Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 7 To November 13, 2022

Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 1050 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1077]

NOMINAL INDEX

Axis Trusteeship Services Limited v. Brij Bhushan Singhal & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

MANISH GUPTA vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

ASHU & ORS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

SAROJINI NAGAR JHUGGI JHOPRI VIKAS SAMITI v. SHRI SURESH KUMAR & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

SUNITA v. PREMWATI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. A U Small Finance Bank Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

Bharat Foundry and Engineering Works v. Intec Capital Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

Pratap Singh vs The State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

AMARJEET SHARMA v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

VIPIN SINGH v. STATE AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

NEHA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

Deepak Kapoor Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

VIVEK PURWAR AND ANR. v. HARI RAM AND SONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

Hariom v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1068

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

SHER MOHAMMAD v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (SDMC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

SURESH KUMAR v. CP & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

RAJIV CHAKRABORTY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF EIEL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

DHANALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

AK vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

1. Interim Moratorium Under Section 96 IBC Is Limited To Particular Guarantor, Will Not Protect Other Personal Co-Guarantors Of Same Debt: Delhi HC

Case Title: Axis Trusteeship Services Limited v. Brij Bhushan Singhal & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

The Delhi High Court recently held that the interim moratorium under section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) is specific to all debts of a particular debtor and will not be applicable to other personal co-guarantors.

2. Delhi High Court Rejects Sci-Hub Founder's Application Seeking Withdrawal Of Admission Accepting Copyright Ownership Of Publishers

Title: ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

The Delhi High Court has rejected Alexandra Elbakyan's application seeking withdrawal of an earlier admission accepting the copyright ownership of publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society in an ongoing lawsuit.

Elbakyan is the founder of the shadow library website Sci Hub and had made the admission in her written statement to the suit filed by major publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley India, Wiley Periodicals and American Chemical Society. In their suit against online repositories Sci-Hub and Libgen, the publishers have said the websites indulge in online piracy by making their literary work available to the public for free.

Rejecting the application seeking amendment in the written statement, Justice Navin Chawla said the amendment is not in nature of a clarification or an explanation to the admission made in the written statement but seeks a complete withdrawal of the said admission.

3. Forums Under Senior Citizens Act Not Required To Give Categorical Findings On Civil Rights: Delhi High Court

Title: MANISH GUPTA vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

The Delhi High Court has said that forums created under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are "neither obliged nor placed under a duty" to render categorical findings with respect to the civil rights which are claimed by parties.

"The primordial consideration of those proceedings is to safeguard the interest of the senior citizens and to ensure that they are not harassed or ill-treated in their twilight years," said Justice Yashwant Varma.

4. Candidates Belonging To Reserved Categories In Any State, UT Entitled To Reservation In Delhi Subordinate Services: Delhi High Court

Title: ASHU & ORS v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

The Delhi High Court has held that all the candidates belonging to reserved categories as notified by a Presidential Order in any state or union territory would be entitled to reservation benefit in Delhi subordinate services.

"If a candidate is able to furnish a certificate of belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – which may otherwise be issued only by the competent authority where such a candidate is ordinarily resident – he cannot be denied the benefit of reservation as specified under the Notification."

5. Delhi High Court Awards ₹20 Lakh To Louis Vuitton In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Club Factory

Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 20 lakhs costs in favour of French luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton Malletier in its trademark infringement suit against Club Factory, a China-based e-shopping website which was banned in India in 2021.

Though the suit was decreed on March 24 when a permanent injunction was granted against the Chinese website and now it was listed for ex-parte evidence in respect of the relief of damages, Louis Vuitton's counsel on November 03 told the court that "owing to certain sensitivity", the plaintiff only wishes to press for costs in the matter.

The luxury brand placed on record the bill of costs and claimed Rs.32,29,416.

6. Provision Of Appeal Under Contempt of Courts Act Is Extremely Limited And Regulated: Delhi High Court

Title: SAROJINI NAGAR JHUGGI JHOPRI VIKAS SAMITI v. SHRI SURESH KUMAR & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

Observing that the provision of appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is extremely limited and regulated, the Delhi High Court last week said the maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 is dependent upon a contemnor being guilty or punished under the law and in no other case.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said an order rejecting a petition for contempt is not open to challenge as an appeal lies only when the court has exercised the power to hold a contemnor guilty.

"In other words, denial of an order not holding a contemnor guilty or punishing a contemnor, is not appealable under Section 19 of the Act," said the court, adding that for an appeal to be maintainable under Section 19 of the Act there has to be a definite finding against a contemnor, or else there cannot be any right to appeal.

7. Court Can Compel Lawyer To Conclude Cross Examination On Same Day Only In Rarest Circumstances: Delhi High Court

Title: SUNITA v. PREMWATI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

The Delhi High Court has said that a court cannot compel a lawyer to conclude cross examination on the very day it starts, except in rarest of circumstances.

"While it is open to a Court to jettison irrelevant and immaterial questions, if asked by Counsel, nonetheless, save and except in the rarest of circumstances, the Court cannot compel a Counsel to conclude cross-examination on the very day when it starts," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

8. When Financial Institution Is A 'Borrower' It Can't Invoke Arbitration Under Section 11 Of SARFAESI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. A U Small Finance Bank Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

The High Court of Delhi has held that a borrower which also happens to be a financial institution cannot resort to arbitration provided under Section 11 of SARFAESI Act.

The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that Section 11 of SARFAESI Act provides for remedy by way of arbitration only in cases of inter se dispute between the financial institution but does not cover a simple lender-borrower dispute, even if the borrower is a financial institution.

9. Circumstances Mentioned Under Schedules V Do Not Per Se Render The Arbitrator Ineligible: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Foundry and Engineering Works v. Intec Capital Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

The High Court of Delhi has held that unlike Schedule VII, the circumstances mentioned under the Vth Schedule do not per se render an arbitrator ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator unless it is established that the arbitrator's neutrality was indeed compromised.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that merely because an Arbitrator has been appointed in more than two arbitral proceedings between the parties/their affiliates, the Award cannot be set aside, until a concrete foundation is laid down for doubting the independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator.

10. 'Khad' Cannot Solely Be Interpreted To Mean Drugs: Delhi High Court, Grants Bail To Fertilizer Seller In NDPS Case

Title: Pratap Singh vs The State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, observing that 'Khad' cannot be solely interpreted to mean drugs or contraband.

"The applicant is in the business of fertilizers and hence the use of word 'Khad' is neither unusual nor strange. I have reasonable ground to believe that he is not guilty of the offence," said Justice Jasmeet Singh in the order dated October 3.

The court made the observation while granting bail to Pratap Singh, who was in custody in the case since March 09 last year.

11. Home Secretary, DG CRPF Will Be Personally Liable For Contempt If Head Constable Recruitment Not Completed Within 8 Months: Delhi High Court

Title: SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

The Delhi High Court has said the Home Secretary and Director General of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) will be personally liable for contempt if they fail to complete the recruitment process for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) within a period of eight weeks.

The court on March 08 had directed the CRPF to act upon a communication issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, regarding the filling-up of vacant posts in the central government ministries or departments, within six weeks.

12. Section 167 CrPC | '15 Days' Time Limit & Reasoned Order' For Remand Are Requirements Only During Pendency Of Investigation: Delhi High Court

Title: AMARJEET SHARMA v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

Observing that the right of default bail is finished or extinguished the moment chargesheet is filed within the period prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Delhi High Court has ruled that any irregularity or illegality in the remand order is not a "statutorily sanctioned reason" for grant of default bail. 

"A reading of the provisions under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. nowhere carves out the principle to indicate that the accused would be entitled for bail for any reason whatsoever apart from any other reason then stipulated under the proviso (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C," said the court.

The court said the language of sub-Section 3 of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is unambiguous and, therefore, has to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense.

13. Accused Must Not Be Forced To Face POCSO Trial If Victim Was Major: Delhi HC Asks UIDAI To Furnish Prosecutrix's DoB Record

Title: VIPIN SINGH v. STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

Hearing a bail plea of a rape accused, who is also facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Delhi High Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to furnish details of the victim's date of birth as per the records relating to her Aadhar card.

The court passed the order after the accused claimed that the prosecutrix, as per the copy of Aadhar card in his possession, was major on the alleged date of incident. The claim was opposed by the State.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the investigating agency as well as the Special Court during the course of trial have a duty to ascertain or determine and satisfy itself to the age of the victim considering the fact that trial under provisions of POCSO Act places presumption and existence of mental state under Section 29 and 30 of the Act.

14. Armed Forces Best Judge Of Their Standards For Selection, Court Can't Interfere; Except In Grave Circumstances: Delhi High Court

Title: NEHA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Armed Forces and Para Military Forces are the best judges to set their own standards for selection as per their own discretion and the same merits no interference by a court of law, unless there is some "grave exceptional circumstances."

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by a boxer, who had applied for the post of Head Constable (General Duty) in CISF under sports quota, but was later declared as medically unfit due to obesity. The plea was moved challenging the result given by Review Medical Examination and all subsequent proceedings regarding appointment.

15. 'Sensitivity And Law Must Be Balanced; One Is Dealing With Humans, Not Mere Files': Delhi High Court While Granting Parole To Murder Convict

Title: KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

"Sensitivity and compassion balanced with rules, regulations and law needs to be maintained by any Court as one is dealing with humans and not mere files and orders," the Delhi High Court has observed while granting parole of 45 days to a murder convict.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted relief to Kundan Singh, who is serving life sentence in the Tihar Jail. Singh, who is a native of Uttarakhand, was convicted in January 2014 for murdering his friend Vipin Kumar, whose head, hands and legs below the knee had been chopped off and thrown away in a jungle near Lado Sarai bus stand in August 2007. The high court in 2015 upheld Singh's conviction. The Supreme Court also dismissed his SLP in July 2019.

16. Reassessment Notice Based On Error Resulting From Oversight Of AO Is Not Valid: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Deepak Kapoor Versus PCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

The Delhi High Court has held that the reassessment notice based on an error resulting from the oversight of the assessing officer is not valid.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. Income Tax Officer, in which it was held that where the Income Tax Officer has all the material before him and has framed the original assessment, it is not open for him to take recourse to Section 147(a) of the Act to remedy the error resulting from his oversight.

The court has observed that it was impermissible for the AO to seek a reopening of the assessment to review its decision regarding the fair market value of the property or deduction on account paid by the assessee to his sisters or the expenses incurred by him.

17. 'Large Pendency, Lack Of Uniform Method Of Prioritization': Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Expeditious Disposal Of Cases In Consumer Forums

Case Title: MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

Taking note of the large pendency and lack of a uniform method for prioritisation of cases in the district consumer forums, the Delhi High Court has issued directions for ensuring expeditious disposal of the consumer matters

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Registrars of concerned district forums to start listing final matters, where evidence has been concluded, for hearing at 2:30 PM on a daily basis, with effect from November 14.

The matters shall be listed in a chronological manner starting from the oldest cases first, the court said, adding that an advance publication shall be made in the cause list so that the lawyers and litigants are duly informed.

18. Mere Advertising Of Products In Delhi Does Not Create Jurisdiction For Trial Courts To Entertain Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court

Title: VIVEK PURWAR AND ANR. v. HARI RAM AND SONS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the defendant advertised its products during the course of business in the national capital, cannot mean that the trial court here would have jurisdiction to entertain a plaintiff's suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while setting aside a decree passed by Additional District Judge of Tis Hazari Courts in a suit filed by manufacturer of sweets and namkeens restraining two individuals from using the plaintiff's trademark 'HARI RAM AND SONS & HR LOGO'.

The suit was filed by proprietors of M/s. Hari Ram and Sons alleging that the defendants adopted the same trademark for similar business.

19. Delhi High Court Directs Tata Power To Provide Electricity Connections To Pakistani Hindu Migrants Within One Month

Case Title: Hariom v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1068

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) to provide electricity connections to Pakistani Hindu migrants, who are residing in the city's Adarsh Nagar area, within a period of 30 days.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for including Aadhaar card and long-term visa as a sufficient proof in respect of occupancy of the premises, to enable them to apply for electricity connections.

The power company was earlier demanding proof of ownership of land to supply electricity to them. The migrants are allegedly living on land belonging to the defence ministry.

20. Appeal Against Orders Of Patent Office Would Lie Before High Court In Whose Jurisdiction Appropriate Office Is Located: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that after the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, appeals challenging the order of the Patent Office would lie before the concerned High Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the "appropriate office" from where the patent application originates, as being the "situs of the said application."

Justice Pratibha M Singh observed that in such appeals, the concept of cause of action cannot be pleaded to vest jurisdiction in other High Courts i.e., other than the one in the territorial jurisdiction of which the appropriate office is located.

21. City Bursting At The Seams, Unauthorised Constructions Can't Be Allowed To Stand In Perpetuity: Delhi High Court

Title: SHER MOHAMMAD v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (SDMC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

The Delhi High Court has said that unauthorized constructions are a bane to "orderly development" of the city, which is bursting at its seams, and they cannot be allowed to continue to stand in perpetuity.

Justice C Hari Shankar made the observation while dismissing a Delhi resident Sher Mohammad's plea challenging an order passed by Principal District & Sessions Judge on September 14.

Vide the impugned order, the trial court had rejected Mohammad's appeal against an order of the Appellate Tribunal of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

22. Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Litigant Challenging Justice Chandrachud's Appointment As CJI

Title: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of newly sworn-in Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad called it a "publicity interest litigation"

The petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari in the PIL argued that the appointment of Justice Chandrachud was made in violation of the provisions of the constitution. He prayed for an immediate stay on Justice Chandrachud's appointment.

23. Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order In The Name Of A Non-Existing Entity

Case Title: Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment order in the name of a non-existing entity.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that not only was the notice issued in the name of the transferor company but the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, as well as the notice under Section 148, have been issued on the PAN of the transferor company.

The Aureole Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Transferor Company) was merged with M/s. Rajasthan Global Securities Private Limited (Transferee Company). After the amalgamation order passed by the High Court, the company stood dissolved without winding up. There was no obligation or scope under the law for any income tax returns to be filed by Aureole Impex Pvt. Ltd.

24. Policeman Caught With Foreign Currency At Airport: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal, Says Lawbreaker Cops Must Be Dealt With Iron Hands

Title: SURESH KUMAR v. CP & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police head constable who was caught with 75 dirhams while on duty of checking passengers' passports at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in 1996, observing that the police officers who break law must be "dealt with iron hands."

Calling it an "open and shut case", a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said possession of foreign currency in head constable's pocket at the time of surprise check along with statements of witnesses "clearly establishes misconduct committed by him."

25. Does Moratorium Under IBC Take Away ED's Power To Order Attachment Of Property Under PMLA? Delhi High Court Says No

Title: RAJIV CHAKRABORTY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF EIEL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

Observing that assets, which may have been obtained by the commission of a scheduled offense cannot be accorded exemption or immunity from the rigours of the PMLA, the Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that provisions of the money laundering Act are not subservient to the moratorium provision comprised in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006.

"Acceptance of such a contention would not only run contrary to the legislative policy but also undermine the efforts of the legislature to combat the offense of money laundering. In fact if Section 14 were to be interpreted in the manner as suggested by the petitioner, it would deprive the authorities charged with implementing the provisions of the PMLA of an essential weapon in their quest to confiscate proceeds of crime," said the court.

26. Arbitrator Gets Jurisdiction Only With Respect To 'Notified' Claims; Delay/ Failure to Certify Claim as 'Notified', Does Not Operate As Waiver: Delhi High Court

Case Title: L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitrator gets the jurisdiction only with respect to the claims which are 'notified' by the specified authority, as provided in the arbitration clause, and that if the claims are not notified, they will not form the subject matter of arbitration.

The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the procedure of forwarding a panel of names to the other contracting party, to choose its nominee arbitrator from amongst them, is no longer a valid procedure.

The Court added that in the absence of a free choice given to a party, to choose the arbitrator from a broad and diversified panel, there was a possibility of apprehension of bias arising in its mind, which would defeat the purpose of arbitration.

27. Rising Need Of Qualified Doctors In India: Delhi High Court Slams NMC For Violating Norms, Presenting 'False Facts' To Deny College Relief

Title: DHANALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

Emphasising on the growing need of qualified doctors in the country, the Delhi High Court has observed that deserving medical colleges must not be unfairly denied the opportunity to contribute in enhancing the strength of medical professionals.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that augmentation of medical infrastructure is crucial, and hence, the role of regulatory bodies like National Medical Commission (NMC) is "unquestionably significant."

"The authorisation procedure must indeed be strictly adhered to ensure that there is no decline in the quality of medical education. However, at the same time, deserving colleges must not be unfairly denied the opportunity to contribute in enhancing the strength of medical professionals," the court said.

28. POCSO Act Meant To Protect Minors From Sexual Abuse, Not Criminalize Consensual Romantic Relationships Of Young Adults: Delhi HC

Title: AK vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

The Delhi High Court has said that the intention of The Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was to protect the children from sexual abuse and not criminalise consensual romantic relationships of young adults.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said the factum of a consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail.