Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: July 25 To July 31, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727

MANJU DEVI v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707

JAEWOO PARK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 708

AIREEN INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 709

SUSHIL KUMAR v. CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCY AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 710

Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. Bhatia Engineering Company 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 711

Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. versus Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 712

DB CORP LTD v. SHAILJA NAQVI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 713

SRF Ltd. versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 714

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. NEERAJ FOOD PRODUCTS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 715

ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 716

Easy Trip Planners Ltd. versus One97 Communications Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 717

Food Corporation of India v. Adani Agri Logistics Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 718

MANOJ MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 720

SMT. POONAM BHANOT v. VIRENDER SHARMA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 721

M/S. Unicon Engineers versus M/S. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 722

RAJENDER PRASAD PANT v. M/S EXCHANGE AGENCIES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 723

TV Today Network Pvt Ltd v. Newslaundry & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 725

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 726

DR. ABHINAV KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727

1. Compassionate Appointment Offered To Dependant Of Deceased Employee Is A Concession, Not A Right: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MANJU DEVI v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground offered to the dependant of a deceased employee is a mere concession and not a right.

A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,

" The whole object behind granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession and not a right."

The petitioner in this case was the wife of an en employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd who passed away while in service due to a Road accident. Through the petition, the petitioner sought compassionate employment for her son under the Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A of the HPCL Employee's Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme, as per which she was entitled to the benefits as her deceased husband would have received had he superannuated.

2. Outraging Modesty Of Woman: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Based On Compromise With Condition That Accused Provide Computers In Two MCD Schools

Case Title: JAEWOO PARK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 708

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR filed by a woman, working as a domestic servant in the Petitioner's house who is accused of outraging her modesty, following a compromise between the parties. However, it imposed a condition on the Petitioner to provide two fully functional computers each with printers in two schools run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

"I am of the view that the entire police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the petitioner and useful time of the police has been invested. The State resources have been unnecessarily overburdened. Hence the petitioner must do some social good for the benefit of the society," Justice Jasmeet Singh observed.

3. NCTE Act | Service Of Show Cause Notice Vital For An Educational Institution, Affords Opportunity To Put Forth Their Stand Qua Alleged Deficiencies: Delhi HC

Case Title: AIREEN INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 709

The Delhi High Court has observed that the service of show-cause notice is a vital communication for an institute as it affords an opportunity to them to put forth their stand qua the alleged deficiencies, failing which adverse consequences are bound to follow.

"This opportunity is thus, crucial for the institutes whose recognition and operation are at stake," Justice Sanjeev Narula added.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the decision of Western Regional Committee taken at its 322nd meeting held from 23rd to 24th November, 2020 whereby the recognition granted to Petitioner institute namely Aireen Institution of Education, for B.Ed. course was withdrawn.

4. Mere Regulation Of A Body By A Statute Does Not Mean That The Body Is Discharging 'Public Function': Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: SUSHIL KUMAR v. CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCY AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 710

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that merely because a body is obligated to comply with various statutory requirements, that cannot be conclusive to answer the question of whether it is discharging a public function.

Justice Yashwant Varma observed,

"The fact that the cooperative society is registered under the Act or that the Byelaws or the procedure of elections owe their genesis to the Act and the Rules, would not be sufficient to hold that it would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. This Court also bears in mind the principles enunciated by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Behari Srivastava where it was pertinently observed that merely because the affairs of a society are controlled by the Registrar that would not make that body "State" as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution."

5. Sections 15 And 16 Of The MSMED Act Are Mandatory Provisions, Arbitrator Must Assign Reasons For Not Awarding Compound Interest: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. Bhatia Engineering Company

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 711

The High Court of Delhi has affirmed the order of the lower Court by which it had set aside an arbitral award for not awarding interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 which are mandatory provisions of the MSMED Act.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that once the arbitrator has held that MSMED Act applies to the dispute between the parties, it must assign reasons for not awarding interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.

6. When The Main Relief Is Rejected By The Arbitral Tribunal, Which Included Interim Relief ,The Interim Relief Granted In Isolation Is Incorrect: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. versus Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 712

The Delhi High Court has ruled that when the main relief claimed by the claimant has been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award an interim or ancillary amount, which is included under the same claim, in favour of the claimant.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that when the main relief is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, axiomatically, the interim relief ought to be rejected as well.

The petitioner Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. awarded a contract to the respondent Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for construction of a certain property. After a dispute regarding the payment of dues for the work done by the respondent arose between the parties, the respondent invoked the Arbitration Clause and the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed. 

The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award partly allowing the claim of the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay a certain sum of money to the respondent. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Delhi High Court challenging the arbitral award.

7. Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 18 Of POSH Act Can Be Condoned U/S 5 Limitation Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DB CORP LTD v. SHAILJA NAQVI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 713

The Delhi High Court has observed that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act/ SHW Act), a victim's delay in filing appeal against the inquiry report can be condoned if such a delay is properly explained.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that sec. 5 of the Limitation Act (which provides for extension of prescribed period in certain cases) would apply in respect of appeals which may be sought to be preferred under sec. 18 of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.

"It would be completely antithetical and inimical to the very scope and purpose of the SHW Act, if a Court were to refuse to condone a delay of as little as 36 days in an alleged victim of sexual harassment preferring an appeal under Section 18 against the report of the inquiry committee. Such a delay – if properly explained – should, clearly, not stand in the way of the appeal of the alleged victim of sexual harassment being decided on merits, by the authority competent to do so," the Court observed.

8. Delhi High Court Directs DSIR To Issue Report Quantifying Expenditure On Scientific Research Incurred By The Assessee

Case Title: SRF Ltd. versus Union of India

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 714

The Delhi High Court has directed the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) to issue reports on the expenditure incurred by the assessee SRF Ltd. for the relevant assessment years in Form 3CL within six weeks.

The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the DSIR is statutorily bound to issue the Form 3CL within 120 days in accordance with Rule 6(7A) (ba) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, certifying the expenditure incurred by the assessee on its in-house R&D units.

In terms of the guidelines issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), requiring in-house Research and Development (R&D) units to have valid 'recognition', the petitioner- SRF Ltd.'s in-house R&D units were granted recognition.

9. GEMS v. JAMES BOND: Delhi High Court Permanently Injuncts Manufacturer From Using Cadbury's Trademark, Awards Over ₹15 Lakhs Cost

Case Title: MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. NEERAJ FOOD PRODUCTS

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 715

The Delhi High Court has passed permanent and mandatory injunction against a manufacturer namely Neeraj Food Products for infringement of Cadbury's trademark 'GEMS' by using deceptively similar mark and packaging 'JAMES BOND' which was inspired by the character 'GEMS BOND', as used by Cadbury for promotion of their product.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also awarded actual cost of Rs.15,86,928 in favour of Cadbury, observing that it had spent a substantial amount of money towards litigation in a suit wherein interim injunction was operating since 2007, including court fee, counsels' fees and miscellaneous expenses. Rs. 10 lakhs were awarded in damages.

10. Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking Details Of SC Collegium's December 2018 Meeting

Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 716

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal against the order passed by a Single Judge which had declined a plea seeking information regarding decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium in a meeting held on December 12, 2018.

A bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that the observations of the single judge did not require any interference and thus the appeal was dismissed.

The Court had reserved the order last week after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Appellant, activist Anjali Bhardwaj.

Justice Yashwant Varma, vide order dated March 30, 2022, dismissed the plea after noting that the disclosures made by the respondents seemed to indicate that no resolution with respect to the agenda items was drawn by members who constituted the Collegium on 12 December 2018.

11. Just Because Interlocutory Order Of Arbitral Tribunal Is Not Challengeable Under Section 34 Of A&C Act, Remedy Is Not Writ Under Article 226 And 227: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Easy Trip Planners Ltd. versus One97 Communications Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 717

The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an interlocutory order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is not amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the remedy under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be available against the said order.

The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a party can approach the Court against an interim order passed in the arbitral proceedings only if the order is appealable under Section 37 of the A&C Act; and that in all other cases, the party has to wait for the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and the rendition of the arbitral award.

12. The Arbitrator Cannot Alter The Express Terms Of The Agreement Between The Parties By Applying The Business Efficacy Test: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Food Corporation of India v. Adani Agri Logistics Ltd. O.M.P. (COMM) 82 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 718

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot alter the express terms of the agreement by applying the business efficacy test when there is no ambiguity as to the intention of the parties.

The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that Penta Test as propounded by the Supreme Court in Nabha Power Ltd v. Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. is only for the purpose of determining the intention when the terms of the agreement are not express or silent on an aspect, and would have no application when there is no ambiguity as to the contract between the parties.

The Court further held even if the tribunal is of the view that the arrangement between the parties is inequitable, it cannot alter the terms of the agreement to work out an equitable bargain between the parties.

13. Writ Of Mandamus Not A Remedy Against Private Wrongs, Court Cannot Interfere With Private Body's Internal Management: Delhi HC

Title: PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 719

Observing that the writ of mandamus is not a remedy against private wrongs, the Delhi High Court has observed that such a writ's scope is against the private authority which might be performing a public duty limited to the enforcement of such public duty.

Further adding that the Court cannot interfere with the internal management of a private body in a writ of mandamus, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:

"It is well settled that a writ of mandamus lies only for the purpose of a public or statutory duty. Writs are issued for the performance of public duties. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India is worded in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority but such private authority must be discharging a public function and the right sought to be enforced must be a public duty."

14. Jurisdiction Of Court While Issuing Writ Of 'Quo Warranto' Limited To Cases Where Person Holding Public Office Is Ineligible: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MANOJ MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 720

The Delhi High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is limited to cases where the person holding public office did not meet with the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.

The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramoniam Prasad also noted that the Court cannot sit in judgement over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of person to be appointed so long as the person chosen is eligible for such appointment.

15. Order 18 Rule 1 CPC | Defendant May Be Asked To Lead Evidence First If Case Set Up By It Is Such That Proving It Would Decide All Issues In Suit: Delhi HC

CASE TITLE: SMT. POONAM BHANOT v. VIRENDER SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 721

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court has the authority to give necessary directions under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC on the procedural aspect as regards which party will lead evidence first. The bench further noted that correction of a procedural order was an inherent power of the court and may be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process.

Justice Mini Pushkarna said,

" The unequivocal position that emerges is that if the defendants set up a case, which if decided, would decide the issues raised in the suit completely, then the defendants can be directed to lead evidence first under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC. "

16. Order Of Facilitation Council, After Termination Of Conciliation Under MSMED Act, Not Executable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. Unicon Engineers versus M/S. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 722

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) after the termination of conciliation proceedings, without taking the dispute up for arbitration or referring it to an institution or centre for arbitration, is a nullity and does not constitute an arbitral award. Therefore, the Court ruled that it cannot be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan reiterated that the proceedings for conciliation and arbitration cannot be clubbed.

17. Writ Jurisdiction To Be Exercised In Circumspection, Can't Displace Authority's Order By Merely Taking Another Opinion On Same Material: Delhi HC

Case Title: RAJENDER PRASAD PANT v. M/S EXCHANGE AGENCIES & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 723

The Delhi High Court has observed that the order passed by an authority cannot be displaced merely because High Court can take another opinion on the same material in writ jurisdiction.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further added that although the writ jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is wide, but the same has to be exercised in circumspection.

"This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the impugned order dated 19th May, 2022, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of four months' salary w.e.f. 19th April, 2018 to 12th August, 2018 was rejected.

18. Decide On DCPCR's Recommendation To Ban Medically Unnecessary Sex-Selective Surgeries On Intersex Infants, Children: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 724

The Delhi High Court has granted eight weeks time to the Delhi Government for taking appropriate decision on the recommendation given by Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) to declare a ban on medically unnecessary, sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants and children except in cases of life-threatening situations.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation, an independent Trust, which sought guidelines specifying the conditions when medical surgery on intersex infants and children can be performed.

19. TV Today v. Newslaundry | Broadcaster Has Right To Fair Comment On Programmes Created By Others, Facet Of Free Speech Under Article 19: Delhi HC

Case Title: TV Today Network Pvt Ltd v. Newslaundry & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 725

While denying interim relief to TV Today Network in the defamation and copyright infringement suit filed by it against news portal Newslaundry, the Delhi High Court has observed that every broadcaster has the right of fair comment on current events and of criticism and review, including of the programmes created by others.

Justice Asha Menon further observed that the right to broadcast programmes would be included in the right to free speech and expression. However, it was added that a balance would have to be struck between the two rights, the right to free speech and right to reputation.

"The defendants No.1 to 9, in the present case, have however asserted another right and that is the unrestricted "right to comment". This right to comment on the content created by others is claimed by them as an exercise in public interest," the Court noted.

20. [Patents Act] Unity Or Plurality Of Inventions & Whether They Form Single Inventive Concept To Be Determined From Claims: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 726

The Delhi High Court has observed that under the law of patent, "unity of the invention" or "plurality of inventions" and whether they form a "single inventive concept" has to be gleaned from a reading of the claims.

Going through various provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, Justice Pratibha M Singh said:

"The complete specification also describes the procedures, processes, methods, including the best methods. But what is crucial to note, is the fact that the invention itself is defined in the claims. While such claims do have to be based on the disclosure in the specification, however even if a person does not read the complete specification and wishes to identify the invention, the place to look for it is in the 'Claims'."

"The Invention thus resides in the Claims. Accordingly, "unity of the invention"/ "plurality of inventions" and whether they form a "single inventive concept" has to be gleaned from a reading of the claims."

21. 'Matter Of Life & Death': Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Minimum Percentile Criteria For NEET-PG Admissions

Case Title: DR. ABHINAV KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging a regulation mandating minimum marks of 50th percentile in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) as a mandatory requirement for admission to postgraduate courses.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there cannot be any compromise with the quality of doctors or specialists as it involves a risk to human lives.

"…this Court emphasizes that the lowering of the standards of medical education has the potential of wreaking havoc on society at large due to the risk that practice of medicine entails; it involves in its ambit the matter of life and death, and therefore, it would be unconscionable for this Court to interfere in the standards duly and diligently set by the governing authority," the Court added.