- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 16 To January 22, 2023
Nupur Thapliyal
23 Jan 2023 10:33 AM IST
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73NOMINAL INDEXBright Simons versus Sproxil Inc & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43 SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44 SUBWAY IP LLC v. INFINITY FOOD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 45 Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 46 M/S JAI SINGH AND CO versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2023...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73
NOMINAL INDEX
Bright Simons versus Sproxil Inc & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43
SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44
SUBWAY IP LLC v. INFINITY FOOD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 45
Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 46
M/S JAI SINGH AND CO versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 47
AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 48
EMTA COAL LIMITED & ORS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 49
JAGJIT PAL SINGH VIRK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 50
Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 51
Anubhav Jain versus Satish Kumar Jain & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 52
ARUSHI MEHRA & ANR. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 53
Ashwani Kumar Sharma & Ors. versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 54
SN versus IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 55
RABINDRA TIWARY v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 56
MCD v. Lokpal of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 57
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 58
Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt Ltd versus Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 59
Union of India & Anr. versus Alcon Builders and Engineer Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 60
PSV v. THE INDIAN SCHOOL & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 61
X v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 62
DUKHTARAN-E-MILLAT v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 63
Amanatullah Khan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 64
Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65
SURJEET KUMAR v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 66
Sneh Aggarwal versus Punjab National Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 67
RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 68
KRBL LIMITED vs VIKRAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 69
SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 70
UNION OF INDIA v. KOLLI UDAY KUMARI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 71
V K KANJLIA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 72
Monika Oli versus M/s CL Educate Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73
Case Title: Bright Simons versus Sproxil Inc & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because the arbitrator had wrongly applied the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP Policy), while adjudication a dispute over domain names under the said Policy, the award cannot be set aside in the absence of perversity.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ruled that the terminology used by the arbitrator in the award, that the party had failed to prove its claim “beyond doubt”, cannot be equated with the legal term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, as is used in the criminal trial. Thus, the Court rejected the argument that the standard of proof imposed by the arbitrator violated the fundamental principles of Indian law.
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea seeking review of a judgment dismissing the public interest litigation that had last year challenged the appointment of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the petition was an appeal “disguised as a review” and it did not fall within the four corners of review.
“Petitioner is not able to show any error apparent on face of record. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed on November 11, 2022. The petition is accordingly dismissed,” the bench said.
Title: SUBWAY IP LLC v. INFINITY FOOD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 45
Dismissing its prayer for interim injunction, the Delhi High Court has observed that Subway cannot claim any exclusivity over the word ‘Sub’, especially when used in the context of eateries serving submarine sandwiches.
Justice C Hari Shankar ruled that the word "Sub" is "publici juris" when used in the context of eateries dealing with submarine sandwiches.
“No exclusivity can, therefore, be claimed, by the petitioner over the first part of its registered SUBWAY mark, i.e, "SUB." The plaintiff cannot claim a monopoly over all two-syllable words of which the first syllable is "SUB", especially when used in the context of eateries which serve sandwiches and similar items," the court said.
Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 46
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Unnao rape case, to allow him attend his daughter’s wedding.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba granted interim bail to Sengar for a period of 15 days - January 27 to February 10.
Title: M/S JAI SINGH AND CO versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 47
Allowing petitions that had challenged National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)'s decision to invite fresh bids for collection of user fee at two toll plazas in Haryana during subsistence of ongoing contracts, the Delhi High Court has ruled that a mere possibility of more money in a public contract cannot be the sole criteria for terminating contracts and more particularly, the contracts which are for a fixed duration.
Observing that increase in traffic was the sole reason for calling the fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) by the NHAI, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the decision was arbitrary, capricious and whimsical on part of the authority.
Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 48
The Delhi High Court directed Yash Raj Films to prepare audio description, close captioning and subtitles in Hindi language for the OTT release of its upcoming movie Pathaan to make it accessible for hearing and visually impaired persons.
The movie is scheduled to be released in theatres on January 25 and will be screened on Amazon Prime later in April.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the producer Yash Raj Films to prepare audio description, close captioning and subtitles of the movie within two weeks and submit it to Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for a decision on re-certification by February 20. The court directed that a decision on recertification of the film be taken by March 10.
Title: EMTA COAL LIMITED & ORS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 49
The Delhi High Court has quashed the ECIR and attachment orders passed by the Enforcement Directorate against EMTA Coal Limited and other individuals, observing that if there is an acquittal or discharge or a closure report has been filed in the predicate offence, the ECIR would not stand and the same would be liable to be quashed.
"In view of the settled legal position in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and the subsequent decisions and orders thereafter, the impugned attachment orders dated 14th February, 2022 and 20th June, 2022 as also the ECIRs are quashed," Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: JAGJIT PAL SINGH VIRK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 50
The Delhi High Court has observed that information relating to Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and senior personnel of Indian Navy would not be liable to be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Prathiba M Singh upheld an order passed by Chief Information Commission (CIC) rejecting an RTI application filed by a commander in the Indian Navy. He had sought the information after denial of promotion to the post of Captain in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
Case Title: Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 51
The Delhi High Court Bench comprising of the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., has held that that avoidance applications filed under IBC survive even after approval of the resolution plan, in cases where Resolution Plans are unable to account for such applications. These applications can be heard even after CIRP stands concluded.
Case Title: Anubhav Jain versus Satish Kumar Jain & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 52
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to seek cancellation of a mark and rectification of the register, conferred by Section 57 and by Clause (ii) of the second part of Section 124(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, are independent rights, which are both available for invocation by an interested party.
“…. while the right under Section 57, for cancellation of a mark and rectification of the register remains available, if an infringement suit has been filed by the opposite party and the defendant pleads invalidity of the plaintiff’s mark as a ground of defence to the suit, the defendant would acquire an independent right under Clause (ii) of Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to move the learned IPAB (now the High Court) for rectification of the register," the court said.
Title: ARUSHI MEHRA & ANR. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 53
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no requirement of “at least one party being a citizen of India” for solemnization and registration of marriage of a couple under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that section 4 of the enactment leaves no doubt that any two persons can seek solemnization of their marriage so long as conditions stipulated in the provision are fulfilled.
“Sub-Sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 4 do not make any reference to citizens. It is only in Sub-Section (e) of Section 4, where the statute requires that in case of marriages solemnized in Jammu and Kashmir, both parties have to be citizens of India,” the court said.
Case Title: Ashwani Kumar Sharma & Ors. versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 54
The Delhi High Court has ruled that BSNL employees, who opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) 2019, can be engaged in any Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE) or Government Department on contractual or consultancy basis.
The division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with a writ petition filed by former employees of BSNL, who had taken VRS from the government telecom company in 2019. Their petition challenged the "clarification/directive" dated 25.06.2021, issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), which interpreted the term “employment/re-employment” in the VRS Scheme to include engagement on contractual/consultancy basis.
Case Title: SN versus IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 55
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the grant of recovery rights to an insurer against the registered owner of the car whose son was involved in a road accident leading to the death of a 42 year old man in 2013.
Justice Rekha Palli said the 42-year-old man lost his life only because the minor's father did not take appropriate steps to ensure that his vehicle is driven only by a person holding a valid driving licence.
Title: RABINDRA TIWARY v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 56
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a candidate's plea seeking appointment as a judicial officer against the unfilled vacancies which were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination - 2022.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the petitioner candidate does not have any indefeasible right to be appointed to the higher judicial service and that he cannot, as a matter of right, claim that the vacancies reserved for SC/ST candidates be de-reserved.
Title: MCD v. Lokpal of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 57
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to not act on the order passed by Lokpal of India directing the central agency to initiate a probe against officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) over a complaint alleging illegal and unauthorized constructions in South Delhi area.
"Considering the nature of matter, in the meantime, the CBI shall not proceed with the investigation under the impugned order ... It is however clarified that if there are any specific complaints which are received by Lokpal against any other officials of the MCD or in general against unauthorised constructions, there would be no interdiction of the Lokpal proceedings, in accordance with law, in such a matter," said the court.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 58
The Delhi Police has informed the High Court that it is carrying out periodic checks throughout the national capital to ensure that no barricade remains unmanned and that it will make all possible endeavours to keep all the barricades manned.
Taking noting of the submission, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a suo moto public interest litigation registered by the court last year in respect of the unmanned barricades
Case Title: Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt Ltd versus Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 59
The Delhi High Court has ruled that no appeal is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the order of refusal of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint.
While holding that an appeal can be filed only against the orders passed by a Court which are specifically provided under Order XLIII Rule 1, the bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that Order VII Rule 11 of CPC does not find any mention in Order XLIII Rule 1.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. versus Alcon Builders and Engineer Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 60
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mandate contained in Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), as per which an arbitral award shall state the reasons on which it is based, must pervade every aspect of the award, including the award of costs.
“Awarding costs by a stroke of the pen, without stating reasons therefor, would fly in the face of section 31(3), apart from being opposed to well accepted canons of fairness and justice”, the bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked. The Court thus set aside the award of costs made against the award debtor, holding that the same was arbitrary since it was unreasoned and did not contain any quantification.
Title: PSV v. THE INDIAN SCHOOL & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 61
The Delhi High Court has observed that barring a student from taking examinations on the ground of non-payment of fees would be infringement of rights of a child as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that a child’s future cannot be allowed to be spoiled and blemished by barring him or her from taking examinations, especially at a crucial juncture of class X and XII examinations.
“Thus, a child cannot be made to suffer and not be allowed to attend classes or barred from taking examinati
Title: X v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 62
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions regarding the presence of POCSO victims during bail hearings, observing that the same has an adverse impact on the psyche of the victim.
Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the victim can be produced virtually before the court, either by the IO or a support person, by way of Video Conferencing or by taking assistance of the District Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
Observing that the victim and accused will not come face to face in this manner and the same can prevent “victim’s re-traumatization,” the court said that hybrid form of hearing of bail applications would suitably address the concerns of the victim while at the same time safeguarding the rights of accused.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By Asiya Andrabi's Dukhtaran-E-Millat Challenging UAPA Ban
Title: DUKHTARAN-E-MILLAT v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 63
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Separatist leader Asiya Andrabi led Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) challenging a notification declaring it as a terrorist organisation under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The Kashmir-based all-women outfit was banned by the Centre on December 30, 2004 under Section 3 of UAPA. Arrested by the National Investigation Agency in 2018, Andrabi continues to remain in judicial custody.
Justice Anish Dayal dismissed the plea after noting that the petitioner organization has a remedy available under UAPA to seek removal of its name from the Schedule, which was not exercised in the matter.
Case Title: Amanatullah Khan v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 64
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan challenging opening of history sheet against him by Delhi Police in March last year declaring him as a bad character.
VAT Department Not To Initiate Coercive Measures Against PSU Pawan Hans: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65
The Delhi High Court has granted a stay to helicopter charterer PSU Pawan Hans Ltd. against a VAT demand of Rs. 176 crores.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the issue needs consideration and directed the VAT department not to initiate coercive measures for recovery of the VAT demand confirmed by the Delhi VAT Tribunal in the interim.
Title: SURJEET KUMAR v. STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 66
The Delhi High Court has said that there is no requirement of a birth certificate to prove the age of the victim and that any school certificate is sufficient evidence to prove the victim’s age.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while perusing section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2015 which provides for presumption and determination of age.
The provision states that where the Child Welfare Committee or the Juvenile Justice Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, it shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate.
Case Title: Sneh Aggarwal versus Punjab National Bank
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 67
The Delhi High Court has said that findings of departmental authorities in disciplinary proceedings cannot be challenged by the employee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the grounds of adequacy or reliability.
"It is also a settled proposition that if the enquiry is properly held the departmental authorities are the sole judge of facts," Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.
The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a bank employee, who was dismissed from service in 1995 for misconduct and fraud after a departmental enquiry was conducted by the bank. The employee challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), where the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement in service was dismissed.
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 68
The Delhi High Court has appointed retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, as Administrator to oversee utilization of funds in the upcoming ISSF Shooting World Cup, 2023.
ISSF World Cup (Rifle/Pistol) is scheduled to be held in Bhopal in March.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the country’s prestige will be affected if there is any impediment in organizing the World Cup event which would require funding from the Central Government.
Title: KRBL LIMITED vs VIKRAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 69
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of KRBL Limited, a market leader in the business of processing, marketing and exporting rice, in a case accusing Vikram Roller Flour Mills of infringing its right over the 'India Gate' mark by its use in respect of 'dalia'.
Justice Amit Bansal said Vikram Mills has placed sufficient material on record showing use of the ‘INDIA GATE’ device mark by it from 1990, which is prior to the registration granted to KRBL.
Title: SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 70
The Delhi High Court has ordered that there will be age relaxation of three years in the upper age limit as a “one time measure” for candidates intending to apply for the posts of Head Constable (Ministerial) in CRPF 2022 examination. An advertisement for the posts was issued on December 27 last year.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has directed the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Central Government to issue a Corrigendum on or before January 25, the last date of applying to the post in question and also to extend the date of inviting applications.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. KOLLI UDAY KUMARI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 71
The Delhi High Court has said that a widowed or divorced daughter is entitled to the benefit under freedom fighter pension scheme of 1980, noting that the scheme does not contemplate their exclusion.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh observed that a “quick read” of the 1980 Scheme and 2014 Guidelines framed under it would show that an unmarried daughter falls in the category of eligible dependents and hence, is entitled to pension upon the expiry of the freedom fighter.
“The expression “unmarried” adverts to a person who is not married. It includes a woman who is single i.e., who was married but divorced and even a woman who is widowed,” the court said.
Title: V K KANJLIA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 72
The Delhi High Court has observed that death caused due to overwork and toxic work environment is a social problem which requires the government, labour unions, health officials and corporates to formulate appropriate policies.
Observing that the problem of “toxic work culture” is plaguing all booming economies, Justice Jasmeet Singh cited the example of Japan where a term "karoshi” - which means “overwork deaths”, is used to signify a large number of deaths caused on account of “hostile working environment” which causes physical and mental stress.
Case Title: Monika Oli versus M/s CL Educate Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73
The Delhi High Court has ruled that delivery of arbitral award, to be effective under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), must be made to a person who has direct knowledge of the arbitral proceedings. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that the word ‘party’ in Section 34(3) of the A&C Act means party to the arbitral proceedings and does not include an agent of the party as well.
The Court further held that, delivery of the arbitral award to the employee of an entity in which the award debtor is a shareholder but the arbitral dispute does not pertain to that entity, would not constitute as proper delivery in terms of the A&C Act.
