Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 27 To April 02, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 269 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 283

NOMINAL INDEX

UNION OF INDIA v. ARVIND M KAPOOR AND ANR & other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 269

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA v. THE INSTITUTE OF COST ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 270

INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. v. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 271

State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 272

NTPC Ltd vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 273

Azad @ Gourav vs. State of GNCT of Delhi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 274

THE WIRE THROUGH ITS EDITOR & ANR. v. AMITA SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 275

DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 276

INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD versus TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON (PUBL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 277

VIVO MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 278

OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 279

Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 280

Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes Versus Corsan Corviam Construction S.A.-Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Jv 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 281

Sakshi Bahl Versus The Principal Additional Director General 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 282

GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Sneh Development Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 283

Anti Dumping Rules Not Inconsistent With RTI Act, Disclosure Of Confidential Information Can Impact India's Economic Interests: Delhi High Court

Title: UNION OF INDIA v. ARVIND M KAPOOR AND ANR & other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 269

Observing that disclosure of confidential information in anti-dumping proceedings can have a significant impact on country’s economic interest and trade relations, the Delhi High Court has said that same cannot be sought or subjected to disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that when the Anti-Dumping Rules themselves provide an exception to disclosure of information in view of the nature of anti-dumping proceedings, the court cannot allow the RTI applicant to “bypass such a barrier.”

“The entire purpose of having a complete and self-sufficient scheme for disclosure of confidential information under the Anti-Dumping Rules would be defeated if persons who are participating in anti-dumping investigation are permitted to tangentially seek information under the RTI Act,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Restrains Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India From Using ‘ICAI’ Acronym

Title: THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA v. THE INSTITUTE OF COST ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 270

The Delhi High Court has restrained Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India from using “ICAI” acronym, a trademark which stands registered in favour of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, for the institution or services provided by it.

Justice C Hari Shankar also directed Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India to remove ICAI acronym from all existing web pages and other physical or virtual representations in which it is used, within three months.

The court was hearing a suit filed by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India seeking an injunction against Institute of Cost Accountants of India from using the ICAI mark.

Recourse To Section 34(4) Of The A&C Act Can’t Be Opted For Consideration Of New Material Evidence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. v. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 271

The Delhi High Court has held that recourse to Section 34(4) of the A&C Act cannot be taken to permit the arbitral tribunal to consider the material evidence which it earlier failed to consider.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that Section 34(4) of the A&C Act empowers the Court deciding an application under Section 34(1) of the Act to adjourn the challenge proceedings and remit the matter back to the arbitral tribunal to allow it to eliminate the ground of the challenge, however, this power can only be exercised to allow the tribunal to provide for gaps in the reasoning or cure any other curable defect, however, it does not extend to allow the tribunal to give a new finding or a fresh decision.

No Place For Violent Action To Resist Govt Policy In Democracy: Delhi High Court Frames Charges Against Sharjeel Imam, Others In Jamia Violence Case

Title: State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 272

While framing charges of rioting and unlawful assembly against Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in 2019 Jamia violence case, the Delhi High Court has observed that protest by violent means can never be part of democracy.

“Though, in a democracy, there can be no question of dissent being suppressed or fundamental right of freedom of expression by peaceful means being infringed, however, at the same time, there is no place of violent collective action to register one’s anguish against ideological differences or resistance to a Government policy,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

Perusing the video of the protest on record, the court said that the acts of resistance being presented as normal by the accused persons were not peaceful resistance but violent protest which had turned into riots.

‘Updation Application’ Seeking To Change The Amount Of Counter-Claims In Arbitral Proceedings, Is An Application For ‘Amendment’: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NTPC Ltd vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 273

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a party has filed an application seeking to update/revise its counter claims before the Arbitral Tribunal, intending to primarily alter/change the amount of the counter-claims, the said application was, in effect, an application for amendment of the counter-claims, even though it was termed as an ‘updation application’.

The bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao was dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the Arbitral Tribunal’s order where it had rejected the party’s application seeking updation/revision of its counter claims on the ground that the same was filed belatedly.

CDR Data Can Only Be Used As Corroborative Piece Of Evidence, Can't Be Sole Basis For Conviction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Azad @ Gourav vs. State of GNCT of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 274

The Delhi High Court has ruled that although the Call Detail Records (CDRs) may be an important and effective piece of evidence, which may facilitate and assist courts in ascertaining the presence of different participants in commission of an offence, the same can only be taken as supporting or a corroborative piece of evidence, and conviction cannot be made solely on basis of the CDR data.

While setting aside the conviction of an accused for the offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that the CDRs relied on by the prosecution only proved that the accused were present near the place of occurrence on the day of the incident. However, the CDRs did not prove that the said accused actually participated in the commission of the offence, the court held.

Delhi High Court Quashes Summoning Order Against The Wire’s Editors In Criminal Defamation Case By Ex JNU Professor

Title: THE WIRE THROUGH ITS EDITOR & ANR. v. AMITA SINGH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 275

The Delhi High Court quashed a summoning order issued by a trial court in 2017 against The Wire’s Editor and Deputy Editor in a criminal defamation case filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Amita Singh.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani quashed the order passed by a metropolitan court on January 07, 2017, summoning The Wire’s Editor Siddharth Bhatia and Deputy Editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha in Singh’s criminal complaint.

DMRC’s Salaries, O&M Expenses Not To Be Attached In Case Of Failure To Pay Unpaid Dues To Reliance Infra: Delhi High Court Clarifies

Title: DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 276

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the salaries and other Operation & Maintenance (O&M) expenses to be borne by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation will not be attached in case of its failure to pay dues to Reliance Infra-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) under the 2017 arbitral award.

Justice Yashwant Varma was hearing a petition moved by DMRC seeking review of an earlier decision on the execution petition filed by DAMEPL.

It was DMRC’s case that the attachment of its statutory expenses will result in immediate stoppage of the entire metro network in National Capital Region and cause inconvenience to more than 50 Lakh commuters.

Standard Essential Patent Owners Can Pray For Interim And Final Injunctive Relief If Infringer Deemed To Be An ‘Unwilling Licensee’: Delhi High Court

Title: INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD versus TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON (PUBL)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 277

Observing that the new technology has blurred national boundaries and given a boost to the international trade as well as infringement, the Delhi High Court has said that global doctrinal interdependence — referring to foreign Court decisions, is an effective and practical way of facilitating harmonization of basic principles of laws, especially when there is nothing contrary in the national laws.

In its decision on the appeals against a single judge decision that held Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson's eight suit patents prima facie valid and further ruled that Intex Technologies (India) Limited has prima facie infringed Ericsson's patent, the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said rapid developments in the technology have posed unprecedented challenges to intellectual property laws.

Delhi High Court Asks Vivo To Pursue Remedies Before PMLA Appellate Tribunal In Plea Against Freezing Of Debt Accounts By ED

Title: VIVO MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 278

Hearing the plea moved by Vivo India against the order of Enforcement Directorate to debit freeze its bank accounts, the Delhi High Court has directed Chinese smartphone manufacturer to pursue its appellate remedies before the Appellate Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that Vivo India has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal last month against the order passed by Adjudicating Authority confirming the debit freeze order.

Refund Can’t Be Withheld On The Ground That Assessee Is Selected For Scrutiny Assessment; Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Withholding Refund Due To OYO

Case Title: OYO Hotels and Homes Private Limited vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 279

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Revenue Department’s order withholding a refund of over Rs. 33 Crores due to OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd, while directing the department to reconsider OYO’s representations seeking disbursal of the refund amount, bearing in mind the provisions of Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that despite OYO receiving a refund intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, it was wholly unjust and inequitable for the Assessing Officer to withhold the refund amount due to it, merely on the ground that a scrutiny notice had been issued to OYO.

Arbitral Tribunal’s Order Rejecting The Application For Impleadment Of Party Doesn’t Constitute An ‘Interim Award’: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 280

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party who is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, can be impleaded as a necessary party in the arbitration proceedings.

The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain further ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting the application for impleadment of parties in the arbitral proceedings, does not constitute an ‘interim award’ under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it does not decide any substantive question of law or deal with the merits of the case.

Refund Claim Embedded In Return, No Need To File Fresh Claim: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Pay 6% Interest

Case Title: Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes Versus Corsan Corviam Construction S.A.-Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Jv

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 281

The Delhi High Court has held that since the claim for a refund made by the assessee was embedded in its return and the assessee was not required to file a fresh claim.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has directed the Department to pay interest within 4 weeks.

The assessee filed its revised return on 10.07.2015 for the fourth quarter of the Financial Year 2014-15. Since the assessee's tax period arises every quarter, in terms of Section 38(3)(a)(ii), in the ordinary course, it would be entitled to a refund within two months after the date on which the return was furnished. Therefore, the two-month period would end on 10.09.2015.

Attachment Of Bank Accounts Is A Draconian Step, Attachment Is Subject To The Condition Mentioned U/s 83 Of GST Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sakshi Bahl Versus The Principal Additional Director General

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 282

The Delhi High Court has held that attachment of bank accounts is a draconian step and the action can only be taken in case conditions specified in Section 83 of the GST Act, are fully satisfied.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that it is not open for the department to attach the bank accounts of other persons on the mere assumption that the funds were owned by any taxable person.

Court May Decline To Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Doesn’t Correlate To Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Sneh Development Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 283

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere existence of an arbitration agreement or arbitration clause would not be sufficient to refer the parties to arbitration and that even in the presence of an arbitration agreement, the court may decline to refer the parties to arbitration if the dispute does not correlate to the said agreement.

While dealing with a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Court observed that in the guise of seeking reference to an arbitrator, the petitioner was seeking recovery of the costs that it had been directed to pay as compensation to the homebuyers by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).