Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: June 13 To June 19, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 577

Case Title: Mukish v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566

Title: BRINDA KARAT AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 567

Case Title: Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 568

Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 569

Case Title: SURENDER @ TANNU @ TANVA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 570

Case Title: THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 571

Case Title: HANUMAN BENIWAL AND ORS. v. VINAY MISHRA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 572

Case Title: VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 573

Case Title: DEVENDER GUPTA v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 574

Case Title: Davinder Singh Thapar versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 575

Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited Vs DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 576

Case Title: KULVINDER SINGH KOHLI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 577

1. Non-Examination Of 4-Yr-Old Rape Victim Not Fatal To Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Upholds Life Sentence Under POCSO Act

Case Title: Mukish v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566

The Delhi High Court has upheld life sentence awarded to a man for committing rape on a 4 year old minor girl within his close family.

A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an appeal filed by one Mukish, challenging the Judgment dated 28th November, 2019 and order on point of sentence dated 29th November, 2019 passed by POCSO Judge.

The Court had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and awarded sentence of Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000.

2. Hate Speeches Delivered By Political & Religious Leaders Bulldoze Constitutional Ethos, Warrant Stringent Peremptory Action: Delhi High Court

Title: BRINDA KARAT AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 567

The Delhi High Court has observed that hate speeches especially delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the constitutional ethos and violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also observed that the same is in blatant derogation of the fundamental duties prescribed under the Constitution and therefore warrant stringent peremptory action on the part of Central and State Governments.

The judgment began by referring to a shloka from Bhagwat Gita which states that whatever action is performed by a leader, common men follow in his footsteps; and whatever standards he sets by his acts, are pursued by his subjects.

"The persons who are mass leaders and occupy high offices must conduct themselves with utmost integrity and responsibility. Leaders elected in a democracy like that of India, owe their responsibility not only towards the electorate in their own constituency, but also towards the society/nation as a whole and ultimately to the Constitution. It is they who are the role models for the ordinary masses. Thus, it does not befit or behove the leaders to indulge in acts or speeches that cause rifts amongst communities, create tensions, and disrupt the social fabric in the society," the Court observed.

The observations were made while the Court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by CPM leader Brinda Karat and politician KM Tiwari against a trial court order rejecting their plea for registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the year 2020.

3. Underreporting Of Income Due To Re-Computation Of Disallowance By The AO, Does Not Amount To Misreporting Of Income: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 568

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where the underreporting of income allegedly done by the assessee is due to the re-computation of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, it would not amount to misreporting of income.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed that the underreporting of income by the assessee was due to the increase in the disallowance made under Section 14A, which was voluntarily estimated by the assessee and later recalculated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same material.

The Court held that in some cases underreporting of income may result in misreporting of income, however, the underreporting allegedly done by the assessee would not amount to misreporting of income.

4. Disclosing Elaborate Reasons For Passing 'Interception Orders' May Affect Intelligence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 569

The Delhi High Court has observed that the disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness.

"The disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness which have been universally deemed acceptable for the protection of other facets of public including the source of information leading to the detection of crime or other wrongdoing, sensitive intelligence information and other information supplied in confidence for the purpose of government or discharge of certain public functions," Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.

The Court thus dismissed a petition filed by one Santosh Kumar who had challenged an order passed by Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30th January 2018 which permitted interception of his telephonic calls in the exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419 (A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules 2007.

5. Supplementary Chargesheet Must Disclose Novel Evidence, No Cognizance Where No New Material Discovered By Further Investigation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SURENDER @ TANNU @ TANVA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 570

The Delhi High Court has observed that where no new material or evidence has been discovered by the further investigation, any cognizance taken by the Magistrate may be said to be in contravention to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that there has to be an extent of novelty in the report or Supplementary Chargesheet filed by the Investigating Agency, which leads to discovery of material or evidence in a manner which was not before the Court in the primary report or Chargesheet.

7. If Party's Intention Not To Abandon Patent Application, High Court May Exercise Writ Jurisdiction To Extend Time For Filing Response To FER: Delhi HC

Case Title: THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 571

The Delhi High Court has observed that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction could grant an extension in filing a response to an FER (First Examination Reports), given that the applicant did not have the intention to abandon its patent application.

Justice Pratibha M Singh held that the consequence of a patent being abandoned and the Applicant being deprived of exclusivity for his invention, was quite extreme. Such a consequence should not be imposed on the applicant for no fault of its own.

8. RS Polls | Baseless Allegations That Voting Strategy Of An Individual/ Party Is Sold Off Damages Reputation, Encroaches Right To Privacy: Delhi HC

Case Title: HANUMAN BENIWAL AND ORS. v. VINAY MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 572

The Delhi High Court has observed that alleging that the voting strategy of an individual or of a political party or their nominees has been sold off without any foundational basis, deeply causes irreparable harm, loss and damage to the reputation of such an individual or party concerned and clearly encroaches upon the right of privacy.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that while reputation is an integral part of the dignity of each individual, there is a need for balance between the freedom of speech and expression vis-à-vis the right to reputation.

9. Rajya Sabha Polls 2022: Delhi High Court Dismisses Candidate's Plea To Relax Deadline For Filing Nomination

Case Title: VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 573

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by an individual candidate seeking directions on the Election Commission of India to grant him permission to file Nomination for the candidature of Rajya Sabha Election 2022.

A vacation bench comprising of Justice Poonam A. Bamba rejected the plea of one Vishwanath Pratap Singh after observing that the date for filing of Nomination Forms for the polls were already over. The last date for submission of nomination was May 31.

"It is also not in dispute that the list of candidates for the aforesaid elections has already been published and the said elections are scheduled for 10.06.2022 i.e. today," the Court noted in its order dated June 10.

10. S.19 Prevention Of Corruption Act | 'Failure Of Justice' Is A Facile Expression, Courts Must Be Circumspect While Determining It: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DEVENDER GUPTA v. CBI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 574

In reference to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that a judicial order may be interfered with in case of irregularity in grant of sanction coupled with failure of justice, the Delhi High Court has cautioned,

"The criminal Court, particularly the superior Court, should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or it is only a camouflage."

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed a plea filed by a public servant named as an accused in a CBI case registered under sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

11. Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Against A Deceased Assessee Is Invalid : Reiterates Delhi High Court

Case Title: Davinder Singh Thapar versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 575

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of escapement of income from assessment, against a deceased assessee is invalid in law.

The Division Bench of Justices Jyoti Singh and Anoop Kumar Mendirattaobserved that though the notices were issued by the revenue authorities pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, however, the said order did not deal with the issue of whether the notices could be issued against the deceased assesses. Therefore, the Court quashed the notices issued by the revenue authorities against the deceased assessee.

12. Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order For Not Giving Opportunity To File Objection To SCN

Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited Vs DCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 576

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has quashed the assessment order as the assessee was not given an opportunity to file an objection to the show cause notice.

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the reassessment notices for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 as well as the assessment orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax.

The petitioner contended that the notices and the orders were void as they had been issued in the name of 'Jindal Menthol & Investment Pvt. Ltd.', a non-existing entity as it had merged with the petitioner company with effect from April 1, 2013.

13. Summons U/S 160 CrPC Cannot Be Issued By Police Officer Without Registration Of FIR: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KULVINDER SINGH KOHLI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 577

The Delhi High Court has observed that summons or notices under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be issued by a Police Officer in order to set investigation into motion and that registration of FIR is must for the same.

Section 160 CrPC provides for a Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the said observation while answering the question as to on what stage a notice under Section 160 of Code can be issued.

The Court observed that without registration of FIR, an investigation cannot be said to have been initiated. Furthermore, it said that even for an enquiry to be held legal and valid, the Police Officer has to act in accordance with provisions of the CrPC and he may not act beyond his powers by conducting a preliminary enquiry without making a report to a Magistrate.