Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 6 To February 12, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del)  144

NOMINAL INDEX

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER vs CAPITAL GENERAL STORE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 122

HP Cotton Textile Mills Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 123

Ambrosia Corner House Pvt Ltd versus Hangro S Foods 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 124

Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 125

P v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 126

SR. SEPHY v. CBI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 127

AX v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 128

RR Patil Foundation & Anr. v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 129

SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 130

CHITRA RAMKRISHNA v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 131

Shahrukh Pathan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 132

Kidde India Ltd versus National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 133

NATASHA NARWAL & ANR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 134

Raman Bhuraria versus Directorate Of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 135

SONALI KARWASRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 136

TARU PURI v. ANMOL SHEIKH ALIAS MALAIKA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 137

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 138

AKASH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 139

PO v. VP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 140

Intercontinental Great Brands versus Parle Product Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 141

Hinu Mahajan v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 142

M/s Oasis Projects Ltd versus Managing Director, National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 143

K. P. RAO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 144

‘We Are Not Lawmakers, Can’t Issue Such Directions’: Delhi High Court On PIL To Conduct Lok Sabha, Legislative Assembly Polls Together In 2024

Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121

The Delhi High Court refused to pass directions on a public interest litigation praying that Centre and Election Commission of India be directed to ascertain the feasibility of conducting elections to Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly together in 2024.

“ We cannot do it. We are not lawmakers. We know our limitations. We ensure compliance of law. We can’t issue such mandamus,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

As Upadhyay said that the plea be treated as representation, the bench disposed of the same by directing ECI to consider the PIL as representation and decide it in accordance with law.

Pay ₹5 Lakhs To Louis Vuitton Or Face Civil Prison: Delhi High Court To Trader Who Continued To Sell Counterfeit Products

Case Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER vs CAPITAL GENERAL STORE & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 122

The Delhi High Court has directed a Sadar Bazar trader to pay rupees five lakhs to Louis Vuitton within four weeks or face civil prison for a week, after he was held guilty of contempt for violating a restraining order by continuing to sell counterfeit products of famous French luxury brand.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that a counterfeiter abandons any right to equitable consideration by a court functioning within the confines of the rule of law, adding that he is “entitled to no sympathy” as he “practices, knowingly and with complete impunity, falsehood and deception.”

Order Passed Under S. 36 Of Arbitration Act Not Appealable Under S. 13 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HP Cotton Textile Mills Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 123

The Delhi High Court has ruled that appeal against the order of the High Court, passed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, since it is not one of the orders enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), from which an appeal would lie.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that in view of the proviso to Section 13(1A), an appeal shall lie only from such orders that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC. The Court ruled that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kandla Export Corporation & Ors. v. OCI Corporation & Ors. (2018), the scope of appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act is controlled by its proviso.

Sec 34 Petition Is Not Non-Est, Even If Award Is Not Filed In A Separate Folder: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ambrosia Corner House Pvt Ltd versus Hangro S Foods

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 124

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the error committed by the petitioner/award debtor in not filing the documents, including the copy of the Arbitral Award challenged by it, in a separate e-folder, as prescribed in the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, would not render the petition filed by it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as non-est.

The bench of Justice Navin Chawla remarked that a more liberal approach must be adopted by the Court while considering whether the filing should be treated as ‘non-est.’

Department Can’t Go Behind TRC Issued By The Other Tax Jurisdictions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 125

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment and held that the department cannot go behind the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by the other tax jurisdiction.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the reason given for reopening the assessment, namely, to verify the nature and genuineness of the transactions of the assessee in the assessment year, was untenable in law as the return of income had been filed by the assessee within time with full particulars. The notice has been issued on borrowed satisfaction, which is impermissible in law.

[POSH Act] Institutions Can’t Escape Liability For Dragging On Sensitive Sexual Harassment Complaints: Delhi HC Imposes 1 Lakh Cost

Case Title: P v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 126

The Delhi High Court has observed that institutions cannot escape the liability for dragging on sensitive sexual harassment complaints under Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act and that management and authorities must behave in a responsible manner.

Observing that constitution of the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) is of utmost importance in such cases, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:

“ Adjudication of complaints relating to sexual harassment need to be dealt with utmost care. The inquiry needs to be by a duly constituted ICC and the same needs to be complete in all aspects. Institutions cannot escape liability for dragging on these sensitive complaints.”

Virginity Test Is Sexist, Can’t Be Performed On Female Accused In The Name Of Finding Truth: Delhi High Court

Title: SR. SEPHY v. CBI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 127

Calling it a form of “inhuman treatment”, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that conducting virginity test on a female detainee or accused under investigation is unconstitutional and in violation of her right to dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that virginity test is “sexist” and violates human right to dignity of a female accused if she is subjected to such a test while being in custody.

Take Down URLs Or Posts Containing Sexually Explicit Video Of Judicial Officer: Delhi High Court To Social Media Platforms

Title: AX v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 128

The Delhi High Court asked the social media platforms, including WhatsApp and Google, to take down URLs or posts relating to a video, showing a judicial officer in a compromising position, if not already removed in terms of the interim restraining order passed earlier.

Justice Yashwant Varma disposed of a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the social media platforms from publishing or sharing the video in question. It is not known who filed the suit as the court has allowed a prayer to mask the identity of the plaintiff.

Consider NGO’s Request For Co-organising Chhatrapati Shivaji’s Birth Anniversary Event With Maharashtra Govt At Agra Fort: Delhi High Court To ASI

Title: RR Patil Foundation & Anr. v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 129

The Delhi High Court directed Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to expeditiously consider the plea of an NGO in case it wishes to co-organize a cultural programme at Agra Fort on February 19 on the occasion of birth anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, with Maharashtra government.

Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a plea moved by Maharashtra based registered trust R.R. Patil Foundation along with Ajinkya Devgiri Pratishthan, challenging a communication of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) dated December 23, 2022, denying permission to organize the event.

Will Provide Free Treatment To EWS Patients In OPD, IPD From March 1: Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital To Delhi High Court

Title: SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 130

The Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital told Delhi High Court that it will provide free medical treatment to patients belonging to economically weaker section (EWS) to the extent of 10% in inpatient department (IPD) and 25% in out patient department (OPD) with effect from March 01.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation moved by an NGO namely Social Jurist, against lack of free treatment facilities for poor patients in the hospital.

NSE Phone Tapping Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Chitra Ramkrishna In Money Laundering Case

Title: CHITRA RAMKRISHNA v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 131

The Delhi High Court granted bail to former NSE (National Stock Exchange) CEO Chitra Ramkrishna in a money laundering case related to the alleged illegal phone tapping of employees by National Stock Exchange (NSE).

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Ramakrishna is not guilty of the offence and that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

The court said that prima facie, no scheduled offences against her were established and thus, the provisions of PMLA cannot be attracted to the present case.

Shahrukh Pathan Alleges Assault By Jail Officials, Delhi High Court Asks Him To Approach Trial Court For Early Hearing

Title: Shahrukh Pathan v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 132

The Delhi High Court asked Shahrukh Pathan, accused in 2020 Northeast Delhi riots cases, to move an application before trial court for advancing the hearing of his petition alleging that he was attacked and assaulted by jail officials.

Justice Amit Sharma, who was hearing a similar petition moved by Pathan, said that since a plea has already been moved before trial court, it would be appropriate if an application is moved seeking early hearing before the concerned court.

Delay In Approaching Appointing Authority For Constitution Of Tribunal, Won’t Render Claims Time Barred: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kidde India Ltd versus National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 133

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the limitation period within which a party is required to approach the court for seeking constitution of the arbitral tribunal, cannot be conflated with the limitation period for invoking the arbitration agreement. Thus, any delay by the party in taking further steps for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, will not render the party’s substantive claims as barred by limitation.

Delhi High Court Disposes Of Plea By Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita Seeking E-Mulaqat, Other Facilities For Tihar Jail Inmates

Title: NATASHA NARWAL & ANR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 134

The Delhi High Court disposed of Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita's plea seeking various facilities of prisoners in Tihar jail. Narwal and Kalita are accused in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 North-East riots.

Both Narwal and Kalita moved the plea in 2020 in wake of the restrictions imposed on account of COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting multiple issues faced by undertrials inside the prison. They were granted bail by High Court in June 2021, against which appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To CA In Money Laundering Case Against Shakti Bhog

Case Title: Raman Bhuraria versus Directorate Of Enforcement

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 135

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to the Auditor of M/s Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd in the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the company. The ED had opposed the bail application, alleging that the company’s Internal Auditor Raman Bhuraria was the mastermind of the whole operation.

Observing that no satisfactory explanation has been given by the ED for the lack of documents that could directly point to Bhuraria as the “mastermind”, Justice Jasmeet Singh said that the only substantial evidence against him are the statements made by the employees of Shakti Bhog under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which too have been retracted.

Ensure Strict Compliance Of SOP On Accepting Electronic Copies Of Driving Licences, Other Documents: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: SONALI KARWASRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 136

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and subsequent amendments made in the enactment.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also called for strict compliance of a standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on December 17, 2018, in respect of validation of driving license, registration certificates and other transport related documents in electronic form.

In Camera Proceedings Can Be Allowed Under Section 151 CPC In Appropriate Cases: Delhi High Court

Title: TARU PURI v. ANMOL SHEIKH ALIAS MALAIKA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 137

The Delhi High Court has observed that in-camera proceedings can be allowed to be held in appropriate cases under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that merely because there is no express provision in CPC regarding in-camera proceedings does not mean that such proceedings cannot be allowed by court.

Delhi High Court Directs Trial Courts To Decide Cases Pending Against MPs, MLAs On Priority

Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 138

The Delhi High Court directed trial courts in the national capital to decide pending cases against former and sitting lawmakers (MPs and MLAs) on priority.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing a suo motu case initiated by it in the year 2020 concerning expedited trial of cases against MPs and MLAs.

Consensual Teenage Relationship: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Accused In POCSO Case As 'Victim' Says She Wants To Marry Him

Title: AKASH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 139

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a 21-year-old in a case registered under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after the prosecutrix, who was 17 years old on the date of commission of alleged offence, submitted that she is desirous of marrying him. The couple already have a child, who is now about 18 months old.

The petitioner was in custody for more than one year as on January 16 in the case registered in November 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Statements Made By Lawyers During Judicial Proceedings Conferred With ‘Absolute Privilege’, Can’t Be Put To Trial For Defamation: Delhi High Court

Title: PO v. VP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 140

The Delhi High Court has said that statements made by a lawyer during judicial proceedings are conferred with an “absolute privilege” and no action for defamation, slander or libel can lie against them for advancing the submissions.

Observing that such statements are “complete defence against any allegations of defamation”, Justice Mini Pushkarna said that justice system would be adversely affected “if lawyers were to be in fear of law themselves” for any submission or statement made by them during a hearing.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection To OREO, Restrains Parle From Using 'FAB!O'

Case Title: Intercontinental Great Brands versus Parle Product Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 141

While granting interim protection to 'OREO' in a suit filed by its owner Intercontinental Great Brands, the Delhi High Court has said that the brand names for biscuits and cookies, ending in 'IO' or 'EO' are rare in market and a customer of average intelligence is likely to presume an association between OREO cookies and Parle's 'FAB!O' biscuits.

Justice C Hari Shankar said names ending in 'O' or 'IO' are not common on biscuits and Parle has made concluding 'io' intonation in its 'Fab!O' mark identical to the concluding 'eo' intonation in 'Oreo' mark, by adding 'O' to its earlier 'Fab!' mark.

[Anti-CAA Protests] FIRs Registered To Probe Property Damage, Claim Commissioner Appointed: Delhi HC Closes PIL

Case Title: Hinu Mahajan v. Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 142

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking recovery of damages from persons who allegedly indulged in destruction of public and private properties during the protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that once Claim Commissioner has already been appointed to consider grant of compensation and that FIRs have already been registered by Delhi police, no further orders are required to be passed in the matter.

Agreement To Explore Conciliation Before Arbitration, Only Directory In Nature: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Oasis Projects Ltd versus Managing Director, National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 143

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the agreement between the parties to explore conciliation before resorting to arbitration, is not mandatory in nature.

The Court took note that as per Section 77 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), in cases of urgency, arbitral proceedings can be initiated even when conciliation proceedings are pending for preserving the party’s rights.

State, District Associations Of AKFI Must Comply With ‘Age And Tenure Restrictions’ Under Sports Code, Failure May Entail Disaffiliation: Delhi HC

Title: K. P. RAO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 144

The Delhi High Court has held that State and District Kabaddi Associations must comply with “age and tenure restrictions” imposed by National Sports Code for continue to be members of Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI), failure of which may entail their disaffiliation.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that “age and tenure restrictions” on members of the Governing Body imposed by National Sports Code applies not only to AKFI but also to all its constituents at State and District level.