Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 8 To August 14, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 781

SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765

DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 766

GHULAM SARWAR v. SMT. NILOFAR KHAN & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 767

Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 768

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 769

Sanser Pal Singh v. UOI & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 770

SULEMAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 771

MAN SINGH v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 772

URMILA & ORS. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 773

EXTREME COATING PRIVATE LTD v. JOTUN INDIA PRIVATE LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 774

Rohit Madan v Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 775

PCIT Versus Punjab & Sind Bank 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 776

VIFOR INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 777

Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. versus Ircon International Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 778

TRIDENT INFOSOL PVT LTD v UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 779

NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION v. ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 780

RAKESH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 781

1. Sex Worker Entitled To All Rights Available To Citizens But Cannot Claim Special Treatment If She Violates Law: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765

The Delhi High Court has observed that although a sex worker is entitled to all the rights which are available to a citizen, she cannot claim special treatment if she violates the law.

Justice Asha Menon observed:

"No doubt, a sex worker is entitled to all rights available to a citizen, but at the same time, if she violates the law, she would be subjected to the same consequences under law and cannot claim any special treatment."

The Court made the observation while denying interim bail to a woman, a sex worker, who had allegedly forced a minor girl into prostitution and did not allow her to leave the brothel house. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in a brothel house from where 13 minor girls were rescued.

2. Unqualified Person Appointed On Ad-Hoc Basis Cannot Claim Right To Continue In Employment As A Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 766

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person appointed as a daily wager or on ad-hoc basis, who did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification, cannot as a matter of right claim to continue in such employment.

The single judge bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,

"Upon having perused the records of the case and having analysed the facts of the case at hand, it emerged that the petitioner did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification. Despite the opportunities granted, he failed to undergo the requisite professional or skill-based training and failed to furnish the certificate for the same. As such, an employee on daily wages or appointed on an ad-hoc basis, as a matter of right, cannot claim to be employed for a position to which one is ineligible."

3. High Court Must Respect Exercise Of Discretionary Powers By District Judiciary, Cannot Play Role Of 'Headmaster': Delhi HC

Case Title: GHULAM SARWAR v. SMT. NILOFAR KHAN & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 767

"The High Court is required, at all times, to respect the exercise of discretionary powers by the district judiciary and not to act in a manner as could convey an impression that the court is playing the role of headmaster," the Delhi High Court has observed.

Justice C Hari Shankar further added that if the High Court starts interfering with the orders passed by district judiciary in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is "bound to shake the confidence of the district judiciary" and "seriously impede the dispassionate exercise of discretion vested in them."

"In my considered opinion, it is only as a matter of chance hierarchal circumstance that this Court is "above" the district judiciary. Else, the district judiciary, and the learned Courts of which it is comprised, exercise jurisdiction which, subjectively, is co-equal to the jurisdiction exercised by this Court," the Court said.

4. Income Tax Dept. Can't Withhold Refunds In Mechanical And Routine Manner: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 768

The Delhi High Court has held that an order under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed in a mechanical and routine manner. The refunds cannot be withheld just because the notice under Section 143(2) has been issued and the department wants to verify the claim for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the order under Section 241A was generic and no attempt was made by the department to substantiate how the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue.

5. Amendment To Section 36(1)(va) Of Income Tax Act Is Prospective In Nature: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 769

The Delhi High Court has allowed the assessee- TV Today Network Ltd.'s claims for deduction of expenses in nature of 'consumption incentive' offered to the advertisers for booking more advertisement space.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, reiterated that the 'due date', in case of delay by the assessee in depositing the employees' contribution to Provident Fund under Section 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be reckoned as the date for filing the return under Section 139 (1) and not the due date as prescribed under the relevant Labour statute. The Court added that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va), vide the Finance Act, 2021, is 'for removal of doubts' and hence, it cannot be presumed to be retrospective since it alters the law as it earlier stood.

6. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Ensure Strict Compliance Of Orders Banning Sale Of 'Chinese Manjha' For Kite Flying

Case Title: Sanser Pal Singh v. UOI & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 770

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of the orders passed by it as well as the National Green Tribunal (NGT) banning sale of Chinese synthetic manjha used in flying kites.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Advocate Sanser Pal Singh seeking a complete ban on flying of kites as well as manufacturing, sale and storage of objects used in the same.

While the Court was of the view that a complete ban on flying of kites cannot be granted as kite flying is a "part of our culture and heritage", it said that the use of Chinese Maanjha or synthetic thread was "certainly causing grave concern."

7. Object Of Default Bail Inherently Linked With Article 21, Safeguards Accused's Life & Personal Liberty Against Arbitrary Detention: Delhi High Court

Title: SULEMAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 771

The Delhi High Court has observed that the object of default bail is inherently linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, laying emphasis on safeguarding the life and personal liberty of the accused against arbitrary detention.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed by an accused in relation to a case registered under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, challenging the order of Trial Court wherein his plea for Default Bail was dismissed.

The Petitioner was in custody in the FIR registered under sec. 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed on March 3, 2021 without the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.

8. Delhi HC Directs Engineer Supervising Construction Work To Contribute Educational Expenses Of Child Injured In On-Site Accident, Allows Compromise

Case Title: MAN SINGH v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 772

The Delhi High Court recently directed a site engineer, supervising an ongoing construction work, to contribute towards educational expenses of a child who was injured after a board present at the site fell on him.

The direction will remain in effect till the child clears 10th standard. The minor child is presently in 3rd standard.

The FIR was registered under sec. 283 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code by father of the minor child alleging negligence on the part of the Petitioner-engineer, who was employed with a private construction company.

The engineer therefore approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that the dispute was amicably settled between the parties.

9. Jhuggi Clusters Not Notified By DUSIB Can't Seek Benefit Of 2015 Rehabilitation & Relocation Policy: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: URMILA & ORS. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 773

The Delhi High Court has held that notification by DUSIB (Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board) is an essential pre-requisite to be qualified/ recognized as a "jhuggi jhopri basti" for the purpose of its Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy of 2015.

A single bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed,

" A perusal of the 2015 Policy also makes it clear that only jhuggi jhopri bastis that have come up before 01.01.2006 are eligible for rehabilitation/re-location in terms of the said Policy. More importantly, by definition in the statute itself, notification by DUSIB is an essential pre-requisite to be qualified/ recognized as a jhuggi jhopri basti for the purpose of the Act and the 2015 Policy. "

In absence of such a notification, the Court vacated its interim order restraining the Delhi Development Authority from bulldozing jhuggi clusters in city's Gyaspur area in Hazrat Nizamuddin.

10. Procedural Formalities In CPC Intended To Facilitate Litigation, Not To Be Abused As Instrument Of Oppression To Frustrate Proceedings: Delhi HC

Case Title: EXTREME COATING PRIVATE LTD v. JOTUN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 774

The Delhi High Court has observed that the procedural formalities in the Code of Civil Procedure are "intended to facilitate litigation" by prescribing the course to be adopted and not to be "abused as an instrument of oppression" to frustrate validly instituted proceedings.

Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging the orders dated 16th August 2021 and 2nd February 2022, passed by the District Judge (Commercial Courts) in a civil suit which was preferred by the respondent against the petitioner.

The suit was filed as a commercial suit under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The petitioner, as the defendant in the suit, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the suit on the ground that it had been filed in violation of sec. 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which required the plaintiff to resort to pre-institution mediation before approaching the Court.

11. Climate Change | Sincere Efforts Made By Centre For Providing Better Environment: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rohit Madan v Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 775

This Delhi High Court has appreciated the efforts made by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change as well as other Ministries for ensuring implementation of the steps in respect of climate change and for "providing a better environment for the generations to come."

The development comes in a PIL filed by one Rohit Madan, seeking constitution of an Expert Committee to propose suggestions for taking all measures, including any legislative amendment, for following up on the promises made by the Union of India before UNFCCC.

"This Court really appreciates the sincere efforts made on the part of the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, Government of India as well as other Ministries for ensuring implementation of the steps in respect of climate change and for providing a better environment for the generations to come ," the Court said.

12. Sum Directed To Be Refunded To Assessee Is A debt In The Hands Of Dept.: Delhi High Court Allows Interest On Refund U/S 244A

Case Title: PCIT Versus Punjab & Sind Bank

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 776

The Delhi High Court held that the Punjab & Sind Bank is entitled to a refund of money deposited by it upon re-computation by the department and interest is liable to be paid under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that a sum has been found refundable to the assessee as a consequence of a reduction in the taxable income. The sum directed to be refunded to the assessee is a debt in the hands of the department, and for the department to term "payment of this debt" as "interest" is fallacious. In fact, it is on the payment of this debt that the assessee is demanding that the department be liable to pay interest for the period that the department retained the money.

13. Jurisdiction Of Competition Commission Not Excluded Merely Because Actionable Info Relates To A Patent: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: VIFOR INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 777

The Delhi High Court has held that the jurisdiction of Competition Commission of India is not ousted merely because the information on which it seeks to initiate an enquiry relates to a patent.

A single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that so long as the CCI is duly and statutorily empowered to deal with all information which it may receive with respect to actions that may (i) impede competition, (ii) usher in an anti-competitive environment, (iii) relate to abuse of dominant position or (iv) the adoption of unfair trade practices.

14. Supersession Of The Arbitration Clause Must Not Be Inferred Lightly: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. versus Ircon International Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 778

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of the principle of 'when in doubt, do refer', as enunciated by the Supreme Court, if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, which is sought to be negated by a party by citing other provisions of a contract, which requires interpretation of the contract, the Court must lean towards referring the matter to arbitration.

The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that an arbitration agreement embedded in a contract is always considered a separate and severable clause, and that the supersession of the arbitration clause must not be inferred lightly.

The petitioner Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. entered into an agreement with the respondent Ircon International Limited. After certain disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the General Conditions of Contract and filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

15. 'Projects Of National Importance': Delhi HC Upholds DRDO Decision To Bar Entities With Pending Criminal Cases From Defence Contracts

Case Title : TRIDENT INFOSOL PVT LTD v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 779

Upholding Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)'s policy decision to keep away entities with pending criminal investigations from participating in its tender processes, the Delhi High Court has said that the condition, requiring the bidders to submit an undertaking that there is no ongoing enquiry against them, is imperative to maintain the integrity of projects which deal with matters of national importance, security and that are of immense public importance.

The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad in the ruling dated August 1 said that the tenders are for procurement of instruments which are necessary for the security of the country and even generally the scope of judicial review under the tender jurisdiction is limited.

16. Judges Cannot Be Experts In All Fields, Experts' Opinion Cannot Be Supplanted By A Court Overstepping Its Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Title: NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION v. ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 780

"Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction," the Delhi High Court has observed.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad added that in examination matters, a candidate has to demonstrate that the key answers are "patently wrong on the face of it", adding that if there is any exercise conducted by the Court wherein the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides need to be taken into consideration, then that will "inevitably amount to unwarranted interference on the part of the Court."

17. Person Exercising Legal Right In Court Has Correspondent Duty Not To Act In Manner Which May Lead To Violation Of Others' Rights: Delhi High Court

Title: RAKESH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 781

The Delhi High Court has observed that a person exercising a legal right in the court of law has a corresponding obligation and duty from acting in a manner which may lead to violation of the rights of other individuals.

"Vindicating of any personal grievance by violent means has to be rejected at the threshold," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added.

The Court was dealing with a man seeking bail in an FIR registered under 186, 353, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

It was the prosecution's case that in July last year, a PCR call was made regarding damage inside Karkardooma Court. The complainant, Reader of the Court, gave a statement that he inquired about the status of his case which was pending in the Court. As the reader informed petitioner about the date fixed, the petitioner became furious and started vandalizing the furniture present in the court room.