Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565

VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543

CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544

M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545

Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546

JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547

HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT. v. & BEN GROUPO PVT. LTD. & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 548

INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (ITDC) v. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD. (BMEL) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 549

M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550

Charu v. High Court of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 551

In Re: Housing for the Poor in Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 552

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE v. M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 553

DUSHYANT KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 554

PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555

M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556

HARYANA STATE JUDO ASSOCIATION v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 557

MAMTA DEVI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 558

TARUN AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 559

DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. v. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 560

JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 561

YOGESH JAGIA v. JINDL BIOCHEM PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562

MASTER DIVYAM BHATEJA THROUGH FATHER MR VINOD BHATEJA v. BHAI PARMANAND VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 563

UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 564

NAVED v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565

1. IPR Suits Below Rs. 3 Lakhs Threshold To Be Listed First Before District Judge (Commercial) To Determine Whether Valuation Is Deliberately Undervalued: Delhi HC

Title: VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543

The Delhi High Court has held that in a case where a plaintiff values an IPR suit in the city district courts below the threshold of Rs.3 lakhs, such suits would be listed before the District Judge (Commercial) first in order to determine as to whether the valuation is arbitrarily whimsical or deliberately undervalued.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that it would be mandatory for IPR suits to be ascribed a 'specified value', in the absence of which the valuation of the suit below Rs.3 lakhs would be arbitrary, whimsical and wholly unreasonable.

"This Court is cognizant of the fact that the valuation of intellectual property is by itself a very complex process. It is clarified that the Commercial Court is not expected to value the specific IP on the basis of any mathematical formulae but to broadly take into consideration whether the said IP would be worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs, which is the threshold for the Commercial Court to exercise jurisdiction," the Court said.

2. Re-Examination Can't Be Used To Give Chance To Witness To Undo Statement Made In Cross Examination & Fill Lacunae In Evidence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544 

The Delhi High Court has observed that the opportunity of re-examination cannot be used to give a chance to a witness to undo its statement made in cross-examination and fill in the lacunae in evidence.

Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed seeking to injunct the defendants, who were occupants, from unlawfully entering any part of the first floor including the balcony of a Shop on the ground floor of the premises.

Issues were framed in the suit on 2nd August, 2019 and a Local Commissioner was appointed to record evidence of the parties.

3. Show Cause Notice Mailed To The Wrong Email Address: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter To The Assessing Officer For A Fresh Decision

Case Title: M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545

The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has remanded the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh decision as the department mailed the show cause notice to the wrong email address.

The petitioner/assessee submitted that the department alleged that the petitioner's claim for IGST Refund was incorrect and, hence, the amount "is required to be disallowed." An IGST refund, being a balance sheet item, is not a claim made in the profit and loss account and it cannot be termed as "income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment". Hence, in terms of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act as well as the first proviso to Section 148, the show cause notice was patently illegal.

4. Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order Issued Without Considering The Reply Filed By The Assessee

Case Title: Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546

The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has quashed the reassessment order issued without considering the reply filed by the assessee.

The petitioner/assessee stated that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were void ab initio. The proceedings were initiated in the name of "Damian Estate Developers Private Limited", which was a non-existent entity as it had amalgamated with the petitioner company with effect from April 1st, 2016.

5. "Diabolic & Brutal": Delhi High Court Awards Imprisonment For Remainder Of Life To Three For Gang Rape & Murder Of 3-Yr-Old

Case Title: JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547

The Delhi High Court has awarded life sentence (for remainder of life) to three men for gang rape and murder of a three year old minor child observing that the same was done in a diabolic and brutal manner.

Upholding the conviction of the three, a division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna exercised its appellate jurisdiction by awarding life sentence under Section 376(2) and 302 of Indian Penal Code. It observed that the imprisonment of life for the remainder of life would be an appropriate sentence in the facts of the case.

The prosecution case was that an FIR was received 6th January, 2012 informing that a dead body of girl aged about 3-4 years was found in city's Ramesh Nagar. The body was found by an MCD sweeper who took it out while cleaning a nala. The same was identified later by minor's father.

Read Also: Trial Court Cannot Qualify Life Imprisonment Awarded By It To Remainder Of Natural Life: Delhi High Court Reiterates

6. Delhi High Court Awards ₹5 Lakhs Cost In Favour Of Hungarian Company 'Hell Energy' In Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT. v. & BEN GROUPO PVT. LTD. & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 548

The Delhi High Court has awarded a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs in favour of a Hungarian Company engaged in the business of production and sale of energy drinks under the brand names 'HELL' and 'HELL ENERGY' in a trademark infringement suit filed by it.

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed that the said amount be paid by July 15, noting the fact that mediation proceedings between the parties were not successful and also that the Defendants were ex-distributors of the company in question.

7. Entities Under Article 12 Expected To Fully Disclose Relevant Facts Regarding Property/ Assets For Fair Commercial Transactions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (ITDC) v. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD. (BMEL)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 549

Observing that fairness of procedure is in public interest, the Delhi High Court has said that full disclosure of relevant facts and developments apropos a property or asset or a commercial entity, is expected for a fair commercial transaction, especially from entities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan further added that it is expected that actions of such entities would always be imbued with the spirit of fairness.

The Court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ITDC) under sec. 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing its petition under sec. 34 of the Act against an Arbitral Award.

8. Order Passed By The Arbitrator Allowing Meetings As Per Convenience Of Parties, Would Not Change The Seat Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitrator holding that the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted at any other place, would not change the seat of Arbitration as provided in the Arbitration Clause.

The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the Arbitrator cannot decide anything contrary to what has been decided by the parties.

The petitioner M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels was awarded a contract by the respondent Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for hiring services. Thereafter, the respondent terminated the contract vide a notice. The petitioner issued a legal notice invoking the Arbitration Clause and called upon the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator.

9. DJS 2022 | Reserved Category Candidate Can Rectify Bonafide Mistake Of Applying In General Category If No Prejudice Is Caused To Any Person: Delhi HC

Case Title: Charu Kain v. High Court of Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 551

The Delhi High Court has held that a person of a reserved category, committing a bona fide mistake of applying under General category for an examination should be given an opportunity to rectify the same, so long as their action does not cause prejudice to any person.

In this case, the petitioner, who is currently posted as an Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services had appeared for the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2022 as a General Category candidate, instead of a Reserved category (SC) candidate due to a bona fide mistake. Here, had the petitioner been considered as a Reserved Category candidate (SC), she would make the cut off for appearing in the Mains examination as she had secured 119.5 marks, which was above the cut off (115.5 marks) for Reserved Category candidates. However, she did not make the cut off for the General Category which was higher than 119.5.

10. Slum Dwellers Rehabilitation: Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Non-Allotment Of Low-Cost Flats Under JNNURM Scheme

Case Title: In Re: Housing for the Poor in Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 552

The Delhi High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of non-allotment of flats constructed under Centre's Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Scheme, which was to be implemented by the Delhi Government, for rehabilitation of slum dwellers in the city.

Justice Pratibha M Singh noted that a large number of houses were either constructed or partially constructed but the same were yet to be allotted for rehabilitation of slum dwellers.

11. License Of Liquor Vend Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Because Public Sentiment May Be Opposed To Its Location: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE v. M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 553

The Delhi High Court has observed that unless the license of a liquor vend is shown to fall foul of any statutory provision or otherwise established to be in violation of any rule or regulation, the same cannot possibly merit cancellation, merely because "public sentiment" may be opposed to its location.

Justice Yashwant Varma further added that public opinion or sentiment is not a factor relevant or germane under the Delhi Excise Act for locating a liquor vend.

The Court was dealing with a petition preferred by the Department of Excise assailing the order of 28 June 2019 passed by the Financial Commissioner. The impugned order restored the excise license which was granted to the respondent, M/S 2 Bandits Restaurant, setting aside an order in terms of which the same had been cancelled.

12. Court May Note Objections On Oral Evidence During Trial, Admissibility To Be Decided While Pronouncing Verdict & Not At Time Of Examination: Delhi HC

Case Title: DUSHYANT KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 554

The Delhi High Court has observed that the question whether the evidence is to be included or excluded from consideration while pronouncing the final verdict is to be taken at the end and not at the time of examination.

Justice Jasmeet Singh added that where the Court finds that any question put by the defense is inadmissible or not relevant, it should record its observation and thereafter permit the witness to answer the question.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the rejection of questions by the Special CBI Judge of Rouse Avenue Courts, during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness in November 2021.

13. Newspaper Or Agency Engaged In Disseminating News Cannot Be Viewed As Performing Public Function: Delhi High Court

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555

The Delhi High Court has observed that a newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function.

Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a writ petition filed by one Prakash Singh laying allegations of racial discrimination and harassment against Agence France-Presse, a French private international news agency, against him. The Court dismissed the plea as not being maintainable.

Advocate Raghav Awasthi appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the fact that Agence France-Presse was constituted by an Act of Parliament of France.

It was argued that its essential functions would indicate that it was an autonomous civil entity which had been constituted for the purpose to seek out, in France as well as abroad, the elements of a complete and objective information service and also to place that information at the disposal of users in exchange for payment.

14. Delhi High Court Orders To De-seal Business Premises, Directs Assessee To Produce Documents

Case Title: M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam S. Bamba has ordered the department to de-seal business premises and directed the assessee to produce documents.

The department has sealed the business premises of the petitioner under Section 67 (4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 for the want of documents.

As per Section 67 (4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017, the officer authorised shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle or receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box, or receptacle is denied.

15. Delhi High Court Appoints Former Justice Pankaj Naqvi As Administrator To Handle Affairs Of Judo Federation Of India

Case Title: HARYANA STATE JUDO ASSOCIATION v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 557

The Delhi High Court has appointed former Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Pankaj Naqvi, as administrator to handle day to day affairs of Judo Federation of India.

Justice Yashwant Varma also directed that in the interim, the erstwhile President, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Federation shall extend all cooperation to the Administrator in conducting the affairs of the Federation.

"The Administrator shall be authorized to make appropriate arrangements for the governance of the Federation until elections are held," the Court added.

16. Delhi High Court Asks Parties To Clean Yamuna River For 45 Days, Quashes Assault FIR Based On Compromise

Case Title: MAMTA DEVI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 558

While quashing an FIR registered after a fight resulting in simple injuries, the Delhi High Court directed the complainant as well as the respondent parties to clean river Yamuna for a period or 45 days.

Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the parties to work with Delhi Jal Board Team under the supervision of Member, Drainage.

"At the end of satisfactory service, the petitioners and respondents will be given a certificate by Delhi Jal Board for Yamua Cleaning and this certificate by each of the petitioners and respondents must be placed on record within one week of their receipt," the Court directed.

17. Tendency To File Cases Of Outraging Woman's Modesty In Disputes Between Neighbours To Settle Scores Needs To Be Curbed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: TARUN AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 559

The Delhi High Court has observed that the tendency of filing cases of outraging modesty of a woman under Section 354 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, in the disputes between neighbours to settle scores needs to be curbed.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while quashing an FIR registered under sec. 354, 452, 506, 509, 354B and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The complainant had stated that the parties were neighbours and a dispute had arisen over some misunderstanding, pursuant to which cross FIRs were registered.

18. Institutions That Can't Pay Long Outstanding Salaries For Years Draws Attention To Its Right To Continue As An Employer: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. v. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 560

The Delhi High Court has observed that an institution which cannot pay its long outstanding salaries for years, which are statutorily due, draws attention to its financial stability and its right to continue as an employer.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan was of the opinion that it is for the State Government to look into the matter and ensure that the educational institutions comply with and conform to the strict norms of law.

The Court was dealing with an LPA filed by Delhi Sukh Gurudwara Management Committee concerning non-payment of outstanding amount to teachers paid under the Sixth Pay Commission for the past eight years.

19. S.127 CrPC | Must Consider Husband's Financial Status, Changed Circumstances While Determining Maintenance In Matrimonial Dispute: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 561

The Delhi High Court has observed that the determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the husband and the standard of living that the wife was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income with reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law including the liabilities, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid.

The Court was of the view that the phrase "change of circumstances" referred to in Section 127(1) of CrPC is a comprehensive phrase which also includes change of circumstances of husband.

20. Summoning Of Accused A Serious Matter, Criminal Law Cannot Be Set Into Motion As A Matter Of Course: Delhi High Court

Case Title: YOGESH JAGIA v. JINDL BIOCHEM PVT LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562

The Delhi High Court has observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that a Magistrate is the silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidences before summoning of the accused and must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a practicing Advocate enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi since 1991 and the Respondent Complainant was a real estate development company.

21. Right To Education Under RTE Act Cannot Be Unconditionally Enforced Against Private Unaided Schools: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MASTER DIVYAM BHATEJA THROUGH FATHER MR VINOD BHATEJA v. BHAI PARMANAND VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 563

The Delhi High Court has observed that while the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 guarantees the right to education, however, it nowhere provides that the said right can be unconditionally enforced against a private unaided school.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta upheld the validity of Rules 35 (Striking off the name from the rolls) and 167 (Name of the student to be struck off for non-payment of fees and contributions) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

The plea filed by a minor through his father had challenged the said Rules as being ultra vires to Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 21A read with provisions of Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 and contrary to the provisions of section 75 of Juvenile Justice care and Protection Act, 2015.

22. Party Can Raise Additional Grounds Based On The Award Passed After The Case Is Remitted To Tribunal Under Section 34(4) Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 564

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, after the matter is remanded back to it by the Court under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not a fresh arbitral award that can be challenged by filing a separate petition under Section 34(1).

The Court observed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Delhi High Court for challenging the arbitral award, the matter was remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal by the Court, and that the Tribunal thereafter passed an order.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a party cannot be precluded from raising additional grounds, which had arisen as a result of the subsequent order passed by Arbitral Tribunal, to challenge the arbitral award.

23. Police Post Not A Place Where Public Servants Are To Be Attacked With Fire Arms, Dandas Or By Pelting Stones On Them: Delhi High Court

Title: NAVED v. THE STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565

While denying bail to a man accused of attacking a Police Post and firing at the police officials from an illegal weapon, the Delhi High Court has observed that the Police Post is not a place where the public servants are supposed to be attacked with fire-arms, Dandas and Lathis or by pelting stones on them.

Justice Talwant Singh was of the prima facie view that the FSL report showed that the man was holding a fire-arm in his hand. The Court also noted that a sub inspector, complainant in the matter, was the main target of the attack by the accused persons, who had sustained severe injuries.

The Sub Inspector was the Chowki In-charge, whose place of posting being the Police Post was attacked by a group of people, who were armed with Dandas, Lathis.