Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: September 12 To September 18, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 852 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 883

VRS Natarajan versus OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 852

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS GUILD (INDIA) v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL CIVIL AVIATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 853

Durga Prasad v. LG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 854

GURJEET SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 855

NARINDER KHANNA v. GOVT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 856

Konika Poddar v. SL Stephen's College & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 857

NARENDER @ LALA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 858

Punita Bhardwaj versus Rashmi Juneja 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 859

MAYANK GARG v. DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 860

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 861

NIKHIL CHAWLA v. THE COCA COLA COMPANY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 862

OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 863

Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 864

BIMAL KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 865

Mujeeb ur Rehman v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 866

EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 867

MOHD SHAKEEL & ORS. v. MOHD ISLAM 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 868

ANEESH GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 869

RAVINDER SURI & ORS. v. DAYAWATI (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 870

DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 871

MOHD ERSHAD SOLE PROPRIETOR EK AGENCIES v. REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 872

BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 873

MIZPAH CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 874

M/S MAAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. M/S MINDWAVE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 875

ACCURATE AUCTIONEERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 876

NATURAL FATHER RAVINDER SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 877

MOHD AHSAN v. CUSTOMS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 878

PHULGITA DEVI v. KRISHAN KMAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 879

NEW MILLENNIUM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 880

JAGAT SINGH NAGAR & ORS v. STATE & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 881

M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 882

Title: RAKESH MALHOTRA v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORYOFINDIAAND ORS & other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 883

1. Interlocutory Order Passed By The Arbitrator, Rejecting Application For Amendment Of Claims; Not Challengeable Under Article 227: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VRS Natarajan versus OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 852

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that all interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal are not amenable to challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that there is no statutory or other legal bar under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), including under the proviso to Section 34 (2A) of the A&C Act, against raising the interlocutory order passed by the Arbitrator rejecting the application for amendment of Statement of Claims, as a ground for challenging the final award. Thus, the Court ruled that the said interlocutory order was not challengeable under Article 227.

The Court observed that it was difficult to envisage a situation in which an order would be amenable to challenge under Article 227, but would not be challengeable under Section 34 of the A&C Act, in view of the bar contained in the proviso to Section 34(2A).

2. Covid-19: Delhi High Court Refuses To Dispense With Rapid Antigen Test For Medicos Doing Breath Analyser Tests On Aviation Personnel

Case Title: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS GUILD (INDIA) v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL CIVIL AVIATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 853

The Delhi High Court has observed that the conduct of Breath Analyser Tests (BAT) for staff of Air Traffic Controllers, commercial pilots, cabin crew and other staff members shall continue depending upon the guidelines issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation in light of the status of COVID-19 pandemic.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was considering a clutch of petitions relating to the Breath Analyzer Test which the ATCs and commercial pilots need to undergo before joining their duty at the airports.

The DGCA had moved an application seeking certain modifications in the order dated 11th May, 2021 passed by the Court while issuing a slew of directions for the administration of Breath Analyzer Test at all airports for all ATCs, pilots, cabin crews and other personnel.

3. "Nation Is Still Bleeding": Delhi HC Asks Disciplinary Authority To Pass Punishment Order Against Cop Charged With Misconduct During 1984 Anti Sikh Riots

Case Title: Durga Prasad v. LG

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 854

Observing that charges against a policeman posted as SHO at Kingsway Camp police station, charged with misconduct during the 1984 anti Sikh riots, were serious in nature, the Delhi High Court on Monday said that the competent disciplinary authority shall be free to pass an order of punishment against the cop Durga Prasad.

Durga Prasad, now retired, was charged for not making any preventive detention, not deploying proper force in the area of posting, not taking any action in dispersing miscreants during the anti sikh riots.

Terming the riots as the most unfortunate tragedy, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad orally remarked that many innocent lives were lost during the riots.

4. NDPS Act | Violation Of Mandatory Provisions For Seizure Need Not Be Looked Into In Bail Proceedings Unless Glaring Irregularity Emerges: Delhi HC

Case Title: GURJEET SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 855

The Delhi High Court has observed that the effect of non-compliance of any mandatory provision under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Investigating Officer or any irregularity or illegality committed at the time of making of the seizure memo is essentially a matter of trial and cannot be looked into at the stage of bail, unless there is any glaring irregularity which will make the seizure itself illegal.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while denying bail to one Gurjeet Singh in an FIR registered under sec. 18 and 25 of NDPS Act.

Singh was found in possession of two polybags containing black colour material, later found to be "afeem". The substance was found to be 750 grams (one polybag containing 400 gms and other 350 gms). On search of almirah in Singh's house, a cash amount of Rs. 2,52,15,350 was found.

5. "Sheer Abuse Of Process": Delhi HC Dismisses Advocate's PIL Seeking List Of Private Liquor Vendors Allegedly Harassed By CBI, ED With 1 Lakh Cost

Case Title: NARINDER KHANNA v. GOVT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 856

The Delhi High Court has dismissed with 1 lakh cost a public interest litigation seeking a list of 186 private liquor vendors allegedly harassed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea at admission stage and directed the cost to be paid to the Army War Widows Fund within a period of 30 days.

The plea filed by one Narinder Khanna, an advocate by profession, also sought a direction to be issued to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi to identify those persons who are causing harassment to 186 liquor vendors forcing them to close their shops, thereby depriving them of their right of livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. St. Stephen's College Can't Conduct Interview For Non-Minority Category Students, CUET Score Enough For Admission: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Konika Poddar v. SL Stephen's College & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 857

The Delhi High Court on Monday said that St Stephens college must follow the admission policy of the Delhi University for the academic sessions 2022-23 for students belonging to non-minority category applying to undergraduate courses.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that St Stephens college shall follow the directive that 100% weightage must be given to CUET 2022 score for the admission of students belonging to the non minority category applying to such courses.

The Court therefore directed St Stephens college to withdraw its admission prospectus and issue a fresh public notice declaring the amended admission procedure.

The Court also observed that the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of Constitution of India accorded to minority institution cannot be extended to non minority members.

7. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction & Life Sentence Of Man Who Was Unrepresented By Lawyer, Remands Case Back To Trial Court

Case Title: NARENDER @ LALA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 858

Setting aside the orders of conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a man in 2018 who was unrepresented by a lawyer before the Trial Court, the Delhi High Court has remanded the case back to the Trial Court for cross examination of certain prosecution witnesses.

A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal was of the view that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice to the man as when number of witnesses were examined, he was not represented by a counsel and that the legal aid counsel, who was present before Trial Court, was appointed on the same day and was asked to cross- examine the witnesses.

Narender was convicted for offence of murder punishable under sec. 302 of IPC on March 20, 2018. He was sentenced on 4th May, 2018 by the Trial Court for life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.

8. Rejection Of Belated Application For Amendment Of Claim - Not An Interim Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Punita Bhardwaj versus Rashmi Juneja

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 859

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application for amendment of statement of claims on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage, does not constitute an interim award and thus, it is not challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

While observing the distinction between the rejection of application for amendment of claims and counter claims on the ground of limitation vis-à-vis on the ground that the amendment was sought belatedly, the single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that Section 23 (3) of the A&C Act vests discretion in the arbitral tribunal to disallow a party to amend or supplement its pleadings on the ground that the application is filed belatedly.

The Court thus ruled that dismissal of an application for amendment of claims on the ground of delay is an interlocutory order, which is not susceptible to challenge under Section 34.

9. DHJS Exam: High Court Refuses To Re-Evaluate Answer Sheet Of Aspirant Unsuccessful By One Mark

Case Title: MAYANK GARG v. DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 860

The Delhi High Court has observed that in rare and exceptional cases where it is established that there is a manifest error in evaluation of examination papers, the court may exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide appropriate relief.

A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan added that in cases where it is established that the right of candidates for a fair evaluation in accordance with the specified procedure has been impinged, it may be necessary for the courts to exercise the said power to ensure that the rights of examinees are preserved.

The Court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by a candidate (an advocate) seeking a direction on Delhi High Court to recheck or re-examine his answer-sheets in respect of examination paper, Law-III in respect of Delhi Higher Judiciary Services.

10. No Provision In CPC Which Enables Court To Appoint Guardian For A Missing Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 861

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which enables the court to appoint a guardian for a party before it which is missing.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code envisages appointment of guardians only to protect the interests of persons who are adjudged to be of unsound mind or are found, on enquiry by the Court, to be incapable of prosecuting their case by reason of mental infirmity. The provision cannot be applied in case a party is missing.

11. Coke Studio v. Cook Studio: Trademark Suit Settled In Delhi High Court After Mediation

Case Title: NIKHIL CHAWLA v. THE COCA COLA COMPANY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 862

Nikhil Chawla, a man running a popular online platform called 'COOK STUDIO' engaged in blogging and production of video relating to cooking, has settled a trademark suit filed by him against 'The Coca Cola Company' which is owner of famous music platform Coke Studio.

Chawla, proprietor of the firm trading as "The Chawla Group" had filed a suit against 'The Coca Cola Company' seeking declaration of non infringement of the registered trademark 'COKE STUDIO', a music platform.

Justice Pratibha M Singh noted that the parties had amicably arrived at a settlement and found the terms of the settlement as lawful.

12. Would Subsequent Agreement Cover Past Transactions ? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court

Case Title: OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 863

The High Court of Delhi has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the High Court cannot examine an issue as to whether the arbitration clause in a subsequent agreement would govern past transactions of similar nature as it requires detailed consideration of clauses and surrounding circumstances.

The Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Act does not permit the High Court to examine issues that would require an interpretation of the contract, therefore, all such issues are to be referred to arbitrator.

13. Delhi High Court Directs Former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy To Hand Over Govt Accommodation Within Six Weeks

Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 864

The Delhi High Court has directed former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy to ensure that possession of his government accommodation, allotted to him in 2016 for a period of five years, is handed over to estate officer within a period of six weeks.

Swamy, who has been provided with Z category protection by the Centre, was allotted government accommodation on 15th January 2016 on a license for a period of five years. The said premises was allotted to him on account of the threat perception which was accessed by the Centre.

Swamy then became a member of the Rajya Sabha which term came to an end on 24th April 2022. While Swamy was serving as a member of the upper house, the government accommodation continued to remain and the allotment ultimately came to an end by efflux of time.

Swamy had then moved High Court arguing that bearing in mind the security arrangements which are required to be made for a z category protectee, the accommodation which was originally allotted to him must be continued in his favour.

14. Mere Exculpatory Statement To ED Not Ground To Believe That Accused Is Not Guilty Of Money Laundering: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BIMAL KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 865

The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere exculpatory statement made to officials of Enforcement of Directorate (ED) cannot suffice to form a reasonable ground to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence of money laundering.

Justice Asha Menon made the observation while denying bail to one Bimal Kumar Jain, who was booked by ED for indulging in money laundering, alleging that he along with other co-accused persons had incorporated and operated 450 Indian entities and 104 foreign entities for routing proceeds of crime and also enabled purchase of offices and properties with untainted funds.

ED had alleged that Jain's brother had placed funds in his companies and layering was done by routing the proceeds of crime into various companies that had dummy shareholders and Directors.

15. COVID-19: Delhi High Court Closes Plea Seeking Infrastructural Facilities To Handle Dead Bodies In Wake Of Pandemic

Case Title: Mujeeb ur Rehman v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 866

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday disposed of a petition filed last year during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic seeking directions to the Delhi Government to formulate and implement an effective plan with sufficient infrastructure to provide certain facilities pertaining to the dead bodies infected from COVID including mortuary, funeral, transportation and handling facilities.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad closed the PIL filed by lawyer Mujeeb ur Rehman who alleged that during the peak of pandemic last year, city's population was severely suffering due to the lack of facilities regarding mortuaries and funeral facilities including lack of dead body transportation and handling facilities.

16. Disclosure Of Documents Regarding Grant Of Sanction For Prosecution U/S 45(1) UAPA Can Be Exempted Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 867

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a convict in the Mumbai Twin Blast case (7/11 Bomb Blast case) challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) denying him information regarding the proposal and all documents concerning grant of sanction for prosecution under sec. 45(1) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and National Investigation Act, 2008. He is presently serving his sentence in Nagpur Central Prison since July, 2006.

The CIC, while upholding the view taken by CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs, had found that the disclosures would stand exempted under sec. 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

17. Injunction Order Can Be Stayed Only In Rare Cases Where Restoration Of Status Quo Ante At Interlocutory Stage Is Imperative For Justice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MOHD SHAKEEL & ORS. v. MOHD ISLAM

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 868

The Delhi High Court has observed that a stay order cannot be stayed, except in rare and exceptional cases, where restoration of the status quo ante at an interlocutory stage is imperative in the interest of justice.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that where a judgment or decree is injunctive in nature, meaning that where the judgment or decree injuncts either of the parties before the Court from performing any particular act, no stay of such an order can be sought as it would amount to "placing the clock back and restoring the status quo ante."

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 25th March 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge concerning a suit instituted by one Mohd Islam (respondent) against the petitioners in the petition. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge on 11th January 2022.

18. FIR U/S 377 IPC Can Be Quashed In Matrimonial Cases After Settlement Between Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ANEESH GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 869

The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial cases where settlement has taken place, offence under sec. 377 of Indian Penal Code can be compromised and FIR can be quashed as parties have to move ahead in life.

Justice Talwant Singh thus concurred with the decision of a coordinate bench in Rifakat Ali & Ors v. State & Anr. decided on February 26, 2021 wherein the Court had quashed an FIR under sec. 377 of IPC on the ground that the parties had compromised the matter with each other only because it arose out of a matrimonial dispute.

"So, the view of the co-ordinate bench is that in matrimonial cases, where settlement has taken place, even the offence under Section 377 IPC can be compromised and FIR can be quashed as parties have to move ahead in life. I concur with the said view," the Court observed in a ruling dated September 6.

19. Relevancy Of Question Asked During Cross-Examination Relates To Pleadings & Rival Stands, Not Merits Of Such Stands: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAVINDER SURI & ORS. v. DAYAWATI (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 870

The Delhi High Court has observed that merits of the rival stands cannot be a material consideration while examining whether a particular question that the party desires to pose to a witness is relevant or irrelevant.

"Relevance or irrelevance is to be decided by juxtaposing the question that is being sought to be put with the pleadings of the parties and their rival stands before the court, and not with respect to the merits of such stands," Justice C Hari Shankar added.

The proceedings emerged in relation to an Eviction Petition instituted by respondent against the petitioners before the Additional Rent Controller seeking their eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

20. Proliferation Of Impostor Domain Names: Delhi High Court Directs DNRs To Appoint Grievance Officers Under IT Rules 2021

Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 871

In connection with a bunch of pleas concerning proliferation of fraudulent domain names resulting in monetary loss to public, the Delhi High Court has directed various domain name registrars (DNRs) to appoint grievance officers in compliance of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 within a period of one week.

In an order passed on September 14, Justice Pratibha M Singh added that if the said compliance is not made, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology will be free to proceed in accordance with law against such DNRs who have been offering their domain name registration, hosting and related services in India, without complying with the local laws.

21. NOC Of Trademark Office Mandatory For Claiming Copyright Registration Of Artistic Work In Respect Of Goods & Services: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MOHD ERSHAD SOLE PROPRIETOR EK AGENCIES v. REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 872

The Delhi High Court has observed that in order for any person to obtain copyright registration of an artistic work which is being used or is capable of being used in respect of any goods and services, the no objection certificate (NOC) is mandatorily to be obtained under the proviso of sec. 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The said proviso states that the application for entering particulars of the copyright work in the Register of Copyrights shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks to the effect that no trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been registered or that no application has been made for such registration.

"The purpose behind this provision is to ensure that there is no conflict between labels, packagings, etc. registered or used by trademark owners and registrations granted under the TM Act. The registration of copyright in respect of artistic works is, thus, founded on the basis of the NOC issued by the Trademark Office," Justice Pratibha M Singh added.

22. Temporary Official Appointed On Daily Rated Or Work Charge Basis To Do Specific Job Cannot Claim Seniority For Such Service Period: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 873

The Delhi High Court has held that a temporary official who is purely appointed on daily rated or work charge basis for specific period to do a specific job, cannot claim to be a regular employee of an establishment and thus cannot claim seniority for the period of his service rendered on work charge basis.

Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea filed by BSES Yamuna Power Limited challenging an award passed by the Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal whereby the services of a workman, namely Ramji Lal, were regularised to the post of Mason Grade-I.

The workman was initially appointed as a worker on work-charge basis. Later, he was engaged as a Mason w.e.f. March 1975. In March 1976, his services were terminated, thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute which passed an giving relief of reinstatement and continuity in service with full back wages.

23. Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of Centre's 2013 Notification For Compounding Offences Before Institution Of Prosecution Under FCRA

Case Title: MIZPAH CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 874

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Ministry of Home Affairs' notification dated April 26, 2013 specifying the officers competent for compounding the offences before institution of any prosecution, issued under sec. 41(1) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.

The said provision states that any offence punishable under the FCRA Act, not being an offence punishable with imprisonment only, may, before the institution of any prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such sums as the Central Government may specify in a notification in the Official Gazette.

A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan was of the view that the impugned notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under sec. 41 of the FCRA and the same did not fall foul of any provision of the Act.

24. Non-Filing Of Legal Proceedings Certificate Does Not Disentitle Party To File Suit Seeking Injunction In Apprehension Of Trademark Infringement: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S MAAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. M/S MINDWAVE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 875

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere non-filing of a 'legal proceedings certificate' is not concealment of such a material nature so as to disentitle the plaintiff to file a suit seeking an injunction, wherein it apprehends infringement of its trademark.

A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan was dealing with a plea filed by M/s Maan Pharmaceuticals Limited challenging an order passed by Trial Court dismissing its application filed under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

A suit was filed by M/s Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Maan Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking permanent injunction restraining it from using the trademark "BUPROEX-N". MINDWAVE claimed to be the registered owner of the said trademark and it alleged unauthorized use of the said trademark by MAAN.

25. Right To Carry On Trade Under Article 19 Does Not Confer Any Right On Individual To Compel Govt To Enter Into A Contract: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ACCURATE AUCTIONEERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 876

The Delhi High Court has observed that neither Article 19 nor any other provision of the Constitution of India recognizes a right inhering in an individual to compel the Government to enter into a contract.

Justice Yashwant Varma added that it is only when the State choses to enter into a contract by inviting bids and offers that it must follow a fair and transparent process of selection and ensure that all eligible parties are placed on an even pedestal.

The Court thus dismissed a plea challenging a 2018 Circular issued by the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance with reference to earlier circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

26. State-Run Schools Can Prescribe Eligibility Criteria For Admission In Different Classes: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NATURAL FATHER RAVINDER SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 877

The Delhi High Court has observed that every school, including schools under the State Government, has the liberty and autonomy to maintain the standards it has set out for itself.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that laying down an eligibility criteria for admission in different classes cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal and that the said discretion lies with the school or any other authority under which the school lies.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the father of a minor girl challenging the validity of a Circular issued by the Delhi Government dated 27th July 2022 whereby it had mandated minimum 71% marks for admission in Science Stream in Class XI in city's Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya school for the academic year 2022-23.

27. NDPS Act | Weight Of Neutral Substance Not To Be Ignored While Determining Quantity Of Seized Contraband: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MOHD AHSAN v. CUSTOMS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 878

The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that if the contraband seized falls within the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the weight of the neutral substance would not be ignored while determining the nature of the quantity seized, whether small quantity, commercial quantity or in between.

A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Amit Sharma was dealing with a plea wherein three questions were referred to it by a single judge bench concerning the issue pertaining to miniscule percentage of a narcotic substance under the Act.

28. Orders Bereft Of Reasoning Liable To Be Set Aside In Revisional Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PHULGITA DEVI v. KRISHAN KMAR & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 879

The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders which are bereft of reasoning cannot be termed as good orders and the same are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by one Phulgita Devi challenging the order passed by the Trial Court whereby her application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.

Order VII Rule 11 sets out various cases whereby a plaint can be rejected.

In the application, the petitioner had claimed that the suit has was filed after allowing of eviction petition filed by her and dismissal of a revision petition as well as SLP by Supreme Court filed by the plaintiff.

29. Delhi High Court Directs BCI To Constitute Special Teams For Conducting Surprise Visits To Law Colleges, Shut Those Lacking Minimum Infra

Case Title: NEW MILLENNIUM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 880

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to constitute special expert teams to conduct surprise visits of law colleges that lack minimum infrastructure and adequate facilities.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the inspection reports of the law colleges shall be uploaded on its website, within one month of such inspection.

"If any colleges upon such inspection are found to be lacking minimum infrastructural facilities, then the BCI must take immediate steps to close such colleges. This is a much-needed therapy that ought to be introduced to cure the maladies that legal education is suffering from," the Court added.

The observations were made while the Court expressed concern over the condition of legal education including the status of infrastructure.

30. Delhi High Court Restores Bail In View Of Disputed Fact About Accused Threatening Complainant

Case Title: JAGAT SINGH NAGAR & ORS v. STATE & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 881

The Delhi High Court has recently restored bail to three men after the parties lodged counter FIRs against each other, noting unless the investigation in both the cases reaches its logical conclusion, it cannot be assumed that the accused persons had violated any of the conditions of bail granted by the lower court or tried to influence the administration of justice.

The Court also reiterated that once bail is granted, the same should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, adding that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail.

31. EOU Entitled To Claim Deemed Export Drawback On Inputs Which Remained Unutilized With Then-Existing DTA Unit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 882

The Delhi High Court has held that duty drawback for goods should extend to unutilized goods which were available at the time of conversion of the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit into a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU).

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakhdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the restriction against the claim of concession in duties and taxes applied only vis-à-vis plants, machinery and equipment that had already been installed. The petitioner was allowed to carry forward the advance authorization to the convertedunit,t i.e., 100% EOU, and thereafter fulfil the outstanding export commitment.

The issue raised was whether the petitioner is entitled to duty drawback, confined to customs duty component, against deemed exports, even where it has claimed cenvat credit.

32. High Court Expects Delhi Govt's Health Info Management System Be To Developed Expeditiously, Closes Pleas Concerning COVID-19 Management

Title: RAKESH MALHOTRA v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORYOFINDIAAND ORS & other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 883

The Delhi High Court has said that it expects the Delhi Government's health information management system, in order to provide an end to end solution for all information related to health institutions, will be developed as expeditiously as possible.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad thus closed a bunch of pleas filed concerning the management of COVID-19 situation in the city.

In a recent status report, the Delhi Government informed Court that a letter of Intent has been issued to M/S NEC corporation Ltd. which has started work and that all the modules of health information management system for the two hospitals namely, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital & Guru Govind Singh Hospital and allied medical institutions will be completed by September 2022.

The Court was also informed a mobile application will also be developed along with the software solution by the agency.