Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 425 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 449

Case Title: BELA CREATION PVT LTD v. ANUJ TEXTILES 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 425

Case Title: Amit Gupta Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence Headquarters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 426

Title: NIKITA CHANDEL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 427

Title: GEETA SINGH v. PRADEEP SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 428

Title: STARBUCKS CORPORATION v. TEAQUILA A FASHION CAFE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 429

Case Title: Youth Against Crime v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 430

Title: KRISHNAN SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 431

Title: LAXMI & ANR v. SHYAM PRATAP & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 432

Case Title: RIT Foundation v. UOI and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 433

Case Title: Kedar Nath Babbar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 434

Case Title: Union of India versus Delhi State Consumer Co Operative Federation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 435

Case Title: Millennium School v. Pawan Dawar, O.M.P. (COMM) 590/2020 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 436

Case Title: PEPSICO INC. & ANR. versus JAGPIN BREWERIES LIMITED & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 437

Case Title: Extramarks Education India Private Limited V. MES Central School, ARB. P. 327 OF 2022 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 438

Case Title: Kiran Infra Engineers Limited versus Northern Railway 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 439

Title: AZHAR RASHEED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 440

Title: x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 441

Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SATBIR & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 442

Case Title: GAIL (India) Ltd. V. Trivendi Engineering & Industries LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 443

Case Title: Gujarat Gas Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd and Ors., O.M.P.(I)(COMM) 125 of 2022 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 444

Case Title: MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 445

Case Title: NIRMAL JINDAL v. SHYAM SUNDER TYAGI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 446

Title: JASBIR SINGH v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 447

Case Title: SHRI HARI SHAMSHER KAUSHIK v. SHRI JASBIR SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S ACCURA CARE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 448

Case Title: MILLENNIUM EDUCATION FOUNDATION V. EDUCOMP INFRASTRUCTURE AND SCHOOL MANAGEMENT LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 449

1. Bounden Duty Of Counsel To Ensure That Pleadings Filed Before Court Are Intelligible: Delhi High Court Expresses Word Of Caution

Case Title: BELA CREATION PVT LTD v. ANUJ TEXTILES

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 425

The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases where parties are represented by counsel, the said counsel have a bounden duty to ensure that pleadings, filed before a Court, are intelligible.

Giving a word of caution, Justice C Hari Shankar expressed displeasure over filing of an application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure after opining that the same did not contain a single sentence which was grammatically or syntactically correct.

Thus, the Court rejected a plea challenging an impugned order dated 24th February, 2022 wherein the Trial Court had rejected an application under Order VII Rule 14 filed by the petitioner, defendant in the civil suit, with costs of Rs. 5000.

2. Bail Amount Can Be Paid By Cash Ledger, Debit Ledger Of ITC: Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of A Person Accused of Fraudulently Availing ITC

Case Title: Amit Gupta Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence Headquarters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 426

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mukta Gupta has ruled that the bail amount can be paid by cash ledger and debit ledger of the Input Tax Credit (ITC).

It has been alleged by the department that the petitioner is one of the directors/key persons in M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., M/s Progressive Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s JBN Impex Pvt. Ltd. and allegedly the mastermind behind devising a mechanism of availing ITC on the strength of bills of various suppliers which were non-existing and fictitious, thus availing fraudulent ITC worth Rs. 27.05 crores, which he further passed on. The petitioner received a total of Rs. 260 crores in ITC from the three companies.

3. Every Lawyer Appearing For Client Has A Right Of Fair Hearing Irrespective Of Who The Complainant Is: Delhi High Court

Title: NIKITA CHANDEL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 427

Every lawyer, who appears for his client, has a right of fair hearing, irrespective of who the complainant is," the Delhi High Court has recently observed recently.

Justice Talwant Singh was dealing with a plea filed by seven accused persons seeking anticipatory bail directly in the High Court after claiming that since the complainant was an advocate, a fair hearing before the District Court was not possible because their counsels may be heckled during arguments.

4. Company Has To Be Proceeded Against By Giving An Opportunity To Be Heard Where It Has Also Been Accused, No Liability Only Qua Private Persons: Delhi HC

Title: GEETA SINGH v. PRADEEP SINGH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 428

The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case where the Company has also been accused, the liability cannot be said to have been arisen only qua the private person and that the Company has to be proceeded against legally by giving it an opportunity to be heard.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the liability of a private person, in his capacity of a Director or any other authority to act on behalf of the Company, if has to be severed from the liability of the Company, cannot arise against him when the Company itself is also an accused.

"Such liability against the person would arise when the accused person has issued the cheque in his personal capacity which is distinguishable from his capacity as an employee or Director of a company. Where the Company has also been accused, the liability cannot be said to have been arisen only qua the private person and the Company has to be proceeded against legally by giving it an opportunity to be heard," the Court said.

5. Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court Awards 2 Lakhs Damages & Over 9 Lakhs Cost In Favour Of Starbucks

Title: STARBUCKS CORPORATION v. TEAQUILA A FASHION CAFE & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 429

The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 2 lakhs damages and an amount of Rs. 9,60,100 in favour of Starbucks Corporation in a trademark infringement suit filed by it over the usage of its registered trademark'FRAPPUCCINO'.

Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with the suit filed by the plaintiff, Starbucks Corporation against one Teaquilla A Fashion Cafe, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing it's registered trademark "FRAPPUCCINO" either alone or with any prefix or suffix or any other confusing and deceptively similar trademark in relation to their goods, services and business as well as passing off.

6. Delhi High Court Clears Release Of Jayeshbhai Jordaar Film As Makers Assure To Insert Disclaimers Over Criminality Of Pre-Natal Sex Determination

Case Title: Youth Against Crime v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 430

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday cleared the release of Ranveer Singh starrer Yashraj film "Jayeshbhai Jordaar" after it was assured by the producers that relevant disclaimers, to the effect that Pre-natal sex determination is a criminal offence, shall be depicted in relation to an ultrasound scene and another connected scene.

A division bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri disposed of a plea filed by an NGO namely Youth Against Crime, challenging the film over depiction of a prenatal sex-determination scene in the trailer. The film is set to hit the theatres on May 13.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday cleared the release of Ranveer Singh starrer Yashraj film "Jayeshbhai Jordaar" after it was assured by the producers that relevant disclaimers, to the effect that Pre-natal sex determination is a criminal offence, shall be depicted in relation to an ultrasound scene and another connected scene.

A division bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri disposed of a plea filed by an NGO namely Youth Against Crime, challenging the film over depiction of a prenatal sex-determination scene in the trailer. The film is set to hit the theatres on May 13.

7. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Former Religare CFO Krishnan Subramanian In RFL Scam Case

Title: KRISHNAN SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 431

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Krishnan Subramanian, former CFO of Religare Enterprises Limited, in connection with the Fortis Religare Scam case involving the alleged financial scam of disbursal of loans worth thousands of crores to shell entities having no financial strength.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh granted bail to Subramanian subject to Subramanian furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 Lac with two sureties each of the like amount.

8. Daughter In Law Can Claim Maintenance From Her Father In Law If She Inherited Some Estate From Her Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: LAXMI & ANR v. SHYAM PRATAP & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 432

The Delhi High Court has observed that the daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law provided she has inherited some estate of her husband.

A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a plea filed by a widowed daughter-in-law and grand-daughter under sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 3rd May, 2019 deferring their claim for interim maintenance in a petition under sec. 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

9. Delhi High Court Passes Split Verdict On Criminalizing Marital Rape, Justice Rajiv Shakdher Holds Exception 2 Of Section 375 IPC Unconstitutional

Case Title: RIT Foundation v. UOI and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 433

The Delhi High Court has passed a split verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher has held that the exemption to the husband from the offence of marital rape is unconstitutional. Exception 2 of 375, 376B IPC was therefore struck down by him as violative of Article 14.

"The impugned provisions in so far as they concern a husband having intercourse with his wife without consent are violative of Article 14 and are therefore struck down", Justice Shankdher held.

However, Justice C Hari Shankar said that he does not agree with Justice Shakdher. Justice Harisankar has held that Exception 2 to Section 375 does not violate Constitution and that the exception is based on an intelligible differentia.

Also Read: Forced Sex By Husband On Wife Should Be Labelled Rape; Right To Withdraw Consent Part Of Woman's Right To Life & Liberty : Justice Rajiv Shakdher On Marital Rape

Also Read: 5 Reasons Why Striking Down Marital Rape Exception Will Not Create A New Offence : Justice Rajiv Shakdher Explains

Also Read:Assumption That Wife Forced To Have Sex With Husband Feels Same Degree Of Outrage As Woman Raped By Stranger Is Unrealistic : Justice Hari Shankar

Also Read: Striking Down Marital Rape Exception Will Result In Creation Of New Offence: Justice C Hari Shankar Differs With Justice Shakdher

Also Read: Rape Laws Should Be Gender Neutral, Steps Required To Be Taken By Legislature Or Executive: Justice Shakdher In Marital Rape Judgment

10. Sufficiency Of The Correctness Of Material Is Not To Be Considered While Issuing Reassessment Notice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kedar Nath Babbar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 434

The Delhi High Court held that the court was only required to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the assessment. The sufficiency of the correctness of the material cannot be considered while issuing the reassessment notice.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that the courts should exercise their writ jurisdiction very sparingly if there is an "alternative efficacious remedy." The petitioner cannot be allowed to short circuit the procedure merely out of convenience. If a statutory forum is created by law for the redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

11. Order Terminating Arbitral Proceedings Without Issuing Show Cause Notice Is Unsustainable And Perverse: Delhi HC 

Case Title: Union of India versus Delhi State Consumer Co Operative Federation Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 435

The Delhi High Court has ruled that abrupt issuance of orders by the Arbitral Tribunal terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), without holding any hearing and without issuing any show cause notice, is unsustainable and suffers from perversity of approach.

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that to ensure that an Arbitral Tribunal performs the duty entrusted to it is a core aspect of the supervisory function of the High Court, and thus where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to decide the review applications filed by the claimant seeking recall of the order terminating the arbitral proceedings, the Court can invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Section 65-B Of Indian Evidence Act Does Not Apply To Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Millennium School v. Pawan Dawar, O.M.P. (COMM) 590/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 436

The High Court of Delhi has held that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to arbitral proceedings.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that although the principles of the Evidence Act usually apply, sensu stricto, the specific provisions of the Act do not apply.

The Court further held that an objection as to the non-compliance with the requirement of Section 65-B shall be raised at the earliest opportunity. Failure to take such an objection at the material time deprives the other party to take such an objection at a later stage.

13. Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction In Pepsico's Plea Against Liquor Company Using Their Trademark 'Mirinda'

Case Title: PEPSICO INC. & ANR. versus JAGPIN BREWERIES LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 437

The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex parte injunction in favour of Pepsico against a liquor company allegedly using their mark i.e. Mirinda.

A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that Pepsico had successfully made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction since the balance of convenience lies in their favour. :

"This Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."

14. Mere Filing Of Written Statement Qua An Independent Transaction Would Not Amount To Waiver Of Right To Invoke Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Extramarks Education India Private Limited V. MES Central School, ARB. P. 327 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 438

The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot be deemed to have waived its right to invoke arbitration merely because it has filed a written statement in respect of disputes that are not covered under the agreement.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that a suit in respect of a dispute that is not governed by the arbitration agreement is not an impediment to the invocation of the arbitration.

15. Supplementary Agreement Rescinding Arbitration Clause; Whether Agreement Contrary To Law, To Be Decided By Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kiran Infra Engineers Limited versus Northern Railway

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 439

The Delhi High Court has held that whether a supplementary agreement between the parties, rescinding the arbitration clause contained in the principal contract, is contrary to law or not in view of taking away the right of a party to invoke arbitration, is required to be decided by the arbitrator himself.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva ruled that the disputes raised by the party contending that the supplementary agreement was hit by Section 17 and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, since it was signed by the party under duress and undue influence, are disputes which the Arbitral Tribunal is competent to rule upon.

16. Delhi High Court Bats For Framing Protocols At National Level For Medical Practitioners Doing Aesthetic Surgeries, Hair Transplant Procedures

Title: AZHAR RASHEED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 440

The Delhi High Court has called for framing of medical protocols at national level for guidance of medical practitioners doing aesthetic surgeries and hair transplantation procedures.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta directed the Centre as well as the Delhi Government to take steps for ensuring that "mushrooming Salons" carrying hair transplantation procedures under unprofessional hands without requisite qualification and in absence of medical supervision, are checked.

The Court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to take necessary measures to ensure that incidents of medical malpractice are not repeated and action is taken against such Salons wheresoever the hair transplantation treatment or aesthetic surgery is being extended at the hands of technicians or unqualified professionals without any medical supervision in defiance of established protocols and norms.

17. Overall Development Of Children Involves Both Parents, Settlement Agreement Must Reflect The Same: Delhi High Court

Title: x v. Y

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 441

The Delhi High Court has observed that the overall development of the children should ideally involve both the parents and that the settlement agreement should reflect the same.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a contempt plea filed by a wife for the alleged non-compliance of the order passed by the Family Court.

It was stated by the counsel appearing for the Petitioner wife that the Respondent husband had violated the order dated which was based on a settlement agreement inasmuch as the husband was neither coming forward for second motion nor was he fulfilling his obligations with regard to the monetary settlement of the child.

18. Jurisprudence Does Not Extend To Condoning All Inordinate/Unjustifiable Delays By Governmental Agencies: Delhi High Court

Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SATBIR & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 442

The Delhi High Court has observed that the jurisprudence does not extend to accommodating and condoning all inordinate or unjustifiable delays by the governmental agencies while adding that each case of such delay has to be examined on its individual merits.

A division bench comprising Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed thus:

"Although courts would take an accommodative view apropos appeals or reviews filed by Government departments, as there could be administrative delays, for which the Government's interest and the overall public interest should not suffer."

19. Liquidated Damages Can't Be Imposed When The Engineer-In-Charge Holds That The Cause Of Delay Is Explained: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GAIL (India) Ltd. V. Trivendi Engineering & Industries LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 443

The High Court of Delhi has held that liquidated damages can't be imposed when the Engineer-in-Charge holds that the cause of delay is explained.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that when the Engineer-in-Charge was entrusted with the task of examining the causes of delay, and it had analysed and accepted the justification provided by the contractor and recommended several extensions without the imposition of LD, it was not open for the employer to levy LD when the delay was not attributable to the contractor and so was determined by the Engineer-in-Charge.

20. Right To First Refusal Cannot Be Exercised After Making A Counter-Offer To The Seller: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gujarat Gas Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd and Ors., O.M.P.(I)(COMM) 125 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 444

The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot demand its 'Right to First Refusal' after making a counter-offer to the seller.

The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that when the party that has been given the right to first refusal (RoFR) makes a counter-offer, the seller becomes entitled to sell the subject goods to the third parties.

The Court further held that the court while exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot grant interim relief in the nature of specific performance when it will undoubtedly and obviously be the essential claim and relief that the petitioner will seek in the arbitral proceedings.

21. Extraordinary Power U/S 482 CrPC Can't Be Exercised At Disposal Of Affluent Accused Who Arm-Twists Law To Achieve Scrupulous Ends: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 445

The Delhi High Court has observed that extraordinary powers of High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not meant to be exercised at the disposal of the affluent accused who do not leave any stone unturned to arm-twist the law of the land and administrative machinery to achieve their scrupulous ends.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed a plea filed by Religare Finvest's ex Promoter, Malvinder Mohan Singh in connection with Religare Finvest scam case, challenging the order dated 7th December 2021 passed by the Trial Court which had dismissed his request to consult physically with his lawyers outside jail premises, while in custody, in order to prepare for proceedings before the Supreme Court, High Court and various district courts.

22. [Contempt] Democratic Fabric Of Society Will Suffer If Respect For Judiciary Is Undermined: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NIRMAL JINDAL v. SHYAM SUNDER TYAGI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 446

Observing that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, the Delhi High Court has said that the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:

"The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined."

23. Fairness Assured By Article 21 Would Receive A Jolt If Period Of Deprivation Pending Trial Or Disposal Of Appeal Becomes Unduly Long: Delhi High Court

Title: JASBIR SINGH v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 447

The Delhi High Court has observed that if the period of deprivation pending trial or disposal of criminal appeal becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India would receive a jolt.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that the delay in disposal of criminal appeals pending in the High Court is matter of serious concern to all those involved in the administration of criminal justice.

24. Directors & Other Persons Responsible For Conduct Of Business Can't Be Held Liable If No Offence Is Attributed To Company: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHRI HARI SHAMSHER KAUSHIK v. SHRI JASBIR SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S ACCURA CARE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 448

The Delhi High Court has observed that if no offence is attributed to the company, it is but the natural corollary, that its Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of its business cannot be saddled with any liability.

Observing that the Company being arrayed as the accused must be found to have committed an offence, Justice Asha Menon added:

"Thereafter, through the legal fiction created by Section 141 of the N.I. Act, the Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of its business also become vicarious liable."

25. Mere Pendency Of An Insolvency Petition Is Not A Bar To The Appointment Of The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MILLENNIUM EDUCATION FOUNDATION V. EDUCOMP INFRASTRUCTURE AND SCHOOL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, ARB.P. 326 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 449

The High Court of Delhi has held that the mere pendency of an insolvency petition under Section 9 of the IBC is not a bar to the appointment of an arbitrator.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has held that merely because an insolvency petition is pending, it cannot be an embargo on the power of the Court to decide arbitration applications. It is only when the insolvency petition is admitted and the moratorium is declared that the proceedings under the Arbitration Act would be non-maintainable.

The Court further held merits or validity of the demand notice are not to be decided by the Court while exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act.