Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 30 To February 5, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 96 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 120

NOMINAL INDEX

CPIO, CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU v. G.S. SRINIVASAN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 96

RAVINDER LAL AIRI v. S.SHALU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 97

SANDISK LLC & ANR versus LAXMI MOBILES & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 98

Al Sudais Haj and Umrah Service v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 99

WAZIRPUR BARTAN NIRMATA SANGH (THROUGH ITS SECRETARY) & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 100

Charu Chains & Jewels (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 101

SMT. BENI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 102

Pink City Expressways Pvt Ltd versus Aaron Security & Services Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 103

GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Limited v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 104

M/s Raj Chawla and Co. Stock & Share Brokers versus M/s Nine Media & Information Services Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 105

SONAM RAWAL v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 106

NT v. VT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 107

AMAR SINGH EX NB SUB & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 108

Sun Renewables Rt Pvt Ltd versus Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 109

NEERAJ MEHTA & ANR. v. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 110

Damodar Valley Corporation versus Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 111

East India Hotels Ltd. Versus Commissioners of Customs, General Excise and Central GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 112

RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 113

Ozone Research & Applications (I) Pvt Ltd versus Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 114

NHAI v. IJM GAYATRI JV, OMP (COMM.) 235 of 2021 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 115

BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN v. GNCTD & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 116

Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. Cpio, Ministry Of Home Affairs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 117

NITYA NAND GAUTAM v. CENTRAL BEREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 118

Flowmore Ltd versus Skipper Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 119

M/s Special Cables Pvt Ltd versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 120

Judgments/Orders

Exempted Organisations Can’t Be Asked To Disclose Outcome Of Complaint About Money Laundering, Hawala Transactions Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: CPIO, CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU v. G.S. SRINIVASAN

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 96

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an exempted intelligence or security organisation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, cannot be asked to disclose the outcome of a complaint which does not relate to corruption or human rights violations.

Setting aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the CPIO of Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) to consider providing outcome of a complaint to the appellant, Justice Prathiba M Singh said the information relating to money laundering business, hawala money transactions, tax evasion and smuggling activities do not relate to “corruption or human rights violations” and thus, they cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.

Accused Has Valuable Right To Be Heard, Revision Petition Against Order Directing Registration Of FIR Maintainable: Delhi High Court

Title: RAVINDER LAL AIRI v. S.SHALU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 97

The Delhi High Court has observed that a revision petition filed against an order directing registration of FIR is maintainable as such an order is not an interlocutory order. The accused has a valuable right to be heard, said the court.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said the registration of FIR affects the fundamental right and freedom of an accused. The person can be summoned for investigation, arrested without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences, the court observed.

Delhi High Court Asks Two Shopkeepers To Pay ₹4 Lakh In Damages To SanDisk For Selling Counterfeit MicroSDHC Cards, USB Flash Drives

Title: SANDISK LLC & ANR versus LAXMI MOBILES & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 98

Passing a permanent injunction against two shopkeepers for selling counterfeit microSDHC cards and USB flash drives under 'SanDisk' name, the Delhi High Court has held them liable to pay damages of Rs 4 Lakh to SanDisk LLC and SanDisk India Device Design Centre.

Justice Sanjeev Narula in a ruling said the photographs of goods seized by the Local Commissioners from the shopkeepers in Trichy, Tamil Nadu demonstrate that they were indulging in sale and distribution of products which display identical marks as that of SanDisk's.

Delhi High Court Quashes Order Barring Tour Operator From Applying For Haj Group Operator Registration, Orders Refund Of Forfeited Security

Case Title: Al Sudais Haj and Umrah Service v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 99

The Delhi High Court quashed and set aside an order which debarred a private tour operator from applying for being enlisted as a Haj Group Operator (HGO) for a period of 05 years.

Centre had also forfeited the tour operator's security deposit of Rs 25 lakhs. The court has said the petitioner Al Sudais Haj and Umrah Service shall be entitled to refund of the security deposit.

"Since the Court has found that the debarment would not sustain, the same shall not act as a disqualification in the future years," the court said further.

‘Unhealthy Pattern Of Not Filing Responses In Time, Will Impose Costs If Time Schedule Not Adhered To’: Delhi High Court Warns Govt Authorities

Title: WAZIRPUR BARTAN NIRMATA SANGH (THROUGH ITS SECRETARY) & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 100

Taking exception to the “unhealthy pattern” of not filing status reports and affidavits in time, the Delhi High Court has cautioned the government authorities, state departments and corporations that costs would be imposed if the time schedule for pleadings fixed is not adhered to.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that usually all the governmental authorities, despite specific directions, are unable to file the affidavits within the specified time schedule and “they choose to do so only within the same just one or two days before the date of hearing.”

Information Triggering Reassessment Proceedings Needs To Be Furnished To The Assessee: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Charu Chains & Jewels (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 101

The Delhi High Court has held that the underlying information or material that formed the basis for triggering the assessment or reassessment proceedings was required to be furnished to the assessee.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has noted that the petitioner has indicated that it will file a further response once the information or material is provided, and even if the information or material is not provided, it will reserve its right to file a further response.

Jhuggi Dwellers Can’t Be Disqualified From Rehabilitation Merely For Lack Of Name In Electoral Roll: Delhi High Court

Title: SMT. BENI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 102

The Delhi High Court has ruled that jhuggi jhopri dwellers cannot be disqualified from rehabilitation under Delhi Government’s policy merely because their name doesn't reflect in the electoral roll.

Justice Prathiba M Singh relied on the judgment of a division bench in Udal and Ors. v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Ors wherein it was held that the parties would be permitted to place on record other documents including ration card, school records, driving license, aadhar card etc for being considered eligible of the rehabilitation scheme.

Common Statement Of Claims For Separate But Interlinked Agreements, Can Be Filed Before Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pink City Expressways Pvt Ltd versus Aaron Security & Services Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 103

The Delhi High Court has upheld the arbitral reference made to a common Sole Arbitrator as well as a common State of Claims filed before the Arbitral Tribunal, with respect to a dispute arising under two separate agreements, considering the fact that the agreements were closely interlinked and contained identical Arbitration Clauses, stipulating same conditions.

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh remarked that the services the respondent/claimant was providing under the two agreements, were connected services. Considering the ‘allied nature’ of the two contracts and the common conditions of the Arbitration Clauses, the filing of a common claim petition before the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be faulted with, the Court said.

A Final Relief Cannot Be Granted Under Section 9 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Limited v. NHAI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 104

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court cannot grant a relief which is final in nature in an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that relief contemplated under Section 9 of the Act is only interim in nature I.e., ‘in the intervening time’ or ‘provisional’ and it has to be in aid of the enforcement of the award and subject to the final relief given in the award. The Court refused to injunct the respondent from withholding the payment on account of alleged delay as the Court observed that the relief claimed by the petitioner was final in nature as it was neither subject to any award or in aid of any enforcement.

Talks Of Settlement Between Parties After Arbitrator Enters Upon Reference, Would Not Stop Limitation For Passing Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Raj Chawla and Co. Stock & Share Brokers versus M/s Nine Media & Information Services Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 105

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that since the the amended provisions of Section 29A (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) are essentially procedural in character, they would apply even to arbitrations pending on the date the amended provision was brought into force.

Section 29A (1) of A&C Act, as amended by the 2019 Amendment Act, w.e.f. 30.8.2019, provides that an arbitral award must be rendered within 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings before the Arbitral Tribunal as per Section 24 (3).

Remove Misleading Information On Admission Eligibility Criteria From Official Website: High Court Directs Delhi University

Title: SONAM RAWAL v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 106

The Delhi High Court has said that the University of Delhi needs to take “immediate corrective measures” for removal of misleading information on admission eligibility criteria from its official website.

Justice Vikas Mahajan said such contradictory and misleading criteria not only creates confusion in the minds of the candidates but also leads to unwarranted litigation.

“….the University of Delhi needs to take immediate corrective measures in identifying and removing all such material from its website which mentions the eligibility criteria for admission to any course, contrary to the one stipulated in the Bulletin of Information or the statutory Rules, Regulations and Ordinances of the University, for such contradictory and misleading criteria not only creates confusion in the minds of the candidates but also leads to unwarranted litigation,” the court said.

Protection Under Domestic Violence Act Not Available To Husband Or Male Member Of Family: Delhi High Court Stays Case Filed By Husband Against Wife

Title: NT v. VT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 107

Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has said that the protection under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not available to a husband or male member of the family, in view of sections 2(a) of the statute.

Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the 'respondent' and alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence.

Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a plea moved by a wife challenging the proceedings initiated by her husband under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Final Orders Of Armed Forces Tribunal Can Be Challenged Before High Court: Delhi High Court Full Bench

Title: AMAR SINGH EX NB SUB & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 108

A full bench of Delhi High Court has clarified that final orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal can be challenged before High Court.

A full bench of Justice Manmohan, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna answered a reference seeking a clarification that whether the right of appeal against the final orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal excludes the remedy of judicial review by High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Pragmatic Approach Needed To Promote Private Participation Under Scheme For Rooftop & Small Solar Power Plants: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sun Renewables Rt Pvt Ltd versus Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 109

The Delhi High Court has said that the purpose of Achievement-Linked Incentives and Awards Scheme under ‘Grid Connected Rooftop and Small Solar Power Plants Program’ is to increase the installation and use of solar panels for the purpose of encouraging renewable energy projects.

“In the opinion of the Court, the Scheme is a beneficial scheme the purpose of which is to promote private participation and incentivise energy efficiency. Thus, in such cases literal / technical construction ought to be avoided. Rather, the authorities ought not to follow a pedantic approach but a pragmatic approach that fulfils the purpose for which the Scheme was made,” the court said.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said climate change is a cause for concern and harnessing solar energy is the need of the hour.

Consider Designing Health Insurance Products For Persons With Hearing Disability: Delhi High Court To IRDAI

Title: NEERAJ MEHTA & ANR. v. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 110

The Delhi High Court has asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to consider "the manner in which products" of health insurance policy "can be designed for persons with hearing disabilities and implants."

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that IRDAI, while submitting its position to the court, shall consider the existing policies and guidelines as may be applicable to persons with disabilities.

The court passed the order in addition to the directions given in Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., wherein it had asked IRDAI to call a meeting of all insurance companies to ensure that products relating to health insurance coverage are designed for persons with disabilities.

Delhi High Court Orders Damodar Valley Corporation To Pay ₹75,000 To RTI Applicant, Sets Aside CIC's 'Sweeping Observations'

Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation versus Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 111

Setting aside the observations made by Central Information Commission (CIC) against Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and the costs imposed by the statutory body against its CPIO in a RTI case related to workplace sexual harassment, the Delhi High Court has directed the Public Sector Undertaking to pay a cost of Rs 75,000 to the RTI applicant in view of the long-drawn battle he had to undertake.

"The only issue that now remains is whether Respondent No. 2 who has been litigating since 2016 has to be awarded any litigation costs in the matter. In the opinion of the Court, while disagreeing with the approach of the CIC of making sweeping observations, in view of the long-drawn battle that the Respondent had to undertake, the ends of justice would be met by awarding costs of Rs.75,000/- to Respondent No.2," said the court.

Aircraft Imported For Private Purposes, No Customs Duty Exemption Allowed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: East India Hotels Ltd. Versus Commissioners of Customs, General Excise and Central GST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 112

The Delhi High Court has held that the aircraft was imported for private purposes and not for providing non-scheduled passenger or charter services. Therefore, the condition for customs duty exemption was not available to the assessee.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bhakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the appellant has not used the aircraft for providing air transport service for remuneration of any kind. The provision of non-scheduled (passenger) services, as defined under clause (b) of the explanation to Condition No. 104 of the exemption notification, entails providing air transport services to the public at large on the basis of payment of the published tariff.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of ‘Faraaz’, Directs Filmmakers To ‘Scrupulously Adhere’ To Disclaimer

Title: RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 113

The Delhi High Court refused to stay release of filmmaker Hansal Mehta’s movie Faraaz which is based on the terrorist attack that took place on July 01, 2016, at Holey Artisan, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh directed the filmmaker and producers to “scrupulously adhere” to the disclaimer which states that the film is inspired by the attack and elements contained in it are pure works of fiction.

The court was hearing an appeal moved by two women, who lost their daughters in the attack, against the order of the single judge who had refused to grant interim relief against release of the movie. 

‘Seat’ Of Arbitration Would Be Where Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Conducted Arbitral Proceedings Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ozone Research & Applications (I) Pvt Ltd versus Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 114

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the ‘Seat’ of arbitration would be the place where the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) has conducted the arbitral proceedings as per the provisions of Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that since there was no arbitration agreement between the parties containing a jurisdiction clause, and since the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act had assumed jurisdiction and rendered the arbitral award in Nagpur where the supplier was located, in view of Section 18(4), therefore, the seat of arbitration was in Nagpur.

ONGC v. Afcons By SC Will Not Affect Fee Already Fixed By Arbitration Tribunal : Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. IJM GAYATRI JV, OMP (COMM.) 235 of 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 115

The Delhi High Court has held that the fees fixed by arbitral tribunal in accordance with judgment of its coordinate bench in Rail Vikas Nigam case cannot be held to be either against the public policy or the substantive law as existed on the said date.  

It refused to stay the operation of an award that had directed the petitioner to pay the fees of arbitral tribunal in terms of the judgment in Rail Vikas.

The Supreme Court in ONGC v. Afcons held that maximum fees that an arbitrator can charge on a claim is Rs. 30 Lakhs.

The court was considering a situation wherein the fees was fixed in terms of the earlier law. The petitioner challenged the fees so fixed as violative of the Supreme Court order.

Children Being Forced To Work In Factories Right Under Nose Of Govt, Police: Delhi High Court, Orders Inspection Of Units Employing Child Labourers

Title: BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN v. GNCTD & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 116

The Delhi High Court has ordered that a committee be constituted in each district for inspection of the premises where units are employing child labourers, and called for a status report regarding the action taken.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that under the supervision of Chief Secretary of Delhi, the Deputy Commissioner of Police of each District in coordination with the Department of Labour, Women and Child Welfare Department, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are directed to form such committees.

Reports And Dossiers Of Intelligence Agencies Can’t Be Disclosed Under RTI Act, State Police ATS Exempted: Delhi High Court

Title: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. Cpio, Ministry Of Home Affairs

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 117

The Delhi High Court observed that the reports and dossiers prepared by intelligence agencies cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that major public interest is in protecting safety and security of the country and not in disclosing such reports.

“Reports and dossiers by intelligence authorities, which are subject matter of investigation cannot be disclosed under RTI, especially if they compromise the sovereignty or integrity of the country,” the court said.

Right To Travel Should Be Curtailed Only In Exceptional Circumstances, Pendency Of Appeal Where Sentence Is Suspended Not A Ground: Delhi High Court

Title: NITYA NAND GAUTAM v. CENTRAL BEREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 118

Observing that the right to travel is a valuable fundamental right, the Delhi High Court has said that pendency of an appeal when sentence has been suspended cannot be an “exceptional circumstance” under which such right can be curtailed.

Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed one Nitya Nand Gautam, a convict in a case registered under Prevention of Corruption Act, to travel to Dubai for one month to meet his daughter from February 15 to March 15.

Delhi High Court Upholds Use Of Rule Of Contra Proferentem By Arbitrator While Interpreting Contract

Case Title: Flowmore Ltd versus Skipper Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 119

The Delhi High Court has ruled that if the arbitrator uses a contract executed between the parties to determine a dispute, the clauses of the contract should, in principle, be construed contra proferentem, i.e., the clauses should be interpreted against the party that drafted it.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that the rule of contra proferentem can be regarded as a ‘general canon’ of interpretation that exists independently of national legal systems.

Budgetary Support Under GST Regime Can’t Be Denied To An Eligible Unit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Special Cables Pvt Ltd versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 120

The Delhi High Court has directed the revenue authorities to grant budgetary support to a manufacturing unit under the “Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax (GST) Regime”, available to ‘eligible units’ located in specified States. The Court took note that the petitioner was eligible for exemption from Central Excise Duty prior to 01.07.2017, i.e., before the introduction of the GST regime in India, and thus, in terms of the Scheme, it was entitled to avail budgetary support.