Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 1006 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1021]

NOMINAL INDEX

NAYAB & ANR v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1006

NAINA RANA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1007

SAKET KUMAR SHARMA versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1008

Prasar Bharti versus National Brain Research Centre & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1009

SUNITA MALIK vs THE STATE OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1010

SURINDER SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1011

PCIT Versus IFFCO LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1012

VINOD KUMAR ASTHANA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1013

SMT. SARITA JOSHI v. RAVINDRA BHUSHAN JOSHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1014

RAJAN KUMAR v. LAJJA DEVI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1015

CHANDRA KISHORE CHAURASIA v. R A PERFUMERY WORKS PRIVATE LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1016

RELAXO FOOTWEARS LTD vs AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

M/s. Manraj Enterprises versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

ANIL KUMAR vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

RADICAL ARC VENTURES PVT LTD versus STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

 FMC CORPORATION v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

1. Casually Written Judgement And Casually Appreciated Evidence Is A Casualty To Justice: Delhi High Court

Title: NAYAB & ANR v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1006

Observing that appreciation of evidence is crucial to do justice, the Delhi High Court has said that a casually written judgment and casually appreciated evidence is a casualty to justice.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a judgment is the nectar explaining every aspect of the facts and circumstances in each case and as such, is a reason for reaching to a decision.

The court made the observations while setting aside the conviction and order of sentence against two individuals namely Nayab and Khushnuma in a 2007 case connected to alleged kidnapping of a girl. The duo were accused of concealing the girl, who was allegedly kidnapped by another accused, in a house.

2. Questions Of Faith Have No Bearing On Individual's Freedom To Choose A Life Partner: Delhi High Court

Title: NAINA RANA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1007

Observing that the freedom of choice in marriage is an intrinsic part of Article 21, the Delhi High Court has said that the questions of faith have no bearing on the freedom to choose a life partner.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that in cases where couples are legally married out of their own free will and volition, the police is expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity in accordance with law.

The court added that the police must take necessary measures for protection and safety of such couples if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from others including their own family members.

3. Delhi High Court Junks RBI Officer's Plea Against Disciplinary Proceedings For Assisting Rajya Sabha MP In Drafting Private Bill

Title: SAKET KUMAR SHARMA versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1008

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a senior officer of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) against whom proceedings were initiated by the regulatory body last year for allegedly assisting Rajya Sabha MP Rakesh Sinha in drafting a private member bill for establishment of Public Credit Registry.

Justice Rekha Palli said the plea has no merit as it is an admitted position that the departmental inquiry against him was initiated "only recently" and on September 29, the inquiry officer has directed the Presenting Officer to tender evidence in support of the charges levelled against the officer.

"It is therefore clear that the petitioner has come to this Court at a premature stage when the inquiry has just commenced. It is trite law that the Court should generally not interdict the departmental proceedings initiated against an employee unless a case of gross perversity or high handedness is made out," said Justice Palli.

4. 'Administrative Mechanism For Resolution Of Disputes' Is Not A Substitute For Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Prasar Bharti versus National Brain Research Centre & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1009

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of Disputes (AMRD) is not a substitute for arbitration in cases where there is an arbitration agreement between the parties.

The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the party invoking the arbitration clause fell within the scope and ambit of the AMRD, under the Office Memorandum No. 334774/DoLA/AMRD/2019, dated 31.03.2020, issued by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs. However, the Court held that the AMRD is only a mechanism for possible settlement of disputes between the governmental organizations and not a substitute for arbitration.

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a woman in a case of abetment of suicide, saying the FIR squarely blames her as the reason for the deceased ending her life.

"In my view, in the present case, the instigation by the applicant which has prompted the deceased to end her life is loud and clear. The instigation is of harassment and the FIR clearly states that the applicant was saying something or the other which has instigated the deceased to take this extreme step," Justice Jasmeet Singh said in the order.

The FIR was registered at Paschim Vihar police station on June 27 after a 28-year-old woman poured petrol on her and set herself on fire.

6. Central Administrative Tribunal Ordinarily Should Examine Case On Merits Instead Of Dismissing It On Technicalities: Delhi High Court

Title: SURINDER SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1011

The Delhi High Court has said the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) "ordinarily should" endeavour to examine a case on merits rather than dismissing the same on technicalities.

Dismissing a plea filed by an employee challenging the order by which his original application against the disciplinary action taken against him was rejected by CAT, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the Tribunal to consider the case afresh.

7. Dividends Received By IFFCO From OMIFCO Oman Can't Be Disallowed Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus IFFCO LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1012

The Delhi High Court has held that the dividends received by Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO) from Oman India Fertiliser Company S.A.O.C (OMIFCO) Oman cannot be disallowed under the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that since the dividend received by the assessee from OMIFCO, Oman is chargeable to tax in India under the head "Income from other sources" and forms part of the total income, it is included in taxable income in the computation of income filed by the assessee.

8. [Section 197 CrPC] Court May Direct Authority To Take Sanction And Then Proceed, Instead Of Quashing Entire Proceedings: Delhi HC

Title: VINOD KUMAR ASTHANA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1013

Observing that closure of proceedings at an initial stage has not been appreciated, the Delhi High Court has said that even if it is found that the proceedings are vitiated in the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, then court may direct the authority to take sanction and then proceed, instead of completely quashing the entire proceedings.

"Same was the view taken in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CBI (2021)," said the court.

Justice Yogesh Khanna made the observation while dismissing a plea challenging an order passed by the Special Judge which had taken cognizance against one Vinod Kumar Asthana for the offences under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code without sanction under Section 19 of PC (Amendment) Act and Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

9. Wife's Convenience Has To Be Seen More While Transferring Petition In Matrimonial Disputes: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SMT. SARITA JOSHI v. RAVINDRA BHUSHAN JOSHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1014

The Delhi High Court has observed that the convenience of the wife has to be seen more while transferring a petition to a different court in matrimonial disputes.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma added that the transfer jurisdiction has to be exercised in such a manner that there should not be any inconvenience caused to either of the parties.

The court was dealing with a plea moved by 68 year old wife seeking transfer of the matrimonial case pending before Family Court's Principal Judge of Dwarka Courts (South West District) to Family Court's Principal Judge of Karkardooma Court (East District).

10. Frivolous Litigations Can Be Put To End At Any Stage: Delhi High Court While Dismissing Vegetable Vendor's Plea

Title: RAJAN KUMAR v. LAJJA DEVI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1015

Observing that the judicial institution is grappling with huge pendency due to frivolous litigations, the Delhi High Court has said that an endeavour must be made by courts to dismiss the same on the very first date without any further delay.

Adding that such frivolous litigations should be "nipped in the bud", Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further observed that courts do not have the luxury to continue with such cases, which are frivolous on its face "merely because certain procedural motions have to undergo."

"If, for some reasons, such orders are not initially passed in a frivolous litigation, nothing stops the Court to put an end to such an ordeal at any stage," the court said.

11. Pre-Institution Mediation Necessary Only In Cases Where Plaintiff Does Not Contemplate Urgent Interim Relief: Delhi High Court

Title: CHANDRA KISHORE CHAURASIA v. R A PERFUMERY WORKS PRIVATE LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1016

The Delhi High Court has ruled that pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is necessary only in cases where a plaintiff of the suit does not contemplate an urgent interim relief.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said the question as to whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is to be determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and relief as sought by the plaintiff.

It further observed that if a plaintiff seeks any urgent interim relief, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that such a plaintiff has not exhausted the pre-institution remedy of mediation as contemplated under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

12. Proprietor Of Registered Design Doesn't Forfeit Its Right Merely Because It Hasn't Enforced It Against All Infringers: Delhi High Court

Title: RELAXO FOOTWEARS LTD vs AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

The Delhi High Court has said that a proprietor of a registered design does not forfeit its right merely because it has not enforced the same against all infringers.

The design holder retains the right to interdict infringement of the registered design notwithstanding that it has not proceeded against some of the infringers, said the court.

"It is not unusual for small players to copy designs, which have become popular. It is not necessary for the proprietor of a design to pursue its remedies against each dealer/manufacturer selling infringing products. It is possible that the benefits of pursuing a particular infringer may not be commensurate with the cost and effort for doing so," it added.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan further said it is understandable that a design holder would evaluate its option including on commercial considerations.

13. Arbitration Award - Jurisdiction To Allow Any Claim Can Be Challenged If Question Of Fact Is Not Involved: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s. Manraj Enterprises versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a claimant cannot support his claims on grounds that were not urged before the arbitral tribunal. 

However, the Court has held that if a question with respect to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to award any claim is raised, which does not involve deciding any question of fact, the party challenging the arbitral award is not prohibited from raising such grounds which were not raised before the arbitral tribunal.

The Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan reiterated that a contractual clause, which bars payment of interest on Earnest Money Deposit, Security Deposit or on other amounts payable under the Contract, would also bar award of pendente lite interest by the arbitral tribunal.

14. Dismiss With 'Equally Heavy Hearts': Delhi High Court To Candidate Who Needed Only 0.33% Marks To Reach Interview Stage Of Judicial Services Exam

Title: ANIL KUMAR vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition of a judiciary aspirant who had prayed for a direction to declare him qualified in Delhi Higher Judicial Services (Mains) Examination (Written) - 2022.

Anil Kumar, the petitioner, could not clear the examination and was declared unsuccessful solely for the reason that the marks secured by him in Paper-I (GK and Language) were below the specified threshold of 45 percent. He had obtained 67 marks [44.66 percent] out of the total of 150 marks and, thus, failed to meet the threshold for the next stage of examination - viva voce.

His argument before the court was that none of the marks awarded against his answers are in fractions, therefore his marks for the paper are required to be rounded off.

However, the division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said it would have acceded to the request but for a specific provision in Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970, which prohibits rounding off of marks.

15. In Matrimonial Dispute Case, Delhi High Court Directs Wife To Return Audi Q7 To Husband's Company

Title: RADICAL ARC VENTURES PVT LTD versus STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

In a case connected to a matrimonial dispute, the Delhi High Court on Friday directed a woman to return an Audi Car to a private company, while ruling that the corporate veil cannot be permitted to be lifted to hold that even though the vehicle belongs to the company, it is owned by her husband.

The woman had been permitted by a Mahila Court to retain the car last year after she initiated proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband, who was a 75 percent shareholder in the company and had been given the vehicle for official use.

Setting aside the Mahila Court order permitting her to retain the car, Justice Jasmeet Singh in the judgment clarified, "However, this order is only for the return of the Audi car and in no way determines the right of respondent No. 2 [wife] to seek maintenance, right of residence commensurate with her stature and her living lifestyle, from respondent No. 3 [husband]. She shall be at liberty to initiate any/all such proceedings for getting a car/maintenance for herself and her children which if already filed or which may be filed in future, shall be determined in accordance with law".

16. Written Submissions Under Rule 28(7) Cannot Be Used To Reopen Entire Debate In Patent Application: Delhi High Court

Title: FMC CORPORATION v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

The Delhi High Court has observed that the written submissions and filing of relevant documents under Rule 28(7) of the Patent Rules, 2003 cannot be used as a tool to reopen the entire debate in a patent application.

Justice Pratibha M Singh said the purpose of Rule 28(7) is to capture the submissions made during the course of the hearing and to take any steps which the Controller may have directed in terms of filing of forms and amendments.

"The written submissions and filing of relevant documents under Rule 28(7) of the Rules cannot be used as a tool to reopen the entire debate. It is meant as a sort of primer of the submissions made and discussions agreed upon during the course of hearing. The purpose of Rule 28(7) is to bring the matter to a closure rather than to reopen the consideration of the patent application," the court said.