review

77. Rent Controller Cannot Call Upon Landlord To Carry Out Repairs Of Tenanted Premises Under Delhi Rent Control Act: High Court

Case Title: BABA RAHIM ALI SHAH & ANR. v. SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 589

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 whereby the Rent Controller can call upon the landlord to carry out repairs of the tenanted premises.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Rent Controller may permit the tenant to carry out repairs under sec. 44(3) if, after receipt of notice from the tenant in that regard, the landlord fails to repair the premises. The expenses may then be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord or be recovered from the landlord.

The Court thus dismissed a plea challenging an order dated 26th May, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby an application under sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with sec. 50 and 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioners (landlord), as the defendants in the civil suit, was dismissed.

78. Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturers From Using LOOZOUT Trademark, Imposes Rs. 2 Lakhs Cost

Case Title: INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. INTRA LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 590

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained two manufacturers of the pharmaceutical products from manufacturing, selling, advertising and promoting the products using the trademark 'LOOZOUT', which was deceptively similar to the registered trademark 'LOOZ'.

Justice Jyoti Singh also restrained the manufacturers from manufacturing and selling products under any other mark which was identical or deceptively similar to 'LOOZ' or its variants so as to amount to infringement or passing off.

The suit was filed by Intas Pharmaceuticals Private Limited regarding trademark infringement by three defendants. While the suit was settled qua defendant no. 1, there was no appearance on behalf of the two manufacturers, who were defendant no. 2 and 3.

79. Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Retail Store From Selling Any Counterfeit Product Under 'Hettich' Trademark & Logo

Case Title: HEETICH MARKETING-UND VERTRIEBS GMBH & CO. KG., & ANR v. GUPTA STORE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 591

The Delhi High Court has restrained a retail store from selling any counterfeit product or any other related goods under the trademark and trade name HETTICH and HETTICH Logo.

Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Heettich Marketing-Und Vertriebs Gmbh & Co. against a retail store namely Gupta Store seeking to restrain it from infringing the trademarks 'HETTICH' and its logo.

It was the case of the Plaintiffs that the trade name and trademark HETTICH owes its origin to its founding father, way back in the year 1888. The Plaintiffs were a part of diversified group of companies, having operations in multiple countries across the world and engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling furniture, fittings, door hinges, runners, etc., which had led to the said mark becoming distinctive of their products and immense goodwill.

80. Letting Seat In Super-Speciality Course Go Vacant Won't Serve Anyone's Interest: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Doctor Seeking Admission In AIIMS

Case Title: DR. MAHENDRA SINGH RANA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 592

The Delhi High Court has directed All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to admit a doctor in its specialised course, namely M. Ch. Minimal Access Surgery & General Surgery, in the next academic session, commencing from July, 2022.

Justice Sanjeev Narula was of the view that justice would be served in allowing the doctor to join the said course and that to allow the seat to remain vacant for a super-speciality course would serve the interests of none.

"If a doctor, like the Petitioner, undergoes training for such a course, it would only prove a valuable addition to the healthcare system. This weighs heavily with the Court for granting the relief as prayed for," the Court said.

81. Just 3 Days' Time Granted To Respond To The Income Tax Notice: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter Back To Assessing Officer After Setting Aside

Case Title: Shubham Thakral Vs ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 593

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer as just 3 days' time was granted to respond to the income tax notice.

The petitioner/assessee has assailed the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order passed under Section 148A (d) for the Assessment Year 2018–19.

The assessee contended that only three days' time was granted to the assessee to respond, as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. Despite the fact that the annexure attached to the notice gave the petitioner eight days to respond, the e-filing submission portal was closed earlier, in violation of Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act.

82. 'Purity In Functioning Important': Delhi High Court Restrains Narinder Batra From Discharging Functions As President Of Indian Olympic Association

Case Title: ASLAM SHER KHAN v. NARINDER DHRUV BATRA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 594

The Delhi High Court has restrained Narinder Dhruv Batra from discharging functions as President of Indian Olympic Association.

A vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma added that the Senior Vice President will take over the duties and responsibilities of the President and shall also perform any other tasks or functions as directed by the President, the Executive Council or the General Meeting.

"This Court considers that the functioning of Sports Federation should be above any kind of doubt. The purity in the functioning of such federations are much more important, than the individual who hold the positions," the Court observed.

83. Delhi High Court Orders Suspension Of Domain Name, Blocking Of Website 'My Voltas Care' In Trademark Infringement Suit By 'Voltas'

Case Title: VOLTAS LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 595

The Delhi High Court has ordered suspension of the domain name as well as blocking access to the website www.myvoltascare.com in a trademark infringement suit filed by home appliance company- Voltas.

A vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma restrained owner of the website from using the registered and well-known trademark VOLTAS and its logo including the Website or listings on social media websites or e-commerce sites.

The Court was dealing with a suit filed by Voltas Limited seeking permanent injunction restraining one Ashok Kumar from infringing its registered trademark through the website www.myvoltascare.com.

84. "Every Day Of Freedom Matters": Delhi High Court Modifies Condition For Suspension Of Sentence To Personal Bond For Convict Unable To Furnish Surety

Case Title: SEHNAZ v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 596

Granting relief to a woman convict, the Delhi High Court recently modified a suspension of sentence condition for deposit of surety bond to deposit of a personal bond instead, on account of her being unable to furnish the surety.

Observing that every day of freedom matters, Justice Jasmeet Singh was of the view that the accused cannot be made to stay in jail for the reason that she could not furnish surety.

85. 'May Cause Mental Trauma': Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Child's 9 Days' Custody To Mother For Foreign Travel

Case Title: PANKAJ JAIN v. PARUL JAIN

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 597

The Delhi High Court has observed that in matters relating to custody of children, Court has to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the children.

A vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated June 8, 2022 passed by the Family Court whereby the Court permitted the mother to take the child to Malaysia for a period of nine days.

The Family Court had added that the mother shall bring back the child to Delhi positively on July 3 for her to attend the school which would reopen after summer vacations. The had Court also directed both the mother and father to strictly adhere to the custody and visitation schedule in terms of its earlier judicial orders.

86. Power Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Exercised For Directing Specific Performance Of The Contract: Reiterates Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pink City Expressway Private Limited versus National Highways Authority of India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 598

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) cannot be exercised for directing specific performance of the contract itself.

The Division Bench of Justices Jyoti Singh and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that a direction to the opposite party to extend the contract for a further period would amount to granting specific relief of the contract, which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The Court ruled that power under Section 9 can only be exercised for preservation of the subject matter of the dispute till the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal.