Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: April 11 To April 17, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 298 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 332

NOMINAL INDEX

Case Title: ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 298

Case Title: HTC CORPORATION v. MR. LV DEGAO & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 299

Case Title: Aarin through her next friend and natural father Sh. Pawan Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan& Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 300

Case Title: Red Bull AG v PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 301

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi versus Hamdard National Foundation (India) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 302

Case Title: Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 303

Case Title: MANSI GUPTA v. PREM AMAR & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 304

Title: RAJENDER KUMAR SETHI & ANR. v. M/S V.G. MARKETING PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 305

Case Title: Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 306

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports versus Agility Logistic Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 307

Case Title: NASTOR FARIRAI ZISO v. NCB 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 308

Case Title: SUNIL TOMAR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 309

Case Title: Richie Rich Exim Solutions versus Commissioner of CGST Delhi South 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 310

Case Title: Alstom Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojeccts Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 311

Case Title: Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 312

Case Title: SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 313

Case Title: SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD v. HETERO HEALTHCARE LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 314

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 315

Case Title: SUNNY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 316

Case Title: SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 317

Title: MRS OMITA MAGO & ORS. v. AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 318

Case Title: PARDEEP KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 319

Case Title: SH VIVEK CHAUHAN v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL CRIMINAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 320

Case Title: SHERRY GEORGE v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 321

Case Title: MUKESH KHURANA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 322

Case Title: Parsvnath Developers Ltd versus Future Retail Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 323

Case Title: SH PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. SMT DEEPIKA SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 324

Case Title: AARIN THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER SH PAWAN KUMAR v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 325

Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 326

Title: DR RAMESH CHANDER MUNJAL & ORS. v. DR SURAJ MUNJAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 327

Case Title: Fada Trading Private Limited Versus Commissioner Goods and Service Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 328

Case Title: Cement Corporation of India versus Engineering Industries Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 329

Case Title: SAIF II MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2) DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 330

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Continental Engineering Corporation (CEC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 331

Case Title: Pulkit Versus State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 332

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK

1. High Court Seeks Status Report From Delhi Govt Over Implementation Of 'Single Window System' For Clearing Fee Memos Of Govt Counsel

Case Title: ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 298

The Delhi High Court has sought status report from the Delhi Government over further progress in the implementation of 'Single Window System' (SWS) for clearing fee memos of its Government counsel.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a matter concerning outstanding bills of Advocate Anjana Gosain and the non-payment of the outstanding fee by the Delhi Government.

While Gosain submitted that all her outstanding fee memos have been cleared by the GNCTD, a status report was filed by the Delhi Government regarding Single Window System for the payment of fee to Government counsels appearing for the GNCTD.

2. Concurrent Registration Of Same Or Similar Trademark By Two Or More Persons Not Per Se Barred: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HTC CORPORATION v. MR. LV DEGAO & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 299

The Delhi High Court has observed that if two Trade Marks are validly registered, both the registered proprietors can use the Trade Marks to the exclusivity of third parties, but cannot assert their rights against each other.

Justice Asha Menon was of the view that concurrent registration of the same or similar Trade Mark by two or more persons is not per se barred under the Trademark Act, 1999.

"When a challenge is raised to the registration, ordinarily till the Register is rectified and such registration is cancelled, both the proprietors would be entitled to claim a right to its use," the Court said.

3. Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Minimum 6 Yrs Age Criteria For Admission In Class 1 At Kendriya Vidyalayas

Case Title: Aarin through her next friend and natural father Sh. Pawan Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan& Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 300

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the minimum age criteria of 6 years for admission in class 1 in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the academic year 2022-23.

While dismissing the petitions, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli observed thus:

"No doubt, the policy which was formulated in 2020 is yet to be implemented across schools in Delhi, despite the same having been already implemented in 21 states but once the statute i.e., the RTE Act, 2009 in itself places the KVS in a separate category coupled with the fact that all branches of KVS across the country, being run by the same management are obliged to follow the uniform criteria, the anxiousness of the KVS to introduce the age criteria of 6 years in accordance with the NEP, 2020 is well understandable."

4. Pepsi's Tagline "Stimulates Mind, Energizes Body" Is Prima Facie Not Similar To Redbull's "Vitalizes Body And Mind": Delhi High Court

Case Title: Red Bull AG v PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 301

The Delhi High Court has dismissed Red Bull AG's (Red Bull/plaintiff) application for interim injunction against PepsiCo India, holding that prima facie, the latter's tagline "STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY" on their energy drink "Sting" does not infringe the former's Trademark in tagline "VITALIZES BODY AND MIND". It held that both the taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature.

A single judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal did not accept Red Bull's contention that Pepsi has been using the impugned mark in a manner that is likely to be taken as being used as a trademark. The court ruled that the Pepsi has not committed infringement under Section 29 (infringement of registered trademarks) of the Trade Marks Act 1999.

5. Scholarship By Hamdard Foundation, Exemption Under Income Tax Act Can't Be Denied: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi versus Hamdard National Foundation (India)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 302

The Delhi High Court has upheld the factual findings made by the CIT (A) and ITAT that the merit-cum scholarship/financial assistance provided by Hamdard National Foundation was not confined to students of a particular religious community, and therefore exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to it.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, while noting that similar factual findings were made by the appellate authorities with respect to previous assessment years, held that though the principle of res-judicata and estoppel are not applicable to taxation matters, a consistency of approach must be maintained.

6. Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Against Hinduja Group As IndusInd Bank Promoters, Directs RBI To Consider Representation

Case Title: Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 303

The Delhi High Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to treat as representation a PIL seeking to reconsider the decision to increase the stakes held by Hinduja Group as the promoters of IndusInd Bank.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla directed the RBI to examine the petition, highlighting the criminal antecedents of the promoters and seeking probe into its "fit and proper" status.

The petition was filed by Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, appearing in person, as an upshot of recommendations made by RBI's Internal Working Group for raising shareholding of promoters in private banks from 15 percent to 26 percent.

7. Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Existence Of Cause Of Action Cannot Be Equated With Merits Of Suit Filed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MANSI GUPTA v. PREM AMAR & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 304

The Delhi High Court has observed that existence of the cause of action cannot be equated with the merits of the suit filed.

Justice Asha Menon was dealing with an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 read with sec. 151 of CPC on behalf of the defendants in a suit seeking rejection of the plaint.

The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.5 crores, by the plaintiff, daughter-in-law of the defendants. Her case was that the defendants had, by their words and actions, including a press-conference addressed by them, openly accused her of being guilty of and conniving and conspiring to have her husband murdered.

8. "This Is Not What Article 227 Is Meant For": Delhi High Court Imposes 11K Cost On Party Seeking Expeditious Disposal Of Civil Suit By Trial Court

Title: RAJENDER KUMAR SETHI & ANR. v. M/S V.G. MARKETING PVT LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 305

The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 11,000 on a party seeking directions to the Trial Court to expeditiously decide a civil suit, remarking that the petition was an abuse of process of court.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that the petition is a means to try and use the High Court as an avenue to pressurise the trial court in dealing with the matter.

"This is not what Article 227 of the Constitution of India is meant for," the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea with costs of Rs. 11,000 to be paid by way of a crossed cheque favouring the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC).

9. Medical Assessment & Rating Board Entrusted To Regulate Medical Education In India, Must Show Prima Facie Justification For Its Orders: Delhi HC

Case Title: Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 306

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) is an authority entrusted with an important task of regulating medical education in India. Thus, it is expected to at least prima facie show some justification for its decisions.

It added that MARB cannot be given unbridled power to routinely overrule the assessors' inspection reports pertaining to medical institutes, merely on suspicions.

It stated that such arbitrariness on part of MARB cannot be countenanced as it is antithetical to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. Claims Raised Before The Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Be Rejected Even If Not Mentioned In The Notice Issued Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports versus Agility Logistic Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 307

The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is not necessary that a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) should quantify the amounts that are claimed by the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a notice under Section 21 is required to set out the disputes between the parties, and upheld the view of the Arbitral Tribunal that the claims raised by the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be rejected only on the ground that they were not mentioned in the notice issued under Section 21.

11. Mere Apprehension That Accused May Flee Can't Be Sole Factor For Denying Benefit Of S.445 CrPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NASTOR FARIRAI ZISO v. NCB

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 308

The Delhi High Court has held that a mere apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the accused may flee the course of justice, cannot be the sole determinative factor for denying benefit of Section 445 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sec. 445 of CrPC states that "where any person is required by any Court or officer to execute a bond with or without sureties, the Court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or officer may fix in lieu of executing such bond."

Justice Anoop Kumar Mediratta thus granted relief to a woman and a foreign national, observing that she cannot be forced to undergo incarceration till the conclusion of trial merely because she was unable to furnish a local surety bond.

12. Partial Quashing Of FIR Only Qua Accused With Whom Complainant Has Settled Matter Permissible: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SUNIL TOMAR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 309

The Delhi High Court has observed that partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be allowed.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar quashed an FIR registered under sec. 406, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and the proceedings emanating therefrom qua a man who had approached the Court seeking quashing of the same.

The matter was registered on the basis of a complaint filed against the petitioner and two other persons alleging that accused No. 2 was an old friend and well aware about financial position of the complainant.

It was alleged that in August, 2013 accused No. 2 had hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No. 1 and 3 to cheat the complainant and accused No. 1 showed him a villa which was allotted in name of accused No. 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 2.33 Crores.

13. Revenue Fails To Discharge Onus Of Grant Of Personal Hearing, Delhi High Court Quashes Order Rejecting Refund Application Under GST Act

Case Title: Richie Rich Exim Solutions versus Commissioner of CGST Delhi South

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 310

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order rejecting an applicant's refund application under GST Act on the ground that the revenue authority had breached the principles of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant before rejecting its refund application

The Bench, consisting of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Poonam A. Bamba, ruled that the authority had failed to discharge its onus that a date for grant of personal hearing had been fixed before rejecting the applicant's refund application.

14. Time Spent In Mediation Would Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Calculating The Period Of Limitation For Invoking Arbitration: Delhi HC

Case Title: Alstom Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojeccts Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 311

The High Court of Delhi has observed that when the agreement between the parties provides for mandatory mediation, the time spent in the mediation process shall be excluded from the period of limitation.

The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that the notice invoking arbitration as well as the substantive claims of a party would not become time-barred if the parties were undergoing the mediation process contemplated in the arbitration clause and the time consumed in an unfruitful mediation process shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation period.

The Court further observed that the breaking point at which any reasonable party would have abandoned efforts in arriving at the settlement and contemplated referral of the dispute to arbitration would be the date when the mediation fails and the period of limitation would begin from that day only.

15. The Dispute Between The Parties Which Arises Subsequently Can Be Proceeded In A Separate Arbitration: High Court of Delhi

Case Title: Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 312

The High Court of Delhi has observed that a subsequent dispute arising from the same transaction can be referred to a separate arbitration and the arbitration agreement cannot be said to be a one-time measure that cannot be invoked after an award is made in the earlier reference.

The Single Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta observed that the word "all disputes" in an arbitration agreement means all the existing disputes at the time of invocation of arbitration and the disputes that arise subsequently can be decided in a separate arbitration. There is no legal impediment that proscribes the invocation of the arbitration agreement if there is a pending arbitration or an award is made in an earlier arbitration.

16. [Nimisha Priya Case] 'Can't Get Into Nitty-Gritties': Delhi HC Dismisses Appeal Seeking Centre's Assistance In Negotiating With Victim's Family

Case Title: SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 313

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking directions upon the Indian Government to facilitate the family of Nimisha Priya, an Indian citizen who killed a Yemen national and has been sentenced to death there, to negotiate with the family of the deceased victim.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla remarked,

" Learned Single Judge has granted all the reliefs that could have been granted. Court has said Union of India shall take all steps to pursue remedy of further appeal...provide consular support for all assistance in travelling…what more do you need?"

The Bench added that it cannot command the Central Government to be party to any intervention. "You go and negotiate. Thereafter if you need any help, then…it's very premature to say. We can't get into these nitty-gritties."

17. Continuing Cause Of Action In Trademark Suits No Defence To Multiple Proceedings, Principles Of Res Judicata, Forum Shopping Applicable: Delhi HC

Case Title: SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD v. HETERO HEALTHCARE LTD & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 314

The Delhi High Court has observed that a trademark owner cannot drag a Defendant to multiple fora, being a higher court or before a court of coordinate jurisdiction, when the matter is pending before the first Court, especially when the matter is part heard before the first Court, merely to find a forum where it is able to get relief.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that principles such as res judicata, res subjudice, bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, forum shopping, which apply in general to civil and criminal proceedings would also be applicable to trademark suits as well.

The Court was dealing with a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringement of trademark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts of profits/damages, delivery up and other reliefs. It was the Plaintiff's case that the defendant was infringing upon its registered trademark 'LETROZ' by using the mark 'LETERO' in respect of its medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.

18. "Situation Has Undertaken A Sea Change": Delhi High Court Closes Suo Moto Case Concerning Horrific Handling Of Dead Bodies Amid COVID-19

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 315

Observing that the situation has undertaken a "sea change" since the country witnesses the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic, the Delhi High Court has closed the suo moto case registered by it concerning the way bodies were being handled by the mortuary as well as crematoriums back then.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla said:

"The situation has undertaken a sea change with the passage of time and the present petition has, therefore, lost its relevancy in today's context. We, accordingly, close these proceedings at this stage."

19. "Continued Detention Not Required For Investigation": Delhi High Court Grants Bail To 8 Accused Of Vandalizing CM Arvind Kejriwal's Residence

Case Title: SUNNY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 316

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to 8 men accused of vandalising Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's official residence recently, observing that their continued detention in judicial custody was not required for proper investigation of the offences.

Justice Asha Menon further noted that there was no possibility of the applicants tampering with the evidence or inducing or threatening any witness and that nothing was brought on the record by the State to suggests that they would not appear before the court when required.

"As to proper investigations, the witnesses are the policemen who were on duty and the staff of the CM Residence and the CCTV footage, which has been preserved. There is no dispute that others have been issued notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, they are joining investigations," the Court said.

20. Undesirable For Courts To Make Remarks Censuring Action Of Police Officers Unless Strictly Relevant For The Case: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 317

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant for the case.

Justice Jasmeet Singh expunged the remarks made against the Investigating Officer by a Trial Court in a criminal revision case. The plea was filed by the IO seeking setting aside the direction of the Trial Court for initiating inquiry against him.

The Investigating Officer had conducted investigation in a murder case and the Additional Sessions Judge of city's Karkardooma Court in his order dated 25.10.2021 had set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

21. Employees Of Unaided Private School Entitled To Benefits Given To Employees Of Government Run Schools: Delhi High Court

Title: MRS OMITA MAGO & ORS. v. AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 318

The Delhi High Court has observed that the employees of an unaided private school are entitled to the benefits as being given to the employees of the government run schools.

Justice V Kameswar Rao thus granted relief to the petitioners who were working as Teachers including pre-primary, Librarian, TGT and PGT in city's Ahlcon Public School.

The Court allowed the plea which had sought directions on the school to pay to petitioners the amounts wrongfully deducted from their salaries from the month of June 2020 and onwards till date. The plea also sought directions on the school to fix their pay terms of the 7th central pay commission along with allowances and other benefits including arrears of salaries.

22. "Banks Are Also Commercial Ventures": Delhi High Court Refuses To Increase Insurance Coverage For Depositors

Case Title: PARDEEP KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 319

The Delhi High Court has refused to issue directions to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) to increase the insurance coverage for depositors in insured banks. The current maximum limit of insurance against deposits in insured banks is Rs. 5 lakh.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that the Banks are also "in business" and it would be "impractical" for the Court to pass such a direction.

23. Delhi High Court Calls For Sensitization Of Newly Recruited Judges Regarding Proclamation/ Attachment Proceedings Under S.82/ 83 CrPC

Case Title: SH VIVEK CHAUHAN v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL CRIMINAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 320

The Delhi High Court has said that it shall be appropriate that newly recruited officers of the Delhi Judicial Service may be sensitized by holding of appropriate sessions at Delhi Judicial Academy with reference to proceedings under sec. 82/83 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 82 contemplates procedure for issuing proclamation against a person absconding. Section 83 talks about attachment of property of person absconding.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate of Dwarka Courts, which had dismissed the exemption application filed on behalf of the petitioner and directing issue of process under sec. 82 Cr.P.C. against him.

24. Investigation Into Reason For Judge's Recusal By Litigant Would Be Interference With Course Of Justice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHERRY GEORGE v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 321

The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the cause or reason for recusal by a judge, particularly, by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice.

Justice Asha Menon added that the discretion of the concerned judge in the matter of disclosure is absolute.

"When a judge recuses, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire. The recusal has to be respected, whether a reason has been spelt-out in detail or not. Had a judge refrained from giving a reason for recusal, no one can insist on the judge making such disclosures," the Court said.

25. Custodial Interrogation An Effective Method Of Crime Solving But Personal Liberty Has To Be Balanced: Delhi HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In Cheating Case

Case Title: MUKESH KHURANA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 322

The Delhi High Court has observed that while custodial interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.

Justice Asha Menon was dealing with a plea seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under sec. 420, 406 and 34 of IPC.

The FIR was lodged by an authorized representative of M/s Vaishali Infratech (Pvt.) Ltd., on the allegations of cheating and misappropriation. The applicant was a builder and had a project, namely, Rudra Palace Heights, in which, the complainant Company booked 11 flats. Large sums of money had also been paid for the flats amounting to Rs.1,33,87,500 towards 75% of the consideration.

26. Sufficiency Of Stamp Duty On Agreement And Nature Of Contract Cannot Be Adjudicated By Court Under Section 11 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Parsvnath Developers Ltd versus Future Retail Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 323

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Court cannot adjudicate on the issue whether the claims made by the petitioner are barred by limitation while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for referring the parties to arbitration.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the dispute as to whether the contract containing the arbitration clause is sufficiently stamped or not, and the nature of the contract, are contentious issues which cannot be decided by the Court in a petition filed under Section 11.

27. Wife's Right To Maintenance Forfeited U/S 125(4) CrPC Only When Acts Of Adultery Are Committed Repeatedly: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SH PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. SMT DEEPIKA SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 324

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only continuous and repeated acts of adultery or cohabitation in adultery would attract the rigours of the provision under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sec. 125(4) of the CrPC states that no Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also observed that law on maintenance is a welfare law that exists to ensure that the wife, children and parents of an able and capable man are not left to become destitute in cases when they themselves are not capable of maintaining themselves.

28. "Nothing Sudden About Implementation Of Policy": Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Minimum 6 Yrs Age Criteria For Class 1 Admission In KVS

Case Title: AARIN THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER SH PAWAN KUMAR v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 325

Noting that there was nothing sudden about the implementation of the policy, the Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with minimum age criteria of 6 years for admission in class 1 in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the academic year 2022-23.

A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which had dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the minimum age criteria.

The appeal was moved by a minor girl, born on June 3, 2016, who was 5 years 9 months and 28 days old as on March 31, 2022. It was thus the case of the appellant that the KVS had all of a sudden made change in the minimum age criteria for admission in class I from 5 years to 6 years by uploading the impugned guidelines, just 4 days before admission process started.

Due to the increase of age from five to six years, the appellant who was not six years as on 31.03.2022, could not secure admission in a KVS School.

29. Filing Of Revocation Petition Can Be Done At Any Time When Such Person's Interest Either Arises Or Continues During Term Of Patent: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 326

The Delhi High Court has observed that filing of a revocation petition could be done at any point in time when such a person's interest either arises or continues during the life or term of the Patent.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea raising a question as to whether revocation petitions are subject to any limitation period under the Limitation Act?

The Court held that since there is no limitation which is prescribed either in the Patents Act or under the Patents Rules, a limitation period cannot be read it into the provision.

30. Suit Cannot Be Rejected Partially Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC: Delhi High Court

Title: DR RAMESH CHANDER MUNJAL & ORS. v. DR SURAJ MUNJAL & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 327

The Delhi High Court has observed that there cannot be a partial rejection of a suit under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with two applications filed under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in a trademark infringement suit.

The suit was filed seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from passing off and violating the registered trademark and trade names of the defendant no. 4 Company, which owned and ran a famous eye hospital by the brand and trade name of 'Spectra Eye'.

31. Show Cause Notice Completely Deficient In Material Particulars: Delhi High Court Quashes GST Registration Cancellation Order

Case Title: Fada Trading Private Limited Versus Commissioner Goods and Service Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam Bamba has quashed the order cancelling the GST registration as the Show Cause Notice was completely deficient in material particulars.

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Delhi GST) on the grounds that the show cause notice gave no details as to the date and time on which the petitioner's authorised representative was to present himself for a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority.

The petitioner submitted that neither the show cause notice nor the subsequent order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was received by the petitioner.

32. Petition Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act Is Not Maintainable Against The Order By Arbitral Tribunal On Arbitration Fees: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Cement Corporation of India versus Promac Engineering Industries Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 329

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures of protection, is not maintainable before the Court against the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, held that the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the arbitration fees does not fall within the ambit of Section 9 of the A&C Act, and rejected the contention that the petition was maintainable under the residuary clause of Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the A&C Act.

33. 'Reason To Believe' Sufficient To Issue Notice U/S 148 Income Tax Act, Sufficiency/ Correctness Of Material Not Considered At This Stage: Delhi HC

Case Title: SAIF II MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2) DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 330

The Delhi High Court has observed that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a bunch of pleas challenging the notices dated 30th March, 2021 issued under sec. 148 and the orders disposing of the objections dated 11th February, 2022 for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18.

The notices dated 30th March, 2021 were issued to the petitioner under sec. 148 on the ground that the assessee's transactions for the Financial Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 were flagged in the Non-Filers Monitoring System (NMS). As per Form 15CA, the assessee had made a remittance to its head office without deducting TDS thereof and claimed the same to be tax free as per DTAA between India and USA.

34. Failure To Issue Notice For Additional Payment Does Not Preclude The Contractor From Later Claiming It In Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Continental Engineering Corporation (CEC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 331

The High Court of Delhi has observed that the failure of the contractor to issue notice under the contract does not deprive him of his right to claim additional payment before the arbitral tribunal.

The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru also observed that such a stipulation in the contract is not a mandatory provision but only directory in nature and must be examined with reference to the other clauses and the contemporary records.

The Court further held that ground of patent illegality as provided under S. 34(2-A) would not be available when the Respondent is a company incorporated outside India as the arbitration would be an International Commercial Arbitration.

35, Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused Of Fraudulently Claiming ITC

Case Title: Pulkit Versus State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 332

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has granted bail to the person accused of fraudulently claiming an input tax credit (ITC) under the CGST Act who has already undergone 9 months in custody.

The applicant, Pulkit, has sought bail in respect of the offence of setting up a number of fictitious companies, which were being used for the purposes of defrauding the government. The accused have allegedly opened bank accounts in fictitious names and provided their telephone numbers and email addresses.

The FIR alleged cheating and fraud by Saraswati Enterprises, of which Sanjay Garg is the proprietor, causing a loss to the government for the sum of Rs. 9.97 crores. The applicant was an employee of Saraswati Enterprises.