Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 23 To January 29, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 74 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 95

NOMINAL INDEX

Raghav Bahl v. ED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 74

N v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Department GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 75

ISHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 76

RS v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 77

Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Delhi (GST) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 78

M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 79

VIRENDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 80

RITA SEHGAL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 81

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Hqrs.) versus M/s Spraytec India Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 82

Arvind Goyal CA Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 83

Chabbras Associates v. HSCC India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 84

MINOR R THR MOTHER H v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 85

M/s Shyamjee Prepaid Services versus M/s Top Steels & Mrs. Renu Devi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 86

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 87

MADHUR MITTAL v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 88

Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. National Research Development Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 89

Yashdeep Chahal v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 90

NEHA KAPOOR & ANR v. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 91

Blackstone Capital Partner Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 92

Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Sukumar Chand Jain 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 93

X v. GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 94

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 95

Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Money Laundering Case Against Raghav Bahl, Calls Plea 'Premature'

Title: Raghav Bahl v. ED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 74

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a money laundering case against The Quint's founder Raghav Bahl at this stage. The court also refused to quash the look out circular (LOC) against him at this stage

Dismissing the plea challenging registration of ECIR and proceedings initiated by ED, Justice Jasmeet Singh said:

“The allegations (under the complaint) are yet to reach the stage of trial. Whether there is generation of proceeds of crime or not is being investigated and for the said reason, the petition as of today is premature and is rejected.”

The Income Tax department had initiated proceedings against Bahl under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act for alleged irregularities in IT returns filed for the assessment year 2018-2019. The complaint was filed under section 51 of the Act.

Don't Disclose Identity Of Minors Seeking Termination Of Pregnancy In Report To Police: High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Issue Circular To Doctors

Title: N v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Department GNCTD & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 75

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue a circular directing that the identity of a minor girl, who is seeking medical termination of her pregnancy, and her family shall not be disclosed in the report prepared by registered medical practitioners (RMP) to the police.

Section 19(1) of POCSO Act provides mandatory reporting of child sexual offences to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.

Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the direction after observing that the minors and their families may be forced to approach non-registered and unqualified medical practitioners, midwives and courts to terminate the pregnancies which could result in adverse impact on the health of the minor.

‘COVID-19 Vaccination Cannot Be Insisted Upon By Employer’: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Lecturer

Title: ISHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 76

Observing that COVID-19 vaccination cannot be insisted upon by the employer, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to a government school lecturer seeking permission to teach and undertake other responsibilities without being forced to take the vaccine.

Noting that the teacher, who moved court in 2021, was now vaccinated, Justice Prathiba M Singh permitted her to make a representation to the concerned authority for service benefits and directed that the decision on the same be taken within 30 days.

FIRs Shouldn’t Be Registered Against Law Students For Posing As Lawyers Before Courts, Counselling Preferable: Delhi High Court

Title: RS v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 77

Observing that FIRs should not be registered against law students for posing as lawyers before the courts, the Delhi High Court has said that they should be counselled instead.

"It is understandable that Presiding Officers take an objection where law interns tend to pose as lawyers, but on the other hand, these law interns, who are merely students, should be counselled, properly informed and instructed, rather than FIRs being registered, merely on this basis," said the court.

Justice Anish Dayal said that a law intern is a student who is in process of understanding the court practice and procedures and therefore it is the “duty of the institution” to take adequate steps to facilitate their education and training and not simply punish them for these “inadvertent acts.”

Payment Of Tax And Penalty To Release Detained Goods Can’t Be Treated As “Admission” On The Part Of Assessee: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Delhi (GST)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 78

The Delhi High Court has held that the payment of tax and penalty to release the detained goods shall not be treated as "admission" on the part of the assessee.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner had paid the tax and penalty for the release of the goods and that the said payment was not voluntary. Neither the show-cause notice nor the order of demand clearly sets out the reason for imposing the tax liability as well as the penalty.

Enforcement Directorate Can Only Investigate Money Laundering Offence, Can’t Assume Commission Of Predicate Offence: Delhi High Court

Title: M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 79

The Delhi High Court has observed that Enforcement Directorate (ED) can only investigate the offence of money laundering and cannot assume, from the material gathered by it during investigation, that a predicate offence stands committed

Emphasising that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 empowers the ED to investigate offences under Section 3 only, Justice Yashwant Varma said:

“Its power to investigate and enquire stands confined to the offence of money laundering as defined in that Section. However, the same cannot be read as enabling it to assume from the material that it may gather in the course of that investigation that a predicate offense stands committed. The predicate offence has to be necessarily investigated and tried by the authorities empowered by law in that regard.”

Deaf Sportspersons Have To Be Treated On Par With Para-Athletes: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: VIRENDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 80

The Delhi High Court has observed that deaf and para sportspersons have to be treated equally and neither category can be discriminated against the other.

Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing the petitions moved by four sportspersons in 2020, who won medals in several international events. They have been assessed with having 100% disability in hearing and speaking. By way of the petitions, they sought equal treatment of deaf sports persons with other para-athletes.

It was their case that sportspersons who participate in Deaflympics, being deaf, would be deserving of the same status as those who participate in Olympic games.

Enforce Provisions For Grant Of Compensation To Road Accident Victims Within Six Months: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: RITA SEHGAL & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 81

The Delhi High Court has asked the Union of India to enforce the recently-enacted provisions for grant of compensation to road accident victims, under the Motor Vehicles Act, within six months.

Referring to Motor Vehicles (32nd Amendment) Act, 2019 which inserted sections 145 to 165 in the Act of 1988, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said:

“Resultantly, as the statute provides for a remedy for grant of compensation to the road accident victims even if the accident causing vehicle is uninsured as well as in the accidents caused by hit and run cases, Union of India is granted six months’ time to enforce the provisions which are now in the statute books.”

CAAR Not Barred From Giving Ruling On The Ground Of Preliminary Exercise Being Done By Customs Officer: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Hqrs.) versus M/s Spraytec India Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 82

The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an officer of customs contemplates that a question may arise for consideration, does not mean that the question is “pending” consideration so as to bar the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) from deciding the issue in an application for advance ruling, under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that in order for a question to be considered as pending before any customs officer, its necessary that the question must be raised in a notice, enabling the assessee to respond to the said issue. It added that the CAAR is not barred from giving an advance ruling on a question only on the ground that a preliminary exercise was done by a customs officer to determine whether any question for consideration in the case of the assessee arises or not.

No Provision In GST Act for Confiscating Currency From The Premises : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Arvind Goyal CA Versus UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 83

The Delhi High Court ruled that there is no provision in the GST Act that would allow for the forcible removal of currency from the premises of any person.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the powers of search and seizure are draconian powers and must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute and only if the necessary conditions are satisfied.

Resort To Resolve Disputes Internally Before Filing Section 11 Application Under A& C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Chabbras Associates v. HSCC India Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 84

The Delhi High Court has held that an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the A&C Act would be premature if it is filed without compliance with the pre-arbitration internal dispute resolution mechanism stipulated under the agreement.

The bench of Justice Navin Chawla held that when the agreement provides for a multi-tier dispute resolution process in the form of reference of dispute firstly to some internal authorities and on being dissatisfied invoke the arbitration, then the parties cannot directly approach the court for the appointment of arbitrator without exhausting the remedy given under the contract.

In Rape Cases With Pregnancy Exceeding 24 Weeks, Produce Victim Before Medical Board On Same Day: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines To Police

Title: MINOR R THR MOTHER H v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 85

The Delhi High Court has issued guidelines to the Investigating Officers to be followed in rape and sexual assault cases where victim's pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that at the time of medical examination of a victim of sexual assault, it will be mandatory to conduct a “Urine Pregnancy Test”.

The court further said that when the victim, who is major and is found pregnant due to sexual assault, expresses her desire for medical termination of pregnancy, the investigating officer will ensure that she is produced before a medical board on the same day.

Also Read: Woman Entitled To Termination Of Pregnancy In Rape Cases, Has Right To Say 'Yes' Or 'No' To Being A Mother: Delhi High Court

Arbitration Clause Continues To Operate Even After Dissolution Of Partnership: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Shyamjee Prepaid Services versus M/s Top Steels & Mrs. Renu Devi & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 86

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a contract executed with a partnership firm, will continue in effect even after the death of a partner causes the dissolution of the partnership.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the Court has the power to conduct a procedural review of its order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). It further remarked that the Courts’ competence to review Section 11 orders is unaffected by substantive concerns like a Tribunal’s jurisdiction or the authenticity of evidence.

Ensure Visually Impaired Students Don't Suffer Due To Unavailability Of Teachers: Delhi High Court To Director Education

Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 87

The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Government’s Director of Education to ensure that there is no scarcity of teachers in primary schools meant for visually impaired students.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also said that all possible efforts must be made to ensure that teachers are permitted to continue in such schools till the current academic session is over and the students do not suffer due to unavailability of teachers.

“Director (Social Welfare) & Director (Education) of the State Government are directed to ensure strict compliance of the order keeping in view the fact that the examinations are going to be held in the month of March,” the court said.

Not Permissible To Take One Dose Of Covishield And Another Of Covaxin: Centre To Delhi High Court

Title: MADHUR MITTAL v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 88

The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that it is not permissible for an individual to take first dose of Covishield and second dose of Covaxin.

Central Government’s standing counsel Anurag Ahluwalia told Justice Prathiba M Singh that mixing of two COVID-19 vaccines is not permissible for the first and second dose. However, he said it is allowed for the booster dose.

The court was hearing a plea moved by Madhur Mittal, a cancer patient, in 2021 seeking permission to take Covaxin for second dose instead of Covishield, which was administered to him as the first dose.

Objections Under Section 47 Of CPC Cannot Be Considered In An Enforcement Petition Under Section 36 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. National Research Development Corporation

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 89

The Delhi High Court has held that objections available under Section 47 of CPC cannot be considered by a Court at the time of enforcement of an arbitration award under Section 36 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Vashwant Varma held though under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Arbitral Award was required to be made a rule of the Court and a decree but Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, confers the Arbitral Award with a status of a decree to be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. However, the deeming fiction is limited for the purpose of enforcement and not to make it a decree for all purposes, thus, the objections that can be raised against a decree at the enforcement stage would not apply to an arbitration award which is a deemed decree only.

Sexual Abuse: High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Set Up ‘One Stop Centres’ For Women And Children In Every District

Title: Yashdeep Chahal v. UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 90

Dealing with a plea seeking action against media houses for revealing identity of victim and accused persons of Hyderabad rape case, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to set up “one stop centres” in every district in compliance of a Supreme Court decision of 2018.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad referred to the judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India passed on December 11, 2018.

The apex court in the ruling had requested state governments and Union Territories to set up at least one one stop centre in every district within one year of the judgment. It had observed that such centres can be used as a central police station where all crimes against women and children in town or city are registered.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Censor Board For Non-Film Songs Released On Internet

Title: NEHA KAPOOR & ANR v. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 91

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation which had sought setting up of a regulatory authority or censor board to review and censor the non-film songs and their contents including their lyrics and videos, before their release on internet. The petition had sought immediate ban on all non-film songs with "obscene/vulgar" content.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that there is a clear regulation or regime laid down by the Central Government to regulate the information or content which is available to the general public through various media platforms.

Claim That Investment In Shares Was A Capital Account Transaction, Non-Application Of Mind By AO: Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice

Case Title: Blackstone Capital Partner Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 92

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice as the AO failed to apply his mind as to whether an investment in shares was a capital account transaction.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the principal allegation against the assessee is that it purchased shares of an Indian company and that this led to the escapement of income chargeable to tax. The central issue to which the AO should have applied his mind is whether the investment in shares by the assessee was a capital account transaction, given the fact that there is no allegation of round-tripping. There is no reference to Section 115A either in the show-cause notice or in the order passed by the AO.

No-Claim Certificate In Pre-Printed Form And Pre- Condition To The Release Of Payment Amounts To Coercion : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Sukumar Chand Jain

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 93

The Delhi High Court has held that the a no-claim certificate is given under coercion if it was in a pre-printed form and a pre-condition to the release of payment under the final bill.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held dispute between the parties cannot be said to be settled by accord and satisfaction on account of no-claim certificate given by the contractor, if the employer, as a matter of practice, requires all the contractors to furnish a pre-printed no-claim certificate as a pre-condition to release of payment under the final bill.

Consensual Teenage Relationship: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Accused In POCSO Case As Victim Offers To Stand As ‘Surety’ For Him

Title: X v. GNCTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 94

Delhi High Court has granted bail to a 20-year-old in a POCSO case after the victim — the wife of accused, told the court that they were in a consensual relationship at the time of alleged offence, and is offering to stand as surety for him in case he is granted bail.

In the decision on the bail application moved by the accused, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the offences under Section 376 (2) and Section 6 POCSO Act are alleged to have been committed when the victim, who is over 19 years old now, was at the cusp of majority.

Explanation 2 To S. 37(1) of Income Tax Act, Which Bars Deduction of CSR Expenses, Is Prospective In Nature: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 95

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2014, which bars deduction of CSR expenses while computing income from business or profession, is prospective in nature.

The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that deductibility of CSR expenses under Section 37(1), prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, cannot depend upon how the funds are spent by the recipient.