- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 27 To March 5, 2023
Nupur Thapliyal
5 March 2023 5:00 PM IST
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 183 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 203NOMINAL INDEXShapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 183HARSH AJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 184New Delhi Municipal Council versus Decor India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 185Tejpal Singh versus Surinder Kumar Dewan 2023 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 183 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 203
NOMINAL INDEX
Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 183
HARSH AJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 184
New Delhi Municipal Council versus Decor India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 185
Tejpal Singh versus Surinder Kumar Dewan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 186
M/S GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 187
OYO Hotels And Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 188
CHHOTE LAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 189
Bernd Alexander Bruno Wehnelt vs. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 190
CHANDRIL DABAS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 191
SANJAY KUMAR SAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 192
GORE LAL SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 193
MR SUBRATA MONINDRANATH MAITY v. INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 194
FIITJEE Ltd vs. Ashish Khare & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 195
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Narinder Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 196
ARTH LAKRA (MINOR) v. INDRAPRASTHA WORLD SCHOOL AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 197
CHATUR SAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 198
MOTI LAL BASAK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 199
MEHBOOBA MUFTI v. JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 200
KOLISETTY SHIVA KUMAR v. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 201
SAMAR DEVAL v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Sanjay Sudan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 203
Case Title: Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 183
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that when a person has itself become ineligible by operation of law to act as an arbitrator, it cannot nominate another person to act as arbitrator.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with an arbitration clause which exclusively empowered the Chief Project Manager to appoint the arbitrator from a panel which was itself maintained by it.
Title: HARSH AJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 184
Upholding the Union Government's Agnipath scheme for the armed forces, the Delhi High Court on Monday said it can conclusively state that the scheme was made in national interest to ensure that armed forces are better equipped.
Referring to the skirmishes on the borders, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that such transgressions exacerbate the need to have a leaner and fitter Armed Force which is capable of handling the mental and physical distress that accompanies service in the Armed Forces.
Case Title: New Delhi Municipal Council versus Decor India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 185
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that though it is permissible to introduce an amendment in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), however, new grounds of challenge containing new material/ facts cannot be introduced when the said grounds were neither raised in the original petition under Section 34 nor before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: Tejpal Singh versus Surinder Kumar Dewan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 186
The Delhi High Court has ruled that since the party had failed to challenge the termination of the Collaboration Agreement in the first round of arbitral proceedings, the demolition of the structure built by it under the said Collaboration Agreement would not give it a fresh cause of action.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla remarked that the cause of action for challenging the termination of the Collaboration Agreement and/or for claiming any relief under the said Collaboration Agreement, was available to the petitioner at the stage of the earlier arbitral proceedings
Title: M/S GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 187
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to take expeditious steps for appointing Chairperson and other members of the Appellate Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) within eight weeks.
Taking judicial notice of the fact that there are a “large volume of cases” pending under PMLA, Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there is a “dire need” for constitution of multiple benches.
Income Tax Demand On OYO For 1,140 Cr: Delhi High Court Directs CIT To Give Personal Hearing
Case Title: OYO Hotels And Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 188
The Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) to accord a personal hearing to OYO for the stay on the income tax demand of Rs. 1,140 crores.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the CIT has not dealt with its application, which was preferred before him, in respect of the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Expeditiously Appoint ASHA Workers For Chilla Khadar Locality: High Court Directs Delhi Govt
Title: CHHOTE LAL v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 189
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union of India and Delhi Government to expeditiously conclude the process of appointment of ASHA workers in Chilla Khadar locality on the Yamuna bank. Around 4250 people live there in hutments.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the appointment process be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks.
Delhi High Court Allows Extradition of German National For Trial In Child Sexual Abuse Case
Case Title: Bernd Alexander Bruno Wehnelt vs. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 190
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by a Delhi Court recommending the extradition of a German national, who is accused of sexually abusing children.
Justice Anish Dayal held that the order passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), recommending extradition of the accused, Bernd Alexander Bruno Wehnelt, to Germany for trial for the offences under the German Criminal Code, does not suffer from any infirmity.
Title: CHANDRIL DABAS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 191
The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that it is working expeditiously to conclude the tender process for installing CCTV cameras in police stations in the national capital as per directions of the Supreme Court in Paramveer Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.
The Apex Court in Paramveer Singh Saini had directed that CCTV cameras must be installed with a storage period of 18 months.
Title: SANJAY KUMAR SAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 192
The Delhi High Court has said that judges must exercise more control and caution while passing strictures against investigating authorities and police officers on their professional capabilities since it may impair a person’s confidence and have a negative impact on work and reputation.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a thin wall that exists between adjudicatory liberty to point out the flaws in an investigation or on authorities and the obligation to exhibit judicial restraint must be kept in mind.
Delhi High Court Directs MCD To Ensure Patients Living In Leprosy Colonies Are Not Evicted
Title: GORE LAL SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 193
The Delhi High Court has directed Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to ensure that the patients residing in leprosy colonies are not evicted and there are no encroachments on the land.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that leprosy affected persons should be considered for appointment under persons with disability quota and people must be made aware and sensitised to ensure that leprosy patients are not discriminated against.
Delhi High Court Directs NCLT To Upload Orders In Expeditious Manner
Title: MR SUBRATA MONINDRANATH MAITY v. INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to upload its orders in an expeditious manner without delay.
Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the direction considering the nature of orders passed by the tribunal, especially those by which moratorium is declared and IRPs are appointed.
Case Title: FIITJEE Ltd vs. Ashish Khare & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 195
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere reference to a wrong provision or term of the agreement cannot invalidate the notice invoking arbitration, if otherwise such power or provision exists in the document executed between the parties.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which was resisted on the ground that the claimant had wrongly invoked the arbitration clause contained in an agreement which was not binding on the parties.
Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Narinder Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 196
The Delhi High Court has ruled that, as a necessary corollary of the provisions of Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), what cannot be considered by the adjudicating Court under a Section 34 petition can certainly not be adjudicated upon by the appellate Court under Section 37.
The Court added that it has almost “Nil” scope of interference while dealing with a challenge against an order disposing of a Section 34 petition, unless there is something perverse, contrary to law and/or which actually shocks the conscience of the Court.
Title: ARTH LAKRA (MINOR) v. INDRAPRASTHA WORLD SCHOOL AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 197
The Delhi High Court has said that denial of admission by a school under EWS/DG category despite allotment by Directorate of Education (DoE) “frustrates the noble objective” of Right to Education Act, 2009 and violates fundamental rights of such children under Article 21A of Constitution of India.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while allowing the plea of a minor child seeking directions for admission in Indraprastha World School under the EWS/DG category. The school had denied the admission, saying that the child’s residence is not within the distance of one kilometre radius from the school.
Title: CHATUR SAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 198
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to prepare a standard operating procedure (SOP) for all SDMs on the manner in which judicial orders of eviction and recovery are to be given effect to.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that it has been “repeatedly noticed” that various orders for enforcement of possession and recovery which are to be given effect to by the concerned SDM are “not dealt with expeditiously and with alacrity.”
Title: MOTI LAL BASAK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to two men charged under UAPA in a fake currency notes case, considering that the main conspirators have not been arrested or charged under UAPA and that there has been unexplained delays in filing supplementary chargesheets.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A Bamba also took note of the fact that the accused have been in custody for over six years and that despite directions of the court to conclude trial within one year from May 5 last year, “only a few further witnesses have been examined” in the last eight months.
Title: MEHBOOBA MUFTI v. JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 200
The Union Government told the Delhi High Court that the Passport Authority in Srinagar has been directed to take a fresh decision on former J&K Chief Minister and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) President Mehbooba Mufti's request for issuance of passport.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the passport officer to take the decision expeditiously, within three months.
The direction was passed considering the fact that the matter has been remanded back to the regional passport officer and there has been a delay of almost two years since the rejection of her application.
Title: KOLISETTY SHIVA KUMAR v. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition against the withdrawal of a notification issued by Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) for celebration of February 14 as “Cow Hug Day”.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the celebration of any event by AWBI is within the domain of policy of the board and the government which cannot be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Title: SAMAR DEVAL v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court has observed that a child is entitled to get admission in the school allotted by Directorate of Education (DoE) on the reserved seats under RTE Act after it is established that he or she belongs to the economically weaker section (EWS) or disadvantaged group (DG) category.
Justice Mini Pushkarna said that denying admission to any child under DG or EWS category after allotment of school by DOE pursuant to due procedure followed by it, would be in violation of The Right of Children To Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which provides for free and compulsory education to every child between 6 to 14 years.
Case Title: Sanjay Sudan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the revenue department cannot adjust the withheld tax (TDS) which has not been deposited by the deductor (employer) in the Central Government Account, against the refund due and payable to the deductee/assessee.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that adjustment of demand against future refund amounts to an indirect recovery of tax, which is barred under Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
