Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 10 To October 16, 2022

Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 946 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 979]

NOMINAL INDEX

CIT Versus Travelport L.P. USA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 946

Dharampal Satyapal Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Youssef Anis Mehio & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 947

Esha Kedia versus Milan R. Parekh & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 948

Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 949

M/s Victory Electric Vehicles International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 950

PAWAN KUMAR KAKARIA v. ANIL KUMAR RAI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 951

DEVKI NANDAN GARG v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 952

Saleem & Ors. v. Wahid Malik 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 953

M/S Young Men S Tennis Club v. NDMC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 954

GAGANDEEP SINGH ADHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 955

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. versus Dowager Maharanis Residential Accommodation Welfare & Amenities Trust & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 956

Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Shah Aircon 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 957

VIKRANT KAPILA & ANR. v. PANKAJA PANDA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 958

PCIT Versus M/s Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 959

ALLERGAN INC AND ANR. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 960

SATYENDAR K JAIN v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 961

HAKIM & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 962

SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT. LTD. v. MTRM GLOBAL PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 963

VINEET ANAND THROUGH SPA HOLDER v. KIRAN ANAND AND SONS HUF THROUGH KARTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 964

M/s Janta Associates and Co. Ltd. versus Indian Oil Foundation & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 965

MS PRIYANKA AGARWAL v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 966

Nagesh Trading Co. Versus Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 967

SUNIL KUMAR SAINI v. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 968

RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 969

SAGAR SRIVASTAVA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 970

DR SARBESH BHATTACHARJEE v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 971

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. Pappu 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 972

MR. RAJESH KATHPAL v. M/S SHUBH STEEL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 973

Welspun Enterprises Ltd. v. NCC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 974

TORRENT POWER LIMITED v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 975

M/S M. SONS GEMS N JJEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 976

GAUTAM KHAITAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 977

Kush Raj Bhatia v. DLF Power and Services Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 978

SHARJEEL USMANI v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 979

1. Travel Agent's Booking Function Is Not Substantial Business Activity And Not Taxable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus Travelport L.P. USA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 946

The Delhi High Court has held that the travel agents in India were merely connected to the extent that they could perform a booking function but were not capable of processing the data of all the airlines together in one place.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that a booking function is not covered under substantial business activity and, therefore, not taxable.

2. 'Rajnigandha Well Known Trademark, Entitled To Higher Degree Of Protection': Delhi High Court Blocks Sale of Rajni Paan

Title: Dharampal Satyapal Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Youssef Anis Mehio & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 947

The Delhi High Court recently passed a decree in favour of Dharampal Satyapal Limited - the manufacturers of the iconic pan masala Rajnigandha and permanently halted the production, sale or promotion of any product under the trademark 'RAJNI PAAN',

Holding that the defendants had intentionally attempted to "trade off the significant goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs", the Court directed them to pay Rs 3 lakhs in damages. In 2018, the Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in the case.

3. Delhi High Court Delineates Circumstances To Invoke "Group Of Companies" Doctrine

Case Title: Esha Kedia versus Milan R. Parekh & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 948

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that signatures to the MoU containing an arbitration clause were obtained by threat and coercion, cannot be considered while considering an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for appointment of the Arbitrator.

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that each Company is a separate legal entity which has separate legal rights and liabilities and hence, an agreement entered into by one of the Companies in a group, cannot be binding on the other members of the same group. However, the Court added that in certain exceptional circumstances, by invoking the concept of "Group of Companies", an arbitration agreement can be binding on the non-signatory Companies or a third party.

4. Delhi High Court Directs IGST Refund After Deducting Differential Amount Of Duty Drawback

Case Title: Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 949

The Delhi High Court has directed the department to grant IGST refund paid on the goods exported after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the Jurisdictional Commissionerates shall be entitled to verify the extent of duty drawback availed by the petitioners and also whether they have availed duty drawback/CENVAT Credit of Central Excise & Service Tax component in respect of the exports made by them. If any adjustment is to be made, it shall be made by the jurisdictional commissionerate.

5. Preventing Docket Explosion - Pre-SCN Consultation Should Be Held : Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Victory Electric Vehicles International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 950

The Delhi High Court has held that it is obligatory on the part of the concerned officer to ensure that prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice (SCN), a pre-notice consultation is held with the person chargeable with customs duty or interest.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the person chargeable with duty or interest was required to be given fifteen days to make his submission, in writing, concerning the grounds communicated to him in the pre-consultation notice, which is required to be served prior to the issuance of the SCN.

6. Lawyers Expected to Address Court with Deference, Judges also Should Refrain From Showing Needless Sensitivity On Counsel's Utterances: Delhi HC

Title: SH. PAWAN KUMAR KAKARIA v. ANIL KUMAR RAI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 951

Observing that lawyers are expected to always address the court with deference, the Delhi High Court has said that mutual respect between the bench and bar is essential for a vibrant legal system.

"Counsel are, on all occasions, expected to address the Court with deference and respect. Mutual respect between Bench and Bar is the indispensable sine qua non for a vibrant and vigorous legal system to function," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

However, the court also said an adverse remark against a counsel in the judicial order can have serious and far-reaching consequences.

7. Sick Or Infirm Persons Need Not Satisfy Twin Conditions For Bail Under PMLA: Delhi High Court

Title: DEVKI NANDAN GARG v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 952

The Delhi High Court has said that sick or infirm persons need not satisfy the twin conditions for the grant of bail under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The twin conditions are that when an accused applies for bail under PMLA, the public prosecutor has to be given an opportunity to oppose the same and if the court is considering grant of bail, there must be reasonable grounds for it to believe that the person is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. However, a proviso to the provision states that a person who is sick or infirm may be released on bail.

After perusing the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the PMLA, Justice Jasmeet Singh in an order on a bail application said the inclusion of the proviso for grant of bail shows the legislative intent to incorporate relaxations for persons below 16 years of age; a woman or those who are sick and infirm.

8. Law Respects Possessory Rights Over Immovable Property Even In Absence Of Valid Title: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Saleem & Ors. v. Wahid Malik

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 953

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that in a suit for possession simplicitor or a suit for injunction against dispossession simplicitor, the plaintiff is not required to establish title or ownership.

Single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the plaintiff is only required to establish a better right to remain in possession of the suit property as compared to the right of the defendant.

" A suit which does not claim titular rights and merely claims a right to continue in possession without possession being disturbed save and except in accordance with law, is not required to make out a case of title. The law respects possessory rights over immoveable property, even in the absence of valid title."

9. Judicial Officer With 10 Yrs Standing Competent To Hear Appeals Under Public Premises Unauthorised Occupants Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Young Men S Tennis Club v. NDMC

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 954

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a District Judge or a judicial officer of not less than 10 years standing is competent to hear appeals under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The Act provides for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and empowers an Estate Officer to hold inquiries. Section 9 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie from specified orders of the estate officer to an Appellate Officer.

10. Condition For Depositing Disputed Money Cannot Be Imposed On Accused While Granting Bail: Delhi High Court

Title: GAGANDEEP SINGH ADHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 955

Granting bail to an accused in a case of cheating, the Delhi High Court has said that a condition for depositing disputed money cannot be imposed on an accused while granting him bail.

Noting that the conditions that can be imposed while granting bail are mentioned under section 437(3) of CrPC, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said the provision nowhere suggests that a condition for deposit of disputed money can also be imposed while granting regular bail.

"As to whether an accused is settling the dispute by way of any compensation or not cannot be considered to be the valid reason for accepting or denying the bail to an accused," the court observed in an order passed on September 27.

11. "Confirming Party" To A Contract, Who Is Not Signatory To The Arbitration Clause, Can Invoke Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. versus Dowager Maharanis Residential Accommodation Welfare & Amenities Trust & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 956

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a confirming party to a Contract, who is not bound by the terms of the Contract and on whom no liability is affixed under the Contract, can be referred to arbitration even if he is not a signatory to the arbitration clause contained in the Contract.

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the fact that the party had signed the Agreement containing an arbitration clause, implied that it had consented to refer all the disputes under the Agreement to arbitration and that the party's implied consent to the arbitration clause could be inferred.

12. Use Of The Word 'Can' In An Arbitration Clause Does Not Render It Ineffective, Intention To Be Looked Into: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Shah Aircon

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 957

The Delhi High Court has held that mere use of the word 'can' in an arbitration clause does not render it ineffective and the intention of the parties to go for arbitration is to be determined on a complete reading of the clause and relevant clauses.

The Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan reiterated that exclusive jurisdiction clause would override a venue clause, therefore, the court which has been conferred the exclusive jurisdiction will decide all arbitration applications arising out of the contract.

13. A Will will Be A Will Only When It will Lay To Rest the Wishes Of Who Is At Rest: Delhi High Court

Title: VIKRANT KAPILA & ANR. v. PANKAJA PANDA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 958

The Delhi High Court has said that it is imperative for a court to look at a Will from the eyes of a layman rather than a lawman for reaching a final outcome.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that it is the foremost duty of the Court to carefully give a purposeful meaning to the words and logical interpretation to the language used in a Will to infer and draw the real intention of the testator.

"A Will will be a Will only when it will lay to rest the wishes of who is at rest. We will endeavor to proceed so that the Will of who lays at rest is put to rest," the bench said in the beginning of its ruling dated October 11.

14. Income Tax On Interest Income From FD, Ownership Need To Te Determined By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 959

The Delhi High Court has held that income tax cannot be levied on the interest income from fixed deposits till the ownership is determined by the arbitral tribunal.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has agreed with the finding of the two Appellate Authorities below that till the final award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal determining the ownership of the fixed deposits and interest, it could not be said that the interest income had crystallised in the assessee's hands and that it could not be held to be the income of the assessee under Section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

15. If 'Ease Of Doing Business' Is Truly To Be Achieved, Such Negligence Is Unpardonable: Delhi HC Pulls Up Controller General of Trademarks

Title: ALLERGAN INC AND ANR. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 960

The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks for its failure to communicate the filing of opposition by two entities in respect of registration of international trademarks to the International Bureau of World Intellectual Property Organisation within the timeline stipulated under the Trademarks Act.

"I can only hope that the present two cases are the only aberrations in the working of the Madrid Protocol," said the court.

Justice Navin Chawla said such failure would not only cause inconvenience and prejudice to the parties, but would also present India as a Nation in bad light to the world.

16. 'Can't Be Sustained': Delhi High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Satyendar Jain Under Benami Act [Read Order]

Title: SATYENDAR K JAIN v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 961

The Delhi High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 1988.

Justice Yashwant Varma allowed a bunch of pleas filed by Jain and others challenging the initiation of proceedings under the Act on the ground that the same were initiated for the attachment and confiscation of properties which were acquired prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act of 2016.

The court took note of a recent Supreme Court ruling wherein it was held that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively and Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act was declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary.

17. [Section 326A IPC] 'Acid' Includes All Substances Having Burning Nature, Not Merely Those Classically Termed as Acids: Delhi High Court

Title: HAKIM & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 962

The Delhi High Court has said that the word 'acid' in Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code is not merely restricted to the substances which are classically or scientifically termed as acids but also includes all those substances which have an acidic, corrosive or burning nature and are capable of causing disfigurement, or temporary or permanent disability.

Section 326A of the Code provides the punishment for acid attack. It states that whoever causes permanent or partial damage, disfigures or disables any part of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid shall be punished with imprisonment of a term not less than ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine.

18. 'Chaiops' To Become 'ChaiApps' After Chaayos' Trademark Infringement Suit in Delhi High Court

Case Title: SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT. LTD. v. MTRM GLOBAL PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 963

A Ghaziabad-based startup has agreed to change the name of its outlets to 'ChaiApps' from 'Chaiops' after the leading tea cafe chain 'Chaayos' approached Delhi High Court against alleged infringement of its registered trademark.

The change in display boards at the existing 37 physical outlets of MTRM Global Pvt. Ltd. will come into effect from April 1, 2023, according to a settlement arrived by it with Sunshine Teahouse Pvt. Ltd, which has more than 200 cafes across India under the brand name 'Chaayos'.

The suit was filed by Sunshine Teahouse in September seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement and unauthorised use of its trademark by Sunshine Teahouse, which was 'Chaiops' name for its outlets.

19. Leniency Shown In Taking Belated Written Statements On Record Cannot Mean CPC Procedure And Time Limits Are Forgotten: Delhi High Court

Title: VINEET ANAND THROUGH SPA HOLDER v. KIRAN ANAND AND SONS HUF THROUGH KARTA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 964

The Delhi High Court has observed that the leniency shown by it in taking belated written statements on record cannot mean that the procedure and time limits prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure are completely forgotten.

"Ordinarily, the court exhibits leniency in the matter of taking belated written statements on record, so as to ensure that parties have full rights to prosecute their respective cases. At the same time, the leniency shown by the court cannot extend to a point where the procedure prescribed in the CPC and the time limits envisaged in that regard are completely forgotten," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

The court thus dismissed a plea challenging two orders passed by Additional District Judge in a civil suit Instituted by the respondent (plaintiff) against the petitioner (defendant).

20. Whether A Claim Is A 'Notified Claim' Under The Contract, Falls Outside The Scope Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Janta Associates and Co. Ltd. versus Indian Oil Foundation & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 965

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute whether a claim raised by a party is a 'Notified Claim' under the Contract, which can be referred to arbitration as per the arbitration clause, falls outside the scope of arbitration.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed that as per the arbitration clause contained in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), only disputes arising out of 'Notified Claims', as included in the Final Bill issued by the claimant, could be referred to arbitration.

While noting that the Final Bill was not yet issued by the claimant, the Court held that the dispute whether the claims raised by the claimant were 'Notified Claims', falling within the scope of arbitration clause, could not be referred to arbitration.

21. Court Cannot Substitute Its View For Qualification Requirements Prescribed By Organization While Advertising Vacancies: Delhi High Court

Title: MS PRIYANKA AGARWAL v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 966

The Delhi High Court has observed that courts cannot substitute their view for the qualification requirements prescribed by an organization while advertising vacancies to a post.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed:

"It is open to an organization while advertising its vacancies to prescribe qualifications as may be suitable, in the view of the Organization for appointment to the said post. Courts cannot substitute its view for the requirements prescribed by the organization."

The bench thus dismissed a plea filed by one Priyanka Agarwal, who had applied for a post of Medical Physicist in city's Safdarjung Hospital under the unreserved Category, challenging an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing her original application.

22. Department Failed To Pass Re-Assessment Order Within Prescribed Time Limit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nagesh Trading Co. Versus Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 967

The Delhi High Court has quashed the show-cause notice and the reassessment order as the department failed to pass the reassessment order within the prescribed time limit.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the department could not have issued another notice to the petitioner/assessee under Section 148A(b) dated June 2, 2022, after having issued and served the notice on March 31, 2021, under Section 148 of the unamended Act.

The court noted that the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal were applicable to cases where notices under Section 148 had been issued during the period from 1st April 2021 to 30th June 2021. However, the decision was not applicable to the facts of the present case.

23. Court Staff Required To Be Vigilant, Dereliction Of Duty Cannot Be Ignored Or Forgiven: Delhi HC Upholds Dismissal of Reader & Assistant Ahlmad

Title: SUNIL KUMAR SAINI v. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and other connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 968

Observing that the court staff are required to be vigilant and well-versed with the day-to-day functioning of courts, the Delhi High Court has said they cannot claim ignorance of the procedures and the relevant safeguards, which are required to be followed.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said:

"They [court staff] are, in fact, required to be more vigilant and well-versed with the procedural aspects involved in day to day functioning of the Courts. For the purpose of judicial works, the Judicial Officers depend on their Court staff and any such dereliction of duty cannot be ignored or forgiven. Being attached with the Courts, they cannot claim ignorance to the consequences of their actions."

24. Right To Privacy Is A Right In Personam, Not Inheritable By Mothers Or Legal Heirs Of Deceased: Delhi High Court

Title: RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 969

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to privacy is essentially a right in personam and therefore is not inheritable by the mothers or legal heirs of the deceased persons.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while refusing to grant interim relief in a suit filed against Bollywood Filmmaker Hansal Mehta and others for restraining the release of their film 'Faraaz'.

The movie is based on the terrorist attack that happened on 1st July, 2016 in Holey Artisan, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

25. [NEET-UG 2022] Unless Candidate Shows Answers Are Patently Wrong, Courts Cannot Enter Into Academic Field: Delhi High Court

Title: SAGAR SRIVASTAVA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 970

Dismissing a plea challenging the final answer key for one of the sets of NEET(UG) Examination 2022, the Delhi High Court has observed that courts must exercise great restraint and should be reluctant in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of an answer key.

The exam was conducted on July 17 and the answer key was uploaded on the website of National Testing Agency (NTA) through a press release dated 7th September.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that there is a strong burden placed on the candidates to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that there is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent on its face.

26. 'Unexplained Delay Of 10 Years In Corruption Probe, Chargesheet Still Awaiting Sanction': Delhi HC Quashes FIRs Against Senior Doctor

Title: DR SARBESH BHATTACHARJEE v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 971

The Delhi High Court has quashed the three FIRs that were registered by Anti Corruption Branch against a senior doctor in 2012 and 2013, observing that there was an unexplained delay of 10 years in completing investigation and that chargesheet was still awaiting sanction from the appropriate authority.

The FIRs were under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed the pleas filed by Dr Sarbesh Bhattacharjee, the former Director Health Services in Delhi, for quashing of the FIRs registered against him. Bhattacharjee had served as a medical officer under the Andhra Pradesh government, Assam Rifles and finally the Central Government Health Service (CGHS) for 36 years.

27. Seven Years After Release, Delhi High Court Sentences Man To 5 Years In Jail For Sexual Assault Of 4-Year-Old

Title: STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. Pappu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 972

More than 7 years after he was released on probation — even though he had spent just nine months in jail, the Delhi High Court has sentenced the man to five years rigorous imprisonment for sexually assaulting a four-year-old minor victim.

The man was convicted for the offences under Section 363 (Punishment for kidnapping) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 10 (Punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in 2015.

However, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, the trial court on 10.02.2015 gave the convict the benefit of probation and released him for the period already undergone in custody. As per the nominal roll, he had undergone 9 months and 26 days in jail on the day of release.

28. Time For Filing Written Statement Starts From Date Of Providing Suit And Documents To Defendant: Delhi High Court

Title: MR. RAJESH KATHPAL v. M/S SHUBH STEEL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 973

The Delhi High Court has observed that the time for filing the written statement by the defendant under the Code of Civil Procedure, after issuance of summons, will commence from the date when the suit along with the documents is provided to the defendant.

Justice C Hari Shankar said the service of summons in a suit has to be a meaningful service for it to constitute a starting point for the time available for filing of a written statement.

The court thus dismissed a plea filed by one Rajesh Kathpal challenging an order dated June 6, passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court) in a civil suit filed by him. The trial court had rejected Kathpal's application filed under the proviso to Order V Rule 1 and the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.

29. Period Of Limitation For Referring The Dispute To Arbitration Commences Only After The Failure Of Pre-Arbitration Mechanism: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Welspun Enterprises Ltd. v. NCC Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 974

The High Court of Delhi has held that the period of limitation for referring the dispute to arbitration would only commence after the internal dispute resolution mechanism fails.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that if the agreement between the parties provides for a pre-arbitration dispute resolution mechanism, a party cannot be expected to invoke arbitration unless the said mechanism fails, therefore, the limitation period cannot start prior to that.

30. National Commission For Scheduled Castes Cannot Initiate Enquiry On Specious Complaint, Unsubstantiated Allegations: Delhi High Court

Title: TORRENT POWER LIMITED v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 975

The Delhi High Court has observed that National Commission For Scheduled Castes cannot initiate an enquiry under Article 338 of the Constitution of India based on a specious complaint and unsubstantiated allegations.

Justice Yashwant Varma said the Commission is empowered to initiate an enquiry only when a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) is able to establish prima facie that he had been ill-treated or discriminated solely on account of the fact that he belonged to that class.

"The Commission is constitutionally empowered to enquire and investigate into instances of deprivation of rights of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes. That presupposes that the action complained of is founded on an allegation that a member of that particular class was discriminated against or arbitrarily dealt with solely on account of his social status," the court said.

31. 'Not Manifestly Arbitrary': Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Chapter II Of SARFAESI Act

Title: M/S M. SONS GEMS N JJEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 976

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Chapter II of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, observing that it is not manifestly arbitrary and is not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramoniuam Prasad passed the ruling in a plea challenging Chapter II of the Act on the ground that it did not provide an avenue of judicial redress against Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) who have defaulted in their statutory obligations including for the borrowers.

32. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Lawyer Gautam Khaitan In 2008 Embraer Bribery Case

Title: GAUTAM KHAITAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 977

The Delhi High Court has recently granted bail to a lawyer Gautam Khaitan in connection with the 2008 Embraer bribery case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

While the case was registered in the year 2016 for various offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, Khaitan was arrested only recently on August 25. His bail plea was rejected by a trial court on September 3.

Justice Jasmeet Singh granted bail to Khaitan observing that he was not named in the FIR and that the allegations against him were only based on statements of various witnesses and official communications.

33. Place Of Arbitration Would Not Become The 'Seat' When The Exclusive Jurisdiction Is Conferred On A Court At A Different Place: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kush Raj Bhatia v. DLF Power and Services Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 978

The High Court of Delhi held that place of arbitration would not become the seat of arbitration when the parties have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a Court other than the seat Court.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that conferring exclusive jurisdiction, over a Court different from the Court at the place of arbitration, would be a contrary indicia and the place of arbitration would merely be the venue and only the Court at which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred shall have the jurisdiction to decide all applications arising out of the arbitration between the parties.

34. Delhi High Court Directs Jamia Millia Islamia To Regularise Sharjeel Usmani's Admission To MA Course

Title: SHARJEEL USMANI v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 979

The Delhi High Court has permitted former Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) student Sharjeel Usmani to appear in the third semester examinations for 'MA in Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy' at Jamia Millia Islamia University (JMI).

Justice Sanjeev Narula also directed JMI to immediately declare Usmani's results in respect of the first and second semester examinations.The court also asked the varsity to regularise his admission.

Usmani had moved the High Court earlier this year seeking directions on JMI to immediately permit him to appear in the first semester examinations which were to be conducted after February 20.