Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 03 To April 09

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296

NOMINAL INDEX

Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284

NG v. SG & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285

BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 286

IRCON INTERNATIONAL v. PIONEER FABRICATORS, FAO(COMM) 200/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 287

M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 288

SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 289

AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 290

SONU@BILLA v. STATE, THROUGH SHO, PS PASCHIM VIHAR EAST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 291

ABOOBACKER E. v. National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 292

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 293

MS. M PROSECUTRIX v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 294

RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 295

Rashtriya Transport Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296

REPORTS

Arbitral Tribunal’s Order Rejecting The Application For Impleadment Of Party Doesn’t Constitute An ‘Interim Award’: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party who is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, can be impleaded as a necessary party in the arbitration proceedings.

The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain further ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting the application for impleadment of parties in the arbitral proceedings, does not constitute an ‘interim award’ under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it does not decide any substantive question of law or deal with the merits of the case.

Right To Residence In Matrimonial Home Includes Right To Safe And Healthy Living: Delhi High Court

Title: NG v. SG & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to residence in a matrimonial home under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also includes the right to safe and healthy living.

While issuing notice on a wife’s plea challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in a civil case relating to matrimonial dispute, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said:

“…. it goes without saying that the right to residence in a matrimonial home, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also would subsume within itself, the definition of “right to safe and healthy living” too. Hence, requiring interference by this Court.”

Authorities In Patent Office Must Practice Due Application Of Mind In Decisions, Cut-Paste Orders Can’t Sustain: Delhi High Court

Title: BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 286

The Delhi High Court has observed that the officers of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Mark must practice due application of mind while rendering decisions and that template or “cut-paste” orders must be discouraged and cannot sustain.

While pulling up an Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs for passing a “mechanical order” while refusing an application for grant of patent, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed:

“Reasoning through a speaking order is a vital aspect of the principles of natural justice and is of utmost importance, which needs to be underscored. If the patent office’s orders lack proper reasoning, it may be difficult for the applicant to identify the grounds for appeal. The legal proposition that an order of such kind should be supported by reasons, needs no reiteration.”

Location Of Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Would Remain The ‘Venue’ Of Arbitration When The Agreement Confers Jurisdiction On The Courts In A Different Place: Delhi High Court

Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL v. PIONEER FABRICATORS, FAO(COMM) 200/2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 287

The Delhi High Court has held that the location of the Facilitation Council administering arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 would remain the ‘Venue’ of arbitration when the parties have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a Court situated in a different place.

The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Anoop Jairam Bhambhani held that by virtue of the provisions of the MSMED Act, only the procedure of constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is obliterated and the same does not eclipse the agreement between the parties of foisting exclusive jurisdiction on a particular Court.

Services Provided By EY India To Overseas EY Entities Not “Intermediary Services”: Delhi High Court Directs IGST Refund To EY India

Case Title: M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 288

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the services provided by M/s Ernst and Young Limited (India), the Indian Branch Office of UK based company, M/s Ernst & Young Limited (E&Y Ltd), to overseas EY Entities, is not an “intermediary service”.

The Court thus set aside the orders passed by the GST Authorities where it had rejected Ernst and Young’s application seeking refund of input tax credit (ITC) with respect to the services exported by it, on the ground that it was an intermediary.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Satyendar Jain In Money Laundering Case

Title: SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 289

Denying bail to Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case, the Delhi High Court on Thursday said that witness statements show that the Aam Aadmi Party leader is the “conceptualizer, visualizer and executor” of the entire operation. The court also said he is an influential person having the potential to tamper with evidence.

In the order running into 46 pages, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that Satyendar Jain, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain failed to meet the twin conditions provided under section 45 of PMLA and the conditions laid down under section 439 of Cr.P.C. and thus, are not entitled for bail.

The AAP leader has been in custody since May 30 last year. His bail application was dismissed by the trial court on November 17, 2022. Notice on his bail plea was issued by High Court in December last year. Order was reserved on the bail pleas on March 22.

Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Hold Stakeholder Consultation For Making Films Friendly For Visually And Hearing Impaired Persons

Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 290

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to hold a stakeholder consultation for making films disabled-friendly for visually and hearing impaired individuals and to ensure implementation of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting along with other relevant Ministries to hold the consultation with film producers, OTT platforms operating in India, television broadcasters, association of theatre owners, organizations consisting of disabled persons, distributors of films and any other stakeholder it may consider appropriate.

Peeping Inside Washroom When Woman Is Taking Bath Amounts To Invasion Of Privacy, Will Attract Offence Of Voyeurism: Delhi High Court

Title: SONU@BILLA v. STATE, THROUGH SHO, PS PASCHIM VIHAR EAST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 291

The Delhi High Court has observed that if a man peeps inside the washroom when a woman is taking bath, it will amount to invasion of her privacy and also attract the offence of voyeurism.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that taking bath in a bathroom by any person, whether a male or a female, is essentially a “private act” as it is taking place inside the four walls of the bathroom.

“It cannot be denied that a woman taking bath inside a closed bathroom will reasonably expect that her privacy was not invaded and she was not being seen or watched by anyone as she is behind closed walls behind a curtain. The act of a perpetrator peeping inside the said bathroom will certainly be regarded as invasion of her privacy,” the court said.

Former PFI Chairman Withdraws Plea For Medical Bail From Delhi High Court, Liberty Granted To Approach Trial Court For Relief

Title: ABOOBACKER E. v. National Investigation Agency

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 292

The Delhi High Court permitted former chairman of Popular Front of India (PFI) E Abubacker to withdraw his appeal challenging the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking bail on medical grounds.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted liberty to Abubacker to approach the trial court seeking appropriate relief in view of the fact that chargesheet has been filed by National Investigating Agency (NIA).

Delhi High Court Quashes Service Tax Demand of Rs. 56.61 Crores Against MTNL

Case Title: Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 293

The Delhi High Court has quashed the service tax demand of Rs. 56.61 crores against Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL).

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that MTNL had received the compensation during the financial year 2015-16, which was prior to May 14, 2016, i.e., the date on which the Finance Act, 2016, came into force and Clause (j) was introduced in Section 66E of the Act. Thus, the surrender of any right to use the spectrum by MTNL prior to the said date would not be chargeable to service tax.

Mere Apprehension Of Victim No Ground To Transfer Rape Case From Male Judge: Delhi High Court

Title: MS. M PROSECUTRIX v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 294

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere apprehension of a victim is no ground to transfer a rape case to special courts designated to deal with POCSO cases or those presided by a woman judge.

Justice Anish Dayal observed that such a situation would create a precedent which would open floodgates where all rape cases would be required to be transferred to special POCSO courts or to woman judges.

Ensure Cattle Do Not Feed On Garbage Or Plastic, Can Have Detrimental Effect On Quality Of Milk: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 295

The Delhi High Court has directed the national capital government to take steps to ensure clean and hygienic milk is provided to the citizens and that cattle do not feed on plastic or garbage in the national capital

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the cattle feeding on garbage or plastic can have a detrimental effect on the quality of milk and a deleterious effect on the people who consume it.

Person In Whose Custody The Goods Are Found To Produce Information Within A Reasonable Time: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rashtriya Transport Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296

The Delhi High Court has held that it would be open for a person found in the custody of goods to produce the relevant information in its possession with respect to the goods within a reasonable time on being required to do so by the Commissioner.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that none of the authorities have even examined whether the documents produced by the appellant established the ownership of the goods in question.