Delhi High Court Monthly Digest - March 2023 [Citations 187 - 279]

M/S GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 187

CHHOTE LAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 189

Bernd Alexander Bruno Wehnelt vs. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 190

CHANDRIL DABAS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 191

SANJAY KUMAR SAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 192

GORE LAL SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 193

FIITJEE Ltd vs. Ashish Khare & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 195

Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Narinder Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 196

ARTH LAKRA (MINOR) v. INDRAPRASTHA WORLD SCHOOL AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 197

CHATUR SAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 198

MOTI LAL BASAK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 199

KOLISETTY SHIVA KUMAR v. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 201

SAMAR DEVAL v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 202

Sanjay Sudan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 203

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs. Siti Networks Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 204

Syed Shahbaz Hussain & Anr v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 205

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 206

RKY v. MD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 207

SHOAIB ALAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 208

TVF MEDIA LABS PVT LTD & ORS v. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 210

Prashant Kumar Umrao v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 211

Swati Chaturvedi v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 212

Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) vs M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 213

M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt Ltd vs M/s GAIL Gas Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 215

NHAI v. Patel-KNR (JV) , O.M.P.(COMM) 416 of 2018 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 216

CHIRAG KHANDAL v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 217

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. VS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 218

Swati Maliwal v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 220

Newton Engineering and Chemicals Ltd vs. UEM India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 221

GADE INNA REDDY AND ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 222

RAIL DAWA BAR ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 223

Burger King Corporation v. Ranjan Gupta and others. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 224

MS. X THR. HER NATURAL GURADIAN /FATHER AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 226

M/s Balaji EXIM vs Commissioner, CGST and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 227

M/s Kuldeep Kumar Contractor vs. Hindustan Prefab Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 228

Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Bar Council of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 229

A S RAWAT v. DAWA TASHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 230

M/s. Modi Construction Company vs. M/s Ircon International Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 232

Zahir Ahmed vs. Government of NCT Of Delhi Through District Magistrate & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 233

SANJAY MALIK @ SANT SEVAK DAS v. THE STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 234

Rohit Verma v. NHRC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 235

DR. SUBRMANIAN SWAMY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 236

Title: DOLBY INTERNATIONAL AB v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 238

MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL AND ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 239

Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 240

SUPERTECH URBAN HOME BUYERS ASSOCIATION (SUHA) FOUNDATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 241

Chadha Motor Transport Company Pvt Ltd vs. Barinderjit Singh Sahni 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 243

Prime Interglobe Pvt Ltd vs. Super Milk Products Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 244

Kewal Krishan Kumar v. ED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 245

PC Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 246

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 247

DEVAS EMPLOYEES MAURITIUS PVT. LTD v. ANTRIX CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 249

KESHAW SANYASI GAWO SHEWASHARAM v. GOVT OF NCT AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 250

Bawana Infra Development Pvt Ltd vs. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (DSIIDC) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 251

Yash Deep Builders v. Sushil Kumar Singh 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 252

Anil Kumar Versus The Gst Commissioner, Cgst, And Central Excise And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 253

Milestone Systems A/S vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 254

SAMRIDHI ENTERPRISES v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 255

Asif Mohammad Khan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 256

X v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 257

NHAI vs. M/s AE Tollway Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 259

Antique Art Export Pvt Ltd vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 260

Shankar Shyamnaval Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 261

KAPIL SIBAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 06 NEW DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 262

NAVEEN ARORA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 264

MASTER PRATHAM SINGH LATWAL v. GURU GOBIND SINGH GOVT HOSPITAL AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 265

VIJENDER GUPTA v. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 266

M/S Balaji Exim Versus Commissioner, CGST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 267

UNION OF INDIA v. ARVIND M KAPOOR AND ANR & other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 269

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA v. THE INSTITUTE OF COST ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 270

INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. v. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 271

State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 272

Azad @ Gourav vs. State of GNCT of Delhi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 274

THE WIRE THROUGH ITS EDITOR & ANR. v. AMITA SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 275

DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 276

INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD versus TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON (PUBL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 277

OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 279

Take Expeditious Steps For Appointing Chairperson, Other Members Of PMLA Appellate Authority: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: M/S GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 187

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to take expeditious steps for appointing Chairperson and other members of the Appellate Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) within eight weeks.

Taking judicial notice of the fact that there are a “large volume of cases” pending under PMLA, Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there is a “dire need” for constitution of multiple benches.

Income Tax Demand On OYO For 1,140 Cr: Delhi High Court Directs CIT To Give Personal Hearing

Case Title: OYO Hotels And Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 188

The Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) to accord a personal hearing to OYO for the stay on the income tax demand of Rs. 1,140 crores.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the CIT has not dealt with its application, which was preferred before him, in respect of the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Expeditiously Appoint ASHA Workers For Chilla Khadar Locality: High Court Directs Delhi Govt

Title: CHHOTE LAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 189

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union of India and Delhi Government to expeditiously conclude the process of appointment of ASHA workers in Chilla Khadar locality on the Yamuna bank. Around 4250 people live there in hutments.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the appointment process be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks.

Delhi High Court Allows Extradition of German National For Trial In Child Sexual Abuse Case

Case Title: Bernd Alexander Bruno Wehnelt vs. Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 190

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by a Delhi Court recommending the extradition of a German national, who is accused of sexually abusing children.

Justice Anish Dayal held that the order passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), recommending extradition of the accused, Bernd Alexander Bruno Wehnelt, to Germany for trial for the offences under the German Criminal Code, does not suffer from any infirmity.

Delhi High Court Directs Police To Ensure Compliance Of Supreme Court's Order On CCTV Cameras In Police Stations

Title: CHANDRIL DABAS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 191

The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that it is working expeditiously to conclude the tender process for installing CCTV cameras in police stations in the national capital as per directions of the Supreme Court in Paramveer Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.

The Apex Court in Paramveer Singh Saini had directed that CCTV cameras must be installed with a storage period of 18 months.

Judges Must Exercise Control And Caution While Passing Strictures Against Investigating Authorities: Delhi High Court

Title: SANJAY KUMAR SAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 192

The Delhi High Court has said that judges must exercise more control and caution while passing strictures against investigating authorities and police officers on their professional capabilities since it may impair a person’s confidence and have a negative impact on work and reputation.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a thin wall that exists between adjudicatory liberty to point out the flaws in an investigation or on authorities and the obligation to exhibit judicial restraint must be kept in mind.

Delhi High Court Directs MCD To Ensure Patients Living In Leprosy Colonies Are Not Evicted

Title: GORE LAL SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 193

The Delhi High Court has directed Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to ensure that the patients residing in leprosy colonies are not evicted and there are no encroachments on the land.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that leprosy affected persons should be considered for appointment under persons with disability quota and people must be made aware and sensitised to ensure that leprosy patients are not discriminated against.

Delhi High Court Directs NCLT To Upload Orders In Expeditious Manner

Title: MR SUBRATA MONINDRANATH MAITY v. INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 194

The Delhi High Court has directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to upload its orders in an expeditious manner without delay.

Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the direction considering the nature of orders passed by the tribunal, especially those by which moratorium is declared and IRPs are appointed.

Reference To Wrong Agreement in Arbitration Notice, Not Invalid If Agreement Otherwise Exists: Delhi High Court

Case Title: FIITJEE Ltd vs. Ashish Khare & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 195

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere reference to a wrong provision or term of the agreement cannot invalidate the notice invoking arbitration, if otherwise such power or provision exists in the document executed between the parties.

The bench of Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which was resisted on the ground that the claimant had wrongly invoked the arbitration clause contained in an agreement which was not binding on the parties.

Court Has Almost “Nil” Scope Of Interference Against Order Disposing Of S. 34 Petition Under Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Narinder Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 196

The Delhi High Court has ruled that, as a necessary corollary of the provisions of Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), what cannot be considered by the adjudicating Court under a Section 34 petition can certainly not be adjudicated upon by the appellate Court under Section 37.

The Court added that it has almost “Nil” scope of interference while dealing with a challenge against an order disposing of a Section 34 petition, unless there is something perverse, contrary to law and/or which actually shocks the conscience of the Court.

Denial Of Admission Under EWS/DG Category Despite Allotment By DoE Violative Of Child’s Fundamental Right Under Article 21A: Delhi High Court

Title: ARTH LAKRA (MINOR) v. INDRAPRASTHA WORLD SCHOOL AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 197

The Delhi High Court has said that denial of admission by a school under EWS/DG category despite allotment by Directorate of Education (DoE) “frustrates the noble objective” of Right to Education Act, 2009 and violates fundamental rights of such children under Article 21A of Constitution of India.

Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while allowing the plea of a minor child seeking directions for admission in Indraprastha World School under the EWS/DG category. The school had denied the admission, saying that the child’s residence is not within the distance of one kilometre radius from the school.

Prepare SOP For SDMs On How To Give Effect To Orders On Recovery And Eviction: High Court Directs Delhi Govt

Title: CHATUR SAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 198

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) for all SDMs on the manner in which judicial orders of eviction and recovery are to be given effect to.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that it has been “repeatedly noticed” that various orders for enforcement of possession and recovery which are to be given effect to by the concerned SDM are “not dealt with expeditiously and with alacrity.”

‘Main Conspirators Not Arrested, Unexplained Delay In Filing Supplementary Chargesheets’: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused

Title: MOTI LAL BASAK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 199

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to two men charged under UAPA in a fake currency notes case, considering that the main conspirators have not been arrested or charged under UAPA and that there has been unexplained delays in filing supplementary chargesheets.

A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A Bamba also took note of the fact that the accused have been in custody for over six years and that despite directions of the court to conclude trial within one year from May 5 last year, “only a few further witnesses have been examined” in the last eight months.

Delhi High Court Directs Passport Office In Srinagar To Decide Mehbooba Mufti's Application For Passport Within 3 Months

Title: MEHBOOBA MUFTI v. JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 200

The Union Government told the Delhi High Court that the Passport Authority in Srinagar has been directed to take a fresh decision on former J&K Chief Minister and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) President Mehbooba Mufti's request for issuance of passport.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the passport officer to take the decision expeditiously, within three months.

The direction was passed considering the fact that the matter has been remanded back to the regional passport officer and there has been a delay of almost two years since the rejection of her application.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Withdrawal Of AWBI's Notification On Celebration Of February 14 As ‘Cow Hug Day’

Title: KOLISETTY SHIVA KUMAR v. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 201

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition against the withdrawal of a notification issued by Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) for celebration of February 14 as “Cow Hug Day”.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the celebration of any event by AWBI is within the domain of policy of the board and the government which cannot be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

Child Entitled To Get Admission In DoE-Allotted School If EWS/DG Category Established: Delhi High Court

Title: SAMAR DEVAL v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 202

The Delhi High Court has observed that a child is entitled to get admission in the school allotted by Directorate of Education (DoE) on the reserved seats under RTE Act after it is established that he or she belongs to the economically weaker section (EWS) or disadvantaged group (DG) category.

Justice Mini Pushkarna said that denying admission to any child under DG or EWS category after allotment of school by DOE pursuant to due procedure followed by it, would be in violation of The Right of Children To Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which provides for free and compulsory education to every child between 6 to 14 years.

TDS Not Deposited By Employer, Can’t Be Adjusted Against Future Refund Due To Assessee: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Sudan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 203

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the revenue department cannot adjust the withheld tax (TDS) which has not been deposited by the deductor (employer) in the Central Government Account, against the refund due and payable to the deductee/assessee.

The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that adjustment of demand against future refund amounts to an indirect recovery of tax, which is barred under Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delhi High Court Refers Claims Against Essel Group Companies under ‘Letters Of Comfort’ To Arbitration

Case Title: Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs. Siti Networks Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 204

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the statements made by a party in a ‘Letter of Comfort’, assuring the creditor that it shall ensure that the debtor repays the loan on the relevant due dates, are promissory in character and thus enforceable, even if they do not meet the requirement of Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the Contract of Guarantee.

The bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao thus referred the claim raised by the petitioner/ claimant, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd, seeking compliance with the ‘Letters of Comfort’ issued by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd and Essel Corporate LLP, in relation to a loan availed by their group company, Siti Networks Ltd, to arbitration.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Directing Registration Of FIR Against BJP Leader Shahnawaz Hussain, His Brother In Alleged Rape Case

Title: Syed Shahbaz Hussain & Anr v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 205

The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order directing registration of FIR against BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain and his brother in an alleged rape case.

The woman had alleged that Hussain’s brother Shahbaz Hussain raped on her on the false pretext of marriage in 2017 whereas the BJP leader asked her to not highlight the matter and raise a hue and cry.

While the Metropolitan Magistrate had refused to direct the police to register an FIR, an Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court in criminal revision on May 31 last year observed that the complaint lodged by the woman disclosed cognizable offence by Shahbaz Hussain and directed the Delhi Police to register FIR against him and the BJP leader.

Prisoners Being Treated Equally In Jails, Parole Or Furlough Given Without Any Discrimination: Delhi Govt To High Court

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 206

The Delhi Government has told Delhi High Court that prisoners are being treated equally in jails in the national capital and parole or furlough is extended to them without any discrimination.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad closed proceedings in a suo moto case initiated in 2015 on the issue of preferential treatment given to certain prisoners in jails.

The court had taken cognizance of two articles published in Hindustan Times titled “Loners, 'Gandhi', fusspots: VIPs spice up jails” and “Inside the world of celebrity prisoners.”

Delhi High Court Upholds Order Asking Man To Provide Maintenance For Wife's Child From Previous Marriage, Says Can't Avoid Responsibility Now

Title: RKY v. MD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 207

The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual marrying a person who has a child cannot be allowed to argue later that the child is not his or her responsibility.

“When a person solemnizes a marriage with a person who already has a child, said person shall be presumed to have undertaken the responsibility of the child and also cannot later be permitted to contend that the child is not his/her responsibility,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.

Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Accused As Prosecution Accuses Him Of Threatening Witnesses

Title: SHOAIB ALAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 208

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused in a case related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The FIR alleges that former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain's associates stole valuable property from a godown situated at Khajuri Khas.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied bail to Shoaib Alam considering that two eye witnesses gave account of his specific role and the fact that threats were being extended to the witnesses.

Undertake Special Recruitment Drive To Fill Up Vacancies For PwDs: High Court Directs Delhi Govt

Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 209

The Delhi High Court has directed Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government to undertake a special recruitment drive for filling up backlog of vacancies for persons with disabilities(PwDs) in various departments or establishments in a time bound manner.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also set out a time schedule to be followed by the Delhi government to carry out the special recruitment for filling up the vacancies.

TVF Web Series College Romance's Language Does Not Pass 'Community Test Of Common Man', Transgresses Into Area Of Obscenity: Delhi High Court

Title: TVF MEDIA LABS PVT LTD & ORS v. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 210

Observing that the challenge for enacting appropriate law or guidelines to regulate content on social media and OTT platforms needs urgent attention, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the language used in TVF web series “College Romance” does not pass "morale decency community test" of a common man and transgresses into the area of obscenity.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the use of vulgar language in public domain and social media platforms which are open to children of tender age needs to be taken seriously.

“The individualistic choice which is not the choice of the majority of people of this country cannot be portrayed as choice of that majority and to be broadcasted on the ground or assumption that youth of this country speak such foul or profane language,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Grants Transit Anticipatory Bail To UP BJP Spokesperson Prashant Kumar Umrao

Title: Prashant Kumar Umrao v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 211

Delhi High Court has granted transit anticipatory bail till March 20 to lawyer and Uttar Pradesh spokesperson of BJP Prashant Kumar Umrao in an FIR lodged against him by Tamil Nadu police for allegedly spreading false information in a tweet on the alleged attacks against the migrant workers from Bihar in the state.

"I am of the view that the applicant should be granted reasonable time to approach the territorial jurisdictional court. Tomorrow is a holiday on account of Holi," said Justice Jasmeet Singh, while allowing Umrao's application for transit anticipatory bail.

Delhi High Court Stays Trial Court Proceedings In Tajinder Bagga's Defamation Case Against Journalist Swati Chaturvedi

Title: Swati Chaturvedi v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 212

The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court proceedings in a defamation case filed by BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga against Journalist Swati Chaturvedi till July 17.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar issued notice on the plea moved by the journalist challenging the summons issued by the trial court against her in the matter.

Bagga filed the case against the journalist seeking action of criminal defamation after she posted a tweet in 2017 in relation to his appointment as spokesperson of the political party.

Issuance Of SCN in Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, Contemplates Dispatch Of Notice And Not Its Receipt: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) vs M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 213

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the expression ‘issuance of show cause notice’ in Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR), merely contemplates the dispatch of the notice and not its receipt by the Customs Broker, within the stipulated period.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that there is a distinction between issuance of notice and service of notice and the words ‘issue’ and ‘serve’ are not synonymous. The said words may be construed as interchangeable only if the context of the statute makes it necessary to do so, the Court said.

Delhi High Court Restrains Invocation of Bank Guarantee Since Party Had Arbitral Awards In Its Favour Under Contract

Case Title: Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 214

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the existence of any dispute between the parties to the contract is not a ground for issuing an injunction to restrain the enforcement of an unconditional bank guarantee.

The Court was dealing with a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking to restrain the opposite party from invoking/ encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee.

Arbitrator Must Serve Sufficient Notice Before Proceeding Ex-Parte Against Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt Ltd vs M/s GAIL Gas Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 215

The Delhi High Court has set aside an ex-parte Arbitral Award on the ground that the Arbitrator failed to issue proper communication to the party before proceeding ex-parte against it and that it failed to make adequate efforts to examine whether the absence of the party was with or without showing sufficient cause.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), it has always been preferred and encouraged that an Arbitrator provides a pre-emptory notice to any party against whom it is seeking to proceed ex-parte, even though the same has not been stipulated under the A&C Act in clear terms.

Section 34 Arbitration Petition Filed In Anticipation Of Approval By Authority Not Valid : Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. Patel-KNR (JV) , O.M.P.(COMM) 416 of 2018

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 216

The Delhi High Court has held that a petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act is not a valid filing if it is filed without or in anticipation of the final approval.

The bench of Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a petition by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenging an arbitration award passed against it, however, admittedly the petition was filed by its counsel in anticipation of its final approval. Moreover, the petition was not accompanied by a copy of the award and the date of the impugned award was also wrongly mentioned at certain places.

National Sports Federations Should Prioritize Fostering Best Talent Without Being Muddled By Personal Vendettas Against Any Candidate: Delhi High Court

CaseTitle: CHIRAG KHANDAL v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 217

Pulling up Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) over its selection process for upcoming Asian Games, the Delhi High Court has observed that a National Sports Federation should prioritize identifying and fostering best talent in the country without being muddled by hyper-technicality and personal vendettas against any candidate.

Observing that a sportsperson belongs to the stadium and not in courts corridors, Justice Gaurang Kanth said that no one who aims to bring laurels to their motherland should be subjected to mental agony by the federations and its officials.

Teenage Relationships May Be Dealt On Different Footing But Hands Are Tied Till Law Is Amended: Delhi High Court While Framing POCSO Charges

Case Title: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. VS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 218

While framing charges under POCSO Act against a man despite the victim stating in her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she had a consensual relationship with him, the Delhi High Court has observed that its hands are tied till any amendment is carried out in law, though it may be desirable that cases of teenage relationships be dealt with on a different footing.

“Therefore, though it may be desirable that the cases of teenage infatuation and voluntary living with each other, eloping with each other or maintaining relationship, such as the present case, are dealt with on a different footing, the Court's hands are tied as far as framing of charge is concerned till any amendment is carried out by the wisdom of the Parliament of this country, if deemed appropriate,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

Delhi High Court Directs National Consortium To Hold Meeting On Clinical Trials For Developing Indigenous Therapies For Rare Diseases

Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 219

The Delhi High Court has directed the National Consortium for rare diseases to hold a meeting on clinical trials for developing indigenous therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) and Gaucher with DART or Hanugen Therapeutics Private Limited.

Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the National Consortium for Research and Development on therapeutics for Rare Diseases to consult other Centres of Excellence under the National Policy for Rare Diseases (NPRD) on estimate of candidates who may be requiring medicines and therapies across India and not just in the national capital.

Is 'Nepotism' An Offence Under Prevention Of Corruption Act? Delhi High Court Stays Proceedings Against DCW Chairperson Swati Maliwal

Case Title: Swati Maliwal v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 220

The Delhi High Court has stayed till July 26 the proceedings initiated against Chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Swati Maliwal over corruption allegations for allegedly abusing the official position by illegally appointing various acquaintances, including Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) workers, in the women rights body between August 6, 2015 to August 1, 2016.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said prima facie the essential ingredient of offence under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, namely 'obtaining of any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage' is missing from the chargesheet, order on charge against Maliwal; which accordingly requires closer consideration. Thus, he stayed the trial court proceedings till next date, i.e., July 26.

Issue Whether The Dispute Pertains To The Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause Or Not, To Be Decided By Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Newton Engineering and Chemicals Ltd vs. UEM India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 221

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the issue whether the disputes between the parties have arisen under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) containing an arbitration clause, or the subsequent work orders issued to the party, which are devoid of any arbitration clause, or whether they are related to both, can be looked into by the Arbitrator who can rule on his own jurisdiction in terms of Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

While reckoning that the existence of the arbitration clause between the parties was not disputed, the Court referred the parties to arbitration, noting that it has limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C Act.

Delhi High Court Allows Holding Of Seminar On Fascism, Asks Organizers To Give Invitees’ Details To Police

Title: GADE INNA REDDY AND ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELI AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 222

The Delhi High Court has allowed holding of a two days National Seminar to be conducted through “Bharat Bachao” platform on the theme “Understanding Fascism In Present India Context” and asked the parties to ensure that it is held in a “peaceful atmosphere.”

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a plea moved by Gade Inna Reddy and Dr. Mondru Francis Gopinath challenging the order passed by Delhi police on March 09 denying permission to hold the seminar two days before its schedule.

Any Attempt To Vilify Judges Without Any Reasonable Basis Can’t Be Permitted: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Lawyers' Body

Title: RAIL DAWA BAR ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 223

While dismissing a plea challenging re-appointment of Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia as Chairperson of Railway Claims Tribunal with a cost of Rs. 50,000, the Delhi High Court has said that any attempt to vilify judges without any reasonable basis cannot be permitted.

Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected the plea moved by Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow, seeking direction on Central Government to lay down a fair and transparent selection procedure for appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman (Judicial), Vice Chairman (Technical), Member (Judicial) and Members (Technical) in Railway Claims Tribunal.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Of Invalidity Against BK's Registered Trademark ‘Burger King’

Case title: Burger King Corporation v. Ranjan Gupta and others.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 224

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a claim of invalidity against Burger King Corporation (BKC)'s registered trademark ‘Burger King’.

In response to a trademark infringement suit filed by the Burger King Corporation in 2018, the defendants had argued that BKC's registered trademark is liable to be cancelled. The court considered whether the case of the defendants on this account is "prima facie tenable".

Justice Amit Bansal said defendants have failed to place any material in support of their submission that the trademark ‘Burger King’ is either generic or common to trade.

All The Members Of A ‘Joint Venture’ Are Jointly And Severally Liable To Third Parties; No Need To Separately Make Individual Members A Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ITD Cementation India Limited v. SSJV-ZVS Joint Venture and ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 225

The Delhi High Court has held that all the members of a ‘joint venture (JV)’ are jointly and severally liable to the third parties with which the JV enters into an agreement.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that a JV is a quasi-partnership wherein two or more entities may come together and jointly undertake a particular transaction or contract for mutual profit. It held the parties to a JV agreement may provide for different rights or obligations amongst themselves, however, this arrangement inter se parties would not have any effect on the right of a third party to proceed jointly or severally against any individual member of the JV.

Delhi High Court Allows Minor To Terminate Pregnancy, Even As Father Fails To Come Forward To Sign Consent Form

Title: MS. X THR. HER NATURAL GURADIAN /FATHER AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 226

The Delhi High Court has allowed a 16-year-old minor to undergo medical termination of pregnancy after her father, who had earlier gave consent in the court for the procedure, failed to come forward to fulfil the formality of signing the consent form.

Keeping in view the fact that only two or three days were left for the minor to complete 24 weeks of pregnancy, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma allowed the Superintendent of Nirmal Chhaya Complex who was appointed as victim’s guardian by the Child Welfare Committee to sign the consent form.

The victim was in the custody of Nirmal Chhaya Complex since October 17 last year.

Applications For Refund Of ITC Cannot Be Denied On Mere Suspicion: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Balaji EXIM vs Commissioner, CGST and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 227

The Delhi High Court has held that applications for refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be rejected merely on suspicion and without any cogent material.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan directed the department to initiate a refund of ITC of Rs. 72,03,961/-based on the goods that the petitioner has exported.

A ‘No-Claim Declaration’ Given By Party Would Not Extinguish Its Remedy To Invoke Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Kuldeep Kumar Contractor vs. Hindustan Prefab Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 228

The Delhi High Court has ruled that while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), if the arbitration clause between the parties in the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC), which does not contain the mandate of a pre-arbitral procedure, is claimed to be overridden by another arbitration clause existing in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which mandates following a pre-arbitral mechanism, the same must be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal as per the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle.

Representation On Making RTE Act Compulsory Subject In All Law Schools Will Be Looked Into: BCI To Delhi High Court

Title: Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Bar Council of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 229

The Bar Council of India (BCI) told the Delhi High Court that it will look into and decide a representation for making Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, or RTE Act, a compulsory subject for students in all law schools, within a reasonable time.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation moved by NGO Social Jurist after the submission.

Restricting Right To Information Only To Citizens Contrary To Constitution, RTI Act; No Absolute Bar On Disclosure To Foreigners: Delhi High Court

Title: A S RAWAT v. DAWA TASHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 230

Observing that restricting the right to information only to citizens would be contrary to the Constitution of India and Right to Information Act, the Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 3 of the RTI Act would have to be read as a "positive recognition of the right in favor of citizens but not as a prohibition against non-citizens."

Under Section 3 of the RTI Act, "all citizens" have the right to information.

“Considering that the RTI Act also accords information relating to life or liberty an important and distinct position, it would be inherently contradictory to hold that only citizens are entitled to the Right to Information. Life or liberty could also relate to non-citizens including foreigners, NRI’s, OCI card holders and such other persons,” Justice Prathiba M Singh ruled.

An Arbitration Award In Violation Of The Provisions Of The Indian Contracts Act Is Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amazing Research Laboratories v. Krishna Pharma

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 231

The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration award that is passed in violation of the provisions of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 would be liable to be set aside as suffering from patent illegality.

The bench of Neena Bansal Krishna partially set aside an arbitration award that was passed in contravention of Sections 59-61 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. The Court explained the law of apportionment of funds vis-à-vis a running and non-mutual account.

Arbitrator Can Declare Terms Of Contract Null, Even If No Declaration Is Sought By The Party In Its Pleadings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s. Modi Construction Company vs. M/s Ircon International Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 232

The Delhi High Court, while dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), has rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner that the Award of the Majority Tribunal declaring the Clause providing for compound interest as null, was perverse since there were no pleadings made by the opposite party in its Statement of Defence seeking the said declaration.

While holding that it is within the domain of the Arbitrator to interpret the terms of the contract, the bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the Majority Award and the findings made by the Majority Tribunal that since the relevant Clause providing for compound interest did not specify the rate of interest, the entire clause was void under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Conversion Of Public Places Of Worship Into Residences By Caretakers Is Contrary To Law: Delhi High Court Orders Waqf Board To Secure Mosque Property

Case Title: Zahir Ahmed vs. Government of NCT Of Delhi Through District Magistrate & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 233

The Delhi High Court has ruled that conversion of public places of worship into residences and their occupation by persons, who take care of the places, is contrary to law.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the one Zahir Ahmed, who came into occupation of a property located next to the Masjid Zabta Ganj in Delhi, due to his father’s position as an Imam of the mosque. Ahmed filed a writ petition challenging the eviction order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Chanakyapuri. The possession of the property has already been handed over to Delhi Waqf Board.

'Woman's Consent To Stay In A Man's Company No Basis To Infer She Also Consented To Sexual Liaison': Delhi High Court

Title: SANJAY MALIK @ SANT SEVAK DAS v. THE STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 234

The Delhi High Court has said that merely because a woman consents to be in the company of a man, “regardless of for how long”, can never be the basis to infer that she had also consented to “sexual liaison” with him.

Observing that a distinction needs to be articulated between a prosecutrix “consenting to a situation” vs. “consenting to sexual liaison,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said:

“Though it is universally accepted that consent given under force, coercion or duress is no consent in law since it is not free or volitional, in many cases it is necessary to examine consent in a more granular manner, with the awareness that substantivity of consent may also be vitiated by several other circumstances that erode the freedom of choice. Several circumstances, including emotional exploitation, may vitiate the substantivity of consent.”

Take Decision Within 6 Months On Complaint Accusing West Bengal Police Of Committing Excesses In Nabanna Chalo Rally: Delhi High Court Directs NHRC

Case Title: Rohit Verma v. NHRC

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 235

The Delhi High Court has directed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to decide within six months a complaint filed over alleged police atrocities by the West Bengal police during Nabanna Chalo rally organised by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha in October 2020.

Justice Prathiba M Singh disposed of a petition moved by one Rohit Verma, a BJP volunteer, aggrieved by the Commission's inaction in responding to his complaint.

‘No Foreign Investment Today, Prayers Have Become Purely Academic’: Delhi High Court On Subramanian Swamy’s Plea Against 2013 Tata-AirAsia Deal

Title: DR. SUBRMANIAN SWAMY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 236

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy against the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted by Union of India in 2013 in favour of a Malaysian Company Air Asia Investment Limited.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad closed the proceedings in view of the fact that there is no foreign investment as of today and the prayers sought in the petition have become purely academic.

Proper System Available To Redress Grievances Of Home Buyer, Not Bank’s Responsibility To Get Project Completed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Court on Its Own Motion vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 237

The Delhi High Court has said that banks cannot be loaded with the responsibility of getting the real estate projects completed and they cannot assume the role of a builder to complete the project.

The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that banks "can only give a red flag" to the borrower for misutilization of funds by the builder, and it is for the lenders to take appropriate legal action by approaching the civil forum to ensure that the project is completed on time.

Delhi High Court Pulls Up Assistant Controller For Cut-And-Paste Order, Says Grant Or Rejection Of Patent A Serious Matter

Title: DOLBY INTERNATIONAL AB v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 238

The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders refusing applications for grant of a patent cannot be passed mechanically and that any decision to grant or refuse a patent has to be informed by “due application of mind” which must be reflected in the decision.

Pulling up an Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs for passing a “copy-paste” order while refusing an application for grant of patent, Justice C Hari Shankar said that such orders do little justice to the solemn functions which have been entrusted on officers in the office of Controller of Patents and Designs.

Private Schools Dependent On Fee Collected By Them, Maintaining Surplus Can’t Be Construed As Commercialization Of Education: Delhi High Court

Title: MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL AND ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 239

Observing that private unaided schools are entirely dependent on the fee collected by them, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday ruled that planning and maintaining a surplus by such schools, per se, cannot be construed as commercialisation of education.

Emphasising that it is important for private unaided schools to maintain a surplus for further development and honing of their educational facilities and services, Justice Sanjeev Narula said:

“The right of unaided schools to determine fee to be charged from students cannot be faltered purely only on account of presence of reasonable surplus in their books of account.”

Tejashwi Yadav To Appear Before CBI In Delhi On March 25, Central Agency Tells Delhi High Court Arrest Not On Cards

Title: Shri Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 240

The Central Bureau of Investigation on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that it will not arrest the Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Prasad Yadav if he appears before the agency in Delhi this month on any Saturday.

The submission was made before the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma in response to Yadav's petition challenging the summons issued to him by CBI asking him to appear at its headquarter in Delhi for questioning in the alleged land for jobs scam case.

Delhi High Court Junks Supertech Homebuyers’ Pleas For Stopping Banks From Charging EMIs From Them, Says Avail Alternative Remedies

Title: SUPERTECH URBAN HOME BUYERS ASSOCIATION (SUHA) FOUNDATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 241

The Delhi High Court has dismissed Supertech Urban Home Buyers Association (SUHA) Foundation and other home buyer’s petitions seeking directions for financial institutions to not charge the pre-EMIs or full EMIs from them till delivery of possession of flats by the real estate developer Supertech Limited.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said there are various agreements - buyer-developer agreement, loan agreement or tripartite agreement - between the homebuyers, the builder and the banks, and the rights claimed by the homebuyers are eventually flowing from the respective agreements only.

Delhi High Court Sentences Lawyer To 6 Months Jail For Contempt Of Court, Seeks Action Taken Report From Bar Council

Title: PARNITA KAPOOR & ORS. v. AM

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 242

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sentenced a lawyer to six months of simple imprisonment after finding him guilty of contempt of court for not complying with the judicial orders directing him to pay the use and occupation charges to the landlord in respect of a property situated in Kingsway Camp area.

Observing that it is a fit case where any leniency shown by the court will be misunderstood as weakness, Justice Manmeet Pritam Arora also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 on the lawyer.

Participation In A Civil Suit Filed By Partner, Doesn’t Operate As Waiver Of Right To Invoke Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Chadha Motor Transport Company Pvt Ltd vs. Barinderjit Singh Sahni

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 243

The Delhi High Court has ruled that, merely because the defendant participated in a civil suit filed by the plaintiff, he cannot be said to have waived his right to invoke arbitration with respect to all future litigation between the parties under the Agreement.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that participation of a party in a civil suit instituted by a partner, would not debar the party from initiating independent proceedings by way of arbitration, seeking independent remedies under the Partnership Deed.

Arbitral Tribunal’s Order Rejecting Party’s Request To File Counter Claims On Ground Of Delay, Doesn’t Foreclose Its Right To Invoke Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prime Interglobe Pvt Ltd vs. Super Milk Products Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 244

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting a party’s request to file counter claims on the ground of delay, does not foreclose its right to invoke arbitration seeking independent reference of its claims.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that, when arbitration proceedings are invoked at the instance of one party, it is generally open to the other party to file its counter-claims in the same proceedings. However, this does not per se signify that the Court has also referred the claims of the prospective counter-claimant to arbitration, so as to bar its right to assert its claims at a future date.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Shakti Bhog CMD Kewal Krishan Kumar In Money Laundering Case

Title: Kewal Krishan Kumar v. ED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 245

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Kewal Krishan Kumar, chairman and managing director (CMD) of Delhi-based Shakti Bhog Foods Limited, in a money laundering case.

Kumar was arrested by the probe agency on July 04, 2021. As per a press release issued by ED at that time, the arrest was in continuation of search carried out at nine premises located in Delhi and Haryana during which various incriminating documents and digital evidence was recovered.

Read Also: 'Infirm' Person Entitled To Seek Bail Under Proviso To Section 45(1) PMLA Even When Not 'Sick': Delhi High Court

Fee Earned By APMC For Regulating Poultry Market, Exempt Under S. 10(26AAB) of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PC Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 246

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the income/ fee earned by an Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) for regulating the poultry market, would fall within the scope of Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus the same would be exempt from income tax.

Rejecting the argument of the revenue department that unless income which is earned by an APMC is relatable to agricultural produce, it cannot be excluded from its total income, the bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that Section 10(26AAB) uses the expression “any income” and not “agricultural income” of the APMC.

‘We Are Not Lawmakers, It’s People’s Choice’: Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Compulsory Voting In Elections

Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 247

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation moved by Advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for compulsory voting in the Parliament and State Assembly elections for increase in voter turnout and political participation.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that voting is a right and the choice of the people, and asked Upadhyay if there is anything in the Constitution of India which makes voting mandatory.

2017 Airport Metro Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Centre, Delhi Govt For Payment Of Unpaid Dues To Reliance Infra By DMRC

Title: DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 248

The Delhi High Court directed the Union of India and Delhi government to forthwith attend to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC)'s request for extension of sovereign guarantee or subordinate debt to enable it make payment of dues to Reliance Infra-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) under the 2017 arbitral award.

Justice Yashwant Varma said the decision shall be taken within a period of two weeks from today and if permission is accorded to the DMRC in respect of either of the suggestions, it shall proceed to deposit the entire amount payable under the award along with up-to-date interest in terms thereof within a period of one month therefrom.

Antrix Devas Deal: Delhi High Court Upholds Single Judge's Decision Of Setting Aside 2015 Arbitral Award, Says Fraud 'Serious And Complex'

Title: DEVAS EMPLOYEES MAURITIUS PVT. LTD v. ANTRIX CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 249

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against single judge’s order setting aside a 2015 arbitral award by which Antrix Corporation Limited, commercial and marketing arm of ISRO, was required to pay US$ 562.2 million to Devas Multimedia Private Limited over wrongful repudiation of a contract.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish and Justice Subramonium Prasad in its judgment on the appeal moved by Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited said it is "well established" that Devas was incorporated with fraudulent intentions so that it could enter into the agreement with Antrix.

The court said it sees no perversity in Single Bench's decision to set aside the arbitral award on the grounds of fraud and it being with in conflict with the public policy of India. Permitting Devas and its shareholders to reap the benefits of the ICC Award would amount to the court perpetuating the fraud, said the court.

Delhi Govt Has Made Efforts To Rehabilitate Jhuggi Dwellers On Paper, Ground Reality Far From Desirable: High Court

Title: KESHAW SANYASI GAWO SHEWASHARAM v. GOVT OF NCT AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 250

The Delhi High Court has said that though the Delhi Government has sought to make efforts to rehabilitate jhuggi dwellers “on paper” in terms of the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, the ground reality is “far from desirable.”

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing a plea moved by a trust namely Keshav Sanyasi Gawo Shewashram, established for maintaining a temple and cow shelter, against an eviction notice issued to its occupants for vacating the premises. It is being relocated for three months to a shelter home in Geeta Colony.

Power To Award Interest As Per S. 31 Of Arbitration Act, Applies Only In Absence Of An Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bawana Infra Development Pvt Ltd vs. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (DSIIDC)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 251

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 31 (7) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which deals with the Arbitrator’s discretion while awarding interest in respect of the pre-reference period, applies only where there is no agreement between the parties with respect to the rate of interest to be awarded.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that the Arbitral Tribunal may not resort to Section 31(7)(b), while awarding post-award interest, when express provisions regarding the rate of interest are present in the agreement between the parties.

Section 9 Of The Arbitration Act Does Not Envisage The Restoration Of Terminated Contract: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Yash Deep Builders v. Sushil Kumar Singh, OMP (I) (COMM) 401 of 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 252

The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of Section 9 of the A&C Act does not envisages relief in the nature that would restore a contract which already stands terminated.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the Court while exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot direct specific performance of a determinable contract. It held that a contract which in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced under Section 14(d) of the Specific Reliefs Act, therefore, the Court cannot do something that is statutorily prohibited.

Fraudulent GSTN Registration: Delhi High Court Directs Petitioner To Reveal Details Of His Friend Who Obtained It

Case Title: Anil Kumar Versus The Gst Commissioner, Cgst, And Central Excise And Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 253

The Delhi High Court has ordered the petitioner to reveal the name of the friend who fraudulently obtained a GSTIN using his credentials at the department.

ITO Can’t By-Pass SC Decision In ‘Engineering Analysis’ In The Name Of A Review Petition Filed By Dept: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Milestone Systems A/S vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 254

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Income Tax Department’s order rejecting the assessee’s application seeking a certificate for “NIL” rate of withholding tax under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the concerned officer had failed to consider the Apex Court’s decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021), which was relied upon by the assessee in support of its plea for a “NIL” rate of withholding tax.

Intermediary Not Required To Take Action Against Alleged Infringers On User’s Complaint Under Rule 3 Of IT Rules 2021: Delhi High Court

Title: SAMRIDHI ENTERPRISES v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 255

The Delhi High Court has observed that an intermediary is not required to take action against alleged infringers on receiving a complaint of the user regarding the infringing acts on the portal under Rule 3 of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

“Rule 3(2)(a) only envisages complaints regarding violation of the provision of Rule 3. There is no provision in Rule 3 which requires an intermediary, on receipt of a complaint regarding infringing activities on its port, to take any action against the alleged infringers,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Former Congress MLA Accused Of Misbehaving With Cop, Asks Him To Offer Services At Education Centre

Title: Asif Mohammad Khan v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 256

The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to former Congress MLA Asif Mohammad Khan who is accused of allegedly misbehaving with a police officer, subject to the condition that he will offer services at an adult education centre.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma noted that Khan is an alumni of Jamia Millia Islamia University and directed him to offer the service thrice a week.

The FIR was registered by Delhi police at Shaheen Bagh police station under sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 341 (wrongful restraint), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) and 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Sexual Assault Victims Entitled To Fair Trial, But Justice System's Responsibility Of Protecting Rights Of Accused Can’t Be Ignored: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 257

The Delhi High Court said that while the complainants in sexual assault cases are entitled to fair trial, the responsibility of criminal justice system towards protecting the rights of the accused persons cannot be ignored.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in cases of rape and sexual violence, “conceptualization of definition of sexual consent” is of utmost importance so that the “delicate balance between rape and consensual sex” is fairly arrived at.

“The Courts have to ensure that the right of fair trial to the complainant and rights of the accused of being protected from mala fide trial are taken care of in the Court‘s crucial endeavor to ensure equality before law,” the court said.

Justice Sharma made the observations while upholding a trial court order discharging an accused under Sections 376 (punishment for sexual assault) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in an FIR registered in 2017.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To PSU Law Officer, Directs Inclusion Of Name In Final List Of DHJS 2022

Title: ASHISH RASTOGI v. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 258

The Delhi High Court has directed that the name of a Law Officer working with a public sector undertaking be included in the final list of Delhi Higher Judicial Services, 2022 examination after ruling that he fulfils the mandatory requirement of "continuously practicing as an advocate for not less than seven years.”

A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan granted relief to Ashish Rastogi who challenged the final result notice of the examination dated November 10, 2022, insofar as it rejected his candidature for appointment to DHJS.

Arbitral Tribunal Erred In Fixing Fees Separately For Claims And Counter-Claims, Contrary To The Agreement Between Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI vs. M/s AE Tollway Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 259

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Apex Court’s decision in Oil and Natural Gas (ONGC) vs Afcons Gunanusa JV (2022), where it had interpreted the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), clearly requires party autonomy to be given paramount importance.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that though in ONGC (2022), it was held that the term “sum in dispute” in the Fourth Schedule shall be considered separately for the claim and counter-claim, the Arbitral Tribunal was in error in fixing the arbitral fees separately for the claims and counter-claims, contrary to the express Agreement between the parties.

High Court Exercises Judicial Function Under S. 11 (6) of Arbitration Act; Principle Of Res Judicata Applicable To S. 11 Petition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Antique Art Export Pvt Ltd vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 260

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the High Court exercises a judicial function under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and thus while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 for appointment of Arbitrator, the High Court can determine the issue of maintainability of a petition on any ground, including on territorial jurisdiction or res judicata.

Air India Urination Case: Delhi High Court Directs DGCA To Constitute Appellate Committee To Hear Appeal Against ‘Unruly Passenger’ Tag

Title: Shankar Shyamnaval Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 261

The Delhi High Court directed the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to constitute an appellate committee to hear the appeal of Shankar Mishra, accused in the Air India urination case, against the airline’s inquiry committee's order designating him as an “unruly passenger” and banning him from flying for four months.

Justice Prathiba M Singh permitted Mishra to file the appeal before the appellate committee within two we

Delhi High Court Restrains Income Tax Dept From Acting On Show Cause Notice Issued To Kapil Sibal, Says Deal With His Objections First

Title: KAPIL SIBAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 06 NEW DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 262

The Delhi High Court restrained Income Tax authorities from acting on the show cause notice issued to Rajya Sabha MP and senior lawyer Kapil Sibal on March 11 in relation to assessment proceedings pending against him.

"Having heard the leaned counsels of the parties, we are of the view that since the impugned notice has been challenged on jurisdiction as well as on the breach of principles of natural justice, it would require some amount of deliberation," said the division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju.

Issuing notice on Sibal's petitions, the court asked the IT authorities to file a counter affidavit. "In the meanwhile, the concerned officer will stay his hands vis-à-vis the show cause notice dated 11.03.2023," said the court.

Party Can’t Restrict Limitation Period For Invoking Arbitration Contrary To Limitation Act : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Natraj Construction Company

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 263

The Delhi High Court has ruled that, in view of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a party cannot be permitted to restrict the period of limitation for invoking arbitration, in contravention to the limitation period provided by law. The Court observed that a lesser period of limitation provided under the Contract between the parties would be hit by Section 28.

While dealing with an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Court dismissed the contention of the appellant/award debtor that the claims raised by the claimant were time-barred.

'Sponsored' Foreign Travel: Delhi High Court Upholds Judicial Officer's Dismissal For 'Accepting Favour' From 'Stranger', says Judge Always Open To Be Judged

Title: NAVEEN ARORA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 264

“A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged,” the Delhi High Court said on Thursday while upholding a judicial officer's dismissal from service for allegedly accepting a "favour" from a "stranger".

A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while refusing to reduce a major penalty of dismissal of service imposed on the judicial officer.

“The post of a Judicial Officer is a coveted one with responsibilities attached to it. A Judicial Officer is expected to be unceremonious and not take things in an easy manner. A Judicial Officer is expected to be more prudent. At the end of the day 'A Judge is a Judge who is always open to be judged',” the court said.

High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Pay ₹3 Lakh To Minor For Loss Of Vision After Premature Birth At Public Hospital

Title: MASTER PRATHAM SINGH LATWAL v. GURU GOBIND SINGH GOVT HOSPITAL AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 265

The Delhi High Court has directed the government to release a sum of Rs. three lakh ex-gratia payment to a two-year-old who lost his vision after premature birth at Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital.

"This Court observes that the newly born child has turned blind due to various unfortunate circumstances," said the court.

The minor was born on June 28, 2020, as a premature child in the 29th week of gestation. However, he got completely blind as the Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening which was to be conducted within four weeks of his birth was not conducted in time, his family said.

High Court Permits BJP MLA Vijender Gupta To Attend Delhi Assembly On Monday, Directs Him To Maintain Dignity Of House

Title: VIJENDER GUPTA v. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 266

The Delhi High Court permitted BJP MLA Vijender Gupta to attend the Delhi Legislative Assembly on Monday, the last day of the budget session till remainder of the session and directed him to maintain the dignity of the House.

Justice Prathiba M Singh disposed of Gupta’s plea challenging the motion passed by Assembly suspending him from attending the sittings of the House for one year till the next Budget Session.

His suspension came into effect on March 21.

Allegations Of Availment Of Fake Credit Cannot Be A Ground For Rejecting The Refund Applications Unless It Is Established: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Balaji Exim Versus Commissioner, CGST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 267

The Delhi High Court has held that allegations of availing of fake credit cannot be a ground for rejecting the refund applications unless it is established that the petitioner has not received the goods or paid for them.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner would be entitled to the refund of the ITC on goods that have been exported by it. They directed that the respondents process the petitioner’s applications for refund of the ITC including cess.

Delhi High Court Cautions PMLA Adjudicating Authority About Passing ‘Templated Orders’

Title: STATE BANK OF INDIA v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ,ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 268

The Delhi High Court has cautioned the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) about passing “templated orders” and said that using “identical templated paragraphs” must be avoided.

“Use of identical templated paragraphs could reflect as non-application of mind by the Authority concerned and hence ought to be avoided. The Adjudicating Authority is cautioned about passing such templated orders,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

The court was hearing a plea moved by State Bank of India challenging an attachment order passed by Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) dated December 22, 2021.

Anti Dumping Rules Not Inconsistent With RTI Act, Disclosure Of Confidential Information Can Impact India's Economic Interests: Delhi High Court

Title: UNION OF INDIA v. ARVIND M KAPOOR AND ANR & other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 269

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that when the Anti-Dumping Rules themselves provide an exception to disclosure of information in view of the nature of anti-dumping proceedings, the court cannot allow the RTI applicant to “bypass such a barrier.”

“The entire purpose of having a complete and self-sufficient scheme for disclosure of confidential information under the Anti-Dumping Rules would be defeated if persons who are participating in anti-dumping investigation are permitted to tangentially seek information under the RTI Act,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Restrains Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India From Using ‘ICAI’ Acronym

Title: THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA v. THE INSTITUTE OF COST ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 270

The Delhi High Court has restrained Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India from using “ICAI” acronym, a trademark which stands registered in favour of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, for the institution or services provided by it.

Justice C Hari Shankar also directed Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India to remove ICAI acronym from all existing web pages and other physical or virtual representations in which it is used, within three months.

The court was hearing a suit filed by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India seeking an injunction against Institute of Cost Accountants of India from using the ICAI mark.

Recourse To Section 34(4) Of The A&C Act Can’t Be Opted For Consideration Of New Material Evidence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. v. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 271

The Delhi High Court has held that recourse to Section 34(4) of the A&C Act cannot be taken to permit the arbitral tribunal to consider the material evidence which it earlier failed to consider.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that Section 34(4) of the A&C Act empowers the Court deciding an application under Section 34(1) of the Act to adjourn the challenge proceedings and remit the matter back to the arbitral tribunal to allow it to eliminate the ground of the challenge, however, this power can only be exercised to allow the tribunal to provide for gaps in the reasoning or cure any other curable defect, however, it does not extend to allow the tribunal to give a new finding or a fresh decision.

No Place For Violent Action To Resist Govt Policy In Democracy: Delhi High Court Frames Charges Against Sharjeel Imam, Others In Jamia Violence Case

Title: State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 272

While framing charges of rioting and unlawful assembly against Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in 2019 Jamia violence case, the Delhi High Court has observed that protest by violent means can never be part of democracy.

“Though, in a democracy, there can be no question of dissent being suppressed or fundamental right of freedom of expression by peaceful means being infringed, however, at the same time, there is no place of violent collective action to register one’s anguish against ideological differences or resistance to a Government policy,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

Perusing the video of the protest on record, the court said that the acts of resistance being presented as normal by the accused persons were not peaceful resistance but violent protest which had turned into riots.

‘Updation Application’ Seeking To Change The Amount Of Counter-Claims In Arbitral Proceedings, Is An Application For ‘Amendment’: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NTPC Ltd vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 273

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a party has filed an application seeking to update/revise its counter claims before the Arbitral Tribunal, intending to primarily alter/change the amount of the counter-claims, the said application was, in effect, an application for amendment of the counter-claims, even though it was termed as an ‘updation application’.

The bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao was dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the Arbitral Tribunal’s order where it had rejected the party’s application seeking updation/revision of its counter claims on the ground that the same was filed belatedly.

CDR Data Can Only Be Used As Corroborative Piece Of Evidence, Can't Be Sole Basis For Conviction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Azad @ Gourav vs. State of GNCT of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 274

The Delhi High Court has ruled that although the Call Detail Records (CDRs) may be an important and effective piece of evidence, which may facilitate and assist courts in ascertaining the presence of different participants in commission of an offence, the same can only be taken as supporting or a corroborative piece of evidence, and conviction cannot be made solely on basis of the CDR data.

While setting aside the conviction of an accused for the offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that the CDRs relied on by the prosecution only proved that the accused were present near the place of occurrence on the day of the incident. However, the CDRs did not prove that the said accused actually participated in the commission of the offence, the court held.

Delhi High Court Quashes Summoning Order Against The Wire’s Editors In Criminal Defamation Case By Ex JNU Professor

Title: THE WIRE THROUGH ITS EDITOR & ANR. v. AMITA SINGH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 275

The Delhi High Court quashed a summoning order issued by a trial court in 2017 against The Wire’s Editor and Deputy Editor in a criminal defamation case filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Amita Singh.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani quashed the order passed by a metropolitan court on January 07, 2017, summoning The Wire’s Editor Siddharth Bhatia and Deputy Editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha in Singh’s criminal complaint.

DMRC’s Salaries, O&M Expenses Not To Be Attached In Case Of Failure To Pay Unpaid Dues To Reliance Infra: Delhi High Court Clarifies

Title: DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 276

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the salaries and other Operation & Maintenance (O&M) expenses to be borne by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation will not be attached in case of its failure to pay dues to Reliance Infra-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) under the 2017 arbitral award.

Justice Yashwant Varma was hearing a petition moved by DMRC seeking review of an earlier decision on the execution petition filed by DAMEPL.

It was DMRC’s case that the attachment of its statutory expenses will result in immediate stoppage of the entire metro network in National Capital Region and cause inconvenience to more than 50 Lakh commuters.

Standard Essential Patent Owners Can Pray For Interim And Final Injunctive Relief If Infringer Deemed To Be An ‘Unwilling Licensee’: Delhi High Court

Title: INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD versus TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON (PUBL)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 277

Observing that the new technology has blurred national boundaries and given a boost to the international trade as well as infringement, the Delhi High Court has said that global doctrinal interdependence — referring to foreign Court decisions, is an effective and practical way of facilitating harmonization of basic principles of laws, especially when there is nothing contrary in the national laws.

In its decision on the appeals against a single judge decision that held Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson's eight suit patents prima facie valid and further ruled that Intex Technologies (India) Limited has prima facie infringed Ericsson's patent, the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said rapid developments in the technology have posed unprecedented challenges to intellectual property laws.

Delhi High Court Asks Vivo To Pursue Remedies Before PMLA Appellate Tribunal In Plea Against Freezing Of Debt Accounts By ED

Title: VIVO MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 278

Hearing the plea moved by Vivo India against the order of Enforcement Directorate to debit freeze its bank accounts, the Delhi High Court has directed Chinese smartphone manufacturer to pursue its appellate remedies before the Appellate Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that Vivo India has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal last month against the order passed by Adjudicating Authority confirming the debit freeze order.

Refund Can’t Be Withheld On The Ground That Assessee Is Selected For Scrutiny Assessment; Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Withholding Refund Due To OYO

Case Title: OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 279

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Revenue Department’s order withholding a refund of over Rs. 33 Crores due to OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd, while directing the department to reconsider OYO’s representations seeking disbursal of the refund amount, bearing in mind the provisions of Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that despite OYO receiving a refund intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, it was wholly unjust and inequitable for the Assessing Officer to withhold the refund amount due to it, merely on the ground that a scrutiny notice had been issued to OYO.