Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: September 5 To September 11, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 839 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 851

SCOUTS AND GUIDES FOR ANIMALS AND BIRDS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 839

LEELA MATHUR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 840

Shivam Pandey v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 841

M/S VERVE HUMAN CARE LABORATORIES v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 842

DR. L. PRAVEEN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 843

Drooshba Fabricators v. Indue Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 844

HATHKARGAH LAGHU PATANG UDYOG SAMITI (REG.) v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 845

JEEVESH SABHARWAL v. ARUNA GUPTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 846

H.S. RAI v UOI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 847

Dr. Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 848

HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 849

CROSS FIT LLC v RTB GYM AND FITNESS CENTRE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 850

State v. Rahul 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 851

1. Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Comply With Law While Transporting Camels For Participation In Republic Day Parade

Title: SCOUTS AND GUIDES FOR ANIMALS AND BIRDS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 839

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to ensure strict compliance of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 as well as the amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (The Transport of Animals) Rules, 2020 while transporting camels to the city for the purpose of their participation in Republic Day Parade.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways as well as the Border Security Force to ensure strict compliance of the SOP read with the Rules governing the field in the matter of transport of camels.

The Court thus disposed of a PIL filed by a trust namely Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds alleging transportation of camels into the city from the State of Rajasthan in violation of the statutory provisions as contained under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

2. Municipal Corporation Constituted For Providing Basic Public Goods Cannot Shirk Off Responsibility By Citing Financial Constraints: Delhi High Court

Title: LEELA MATHUR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 840

The Delhi High Court has observed that a Municipal Corporation constituted for the purpose of providing basic public goods amenities cannot shirk off its responsibility by citing financial constraints.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while pulling up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) after a 80 year old lady's house had gone down below the road level due to re constructions, thereby causing damage to the property.

Both the lady as well as the MCD had filed cross appeals challenging an order passed by the Single Judge dated February 12, 2020 imposing costs of Rs.3. Lakhs as compensation on the MCD and directing it to hand over a pump to the old lady to avoid water logging in the house.

3. "Right To File Petition Not A Tool For Your Resume": High Court Dismisses Law Student's Plea Seeking Compensation In Wake Of Delhi's Air Pollution

Title: Shivam Pandey v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 841

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed a law student namely Shivam Pandey persuing masters from University of Delhi seeking compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs for the damages suffered to his health due to the cause of air pollution in the city. Apart from compensation, the plea also sought health insurance of Rs. 25 lakhs.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma observed that the law student failed to place on record any material evidence which may "even remotely" establish any personal injury suffered by him on account of air pollution.

Calling the petition as misconceived, the Court dismissed the same and orally told the petitioner, who was appearing in person, thus:

"Sir remember, Court is a serious place. Filing and the right to you to file a petition in this Court, is not merely a tool for your resume and you cv. Next time you have a serious issue to raise, you are most welcome to do so..."

4. Judicial Review Of Govt Contracts Permitted Only If There Is Illegality In Decision Making Process Placing Public Interest At Risk: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S VERVE HUMAN CARE LABORATORIES v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 842

The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of judicial review in matters of government contracts is limited and can only be exercised if there is patent unreasonableness, irregularity, irrationality or illegality in the decision-making process of the authority which places public interest at large at a risk.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad added that in the absence of the said circumstances, Courts should normally exercise judicial restraint while deliberating upon contractual matters so as to not generate "problematic ramifications" affecting the State's ability to enter into contracts and trade with private entities.

5. "Alleged Offence Grave But Trial Would Take Ample Time": Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Three Officials Accused In Biocon Bribery Case

Case Title: DR. L. PRAVEEN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 843

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to three officials accused in connection with Biocon bribery case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observing that though the offence alleged is grave, the trial in the matter would take ample time.

A bench of Justice Anu Malhotra noted that chargesheet was already filed and investigation in the matter was completed. It thus granted bail to Dr. S. Eswara Reddy (Joint Drugs Controller), L. Praveen Kumar (Associate Vice President of M/s Biocon Biologics Limited) and Dinesh Dua (Director of M/s Synergy Network India Private Limited).

CBI had filed an FIR in June this year under sec. 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. Non-Payment/Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty Cannot Render The Arbitration Agreement Invalid: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Drooshba Fabricators v. Indue Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 844

The High Court of Delhi has held that non-payment or insufficiency of stamp duty on the underlying agreement cannot render the arbitration clause invalid.

The Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited[1] and Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.[2] to hold that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C should impound the unstamped/inadequately agreement and direct the parties to cure the defect before the arbitrator could adjudicate upon such an agreement.

The Court further held that the requirement of pre-arbitral steps in the form of negotiation/conciliation would stand satisfied when the petitioner issues several notices to amicably settle the dispute, however, no response comes from the respondent.

7. Manjha Row | Person Flying Kites Can't Modify Thread To Sharpen It With Metallic Or Glass Components: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HATHKARGAH LAGHU PATANG UDYOG SAMITI (REG.) v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 845

The Delhi High Court has observed that a person engaged in kite flying cannot modify the kite flying thread to sharpen it by using sharp metallic or glass components and adhesives for the purposes of sparring with fellow sports persons.

A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan noted the clarification made by the Delhi Government in respect of its notification imposing a complete ban on the sale and production of chinese manjha for kite flying, that the activity will be permitted only from cotton thread, free from any sharp, metallic or glass components.

8. S.284 CrPC | Court Must Prevent Miscarriage Of Justice While Examining Witness On Commission Incapable Of Attending Proceedings: Delhi HC

Title: JEEVESH SABHARWAL v. ARUNA GUPTA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 846

The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases involving question of examining a witness on Commission wherein such a witness is disabled or otherwise not in a position to attend Court, the Court has to exercise its power to examine the witness to see that no miscarriage of justice takes place.

"The question of examining the witness on Commission arises in the case where such a witness is disabled to attend the Court due to old age or hazardous condition of her health, not in a position to move about or the witness is incapable of attending the Court for any other reason. In such cases, the Court has to exercise its power to examine the witness to see that no such miscarriage of justice does takes place," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

The Court added that where it is not possible for a witness to attend the Court, a procedure is prescribed under sec. 284 of CrPC to examine the witness by the Court Commissioner.

9. Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Exercised Only When Either The Person Or Authority To Which Writ Issued, Or Cause Of Action Is Within Its Territory: Delhi HC

Case Title : H.S. RAI v UOI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 847

The Delhi High Court has observed that it can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either when the person or authority to which the writ is to be issued is located within its territory, or the cause of action, in part or whole, arises within its territory.

Thus, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed the plea of H.S. Rai, an aggrieved employee of Projects and Development India Limited (PDIL), who had moved the Court to set aside the penalties imposed on him during a disciplinary enquiry for allegedly misappropriating company funds.

The Court held that since both the original authority and the appellate authority under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA Rules) of the organisation were constituted and made their respective orders in Jharkhand, the petitioner could not have approached the Delhi High Court merely because he was a resident of Delhi.

10. COVID-19: Delhi HC Closes PIL To Implement Safety Protocol During Election Campaigns, Directs ECI To Ensure Strict Compliance

Case Title: Dr. Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 848

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India to ensure strict compliance by political parties of its guidelines concerning COVID-19 norms during elections.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL seeking to debar candidates and campaigners of political parties from campaigning in elections, "either permanently or for a stipulated period of time", if they repeatedly violate mandatory masking guidelines issued by Election Commission.

11. Delhi High Court Directs Amazon To Remove Listing Of 'Rooh Afza' Products Not Originating From Hamdard Group

Case Title: HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 849

The Delhi High Court has directed Amazon India to remove listing of famous 'ROOH AFZA' product not originating from the Hamdard Group, thereby granting an ad-interim injunction in its favour.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that since 'ROOH AFZA' is a product which has been consumed by the Indian public for over a century now, the quality standards have to comply with the applicable regulations prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

The suit was filed by Hamdard National Foundation (India) and Hamdard Dawakhana against two companies namely Amazon India Limited and M/s. Golden Leaf, relating to its product and mark of 'ROOH AFZA'.

12. Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Gym & Fitness Centre From Infringing CrossFit's Trademark, Imposes ₹10 Lakhs Cost

Case Title : CROSS FIT LLC v RTB GYM AND FITNESS CENTRE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 850

The Delhi High Court recently granted permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of Cross Fit LLC against a gym and fitness centre unauthorizedly using its trademark.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the defendant gym had failed to enter appearance despite service of notice and as such, no ex parte evidence would be required in the matter.

The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant is a gym and fitness centre owned and operated by its proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma and is using the identical mark 'CROSSFIT' in respect of identical services relating to gym and fitness. The Plaintiff acquired knowledge of the use of the said mark by the Defendant in September, 2020.

The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has been prominently displaying the mark 'CROSSFIT' at its premises, literature, online pages as hashtags since March, 2018.

13. Over 10 Yrs After Acquittal By Trial Court, Delhi HC Convicts Man For Raping 11-Yr-Old; Sentences To 10 Yrs Rigorous Imprisonment

Case Title: State v. Rahul

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 851

More than 10 years after his acquittal in October 2011 by a Trial Court here, the Delhi High Court on Friday convicted a man for raping a 11 year old minor victim in the year 2010 and awarded a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the appeal filed by the prosecution in the year 2014 against the Trial Court order dated October 20, 2011 whereby one Rahul was acquitted in FIR registered under sec. 376 and 377 of Indian Penal Code.

The Trial Court had granted him benefit of doubt by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

In April 2010, the minor victim while returning from school, had gone to a public toilet when the man had followed her and forcibly took her to male toilet, removed her clothes and committed rape upon her.

The man was apprehended some days later and was taken to the police station. The matter was reported to the police after seven days of the incident.