- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Delhi High Court Monthly Digest:...
Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: October 2022 [Citations 926 - 1026]
Nupur Thapliyal
1 Nov 2022 9:19 AM IST
![Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: October 2022 [Citations 926 - 1026]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408682-delhi-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: October 2022 [Citations 926 - 1026]")
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 926 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1026NOMINAL INDEXSatyendra Kumar Jain v. ED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 926MICROMAX MEDIA PVT LTD v. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 927PAWAN RELEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 928PADMA DOONGA vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 929ABC...
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 926 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
NOMINAL INDEX
Satyendra Kumar Jain v. ED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 926
MICROMAX MEDIA PVT LTD v. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 927
PAWAN RELEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 928
PADMA DOONGA vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 929
ABC v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 930
Dhiraj Aggarwal v. UOI & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 931
FREYA KOTHARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 932
TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 933
PANKAJ CHOUDHARY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 934
Extramarks Education India Private Limited v. Shri Ram School & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 935
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. TATA MOTORS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 936
XYZ v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 937
ANMOL AND ANOTHER v. SUSHILA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 938
JAMES PASCAL v. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 939
SACHIN HINDURAO WAZE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 940
Loreal India Private Limited v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 941
Consulting Engineers Group Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 942
PEPS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. KURLON LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 943
VIRENDER SINGH v. PR SECRETARY CUM DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 944
Vinita Gupta v. Amit Arora 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 945
CIT Versus Travelport L.P. USA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 946
Dharampal Satyapal Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Youssef Anis Mehio & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 947
Esha Kedia versus Milan R. Parekh & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 948
Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 949
M/s Victory Electric Vehicles International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 950
PAWAN KUMAR KAKARIA v. ANIL KUMAR RAI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 951
DEVKI NANDAN GARG v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 952
Saleem & Ors. v. Wahid Malik 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 953
M/S Young Men S Tennis Club v. NDMC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 954
GAGANDEEP SINGH ADHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 955
Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. versus Dowager Maharanis Residential Accommodation Welfare & Amenities Trust & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 956
Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Shah Aircon 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 957
VIKRANT KAPILA & ANR. v. PANKAJA PANDA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 958
PCIT Versus M/s Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 959
ALLERGAN INC AND ANR. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 960
SATYENDAR K JAIN v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 961
HAKIM & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 962
SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT. LTD. v. MTRM GLOBAL PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 963
VINEET ANAND THROUGH SPA HOLDER v. KIRAN ANAND AND SONS HUF THROUGH KARTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 964
M/s Janta Associates and Co. Ltd. versus Indian Oil Foundation & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 965
MS PRIYANKA AGARWAL v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 966
Nagesh Trading Co. Versus Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 967
SUNIL KUMAR SAINI v. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 968
RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 969
SAGAR SRIVASTAVA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 970
DR SARBESH BHATTACHARJEE v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 971
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. Pappu 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 972
MR. RAJESH KATHPAL v. M/S SHUBH STEEL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 973
Welspun Enterprises Ltd. v. NCC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 974
TORRENT POWER LIMITED v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 975
M/S M. SONS GEMS N JJEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 976
GAUTAM KHAITAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 977
Kush Raj Bhatia v. DLF Power and Services Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 978
SHARJEEL USMANI v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 979
IC-76585M MAJOR NISHANT KAUSHIK vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 980
Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 981
Umar Khalid v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 982
M/S CELL PAGE COMMUNICAITON v. VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 983
ABC v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 984
PCIT Versus M/s Boeing India Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 985
Balaji Enterprises Versus Principal Additional Director General 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 986
Samata Party v. ECI & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 987
x v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 988
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. versus Narender Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 989
Vag Educational Services v. Aakash Educational Services Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 990
Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. versus Religare Finvest Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 991
MEHENDIRAM FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 992
MOHD KASHIF v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 993
Shiva Fire Works and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 994
ATUL VADERA v. THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 995
X v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (ACTING THROUGH ITS SECRETARY) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 996
DR JITARANI UDGATA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 997
JOHNEY REBERIO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 998
Manzar Imam v. NIA & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 999
Jitendra Narain v. State & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
ALPHAVECTOR INDIA PVT. LTD. vs M/S SACH INDUSTRIES & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1001
Omega Finvest LLP versus Direct News Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1002
Calcom Cement India Ltd. versus Binod Kumar Bawri & Ors. And Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited versus Binod Kumar Bawri & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
AERO CLUB versus BHAWNA TRADING CO. & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1004
DR. PRAGYA SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
NAYAB & ANR v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1006
NAINA RANA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1007
SAKET KUMAR SHARMA versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1008
Prasar Bharti versus National Brain Research Centre & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1009
SUNITA MALIK vs THE STATE OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1010
SURINDER SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1011
PCIT Versus IFFCO LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1012
VINOD KUMAR ASTHANA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1013
SMT. SARITA JOSHI v. RAVINDRA BHUSHAN JOSHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1014
RAJAN KUMAR v. LAJJA DEVI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1015
CHANDRA KISHORE CHAURASIA v. R A PERFUMERY WORKS PRIVATE LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
RELAXO FOOTWEARS LTD vs AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
M/s. Manraj Enterprises versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
ANIL KUMAR vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
RADICAL ARC VENTURES PVT LTD versus STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
FMC CORPORATION v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
MR SANJAY CHADHA TRADING AS M/S EVEREADY TOOLS EMPORIUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
Sorin Group Italia S.R.L. v. Neeraj Garg 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
DELHI ROZI ROTI ADHIKAR ABHIYAN v. RAJESH AHUJA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
Title: Satyendra Kumar Jain v. ED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 926
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain challenging the transfer of proceedings against him in a money laundering case from a Special Court to another judge recently.
Justice Yogesh Khanna said that the apprehension of Enforcement Directorate (ED) was not flimsy or unreasonable.
"The apprehension raised were not at a belated stage, as the request for an independent evaluation were consistently made and rather the respondent rushed to this Court in Crl.MC. No.3401/2022 (supra), hence, all these facts were duly considered by the learned Principal District and Session's Judge, hence in view of above, it cannot be said the impugned order suffers from any illegality or need any interference," court said
Title: MICROMAX MEDIA PVT LTD v. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 927
The Delhi High Court has observed that the interrogatories cannot be used by the plaintiff in a suit for substituting its burden of proving things by adducing relevant evidence, adding that its objective is to narrow the controversy and facilitate framing of issues regarding the disputed facts.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further added that Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is for expediting trial of the suit, thereby saving judicial time and costs of litigation.
"The interrogatories must be used liberally by the parties. One of the great object of the interrogatories when properly administered is to save evidence i.e., to diminish the burden of proof which was otherwise on the plaintiff. The object is not merely to discover the facts but also to save the expense of proving a part on the case," the court said.
Title: PAWAN RELEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 928
The Delhi High Court has said that Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 will not bar parties from having legal practitioners represent them before the Maintenance Tribunal.
Section 17 of the 2007 Act specifically states no party to a proceeding before a tribunal or appellate tribunal shall be represented by a legal practitioner, notwithstanding anything contained in any law. A batch of petitions filed before the High Court in 2019 challenged the provision, alleging that it was in violation of Section 30 of the Advocates Act which gives advocates the right to practise in courts and tribunals.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan in a recent judgement expressed their agreement with a 2014 ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it was held that if a tribunal is legally authorised to take evidence, an advocate has a right to practice there.
Title: PADMA DOONGA vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 929
The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court, while exercising the powers of superintendence and control under Article 226 and 227, cannot issue directions to the competent authorities for disposal of matters as the same would amount to controlling their roster.
Justice Yashwant Varma in the order said that while a statute may prescribe timelines for disposal of cases, it is for the relevant authority to examine and evaluate which matters are required to be accorded precedence.
"Ultimately it must be left to the competent authority to manage its board and prioritise matters based on an assessment of individual facts of each case. The issuance of the writs as prayed for would clearly amount to the Court controlling the roster of the authority," the court added.
Title: ABC v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 930
Rejecting Delhi government's stand that the State Authority for Mental Health Services constituted under the Mental Health Act, 1987, can continue to function as it is under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the Delhi High Court has said Section 45 of the new enactment required respective state governments to constitute a new body - the State Mental Health Authority [SMHA], within a period of nine months.
Justice Yashwant Varma in the order dated September 23 said SMHA was yet to be constituted by Delhi government in accordance with the 2017 enactment. The observation from the court came after the state government in its additional affidavit "candidly conceded" that the authority constituted in terms of the repealed enactment of 1987 continued by virtue of Section 126(2)(b) of the 2017 Act.
However, the court said, "the statutory command as contained in Section 45 of the 2017 Act required respective State Governments to constitute the SMHA in accordance with its provisions within a period of nine months."
Title: Dhiraj Aggarwal v. UOI & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 931
Following the Centre's submission that more than 200 crore COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered across the country, the Delhi High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation seeking a helpline for assistance of those registering for inoculation.
A bed-ridden senior citizen had approached the court last year, stating she was at a high risk of getting exposed to the virus if she wishes to go out to the vaccination centre. It was stated that she was suffering from arthritis. Accordingly, her PIL also prayed for framing of an urgent policy for door-to-door vaccination of super-senior and bed-ridden citizens in the national capital.
A central government counsel in a recent hearing told the court that the State has carried out door to door vaccination and more than 200 crore doses have been provided to the people across India. The counsel submitted that no further orders are required to be passed in the PIL.
Title: FREYA KOTHARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 932
Dismissing a candidate's plea challenging the final answer key issued by National Testing Agency (NTA) for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) Undergraduate Examination, 2022, the Delhi High Court said it is not an expert in the field of medical science to sit over the decision of experts and substitute it with its own wisdom.
Noting that final answers are published after experts duly consider various objections raised by the candidates, Justice Amit Mahajan observed that there was no material on record to doubt the decision taken by such experts. The final answer key for the exam held in July was issued on September 08.
Observing that scope of judicial review in such cases is limited, the court said the questions asked for the candidates were tricky and their answers cannot be argued to be in a straitjacket formula.
Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 933
Ruling in favour of Tata Sons Private Limited, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a UK-based company from unauthorisedly using the Indian conglomerate's registered trademark 'TATA' while selling and marketing digital token or cryptocurrency.
Passing an order of permanent injunction against 'HakunaMatata $TATA Founders' that has now changed its name to Hakumatata Token Ltd and started a new website, Justice Pratibha M Singh confirmed an ad interim injunction order of a division bench.
The appellate court had also asked the company and domain name registrar to take down the two websites www.hakunamatata.finance and www.tatabonus.com.
Title: PANKAJ CHOUDHARY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 934
The Delhi High Court has said that the timelines prescribed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for candidates to upload the detailed application form (DAF) are sacrosanct and cannot be tinkered with.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation in a judgement dismissing the plea filed by a candidate Pankaj Choudhary.
Choudhary had failed to upload the form for the Indian Forest Services (Mains) examination, which is scheduled to be held on November 20. He had qualified the prelim examination held on June 5 and was declared successful to participate in the CSE (Mains) and IFS (Mains) - he was required to fill up the DAF separately for them.
10. Limitation Period For Invoking Arbitration Cannot Be Extended By Consent: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Extramarks Education India Private Limited v. Shri Ram School & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 935
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a statement made by the opposite party in the reply to the notice invoking the arbitration clause, giving consent for appointment of an arbitrator, would not extend the limitation period for invoking arbitration, if the claims raised by the claimant are ex-facie time-barred.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that the limitation period for invoking a legal remedy cannot be extended even by consent. The Court ruled that a party may concede a claim at any time, however, it cannot concede the availability of a legal remedy beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
11. After Super Cassettes Moves Delhi High Court, Tata Motors Agrees To Drop 'T-Series' Mark
Title: SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. TATA MOTORS LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 936
After Super Cassettes Industries took Tata Motors to court for using its famed trademark T-Series in the marketing of its commercial vehicles, the companies recently settled the matter before the Delhi High Court with the automotive manufacturer undertaking not to use the record label 'T-Series or T.Series' in respect of its automobile products.
Super Cassettes Private Limited had filed a suit in February seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off and damages against Tata Motors Ltd. The court was recently told that the parties have settled their disputes amicably.
Tata Motors in the settlement acknowledged the statutory and common law rights of Super Cassettes in the trademarks 'T-Series or T.Series' marks.
Case Title: XYZ v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 937
Denying bail to a man accused of raping his fiancé multiple times on the pretext of their planned marriage, the Delhi High Court has observed that mere fact of being engaged does not mean that the accused can sexually assault, beat or threaten her.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while rejecting the argument made on behalf of the accused that since the parties were engaged, it cannot be said that there was false promise of marriage.
"However, in this Court's opinion, the argument has no force, since the mere fact of being engaged did not mean that the accused could have sexually assaulted, beaten or threatened the victim," the court said in an order dated September 22.
Title: ANMOL AND ANOTHER v. SUSHILA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 938
The Delhi High Court has observed that forums or authorities under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot adjudicate and undertake a trial with respect to the issues concerning civil and property rights of the warring parties.
Justice Yashwant Varma said the question regarding claim of ownership in a property cannot form subject matter of consideration or adjudication in proceedings under the Act.
"The forums constituted under the 2007 Act are neither obliged nor required to undertake a trial with respect to the civil and property rights that may be claimed by the warring factions. Those issues must be ultimately left to be conclusively adjudicated by the competent civil courts," the court said in an order passed on September 26.
Title: JAMES PASCAL v. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 939
The Delhi High Court has suspended the sentence of a foreigner, who was awarded 10 years of imprisonment in a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in 2020, after noting that he has spent almost the entire period of his sentence without his appeal having been heard.
Justice Jasmeet Singh was of the view that it will be a perversity of justice and rights of the foreign national, if his sentence is not suspended.
"This is a classic case where the filing of appeal has been rendered nugatory on account of procedural delays and lack of support to foreigners in getting legal assistance," the court said.
It added "Undergoing the period of 9 years 6 months without having the appeal being heard and being in jail cannot be the essence of our judicial system."
Title: SACHIN HINDURAO WAZE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 940
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mere fact that the authority granting sanction for prosecution under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is located in the national capital, will not give the court the jurisdiction to quash the order especially when all the ingredients, events and proceedings relating to the case are taking place in another jurisdiction.
A division of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal made the observation while dismissing the plea moved by former Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze for quashing of the order granting sanction to prosecute him under UAPA in theAntilia bomb scare case.
Rejecting the plea for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court said:
"Having considered the facts and circumstances of the matter and the obvious forum conveniens for the petitioner, being a resident of Mumbai, seeking relief relating to proceedings underway in Mumbai, the special courts and authorities investigating and adjudicating the matter located in Mumbai, this Court finds no reason to clothe itself with territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the relief sought in this petition."
Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 941
The Delhi High Court has directed Loreal to deposit the principal profiteered amount after deducting the GST imposed on the net profiteered amount in six equal instalments.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has observed that the interest amount directed to be paid by the department as well as the penalty proceedings and investigation by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) in respect of other products sold by Loreal has stayed till further orders.
The court has noted that under Section 171, any benefit of a reduction in the rate of taxes or benefit of an input tax credit on any supply of goods or services can only be by way of a commensurate reduction in prices.
Case Title: Consulting Engineers Group Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 942
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an agreement is entered into by the parties by forming a consortium / Joint Venture, one of the members of the consortium cannot separately invoke the arbitration agreement in their individual capacity.
The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna reiterated that when there is an agreement with a consortium, it is never the intention of the parties that one of the members of the consortium can separately invoke the arbitration clause.
A notice inviting tender was issued by the respondent- National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), for providing consultancy services.
Title: PEPS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. KURLON LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 943
The Delhi High Court has said that it is not open for a court to suo motu question the validity of the registration of a trademark if the same is not disputed or brought in question by the defendant in a suit.
Observing that Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not embody any statutory interdictions at the post registration stage, a division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that if the validity of the registration of the trademark is not brought in issue, the statutory assumption that the marks are valid must be accepted.
"Therefore, once the mark has been registered, it is accepted as, prima facie, valid unless an objection is raised questioning the validity of the registration and is adjudicated by the Court," the court observed.
Title: VIRENDER SINGH v. PR SECRETARY CUM DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 944
The Delhi High Court has set out the various factors that are necessary to be taken into consideration by the appellate authority under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 while dealing with an application seeking stay in a pending appeal against an eviction order.
Justice Yashwant Varma observed that in such cases, the appellate authority would have to consider the nature of evidence that was placed before the Tribunal which constrained it to pass an eviction order.
The court added that if the appellate authority finds that the eviction order was predicated upon cogent and reliable material showing harassment and ill-treatment towards senior citizens, such an order may be permitted to run, resulting in removal of the offending parties from the premises till the appeal is decided.
Title: Vinita Gupta v. Amit Arora
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 945
Interpreting synonymy in a matter related to two similar trademarks - APPLESTREE and APPLEPLANT, which belong to different manufacturers, the Delhi High Court in a recent order said the words 'plant' and 'tree' are a classic example of synonymy where reading one would bring in mind the other and lead to confusion in the mind of purchasers.
Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the study of semantic theory goes back to the founder of common linguistics W. Humboldt, and the theory suggests that the words in the English language system are so related that they form a complete lexical system and grouping.
"Synonymy would cover the semantic field where words have nearly the same meanings such that they can be interchanged in some degree and most common cases under this head are of relative synonymy as it is difficult to find words which are absolute synonyms of each other," said Justice Singh.
Case Title: CIT Versus Travelport L.P. USA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 946
The Delhi High Court has held that the travel agents in India were merely connected to the extent that they could perform a booking function but were not capable of processing the data of all the airlines together in one place.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that a booking function is not covered under substantial business activity and, therefore, not taxable.
Title: Dharampal Satyapal Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Youssef Anis Mehio & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 947
The Delhi High Court recently passed a decree in favour of Dharampal Satyapal Limited - the manufacturers of the iconic pan masala Rajnigandha and permanently halted the production, sale or promotion of any product under the trademark 'RAJNI PAAN',
Holding that the defendants had intentionally attempted to "trade off the significant goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs", the Court directed them to pay Rs 3 lakhs in damages. In 2018, the Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in the case.
23. Delhi High Court Delineates Circumstances To Invoke "Group Of Companies" Doctrine
Case Title: Esha Kedia versus Milan R. Parekh & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 948
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that signatures to the MoU containing an arbitration clause were obtained by threat and coercion, cannot be considered while considering an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for appointment of the Arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that each Company is a separate legal entity which has separate legal rights and liabilities and hence, an agreement entered into by one of the Companies in a group, cannot be binding on the other members of the same group. However, the Court added that in certain exceptional circumstances, by invoking the concept of "Group of Companies", an arbitration agreement can be binding on the non-signatory Companies or a third party.
24. Delhi High Court Directs IGST Refund After Deducting Differential Amount Of Duty Drawback
Case Title: Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 949
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to grant IGST refund paid on the goods exported after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the Jurisdictional Commissionerates shall be entitled to verify the extent of duty drawback availed by the petitioners and also whether they have availed duty drawback/CENVAT Credit of Central Excise & Service Tax component in respect of the exports made by them. If any adjustment is to be made, it shall be made by the jurisdictional commissionerate.
25. Preventing Docket Explosion - Pre-SCN Consultation Should Be Held : Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Victory Electric Vehicles International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 950
The Delhi High Court has held that it is obligatory on the part of the concerned officer to ensure that prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice (SCN), a pre-notice consultation is held with the person chargeable with customs duty or interest.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the person chargeable with duty or interest was required to be given fifteen days to make his submission, in writing, concerning the grounds communicated to him in the pre-consultation notice, which is required to be served prior to the issuance of the SCN.
Title: SH. PAWAN KUMAR KAKARIA v. ANIL KUMAR RAI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 951
Observing that lawyers are expected to always address the court with deference, the Delhi High Court has said that mutual respect between the bench and bar is essential for a vibrant legal system.
"Counsel are, on all occasions, expected to address the Court with deference and respect. Mutual respect between Bench and Bar is the indispensable sine qua non for a vibrant and vigorous legal system to function," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
However, the court also said an adverse remark against a counsel in the judicial order can have serious and far-reaching consequences.
27. Sick Or Infirm Persons Need Not Satisfy Twin Conditions For Bail Under PMLA: Delhi High Court
Title: DEVKI NANDAN GARG v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 952
The Delhi High Court has said that sick or infirm persons need not satisfy the twin conditions for the grant of bail under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The twin conditions are that when an accused applies for bail under PMLA, the public prosecutor has to be given an opportunity to oppose the same and if the court is considering grant of bail, there must be reasonable grounds for it to believe that the person is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. However, a proviso to the provision states that a person who is sick or infirm may be released on bail.
After perusing the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the PMLA, Justice Jasmeet Singh in an order on a bail application said the inclusion of the proviso for grant of bail shows the legislative intent to incorporate relaxations for persons below 16 years of age; a woman or those who are sick and infirm.
Case Title: Saleem & Ors. v. Wahid Malik
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 953
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that in a suit for possession simplicitor or a suit for injunction against dispossession simplicitor, the plaintiff is not required to establish title or ownership.
Single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the plaintiff is only required to establish a better right to remain in possession of the suit property as compared to the right of the defendant.
" A suit which does not claim titular rights and merely claims a right to continue in possession without possession being disturbed save and except in accordance with law, is not required to make out a case of title. The law respects possessory rights over immoveable property, even in the absence of valid title."
Case Title: M/S Young Men S Tennis Club v. NDMC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 954
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a District Judge or a judicial officer of not less than 10 years standing is competent to hear appeals under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
The Act provides for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and empowers an Estate Officer to hold inquiries. Section 9 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie from specified orders of the estate officer to an Appellate Officer.
Title: GAGANDEEP SINGH ADHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 955
Granting bail to an accused in a case of cheating, the Delhi High Court has said that a condition for depositing disputed money cannot be imposed on an accused while granting him bail.
Noting that the conditions that can be imposed while granting bail are mentioned under section 437(3) of CrPC, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said the provision nowhere suggests that a condition for deposit of disputed money can also be imposed while granting regular bail.
"As to whether an accused is settling the dispute by way of any compensation or not cannot be considered to be the valid reason for accepting or denying the bail to an accused," the court observed in an order passed on September 27.
Case Title: Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. versus Dowager Maharanis Residential Accommodation Welfare & Amenities Trust & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 956
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a confirming party to a Contract, who is not bound by the terms of the Contract and on whom no liability is affixed under the Contract, can be referred to arbitration even if he is not a signatory to the arbitration clause contained in the Contract.
The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the fact that the party had signed the Agreement containing an arbitration clause, implied that it had consented to refer all the disputes under the Agreement to arbitration and that the party's implied consent to the arbitration clause could be inferred.
Case Title: Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Shah Aircon
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 957
The Delhi High Court has held that mere use of the word 'can' in an arbitration clause does not render it ineffective and the intention of the parties to go for arbitration is to be determined on a complete reading of the clause and relevant clauses.
The Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan reiterated that exclusive jurisdiction clause would override a venue clause, therefore, the court which has been conferred the exclusive jurisdiction will decide all arbitration applications arising out of the contract.
Title: VIKRANT KAPILA & ANR. v. PANKAJA PANDA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 958
The Delhi High Court has said that it is imperative for a court to look at a Will from the eyes of a layman rather than a lawman for reaching a final outcome.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that it is the foremost duty of the Court to carefully give a purposeful meaning to the words and logical interpretation to the language used in a Will to infer and draw the real intention of the testator.
"A Will will be a Will only when it will lay to rest the wishes of who is at rest. We will endeavor to proceed so that the Will of who lays at rest is put to rest," the bench said in the beginning of its ruling dated October 11.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 959
The Delhi High Court has held that income tax cannot be levied on the interest income from fixed deposits till the ownership is determined by the arbitral tribunal.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has agreed with the finding of the two Appellate Authorities below that till the final award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal determining the ownership of the fixed deposits and interest, it could not be said that the interest income had crystallised in the assessee's hands and that it could not be held to be the income of the assessee under Section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Title: ALLERGAN INC AND ANR. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 960
The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks for its failure to communicate the filing of opposition by two entities in respect of registration of international trademarks to the International Bureau of World Intellectual Property Organisation within the timeline stipulated under the Trademarks Act.
"I can only hope that the present two cases are the only aberrations in the working of the Madrid Protocol," said the court.
Justice Navin Chawla said such failure would not only cause inconvenience and prejudice to the parties, but would also present India as a Nation in bad light to the world.
Title: SATYENDAR K JAIN v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 961
The Delhi High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 1988.
Justice Yashwant Varma allowed a bunch of pleas filed by Jain and others challenging the initiation of proceedings under the Act on the ground that the same were initiated for the attachment and confiscation of properties which were acquired prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act of 2016.
The court took note of a recent Supreme Court ruling wherein it was held that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively and Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act was declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary.
Title: HAKIM & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 962
The Delhi High Court has said that the word 'acid' in Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code is not merely restricted to the substances which are classically or scientifically termed as acids but also includes all those substances which have an acidic, corrosive or burning nature and are capable of causing disfigurement, or temporary or permanent disability.
Section 326A of the Code provides the punishment for acid attack. It states that whoever causes permanent or partial damage, disfigures or disables any part of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid shall be punished with imprisonment of a term not less than ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine.
38. 'Chaiops' To Become 'ChaiApps' After Chaayos' Trademark Infringement Suit in Delhi High Court
Case Title: SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT. LTD. v. MTRM GLOBAL PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 963
A Ghaziabad-based startup has agreed to change the name of its outlets to 'ChaiApps' from 'Chaiops' after the leading tea cafe chain 'Chaayos' approached Delhi High Court against alleged infringement of its registered trademark.
The change in display boards at the existing 37 physical outlets of MTRM Global Pvt. Ltd. will come into effect from April 1, 2023, according to a settlement arrived by it with Sunshine Teahouse Pvt. Ltd, which has more than 200 cafes across India under the brand name 'Chaayos'.
The suit was filed by Sunshine Teahouse in September seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement and unauthorised use of its trademark by Sunshine Teahouse, which was 'Chaiops' name for its outlets.
Title: VINEET ANAND THROUGH SPA HOLDER v. KIRAN ANAND AND SONS HUF THROUGH KARTA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 964
The Delhi High Court has observed that the leniency shown by it in taking belated written statements on record cannot mean that the procedure and time limits prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure are completely forgotten.
"Ordinarily, the court exhibits leniency in the matter of taking belated written statements on record, so as to ensure that parties have full rights to prosecute their respective cases. At the same time, the leniency shown by the court cannot extend to a point where the procedure prescribed in the CPC and the time limits envisaged in that regard are completely forgotten," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
The court thus dismissed a plea challenging two orders passed by Additional District Judge in a civil suit Instituted by the respondent (plaintiff) against the petitioner (defendant).
Case Title: M/s Janta Associates and Co. Ltd. versus Indian Oil Foundation & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 965
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute whether a claim raised by a party is a 'Notified Claim' under the Contract, which can be referred to arbitration as per the arbitration clause, falls outside the scope of arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed that as per the arbitration clause contained in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), only disputes arising out of 'Notified Claims', as included in the Final Bill issued by the claimant, could be referred to arbitration.
While noting that the Final Bill was not yet issued by the claimant, the Court held that the dispute whether the claims raised by the claimant were 'Notified Claims', falling within the scope of arbitration clause, could not be referred to arbitration.
Title: MS PRIYANKA AGARWAL v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 966
The Delhi High Court has observed that courts cannot substitute their view for the qualification requirements prescribed by an organization while advertising vacancies to a post.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed:
"It is open to an organization while advertising its vacancies to prescribe qualifications as may be suitable, in the view of the Organization for appointment to the said post. Courts cannot substitute its view for the requirements prescribed by the organization."
The bench thus dismissed a plea filed by one Priyanka Agarwal, who had applied for a post of Medical Physicist in city's Safdarjung Hospital under the unreserved Category, challenging an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing her original application.
42. Department Failed To Pass Re-Assessment Order Within Prescribed Time Limit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Nagesh Trading Co. Versus Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 967
The Delhi High Court has quashed the show-cause notice and the reassessment order as the department failed to pass the reassessment order within the prescribed time limit.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the department could not have issued another notice to the petitioner/assessee under Section 148A(b) dated June 2, 2022, after having issued and served the notice on March 31, 2021, under Section 148 of the unamended Act.
The court noted that the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal were applicable to cases where notices under Section 148 had been issued during the period from 1st April 2021 to 30th June 2021. However, the decision was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Title: SUNIL KUMAR SAINI v. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 968
Observing that the court staff are required to be vigilant and well-versed with the day-to-day functioning of courts, the Delhi High Court has said they cannot claim ignorance of the procedures and the relevant safeguards, which are required to be followed.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said:
"They [court staff] are, in fact, required to be more vigilant and well-versed with the procedural aspects involved in day to day functioning of the Courts. For the purpose of judicial works, the Judicial Officers depend on their Court staff and any such dereliction of duty cannot be ignored or forgiven. Being attached with the Courts, they cannot claim ignorance to the consequences of their actions."
Title: RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 969
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to privacy is essentially a right in personam and therefore is not inheritable by the mothers or legal heirs of the deceased persons.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while refusing to grant interim relief in a suit filed against Bollywood Filmmaker Hansal Mehta and others for restraining the release of their film 'Faraaz'.
The movie is based on the terrorist attack that happened on 1st July, 2016 in Holey Artisan, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Title: SAGAR SRIVASTAVA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 970
Dismissing a plea challenging the final answer key for one of the sets of NEET(UG) Examination 2022, the Delhi High Court has observed that courts must exercise great restraint and should be reluctant in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of an answer key.
The exam was conducted on July 17 and the answer key was uploaded on the website of National Testing Agency (NTA) through a press release dated 7th September.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that there is a strong burden placed on the candidates to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that there is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent on its face.
Title: DR SARBESH BHATTACHARJEE v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 971
The Delhi High Court has quashed the three FIRs that were registered by Anti Corruption Branch against a senior doctor in 2012 and 2013, observing that there was an unexplained delay of 10 years in completing investigation and that chargesheet was still awaiting sanction from the appropriate authority.
The FIRs were under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed the pleas filed by Dr Sarbesh Bhattacharjee, the former Director Health Services in Delhi, for quashing of the FIRs registered against him. Bhattacharjee had served as a medical officer under the Andhra Pradesh government, Assam Rifles and finally the Central Government Health Service (CGHS) for 36 years.
Title: STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. Pappu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 972
More than 7 years after he was released on probation — even though he had spent just nine months in jail, the Delhi High Court has sentenced the man to five years rigorous imprisonment for sexually assaulting a four-year-old minor victim.
The man was convicted for the offences under Section 363 (Punishment for kidnapping) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 10 (Punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in 2015.
However, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, the trial court on 10.02.2015 gave the convict the benefit of probation and released him for the period already undergone in custody. As per the nominal roll, he had undergone 9 months and 26 days in jail on the day of release.
Title: MR. RAJESH KATHPAL v. M/S SHUBH STEEL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 973
The Delhi High Court has observed that the time for filing the written statement by the defendant under the Code of Civil Procedure, after issuance of summons, will commence from the date when the suit along with the documents is provided to the defendant.
Justice C Hari Shankar said the service of summons in a suit has to be a meaningful service for it to constitute a starting point for the time available for filing of a written statement.
The court thus dismissed a plea filed by one Rajesh Kathpal challenging an order dated June 6, passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court) in a civil suit filed by him. The trial court had rejected Kathpal's application filed under the proviso to Order V Rule 1 and the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.
Case Title: Welspun Enterprises Ltd. v. NCC Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 974
The High Court of Delhi has held that the period of limitation for referring the dispute to arbitration would only commence after the internal dispute resolution mechanism fails.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that if the agreement between the parties provides for a pre-arbitration dispute resolution mechanism, a party cannot be expected to invoke arbitration unless the said mechanism fails, therefore, the limitation period cannot start prior to that.
Title: TORRENT POWER LIMITED v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 975
The Delhi High Court has observed that National Commission For Scheduled Castes cannot initiate an enquiry under Article 338 of the Constitution of India based on a specious complaint and unsubstantiated allegations.
Justice Yashwant Varma said the Commission is empowered to initiate an enquiry only when a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) is able to establish prima facie that he had been ill-treated or discriminated solely on account of the fact that he belonged to that class.
"The Commission is constitutionally empowered to enquire and investigate into instances of deprivation of rights of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes. That presupposes that the action complained of is founded on an allegation that a member of that particular class was discriminated against or arbitrarily dealt with solely on account of his social status," the court said.
Title: M/S M. SONS GEMS N JJEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 976
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Chapter II of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, observing that it is not manifestly arbitrary and is not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramoniuam Prasad passed the ruling in a plea challenging Chapter II of the Act on the ground that it did not provide an avenue of judicial redress against Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) who have defaulted in their statutory obligations including for the borrowers.
52. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Lawyer Gautam Khaitan In 2008 Embraer Bribery Case
Title: GAUTAM KHAITAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 977
The Delhi High Court has recently granted bail to a lawyer Gautam Khaitan in connection with the 2008 Embraer bribery case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
While the case was registered in the year 2016 for various offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, Khaitan was arrested only recently on August 25. His bail plea was rejected by a trial court on September 3.
Justice Jasmeet Singh granted bail to Khaitan observing that he was not named in the FIR and that the allegations against him were only based on statements of various witnesses and official communications.
Case Title: Kush Raj Bhatia v. DLF Power and Services Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 978
The High Court of Delhi held that place of arbitration would not become the seat of arbitration when the parties have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a Court other than the seat Court.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that conferring exclusive jurisdiction, over a Court different from the Court at the place of arbitration, would be a contrary indicia and the place of arbitration would merely be the venue and only the Court at which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred shall have the jurisdiction to decide all applications arising out of the arbitration between the parties.
Title: SHARJEEL USMANI v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 979
The Delhi High Court has permitted former Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) student Sharjeel Usmani to appear in the third semester examinations for 'MA in Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy' at Jamia Millia Islamia University (JMI).
Justice Sanjeev Narula also directed JMI to immediately declare Usmani's results in respect of the first and second semester examinations.The court also asked the varsity to regularise his admission.
Usmani had moved the High Court earlier this year seeking directions on JMI to immediately permit him to appear in the first semester examinations which were to be conducted after February 20.
Title: IC-76585M MAJOR NISHANT KAUSHIK vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 980
Months after a division bench of Delhi High Court said the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be bypassed merely by making a provision for direct appeal to the Supreme Court, a co-ordinate bench has said that ordinarily, no appeal from a final decision or order of the Armed Forces Tribunal can lie before the High Court.
The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said there is no provision under The Armed Forces Tribunal Act for an appeal against any such final decision or order of the AFT before any other forum like the High Courts.
"Further, as per Section 31 of the Act, such an appeal to the Apex Court shall lie within 30 days from the date of the said decision of the Tribunal with the leave of the Tribunal or the Apex Court, as the case may be," said the bench.
Case Title: Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 981
The Delhi High Court has appointed the retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice Vineet Saran, as the returning officer for conducting elections of the Executive Committee (EC) of Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI).
Justice Rekha Palli requested the former judge to prepare the electoral college and conduct the elections as per the federation's constitution. The retired judge has also asked to ensure that only those state associations which are compliant with the Sports Code are permitted to participate in the elections.
The returning officer, will be paid a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 besides secretarial expenses, which will be borne by the TTFI, Justice Palli said in an order on October 17.
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 982
Denying bail to activist Umar Khalid in Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the Delhi High Court observed that the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) and 2020 North-East Delhi riots were prima-facie orchestrated at various "conspiratorial meetings" held from December 2019 till February 2020, some of which were also attended by Khalid.
A division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar said that Khalid's name finds a recurring mention from beginning of the conspiracy till the riots, adding that he was a member of WhatsApp groups like DPSG and Muslim students of JNU and had also participated in various conspiratorial meetings.
Related Stories
Title: M/S CELL PAGE COMMUNICAITON v. VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 983
Observing that the arrest of any citizen compromises his right to life and personal liberty, the Delhi High Court has said that the adherence to any procedure, which affects the liberty of the citizen, has to be strict and scrupulous.
"The arrest of any citizen compromises his right to life and personal liberty, which are the most sanctified of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Liberty is a sanctified preambular constitutional goal," Justice C Hari Shankar said.
The court made the observation in an order on a plea filed by Cell Page Communication challenging the issuance of warrants against it by the Additional District Judge in 2019 in an execution proceeding of a money decree. The suit had earlier been decreed in favour of Vijay Shankar Pandey and against the Cell Page Communication for a sum of Rs 25 Lakh with simple interest at 9 percent from May 2014 till filing of the suit and pendente lite.
Title: ABC v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 984
Observing that offences against minors, especially sexual assault, are increasing alarmingly, the Delhi High Court stressed that it is necessary for the courts to "imbibe the legislative wisdom" behind enactment of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Observing that rape is a heinous crime which is abhorrent not only as against the victim but also against society at large, a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J. Bhambhani observed:
"The plight of a victim and the shock suffered can be felt instinctively; as the victim of rape is left devastated by the traumatic experience, as well as an unforgettable shame; being haunted by the memory of the horrific experience forcing her into a state of terrifying melancholia."
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Boeing India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 985
The Delhi High Court, while upholding the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), has held that the provision of TDS on NRI payments under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act has no application once the nature of payment is determined as salary and a deduction has been made under Section 192.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the real employer of the seconded employees continues to be the Indian entity and not the overseas entity.
61. SCN Without Any Reasons: Delhi High Court Quashes Order Cancelling GST Registration
Case Title: Balaji Enterprises Versus Principal Additional Director General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 986
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling the GST registration as the Range Inspector has physically verified the premises, neither by serving any notice of the physical verification nor in the report generated after the verification was uploaded on the portal.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that there was an infraction of the provisions of Rule 25 of the CGST and the order has gone beyond the frame of the Show Cause Notice.
The petitioner/assessee assailed the order cancelling its GST registration. The order was based on the show-cause notice. The SCN revealed that there is next to nothing stated as to the reason why the concerned authority proposed the cancellation of registration.
Title: Samata Party v. ECI & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 987
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea filed by Samata Party against allotment of flaming torch symbol to Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena by Election Commission of India for the upcoming Andheri East Assembly bypoll in Maharashtra.
Samata Party was formed in the year 1994 and was accorded recognition on October 24, 1994. The party had participated in the 2009 and 2014 Lok Sabha General Elections but was defeated in both of them. Since the party was de-recognised back in 2004, it had lost the right over the 'flaming torch' symbol.
After hearing the party's plea against the ECI decision, Justice Sanjeev Narula said that Samata Party has failed to demonstrate any right over the symbol 'flaming torch'.
Title: x v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 988
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Government to decide in four months a representation seeking recognition of transgender community as a third gender on the tickets of DTC buses and a provision for free travel for them.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a person belonging to the transgender community claiming that the representation made on August 26 to the Delhi Government and DTC was not responded to.
The PIL thus sought directions on the Delhi Government and DTC to recognize transgender community as the third gender on the bus tickets issued to the commuters by conductors. It also sought directions for providing free of cost travel in the buses plied by DTC including cluster, feeder and mini buses.
Case Title: Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. versus Narender Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 989
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a notice issued by a party, merely stating its right to initiate arbitral proceedings, which it would subsequently initiate if the payment was not made by the opposite party, is a unilateral communication which does not qualify as a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju reiterated that the A&C Act does not contemplate unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one of the parties and that there must be a consensus between the parties for appointment of the arbitrator.
The Court added that commencement of arbitral proceedings is incumbent on the receipt of such request or notice, as provided under Section 21 of the A&C Act.
65. Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Recall The Order Terminating The Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Vag Educational Services v. Aakash Educational Services Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 990
The High Court of Delhi has held that once the arbitral tribunal terminates the arbitration proceedings on account of claimant withdrawing its claims, it cannot recall the order of termination order.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that once the arbitral proceedings are terminated, the arbitral tribunal becomes Functus Officio and it cannot entertain an application recalling its earlier order by which it terminated the arbitral proceedings.
The Court further held that after the termination of arbitral proceedings, the tribunal would be coram non judice and any order passed by it would be without any jurisdiction.
Case Title: Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. versus Religare Finvest Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 991
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) provide a remedy in addition to the adjudication under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act)and hence, initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not bar the arbitration of disputes.
The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that whether an arbitral award would operate as a res judicata, barring the second arbitration under the same agreement, must be decided by the Arbitrator since it involves mixed questions of fact and law.
Title: MEHENDIRAM FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 992
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the tender conditions set by Delhi Government with regard to the contract for preparation and supply of mid day meals to children of primary and upper primary classes of Government Aided Schools and Alternative and Innovative Education (AIE) Centres under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the conditions imposed in the tender cannot be said to be "whimsical, capricious, arbitrary or meant to be suited for a select few."
Title: MOHD KASHIF v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 993
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a look out circular (LOC) is to be issued in such cases where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or summons or where he fails to appear in a court despite issuance of non-bailable warrants.
"An LOC is a coercive measure to ensure that a person surrenders and interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. LOC is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where accused fails to appear in Court despite issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed.
Title: Shiva Fire Works and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 994
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the direction issued by Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) on September 14 for a complete ban on manufacturing, storage, sale and bursting of all kinds of firecrackers till January 1, 2023 in the national capital.
Justice Yashwant Varma said it would not be appropriate for the High Court to consider the issue when the same is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.
The plea was moved by two entities, engaged in storing and selling of green crackers, claiming that there was no occasion for the DPCC to include green crackers while imposing a complete ban.
Title: ATUL VADERA v. THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 995
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking permission for use of traditional lead acid batteries in the e-rickshaws and e-carts plying in the national capital.
The plea, moved by an e-rickshaw driver, sought a choice to be given to purchasers of e-rickshaws and e-carts to use either traditional acid battery or the technologically advanced lithium battery.
Title: X v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (ACTING THROUGH ITS SECRETARY) & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 996
Ordering increase in the amount of compensation for survivors of child sexual abuse from Rs 7 lakh to at least Rs 10.5 lakh under the 2018 Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, the Delhi High Court said that the final compensation to the victims must be the maximum amount as provided in the scheme's schedule.
The schedule of 2018 scheme mentions both minimum as well as the upper limit of compensation to be awarded to victims.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that special courts will be within their rights to adjudicate and grant compensation for more than 10.5 lakhs and will also decide the final as well as the interim compensation to be granted.
Title: DR JITARANI UDGATA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 997
The Delhi High Court has discussed in detail the guidelines that must be borne in mind by the courts while adjudicating the question as to whether an authority can be termed as a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the control exercised by the State over an authority should be pervasive in nature to the extent that the authority should have limited autonomy.
"It must not be lost sight of that in the modern concept of Welfare State, independent institution, corporation and agency are generally subject to State control. The State control does not render such bodies as 'State' under Article 12. The State control, however vast and pervasive, is not determinative. The financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive," the court held.
Title: JOHNEY REBERIO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 998
The Delhi High Court has said that allowing a person, who is facing a sexual harassment enquiry before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), to be represented through someone with legal background will create a prejudice for the complainant, whose case is also being considered by the committee without aid of a legal practitioner or next friend.
Rule 7(6) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules states that parties in question shall not be allowed to bring in any legal practitioner to represent them in their case at any stage of proceedings before the ICC.
The plea before the court contended that ICC is deemed to be vested with powers akin to a civil court and a person should be entitled to be represented by a person who is capable of conducting cross-examination of the complainant.
Title: Manzar Imam v. NIA & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 999
The Delhi High Court has asked the trial court to decide the bail plea moved by an accused, who has been in jail for more than nine years in a case registered under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, within a period of 75 days.
Manzer Imam, an alleged Indian Mujahideen operative, was arrested in August 2013 in a case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) alleging that he, along with others, conspired to commit terrorist acts and made preparations for targeting prominent places in the country.
Justice Jasmeet Singh disposed of the bail plea after Imam's counsel withdrew the same with liberty to approach the trial court. The counsel appearing for NIA earlier argued that Imam had not exhausted the remedy to approach the special judge.
75. Delhi High Court Grants Transit Anticipatory Bail To Senior IAS Officer In Rape Case
Title: Jitendra Narain v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
The Delhi High Court has granted transit anticipatory bail to Jitendra Narain, ex-Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, in a rape case registered against him.
Narain, a senior Indian Administrative Services (IAS) officer, was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary on July 22. As per media reports, Narain has been placed under suspension by the Ministry of Home Affairs following the registration of the case. He was posted as the Chairman and Managing Director of the Delhi Financial Corporation.
Protecting Narain only till October 28, Justice Yogesh Khanna allowed him to avail his legal remedy to approach the court at Port Blair till the said date.
Title: ALPHAVECTOR INDIA PVT. LTD. vs M/S SACH INDUSTRIES & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1001
Observing that bicycles by their very nature are bought by a large swathe of population which could also include semi-illiterate persons, the Delhi High Court has halted the fresh manufacturing of 'NINETY NINE/99' cycles as it found its mark "deceptively or confusingly similar" to the name of 'NINETY ONE/91' cycles which are produced by a different company.
"The competing marks can be easily confused and the same can be in the form of sponsorship or affiliation. Consumers may be deceived to believe that both bicycles originate from the same manufacturers and the marks 'NINETY NINE/99' and 'NINETY ONE/91' are series marks," said Justice Prathiba M. Singh.
Case Title: Omega Finvest LLP versus Direct News Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1002
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a rent agreement would continue to be binding upon the parties, despite the fact that after the expiry of the agreement the parties had entered into a 'Terms of Settlement' and 'Addendum to Settlement', which did not contain an arbitration clause.
The Court observed that the relationship between the parties came into existence on the execution of the rent agreement. Further, it noted that the 'Terms of Settlement' and the 'Addendum to Settlement' executed between the parties did not contain a stipulation that the arbitration clause between them stood rescinded.
The Court held that the arbitration clause was binding on the parties and thus, the dispute between the parties arising on the breach of the terms of settlement must be referred to arbitration.
78. Rewriting Commercial Contractual Terms Is Fatal To An Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Calcom Cement India Ltd. versus Binod Kumar Bawri & Ors. And Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited versus Binod Kumar Bawri & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where the parties agree to enter into a mutual consultation in the future, for making amendments to an original agreement, the same would only constitute an "agreement to agree", which is not enforceable in law.
The Court held that the finding of the arbitral tribunal that though the amendment contemplated by the "Amendment to the Share Holders Agreement" was not in fact carried out by the parties, however, the original Share Holders Agreement stood altered, extinguishing the liability of the party, was erroneous in law.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar ruled that rewriting of a contract between two parties, especially a commercial contract, is completely impermissible in law and that rewriting of commercial contractual terms is fatal to an arbitral award.
Title: AERO CLUB versus BHAWNA TRADING CO. & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1004
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a trader in the national capital from manufacturing or selling counterfeit Woodland products and directed it to pay Aero Club a sum of Rs 5 Lakh within three months.
Woodland's Parent Company Aero Club had approached the high court last year seeking permanent injunction restraining the infringement of its trademark and copyright.
Aero Club or Aero Group uses the mark 'Woodland' for a variety of products like shoes, belts and wallets. It had alleged that two Sadar Bazar-based wholesalers of belts and wallets were engaged in the sale of counterfeit products. An ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of Aero Club on December 21.
Title: DR. PRAGYA SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
The Delhi High Court has said that a candidate, who is not falling in the reserve or waiting list, cannot claim a right to be considered for the appointment.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said there is a sanctity attached to a reserve or waiting list by which candidates within such a list may be considered for appointment against vacancies created due to non-joining of the original select list candidates.
"Though, the caveat being that the prerogative is still that of the user department or the agency carrying out the selection procedure. A word of caution being that no candidate has an indefeasible right to appointment and only to consideration alone. It is trite that it is the prerogative of the Government/department to fill or not fill all the vacancies," the court said.
Title: NAYAB & ANR v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1006
Observing that appreciation of evidence is crucial to do justice, the Delhi High Court has said that a casually written judgment and casually appreciated evidence is a casualty to justice.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a judgment is the nectar explaining every aspect of the facts and circumstances in each case and as such, is a reason for reaching to a decision.
The court made the observations while setting aside the conviction and order of sentence against two individuals namely Nayab and Khushnuma in a 2007 case connected to alleged kidnapping of a girl. The duo were accused of concealing the girl, who was allegedly kidnapped by another accused, in a house.
Title: NAINA RANA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1007
Observing that the freedom of choice in marriage is an intrinsic part of Article 21, the Delhi High Court has said that the questions of faith have no bearing on the freedom to choose a life partner.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that in cases where couples are legally married out of their own free will and volition, the police is expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity in accordance with law.
The court added that the police must take necessary measures for protection and safety of such couples if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from others including their own family members.
Title: SAKET KUMAR SHARMA versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1008
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a senior officer of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) against whom proceedings were initiated by the regulatory body last year for allegedly assisting Rajya Sabha MP Rakesh Sinha in drafting a private member bill for establishment of Public Credit Registry.
Justice Rekha Palli said the plea has no merit as it is an admitted position that the departmental inquiry against him was initiated "only recently" and on September 29, the inquiry officer has directed the Presenting Officer to tender evidence in support of the charges levelled against the officer.
"It is therefore clear that the petitioner has come to this Court at a premature stage when the inquiry has just commenced. It is trite law that the Court should generally not interdict the departmental proceedings initiated against an employee unless a case of gross perversity or high handedness is made out," said Justice Palli.
Case Title: Prasar Bharti versus National Brain Research Centre & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1009
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of Disputes (AMRD) is not a substitute for arbitration in cases where there is an arbitration agreement between the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the party invoking the arbitration clause fell within the scope and ambit of the AMRD, under the Office Memorandum No. 334774/DoLA/AMRD/2019, dated 31.03.2020, issued by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs. However, the Court held that the AMRD is only a mechanism for possible settlement of disputes between the governmental organizations and not a substitute for arbitration.
Title: SUNITA MALIK vs THE STATE OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1010
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a woman in a case of abetment of suicide, saying the FIR squarely blames her as the reason for the deceased ending her life.
"In my view, in the present case, the instigation by the applicant which has prompted the deceased to end her life is loud and clear. The instigation is of harassment and the FIR clearly states that the applicant was saying something or the other which has instigated the deceased to take this extreme step," Justice Jasmeet Singh said in the order.
The FIR was registered at Paschim Vihar police station on June 27 after a 28-year-old woman poured petrol on her and set herself on fire.
Title: SURINDER SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1011
The Delhi High Court has said the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) "ordinarily should" endeavour to examine a case on merits rather than dismissing the same on technicalities.
Dismissing a plea filed by an employee challenging the order by which his original application against the disciplinary action taken against him was rejected by CAT, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the Tribunal to consider the case afresh.
Case Title: PCIT Versus IFFCO LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1012
The Delhi High Court has held that the dividends received by Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO) from Oman India Fertiliser Company S.A.O.C (OMIFCO) Oman cannot be disallowed under the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that since the dividend received by the assessee from OMIFCO, Oman is chargeable to tax in India under the head "Income from other sources" and forms part of the total income, it is included in taxable income in the computation of income filed by the assessee.
Title: VINOD KUMAR ASTHANA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1013
Observing that closure of proceedings at an initial stage has not been appreciated, the Delhi High Court has said that even if it is found that the proceedings are vitiated in the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, then court may direct the authority to take sanction and then proceed, instead of completely quashing the entire proceedings.
"Same was the view taken in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CBI (2021)," said the court.
Justice Yogesh Khanna made the observation while dismissing a plea challenging an order passed by the Special Judge which had taken cognizance against one Vinod Kumar Asthana for the offences under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code without sanction under Section 19 of PC (Amendment) Act and Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Case Title: SMT. SARITA JOSHI v. RAVINDRA BHUSHAN JOSHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1014
The Delhi High Court has observed that the convenience of the wife has to be seen more while transferring a petition to a different court in matrimonial disputes.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma added that the transfer jurisdiction has to be exercised in such a manner that there should not be any inconvenience caused to either of the parties.
The court was dealing with a plea moved by 68 year old wife seeking transfer of the matrimonial case pending before Family Court's Principal Judge of Dwarka Courts (South West District) to Family Court's Principal Judge of Karkardooma Court (East District).
Title: RAJAN KUMAR v. LAJJA DEVI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1015
Observing that the judicial institution is grappling with huge pendency due to frivolous litigations, the Delhi High Court has said that an endeavour must be made by courts to dismiss the same on the very first date without any further delay.
Adding that such frivolous litigations should be "nipped in the bud", Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further observed that courts do not have the luxury to continue with such cases, which are frivolous on its face "merely because certain procedural motions have to undergo."
"If, for some reasons, such orders are not initially passed in a frivolous litigation, nothing stops the Court to put an end to such an ordeal at any stage," the court said.
Title: CHANDRA KISHORE CHAURASIA v. R A PERFUMERY WORKS PRIVATE LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
The Delhi High Court has ruled that pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is necessary only in cases where a plaintiff of the suit does not contemplate an urgent interim relief.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said the question as to whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is to be determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and relief as sought by the plaintiff.
It further observed that if a plaintiff seeks any urgent interim relief, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that such a plaintiff has not exhausted the pre-institution remedy of mediation as contemplated under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Title: RELAXO FOOTWEARS LTD vs AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
The Delhi High Court has said that a proprietor of a registered design does not forfeit its right merely because it has not enforced the same against all infringers.
The design holder retains the right to interdict infringement of the registered design notwithstanding that it has not proceeded against some of the infringers, said the court.
"It is not unusual for small players to copy designs, which have become popular. It is not necessary for the proprietor of a design to pursue its remedies against each dealer/manufacturer selling infringing products. It is possible that the benefits of pursuing a particular infringer may not be commensurate with the cost and effort for doing so," it added.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan further said it is understandable that a design holder would evaluate its option including on commercial considerations.
Case Title: M/s. Manraj Enterprises versus Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a claimant cannot support his claims on grounds that were not urged before the arbitral tribunal.
However, the Court has held that if a question with respect to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to award any claim is raised, which does not involve deciding any question of fact, the party challenging the arbitral award is not prohibited from raising such grounds which were not raised before the arbitral tribunal.
The Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan reiterated that a contractual clause, which bars payment of interest on Earnest Money Deposit, Security Deposit or on other amounts payable under the Contract, would also bar award of pendente lite interest by the arbitral tribunal.
Title: ANIL KUMAR vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition of a judiciary aspirant who had prayed for a direction to declare him qualified in Delhi Higher Judicial Services (Mains) Examination (Written) - 2022.
Anil Kumar, the petitioner, could not clear the examination and was declared unsuccessful solely for the reason that the marks secured by him in Paper-I (GK and Language) were below the specified threshold of 45 percent. He had obtained 67 marks [44.66 percent] out of the total of 150 marks and, thus, failed to meet the threshold for the next stage of examination - viva voce.
His argument before the court was that none of the marks awarded against his answers are in fractions, therefore his marks for the paper are required to be rounded off.
However, the division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said it would have acceded to the request but for a specific provision in Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970, which prohibits rounding off of marks.
Title: RADICAL ARC VENTURES PVT LTD versus STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
In a case connected to a matrimonial dispute, the Delhi High Court on Friday directed a woman to return an Audi Car to a private company, while ruling that the corporate veil cannot be permitted to be lifted to hold that even though the vehicle belongs to the company, it is owned by her husband.
The woman had been permitted by a Mahila Court to retain the car last year after she initiated proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband, who was a 75 percent shareholder in the company and had been given the vehicle for official use.
Setting aside the Mahila Court order permitting her to retain the car, Justice Jasmeet Singh in the judgment clarified, "However, this order is only for the return of the Audi car and in no way determines the right of respondent No. 2 [wife] to seek maintenance, right of residence commensurate with her stature and her living lifestyle, from respondent No. 3 [husband]. She shall be at liberty to initiate any/all such proceedings for getting a car/maintenance for herself and her children which if already filed or which may be filed in future, shall be determined in accordance with law".
Title: FMC CORPORATION v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
The Delhi High Court has observed that the written submissions and filing of relevant documents under Rule 28(7) of the Patent Rules, 2003 cannot be used as a tool to reopen the entire debate in a patent application.
Justice Pratibha M Singh said the purpose of Rule 28(7) is to capture the submissions made during the course of the hearing and to take any steps which the Controller may have directed in terms of filing of forms and amendments.
"The written submissions and filing of relevant documents under Rule 28(7) of the Rules cannot be used as a tool to reopen the entire debate. It is meant as a sort of primer of the submissions made and discussions agreed upon during the course of hearing. The purpose of Rule 28(7) is to bring the matter to a closure rather than to reopen the consideration of the patent application," the court said.
Title: MR SANJAY CHADHA TRADING AS M/S EVEREADY TOOLS EMPORIUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
The Delhi High Court has ruled that apart from the primary function of identifying the source of goods, a trademark has an investment function as well, which is to preserve the investments made by a proprietor of a trademark in publicity and building up its reputation.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said the trademark, thus, acquires a value that can be estimated in monetary terms. Although intangible, the court added, trademark is a valuable asset.
"The use of a trademark by other persons, which is identical or similar to the senior mark, would inevitably result in dilution of the senior mark and adversely affect its value," the court said.
Case Title: Sorin Group Italia S.R.L. v. Neeraj Garg
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
The High Court of Delhi has held that while exercising powers under Section 45 of the A&C Act, the Court can conduct a preliminary inquiry to decide whether the dispute in question is arbitrable or not and to decide whether it falls within the scope of the agreement.
The bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that a dispute falling within the 'excepted matters' cannot be referred to arbitration as the intention of parties in keeping certain disputes outside the scope of arbitration must be given effect to.
The Court held that two commercial entities entering into an agreement and providing for different method of dispute resolution for different disputes may result in an anomalous situation where two disputes arising out of the same agreement would be decided by different forums, however, the choice of the parties is to be given supremacy and only disputes contemplated under the arbitration clause can be referred to arbitration and no other.
Title: FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
Vacating its ex parte ad interim injunction against Tata Sia Airlines-owned Vistara's promotional campaign 'Fly Higher', the Delhi High Court has said the term 'Fly High' is common to the aviation sector.
The airline had introduced the advertising campaign in 2018 as an extension of its tagline 'Fly The New Feeling'.
On January 21 this year, the court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of a training institute in its suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Tata Sia Airlines. The Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited in the suit accused the airline of infringing its registered trademark 'Fly High' which it uses as a tagline for its institute where people are trained in the fields of aviation, hospitality, travel and customer care management.
Hearing Tata's application seeking vacation of the January 21 order, Justice Jyoti Singh considered the question whether registration of the trademark Fly High by Frankfinn Aviation Services can prevent Tata Sia Airlines from using Fly Higher in light of its defence that it was not using the term as a trademark.
Title: DELHI ROZI ROTI ADHIKAR ABHIYAN v. RAJESH AHUJA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
The Delhi High Court has said that the "lack of speed" in implementing a judicial order would not be sufficient for a court to take contempt action against the authorities on the ground of "deliberate and wilful disobedience" under Contempt of Courts Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan for initiation of contempt proceedings for non compliance of an interim order passed in 2017 in respect of expediting the implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA).
Observing that proper disbursal of adequate nourishment is an important welfare function of the State, the Court said that it "hopes and trusts" that the Delhi government will implement the Act in its true letter and spirit.
101. Delhi High Court Allows Depreciation Claim To Daikin For Goodwill On Exclusive Business Rights
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
The Delhi High Court while ruling in favour of the Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt. Ltd. has held that the business rights acquired for valuable consideration constitute an intangible asset within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and depreciation is allowable.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the department has not disputed the exclusive nature of rights, payment of consideration and the same being of an enduring nature since it spanned for 20 years. The capitalisation of the business rights as an intangible asset has been correctly upheld by the appellate authorities. Therefore, the Assessee was entitled to claim depreciation.
