- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Delhi High Court Annual Digest...
Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 301 - 598]
Nupur Thapliyal
26 Dec 2022 7:00 PM IST
![Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 301 - 598]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/12/27/750x450_451006-delhi-hc-annual-digest-2022-part-2.webp "Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 301 - 598]")
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 301 To 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 598Nominal IndexRed Bull AG v PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 301Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi versus Hamdard National Foundation (India) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 302Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 303MANSI GUPTA v. PREM AMAR & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 304RAJENDER...
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 301 To 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 598
Nominal Index
Red Bull AG v PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 301
Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi versus Hamdard National Foundation (India) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 302
Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 303
MANSI GUPTA v. PREM AMAR & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 304
RAJENDER KUMAR SETHI & ANR. v. M/S V.G. MARKETING PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 305
Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 306
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports versus Agility Logistic Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 307
NASTOR FARIRAI ZISO v. NCB 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 308
SUNIL TOMAR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 309
Richie Rich Exim Solutions versus Commissioner of CGST Delhi South 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 310
Alstom Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojeccts Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 311
Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 312
SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 313
SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD v. HETERO HEALTHCARE LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 314
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 315
SUNNY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 316
SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 317
MRS OMITA MAGO & ORS. v. AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 318
PARDEEP KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 319
SH VIVEK CHAUHAN v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL CRIMINAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 320
SHERRY GEORGE v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 321
MUKESH KHURANA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 322
Parsvnath Developers Ltd versus Future Retail Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 323
SH PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. SMT DEEPIKA SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 324
AARIN THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER SH PAWAN KUMAR v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 325
DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 326
DR RAMESH CHANDER MUNJAL & ORS. v. DR SURAJ MUNJAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 327
Fada Trading Private Limited Versus Commissioner Goods and Service Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 328
Cement Corporation of India versus Engineering Industries Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 329
SAIF II MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2) DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 330
National Highways Authority of India v. Continental Engineering Corporation (CEC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 331
Pulkit Versus State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 332
Asifa v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 333
RISHU AGGARWAL v. MOHIT GOYAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 334
Neha Pudil v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 335
SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 336
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. SATBIR BHARDWAJ & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 337
INDRA PASRICHA v. DEEPIKA CHAUHAN & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 338
KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 339
RAJA BERWA & ORS v. STATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 340
M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 341
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 342
SHRI KUSUM LATA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 343
DR. MANOJ BAJPAI v. MS SEEMA JASSAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 344
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 345
APURV SHANKAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 346
Delhi Development Authority v. Watcon Water Specialists Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 347
DR S S CHAHAR v. SH D K SARRAF & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 348
SHILPA SINGH v. VIKAS KHANNA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 349
Court on its own motion v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 350
National Highways Authority of India versus M/S Abhijeet Angul Sambalpur Toll Road Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 351
SOURABH GUGNANI & ORS v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 352
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD v. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 353
ASHUTOSH SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 354
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR v. OM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 355
SUMANDEEP VIDYAPEETH, AN INSTITUTE DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 356
VISTRAT REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASIAN HOTELS NORTH LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 357
VEENA GARG v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 358
MR BHAVANISHANKAR H SHARMA THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH SATISH KUMAR TIWARI v. SRS PRIVATE INVESTMENT POWAI LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR ROHIT DAVE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 359
ULTIMATE INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED v. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 360
RAZIA BEGUM v. COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 361
COSCO INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. v. JAGAT SINGH DUGAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 362
SUSHIL ARORA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 363
SAURABH BHARDWAJ v. DELHI POLICE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 364
GOVERNMENT E MARKETPLACE v. UNILEX CONSULTANTS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 365
ANIL KUMAR SETH v. LALIT KUMAR SETH AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 366
SH. DINESH SHARMA v. MRS. KRISHNA KAINTH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 367
Religare Finvest Ltd v. Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 368
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v. KINETIC LIFESCIENCE (OPC) P. LTD. AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 369
THE BRITISH SCHOOL SOCIETY v. SANJAY GANDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 370
ALKA GHALOT v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 371
DUMPALA MEENAVATHI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 372
NAVIN SONI v. MUNISH SONI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 373
JITENDRA KUMAR GARG v. MANJU GARG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 374
Jan Sewa Welfare Society v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 375
Jindal Realty Limited versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 376
GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL v. ARSH VERMA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 377
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 378
Hunch Circle Pvt. Ltd. v. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 379
TARUN PREET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 380
DEEPAK v. RAMESH SETHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381
BHARTI ANAND v. SUSHANT ANAND AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 382
SHADAB v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 383
MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. BOOKING.COM B. V. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 384
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 385
RAMESH KUMAR BANGA v. KAILASH MAKKAR AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 386
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Cobra Instalaciones Y. Services S.A. & M/s Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. (JV) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 387
V K VERMA v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 388
OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT. LTD. v. PARVEEN JUNEJA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 389
DR. SANJIV GUPTA & ANR. v. SH. S.S. VERMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 390
KV SAGAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 391
DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 393
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR v. KISHAN SARRAF & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 394
x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 395
ZAKIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 396
AMIT KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 397
DHL INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. DLH EXPRESS SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 398
LUCINA LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 399
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2- AGRA v. MADHUR MITTAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 400
M/S. MOVIE TIMES CINEPLEX PVT. LTD. v. M/S. MRG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 401
Ankit Kaul Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 402
NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 403
DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 404
SIRONA HYGIENE PRIVATE LIMITED v. PARULBEN NAVNATH CHOTHANI TRADING AS SHIV ENTERPRISE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 405
M/S GARG BUILDERS THROUGH SHRI MOHINDER PAL GARG v. HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD. AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 406
BABLU TIWARI @ JATA SHANKAR TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 407
SUCHIT GUPTA v. GAURAV SAINI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 408
SATISH SACHIV BABA v. CPWD (M.R.D.) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 409
HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus DIPALI SANTOSH RAO & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 410
M/s Maspar Industries Private Limited & Ors. versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax TDS & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 411
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC & ORS. v. VEGAMOVIES.RUN & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 412
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD & ANR. versus UNILEVERR1.IN & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 413
ANISH DAS TALUKDAR (MINOR) THROUGH MS. SASMITA DAS TALUKDAR (LEGAL GARDINAN AND MOTHER) AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 414
K RAJAPANDIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 415
Vemika Verma and Others v. University of Delhi and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 416
TOSHIAKI AIBA AS THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA v. VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 417
PCJ SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(1) DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 418
Director General Central Reserve Police Force versus Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw(Del) 419
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. IJM Corporation Berhad 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 420
Manish Aggarwal and Anr v. RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 421
KINRI DHIR versus VEER SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 422
Union of India versus Indian Agro Marketing Co Operative Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 423
RAKESH @DIWAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 424
BELA CREATION PVT LTD v. ANUJ TEXTILES 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 425
Amit Gupta Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence Headquarters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 426
NIKITA CHANDEL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 427
GEETA SINGH v. PRADEEP SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 428
STARBUCKS CORPORATION v. TEAQUILA A FASHION CAFE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 429
Youth Against Crime v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 430
KRISHNAN SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 431
LAXMI & ANR v. SHYAM PRATAP & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 432
RIT Foundation v. UOI and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 433
Kedar Nath Babbar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 434
Union of India versus Delhi State Consumer Co Operative Federation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 435
Millennium School v. Pawan Dawar, O.M.P. (COMM) 590/2020 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 436
PEPSICO INC. & ANR. versus JAGPIN BREWERIES LIMITED & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 437
Extramarks Education India Private Limited V. MES Central School, ARB. P. 327 OF 2022 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 438
Kiran Infra Engineers Limited versus Northern Railway 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 439
AZHAR RASHEED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 440
x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 441
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SATBIR & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 442
GAIL (India) Ltd. V. Trivendi Engineering & Industries LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 443
Gujarat Gas Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd and Ors., O.M.P.(I)(COMM) 125 of 2022 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 444
MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 445
NIRMAL JINDAL v. SHYAM SUNDER TYAGI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 446
JASBIR SINGH v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 447
SHRI HARI SHAMSHER KAUSHIK v. SHRI JASBIR SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S ACCURA CARE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 448
MILLENNIUM EDUCATION FOUNDATION V. EDUCOMP INFRASTRUCTURE AND SCHOOL MANAGEMENT LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 449
ASHISH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 450
DR VIMLA MENON AND ANOTHER v. GOPINATH MENON 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 451
RASHI MISRA v. B KALYANA RAMAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 452
National Highway Authority of India versus MEP Chennai Bypass Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 453
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL) v. Cobra Instalaciones Y Services Sa and Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. JV 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 454
Rahul Biala Vs ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 455
M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 456
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. LOOKPART EXHIBITIONS AND EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 457
Parashar Narayan Sharma v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 458
SINGH & SINGH LAW FIRM L.L.P & ANR. v. SINGH & SINGH LAW, PLLC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 459
SUDESH CHHIKARA v. DR. NAVEEN AGGARWAL AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 460
BURGER KING CORPORATION v. SWAPNIL PATIL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 461
KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. MR. RAMAN KWATRA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 462
N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 463
SALONI YADAV & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 464
KERZNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v VIKAS AGGARWAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 465
APARNA BHAT v. SAKSHI SINGH & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 466
Seven Seas Hospitality Private Limited Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 467
SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ministry of Finance 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 468
BHARAT PETRORESOURCES LIMITED v. JSW ISPAT SPECIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 469
HARSH SEHGAL v. STATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 470
SANDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 471
DELHI SARKARI RATION DEALERS SANGH DELHI v. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 472
NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 473
SAURABH AGARWAL v. STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 474
Divya Capital One Private Limited Vs. ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 475
M/S BHARAT INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. SMT. SANJANA SAINI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 476
Indus Tower Ltd. Versus ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 477
People for Better Treatment v. National Medical Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 478
Intercontinental Consultants v. Ministry of Road & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 479
CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. MR FAYYAZ SHAIKH & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 480
Omkar Nath Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 481
RAJESH GUPTA v. RAM AVTAR, O.M.P. (COMM) 121/2020 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 482
CIT Versus Microsoft Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483
Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd Versus ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 484
M/S SRI SHYAM INCORPORATION & ANR. v. M/S SHREE BALAJI INDUSTRIES 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 485
INDIAN PROFESSIONAL NURSES THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY SIJU THOMAS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 486
ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 487
ABHISHEK GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 488
AKRITI AGGARWAL & ANR. v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 489
AK Builders versus Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 490
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd v. Shivani Cosmetics 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 491
ASLAM SHER KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 492
AAA VEHICLEADES PVT LTD v. BALKISHAN GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 493
PUMA SE v. HI-TEC POINT TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 494
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 495
Sharjeel Imam v. The State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 496
Help India Against Corruption v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 497
Ketan Ribbons Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 498
M/S Chhavi & Ors v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 499
PRAVEEN CHHABRA v. REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 500
SHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT AND ANR. v. YOGESH PATEL AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 501
A-One Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Energy Efficiency Services Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 502
JAI KUMAR JAIN AND ORS v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 503
HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. WWW.HINDUSTANTIMES.TECH & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 504
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD & ANR. v. M/S JINDAL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 505
Sanjay Roy versus Sandeep Soni & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 506
Rajinder Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 507
Suresh Chand Gupta Versus State of Govt. Of NCT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 508
KRISHAN KAKKAR v. KIRAN CHANDER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 509
SANJAY SINGH v. SUKHPAL KAUR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 510
NIZAMUDDIN KHAN v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 511
Amrish Gupta v. Gurchait Singh Chima 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 512
SH JAGMOHAN KASHYAP v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513
JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE & CULTURE AND ANR v. PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 514
HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TICTOK SKILL GAMES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 515
SH.PANNA LAL v. BHAGMAL KATARIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 516
RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 518
JUSTICE FOR ALL AND ANR v. VENKATESHWAR GLOBAL SCHOOL AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 519
COLORBAR COSMETICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FACES COSMETICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 520
Panipat Jalandhar National Highway 1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 521
ED v. Jacqueline Fernandez 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 522
Shalen Bhardwaj v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 524
Gurjar Samaj Sarv Sangthan Sabha Ekta Samanya Samiti v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 525
Himanshu Shekar v. Prabhat Shekhar 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 526
CJDARCL LOGISTICS LTD. v. RITES LTD AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 527
VIVEK KUMAR YADAV v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 528
DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 530
SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 531
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 532
SANJIT BAKSHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 533
SMT BABITA SHARMA & ANR. v. THE SHANKAR COOP. URBAN T/C SOCIETY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 535
Juki India Private Limited versus M/s Capital Apparels Technology Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 536
VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 537
RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 538
ADITI BAKHT v. ABHISHEK AHUJA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 539
SARITA BAKSHI v. STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 540
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 541
ARSHAD AHMAD AND ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542
VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543
CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544
M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545
Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546
JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547
HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT. v. & BEN GROUPO PVT. LTD. & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 548
INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (ITDC) v. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD. (BMEL) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 549
M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550
Charu v. High Court of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 551
In Re: Housing for the Poor in Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 552
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE v. M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 553
DUSHYANT KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 554
PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555
M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556
HARYANA STATE JUDO ASSOCIATION v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 557
MAMTA DEVI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 558
ARUN AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 559
DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. v. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 560
JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 561
YOGESH JAGIA v. JINDL BIOCHEM PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562
MASTER DIVYAM BHATEJA THROUGH FATHER MR VINOD BHATEJA v. BHAI PARMANAND VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 563
UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 564
NAVED v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565
Mukish v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566
BRINDA KARAT AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 567
Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 568
SANTOSH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 569
SURENDER @ TANNU @ TANVA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 570
THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 571
HANUMAN BENIWAL AND ORS. v. VINAY MISHRA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 572
VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 573
DEVENDER GUPTA v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 574
Davinder Singh Thapar versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 575
Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited Vs DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 576
KULVINDER SINGH KOHLI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 577
A-ONE REALTORS PVT.LTD. v. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578
SAJID KHAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 579
AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. AMAZONBUYS.IN & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 580
Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 581
SAMRIDDHI KHANDELWAL v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 582
Case Title: ANISH SINGH THAKUR v. THROUGH ANUBHAV GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 583
M/S K.B.G. ENGINEERS v. DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 584
HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED v. PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 585
Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586
VINDHYA GURUKUL COLLEGE & ANR. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 587
SWASTIKA GHOSH v. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 588
BABA RAHIM ALI SHAH & ANR. v. SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 589
INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. INTRA LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 590
HEETICH MARKETING-UND VERTRIEBS GMBH & CO. KG., & ANR v. GUPTA STORE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 591
DR. MAHENDRA SINGH RANA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 592
ASLAM SHER KHAN v. NARINDER DHRUV BATRA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 594
VOLTAS LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 595
SEHNAZ v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 596
PANKAJ JAIN v. PARUL JAIN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 597
Pink City Expressway Private Limited versus National Highways Authority of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 598
Case Title: Red Bull AG v PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 301
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Red Bull AG's (Red Bull/plaintiff) application for interim injunction against PepsiCo India, holding that prima facie, the latter's tagline "STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY" on their energy drink "Sting" does not infringe the former's Trademark in tagline "VITALIZES BODY AND MIND". It held that both the taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature.
A single judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal did not accept Red Bull's contention that Pepsi has been using the impugned mark in a manner that is likely to be taken as being used as a trademark. The court ruled that the Pepsi has not committed infringement under Section 29 (infringement of registered trademarks) of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
Scholarship By Hamdard Foundation, Exemption Under Income Tax Act Can't Be Denied: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi versus Hamdard National Foundation (India)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 302
The Delhi High Court has upheld the factual findings made by the CIT (A) and ITAT that the merit-cum scholarship/financial assistance provided by Hamdard National Foundation was not confined to students of a particular religious community, and therefore exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to it.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, while noting that similar factual findings were made by the appellate authorities with respect to previous assessment years, held that though the principle of res-judicata and estoppel are not applicable to taxation matters, a consistency of approach must be maintained.
Case Title: Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 303
The Delhi High Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to treat as representation a PIL seeking to reconsider the decision to increase the stakes held by Hinduja Group as the promoters of IndusInd Bank.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla directed the RBI to examine the petition, highlighting the criminal antecedents of the promoters and seeking probe into its "fit and proper" status.
The petition was filed by Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, appearing in person, as an upshot of recommendations made by RBI's Internal Working Group for raising shareholding of promoters in private banks from 15 percent to 26 percent.
Case Title: MANSI GUPTA v. PREM AMAR & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 304
The Delhi High Court has observed that existence of the cause of action cannot be equated with the merits of the suit filed.
Justice Asha Menon was dealing with an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 read with sec. 151 of CPC on behalf of the defendants in a suit seeking rejection of the plaint.
The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.5 crores, by the plaintiff, daughter-in-law of the defendants. Her case was that the defendants had, by their words and actions, including a press-conference addressed by them, openly accused her of being guilty of and conniving and conspiring to have her husband murdered.
Title: RAJENDER KUMAR SETHI & ANR. v. M/S V.G. MARKETING PVT LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 305
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 11,000 on a party seeking directions to the Trial Court to expeditiously decide a civil suit, remarking that the petition was an abuse of process of court.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that the petition is a means to try and use the High Court as an avenue to pressurise the trial court in dealing with the matter.
"This is not what Article 227 of the Constitution of India is meant for," the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea with costs of Rs. 11,000 to be paid by way of a crossed cheque favouring the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC).
Case Title: Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 306
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) is an authority entrusted with an important task of regulating medical education in India. Thus, it is expected to at least prima facie show some justification for its decisions.
It added that MARB cannot be given unbridled power to routinely overrule the assessors' inspection reports pertaining to medical institutes, merely on suspicions.
It stated that such arbitrariness on part of MARB cannot be countenanced as it is antithetical to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports versus Agility Logistic Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 307
The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is not necessary that a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) should quantify the amounts that are claimed by the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a notice under Section 21 is required to set out the disputes between the parties, and upheld the view of the Arbitral Tribunal that the claims raised by the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be rejected only on the ground that they were not mentioned in the notice issued under Section 21.
Case Title: NASTOR FARIRAI ZISO v. NCB
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 308
The Delhi High Court has held that a mere apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the accused may flee the course of justice, cannot be the sole determinative factor for denying benefit of Section 445 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sec. 445 of CrPC states that "where any person is required by any Court or officer to execute a bond with or without sureties, the Court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or officer may fix in lieu of executing such bond."
Justice Anoop Kumar Mediratta thus granted relief to a woman and a foreign national, observing that she cannot be forced to undergo incarceration till the conclusion of trial merely because she was unable to furnish a local surety bond.
Case Title: SUNIL TOMAR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 309
The Delhi High Court has observed that partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be allowed.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar quashed an FIR registered under sec. 406, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and the proceedings emanating therefrom qua a man who had approached the Court seeking quashing of the same.
The matter was registered on the basis of a complaint filed against the petitioner and two other persons alleging that accused No. 2 was an old friend and well aware about financial position of the complainant.
It was alleged that in August, 2013 accused No. 2 had hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No. 1 and 3 to cheat the complainant and accused No. 1 showed him a villa which was allotted in name of accused No. 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 2.33 Crores.
Case Title: Richie Rich Exim Solutions versus Commissioner of CGST Delhi South
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 310
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order rejecting an applicant's refund application under GST Act on the ground that the revenue authority had breached the principles of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant before rejecting its refund application
The Bench, consisting of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Poonam A. Bamba, ruled that the authority had failed to discharge its onus that a date for grant of personal hearing had been fixed before rejecting the applicant's refund application.
Case Title: Alstom Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojeccts Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 311
The High Court of Delhi has observed that when the agreement between the parties provides for mandatory mediation, the time spent in the mediation process shall be excluded from the period of limitation.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that the notice invoking arbitration as well as the substantive claims of a party would not become time-barred if the parties were undergoing the mediation process contemplated in the arbitration clause and the time consumed in an unfruitful mediation process shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation period.
The Court further observed that the breaking point at which any reasonable party would have abandoned efforts in arriving at the settlement and contemplated referral of the dispute to arbitration would be the date when the mediation fails and the period of limitation would begin from that day only.
Case Title: Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 312
The High Court of Delhi has observed that a subsequent dispute arising from the same transaction can be referred to a separate arbitration and the arbitration agreement cannot be said to be a one-time measure that cannot be invoked after an award is made in the earlier reference.
The Single Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta observed that the word "all disputes" in an arbitration agreement means all the existing disputes at the time of invocation of arbitration and the disputes that arise subsequently can be decided in a separate arbitration. There is no legal impediment that proscribes the invocation of the arbitration agreement if there is a pending arbitration or an award is made in an earlier arbitration.
Case Title: SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 313
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking directions upon the Indian Government to facilitate the family of Nimisha Priya, an Indian citizen who killed a Yemen national and has been sentenced to death there, to negotiate with the family of the deceased victim.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla remarked,
" Learned Single Judge has granted all the reliefs that could have been granted. Court has said Union of India shall take all steps to pursue remedy of further appeal...provide consular support for all assistance in travelling…what more do you need?"
The Bench added that it cannot command the Central Government to be party to any intervention. "You go and negotiate. Thereafter if you need any help, then…it's very premature to say. We can't get into these nitty-gritties."
Case Title: SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD v. HETERO HEALTHCARE LTD & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 314
The Delhi High Court has observed that a trademark owner cannot drag a Defendant to multiple fora, being a higher court or before a court of coordinate jurisdiction, when the matter is pending before the first Court, especially when the matter is part heard before the first Court, merely to find a forum where it is able to get relief.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that principles such as res judicata, res subjudice, bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, forum shopping, which apply in general to civil and criminal proceedings would also be applicable to trademark suits as well.
The Court was dealing with a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringement of trademark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts of profits/damages, delivery up and other reliefs. It was the Plaintiff's case that the defendant was infringing upon its registered trademark 'LETROZ' by using the mark 'LETERO' in respect of its medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 315
Observing that the situation has undertaken a "sea change" since the country witnesses the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic, the Delhi High Court has closed the suo moto case registered by it concerning the way bodies were being handled by the mortuary as well as crematoriums back then.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla said:
"The situation has undertaken a sea change with the passage of time and the present petition has, therefore, lost its relevancy in today's context. We, accordingly, close these proceedings at this stage."
Case Title: SUNNY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 316
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to 8 men accused of vandalising Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's official residence recently, observing that their continued detention in judicial custody was not required for proper investigation of the offences.
Justice Asha Menon further noted that there was no possibility of the applicants tampering with the evidence or inducing or threatening any witness and that nothing was brought on the record by the State to suggests that they would not appear before the court when required.
"As to proper investigations, the witnesses are the policemen who were on duty and the staff of the CM Residence and the CCTV footage, which has been preserved. There is no dispute that others have been issued notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, they are joining investigations," the Court said.
Case Title: SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 317
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant for the case.
Justice Jasmeet Singh expunged the remarks made against the Investigating Officer by a Trial Court in a criminal revision case. The plea was filed by the IO seeking setting aside the direction of the Trial Court for initiating inquiry against him.
The Investigating Officer had conducted investigation in a murder case and the Additional Sessions Judge of city's Karkardooma Court in his order dated 25.10.2021 had set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Title: MRS OMITA MAGO & ORS. v. AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 318
The Delhi High Court has observed that the employees of an unaided private school are entitled to the benefits as being given to the employees of the government run schools.
Justice V Kameswar Rao thus granted relief to the petitioners who were working as Teachers including pre-primary, Librarian, TGT and PGT in city's Ahlcon Public School.
The Court allowed the plea which had sought directions on the school to pay to petitioners the amounts wrongfully deducted from their salaries from the month of June 2020 and onwards till date. The plea also sought directions on the school to fix their pay terms of the 7th central pay commission along with allowances and other benefits including arrears of salaries.
Case Title: PARDEEP KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 319
The Delhi High Court has refused to issue directions to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) to increase the insurance coverage for depositors in insured banks. The current maximum limit of insurance against deposits in insured banks is Rs. 5 lakh.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that the Banks are also "in business" and it would be "impractical" for the Court to pass such a direction.
Case Title: SH VIVEK CHAUHAN v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL CRIMINAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 320
The Delhi High Court has said that it shall be appropriate that newly recruited officers of the Delhi Judicial Service may be sensitized by holding of appropriate sessions at Delhi Judicial Academy with reference to proceedings under sec. 82/83 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 82 contemplates procedure for issuing proclamation against a person absconding. Section 83 talks about attachment of property of person absconding.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate of Dwarka Courts, which had dismissed the exemption application filed on behalf of the petitioner and directing issue of process under sec. 82 Cr.P.C. against him.
Case Title: SHERRY GEORGE v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 321
The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the cause or reason for recusal by a judge, particularly, by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice.
Justice Asha Menon added that the discretion of the concerned judge in the matter of disclosure is absolute.
"When a judge recuses, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire. The recusal has to be respected, whether a reason has been spelt-out in detail or not. Had a judge refrained from giving a reason for recusal, no one can insist on the judge making such disclosures," the Court said.
Case Title: MUKESH KHURANA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 322
The Delhi High Court has observed that while custodial interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.
Justice Asha Menon was dealing with a plea seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under sec. 420, 406 and 34 of IPC.
The FIR was lodged by an authorized representative of M/s Vaishali Infratech (Pvt.) Ltd., on the allegations of cheating and misappropriation. The applicant was a builder and had a project, namely, Rudra Palace Heights, in which, the complainant Company booked 11 flats. Large sums of money had also been paid for the flats amounting to Rs.1,33,87,500 towards 75% of the consideration.
Case Title: Parsvnath Developers Ltd versus Future Retail Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 323
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Court cannot adjudicate on the issue whether the claims made by the petitioner are barred by limitation while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for referring the parties to arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the dispute as to whether the contract containing the arbitration clause is sufficiently stamped or not, and the nature of the contract, are contentious issues which cannot be decided by the Court in a petition filed under Section 11.
Case Title: SH PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. SMT DEEPIKA SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 324
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only continuous and repeated acts of adultery or cohabitation in adultery would attract the rigours of the provision under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sec. 125(4) of the CrPC states that no Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also observed that law on maintenance is a welfare law that exists to ensure that the wife, children and parents of an able and capable man are not left to become destitute in cases when they themselves are not capable of maintaining themselves.
Case Title: AARIN THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER SH PAWAN KUMAR v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 325
Noting that there was nothing sudden about the implementation of the policy, the Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with minimum age criteria of 6 years for admission in class 1 in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the academic year 2022-23.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which had dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the minimum age criteria.
The appeal was moved by a minor girl, born on June 3, 2016, who was 5 years 9 months and 28 days old as on March 31, 2022. It was thus the case of the appellant that the KVS had all of a sudden made change in the minimum age criteria for admission in class I from 5 years to 6 years by uploading the impugned guidelines, just 4 days before admission process started.
Due to the increase of age from five to six years, the appellant who was not six years as on 31.03.2022, could not secure admission in a KVS School.
Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 326
The Delhi High Court has observed that filing of a revocation petition could be done at any point in time when such a person's interest either arises or continues during the life or term of the Patent.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea raising a question as to whether revocation petitions are subject to any limitation period under the Limitation Act?
The Court held that since there is no limitation which is prescribed either in the Patents Act or under the Patents Rules, a limitation period cannot be read it into the provision.
Suit Cannot Be Rejected Partially Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC: Delhi High Court
Title: DR RAMESH CHANDER MUNJAL & ORS. v. DR SURAJ MUNJAL & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 327
The Delhi High Court has observed that there cannot be a partial rejection of a suit under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with two applications filed under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in a trademark infringement suit.
The suit was filed seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from passing off and violating the registered trademark and trade names of the defendant no. 4 Company, which owned and ran a famous eye hospital by the brand and trade name of 'Spectra Eye'.
Case Title: Fada Trading Private Limited Versus Commissioner Goods and Service Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 328
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam Bamba has quashed the order cancelling the GST registration as the Show Cause Notice was completely deficient in material particulars.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Delhi GST) on the grounds that the show cause notice gave no details as to the date and time on which the petitioner's authorised representative was to present himself for a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority.
The petitioner submitted that neither the show cause notice nor the subsequent order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was received by the petitioner.
Case Title: Cement Corporation of India versus Promac Engineering Industries Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 329
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures of protection, is not maintainable before the Court against the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, held that the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the arbitration fees does not fall within the ambit of Section 9 of the A&C Act, and rejected the contention that the petition was maintainable under the residuary clause of Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: SAIF II MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2) DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 330
The Delhi High Court has observed that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a bunch of pleas challenging the notices dated 30th March, 2021 issued under sec. 148 and the orders disposing of the objections dated 11th February, 2022 for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18.
The notices dated 30th March, 2021 were issued to the petitioner under sec. 148 on the ground that the assessee's transactions for the Financial Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 were flagged in the Non-Filers Monitoring System (NMS). As per Form 15CA, the assessee had made a remittance to its head office without deducting TDS thereof and claimed the same to be tax free as per DTAA between India and USA.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Continental Engineering Corporation (CEC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 331
The High Court of Delhi has observed that the failure of the contractor to issue notice under the contract does not deprive him of his right to claim additional payment before the arbitral tribunal.
The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru also observed that such a stipulation in the contract is not a mandatory provision but only directory in nature and must be examined with reference to the other clauses and the contemporary records.
The Court further held that ground of patent illegality as provided under S. 34(2-A) would not be available when the Respondent is a company incorporated outside India as the arbitration would be an International Commercial Arbitration.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused Of Fraudulently Claiming ITC
Case Title: Pulkit Versus State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 332
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has granted bail to the person accused of fraudulently claiming an input tax credit (ITC) under the CGST Act who has already undergone 9 months in custody.
The applicant, Pulkit, has sought bail in respect of the offence of setting up a number of fictitious companies, which were being used for the purposes of defrauding the government. The accused have allegedly opened bank accounts in fictitious names and provided their telephone numbers and email addresses.
The FIR alleged cheating and fraud by Saraswati Enterprises, of which Sanjay Garg is the proprietor, causing a loss to the government for the sum of Rs. 9.97 crores. The applicant was an employee of Saraswati Enterprises.
Case Title: Asifa v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 333
The Delhi High Court has ordered the production before a juvenile justice board, of an accused claiming to be a juvenile aged 16 years, arrested in connection with the clashes that broke out last week in city's Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.
The juvenile accused was sent to one day police custody remand here by a Duty Magistrate of Rohini Courts recently.
A bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar was dealing with a habeas corpus plea filed by a woman, asserting that her minor brother in law was kept in unlawful detention without proper disclosure of his age, despite being 16 years only.
Case Title: RISHU AGGARWAL v. MOHIT GOYAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 334
The Delhi High Court has held that though denial of conjugal relationship is a ground for divorce and tantamounts to cruelty, the same cannot be said to amount to "exceptional hardship" under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Section 14 prescribes a mandatory 1 year waiting period from the date of marriage, before filing for divorce. A proviso to this Section states that the 1 year period may be waived off on the ground that the case is one of "exceptional hardship" to the petitioner or of "exceptional depravity" on the part of the respondent.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the denial of sex by one spouse to the other, or by both of them to each other may certainly constitute "hardship", but it cannot be said to be "exceptional hardship".
Case Title: Neha Pudil v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 335
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Medical Commission to explore, in consultation with Central Government, the possibility of physically disabled candidates being able to pursue some disciplines of medical education with the advancement of science and technology, in the next six months.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla disposed of a plea of a medical aspirant, with disability namely amputation of thumb, index finger and part of middle finger of right hand, who had secured provisional admission in the Maulana Azad Medical College in MBBS course.
She was aggrieved with a disability certificate, issued to her by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, pegging her disability at 45%.
Domain Name Registrars Are "Intermediaries" Under Information Technology Act: Delhi High Court
Title: SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 336
The Delhi High Court has held that the Domain Name Registrars are "intermediaries", within the meaning of sec. 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a suit filed by Snapdeal Private Limited regarding "SNAPDEAL trade mark". Defendants 1 to 32 were Domain Name Registrars who provide domain names for parties who may seek to register their respective websites under such domain names. Defendant 33 was the Department of Telecommunications and Defendant 34 is the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI).
Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. SATBIR BHARDWAJ & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 337
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by news channel "AAJ TAK", a part of India Today Group, against "AAJ TAK GURGAON".
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the defendants to use the trademark 'AAJ TAK' in relation to any goods or services including their print, digital newspaper, publication, website, social media and content sharing platforms including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, and any other location on the internet, till the next date of hearing.
The Court also directed that the domain name registration of the impugned domain name 'aajtakgurgaon.com' be suspended.
Case Title: INDRA PASRICHA v. DEEPIKA CHAUHAN & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 338
The Delhi High Court has observed that disobedience of an order of the Court, if permitted, will result in striking at the root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of an effective legal system and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been primarily legislated to prevent interference in the course of administration of justice.
"It is, therefore, well settled that though broadly a person who is not a party to the proceedings cannot be proceeded against for violation of the order, but a third party cannot seek to absolve themselves if they are informed about the fact that their conduct amounts to a violation of the Court order and that despite the information, they choose to wilfully flout the mandate of the Court. If such a conduct is permitted, then it will encourage subversion of judicial orders, which are to be properly understood and complied with," the Court observed.
Case Title: KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 339
The Delhi High Court has enumerated various principles highlighting the special role that a Family Judge is obligated to discharge as distinct from the general role of an adjudicator.
In the 54-page judgment, Justice Yashwant Varma also touched upon the essential qualities of a judge or adjudicator and the tests as propounded by the Indian judiciary in relation to an apprehension of bias.
While the Court noted that the family jurisprudence has progressed over time, it said that the Family Judge is no longer viewed as one who is to act in the capacity of a mere "fault finder".
Case Title: RAJA BERWA & ORS v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 340
The Delhi High Court has observed that FIR or complaints can be quashed even in respect of non-compoundable offences pertaining to matrimonial disputes if the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled their disputes amicably, without any pressure.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed thus:
"Even in non- compoundable offences pertaining to the matrimonial disputes, if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, FIRs or complaints or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed."
The Court quashed an FIR registered under sec. 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2 (wife) got married to each other on 20th April, 2003 but due to some temperamental differences between them, they started living separately since May, 2005. There was a girl child born out of their wedlock, who was now major.
Case title - M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 341
The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere in a writ plea filed by former Central Bureau of Investigation head and Retired IPS Officer M. Nageswara Rao seeking restoration of his Twitter Blue Tick.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma however disposed of Rao's writ plea by giving him the liberty to reapply for verification. It may be noted that Rao had moved to the Delhi HC with his writ plea submitting that his account on Twitter did contain a blue tick, but the same was removed in March 2022.
During the course of the hearing, the Court noted that vide communication dated 22 March 2022, Twitter had apprised the petitioner that his account could not be verified since he had failed to confirm his email and phone number. In its communication, the social media platform had also left it open to the petitioner to reapply for verification.
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 342
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Trial Court order issuing show cause notice to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to explain why not a reference of Contempt of Court be made by him against the respective officers of the agency for the purported non-compliance of judicial orders.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that it was "outrightly illegal" for the Special CBI Judge of the Rouse Avenue Court to issue the said order.
" A subordinate court on its own cannot assume jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act and issue show cause notice as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated," the Bench observed.
Case Title: SHRI KUSUM LATA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 343
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld charges framed against a woman, a medical professional, under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, finding a "strong suspicion" of a planned syndicate for selling and buying of children.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Trial Court order which had framed charges under sec. 120B read with sec. 363 and 370 of IPC as well as sec. 80 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Case Title: DR. MANOJ BAJPAI v. MS SEEMA JASSAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 344
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not permissible for a litigant to seek adjournments before a Trial Court and thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking expeditious proceedings.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a petition seeking a direction to the Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, to decide expeditiously, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for decreeing the suit on admissions.
At the outset, the Court noted that out of the five occasions on which the matter was listed before the Trial Court for hearing of arguments on the application, dates were taken by the petitioner on two occasions.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 345
The Delhi High Court has observed that a father cannot deny his responsibility to maintain his wife and daughter even if he has to take care of his parents. It thus upheld a Family Court order directing him to give maintenance to the wife and daughter.
A Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna added that merely because the daughter is living with her maternal grandparents, it cannot be said that the father stands absolved of his responsibility towards his child.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a husband challenging the order passed by a Family Court dated 21st February, 2022 directing him to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife and daughter under sec. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: APURV SHANKAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 346
The Delhi High Court has observed that in view of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, a foreign qualified MBBS is necessarily required to obtain 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology to be eligible for appearing in Screening Test and get registered as a medical practitioner in India.
Justice Kameswar Rao observed:
"It is clear that in view of the provisions of the IMC Act, 1956, read with the regulations made there under, the petitioner was necessarily required to be eligible for admission to an MBBS course in India, i.e., he should have possessed 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together for him to be issued the Eligibility Certificate to sit in the Screening Test. The petitioner, admittedly having only 47.83% marks in the three subjects, was ineligible for admission to an MBBS course in India, and as such, could not have been issued the Eligibility Certificate to enable him to sit in the Screening Test"
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Award Interest On Interest: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Watcon Water Specialists Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 347
The High Court of Delhi has observed that the arbitral tribunal cannot award interest on the amount of interest already granted in the award. It held that pendente lite interest on the amount of awarded interest amounts to awarding of interest on interest.
The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru has held that when the arbitrator has awarded interest on a substantive claim, allowing interest on the awarded interest is not permissible under the law.
The Court reiterated that construction of the terms of the contract falls purely within the domain of the arbitrator and the scope of S.34 is very narrow and the court does not sit in appeal over the award. The possibility of having another view is not a ground to set aside the award.
Case Title: DR S S CHAHAR v. SH D K SARRAF & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 348
"An individual cannot try to stall the entire functioning of the Board by stating that the decision taken by the Board are against his views because the majority differs from his view," the Delhi High Court has recently observed.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a contempt petition filed by a Member (Legal) of the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board constituted under the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.
In 2009, a Public Interest Litigation was filed challenging the illegal and arbitrary manner in which the Board, which was represented by the Central Government, was being run by the Chairman.
Case Title: SHILPA SINGH v. VIKAS KHANNA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 349
The Delhi High Court has observed that the ambit and extent of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Family Courts Act, 1984, being two competing statutes, must be harmoniously construed so as to avoid a situation of repugnancy and conflict.
Justice Yashwant Varma relied on a 2017 judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar and another v. Charu Makin wherein it was observed that "The Act of 1984 was specially meant for establishment of special Courts so that matters referred in explanation to Section 7 of the Act can be dealt by the special Courts established for that purpose whereas the object of enactment of the Act of 2005 was to protect the woman from being victim of the domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society."
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a wife challenging an order dated 2nd April 2022 passed by the Family Judge granting visitation rights albeit supervised and in the concerned Court complex.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 350
The Delhi High Court has rejected an application moved by a group of street vendors, seeking impleadment in the suo moto public interest litigation initiated over the issue of illegal constructions and encroachments of public land in city's Okhla industrial area.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that as per Supreme Court's orders, a vendor has no right to occupy the place of vending round the clock or to keep his articles at the place of vending continuously.
" In the garb of vending, you can't set up a stall, keep you goods, lock it everyday and encroach on the area. You can't do that!" it remarked orally.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus M/S Abhijeet Angul Sambalpur Toll Road Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 351
The Delhi High Court has ruled that any matter on which the Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass a final award can also be the subject of an interim award made by it, and the same can be challenged before the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that the right of a party to file counter claims before the Arbitral Tribunal exists independently of any liberty granted to it by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: SOURABH GUGNANI & ORS v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 352
The Delhi High Court has observed that the criminal justice machinery should not be kept in limbo and that the proceedings before the Trial Court cannot remain stayed because of the non-availability of the counsel.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 29th January, 2013 in the FIR registered under sec. 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prayed for an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel appearing in the matter was travelling abroad and thus, was not able to appear before the Court.
Case Title: BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD v. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 353
In relief to Britannia which runs the product range Good Day Butter Cookies, the Delhi High Court has directed Parle Biscuits to take down two of its advertisements, disparaging the former's products.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed Parle to ensure that it modifies the ads within 2 weeks by blurring the image of cookies displayed by them, which is similar to those sold and marketed by Britannia.
" Defendants shall ensure that within two weeks from now, the impugned Advertisement No.2 and Advertisement No.3 shall be modified with the blurred image of the cookie and the currently used cookie image would be no longer visible in the said advertisements on any online platforms from 1st May, 2022, onwards, " the order stated.
Case Title: ASHUTOSH SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 354
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University to grant admission to a LLM candidate for the academic year of 2021-22 belonging to the Non Creamy Layer of the Other Backward Castes (OBC category), being aggrieved by University's action in rejecting his candidature in the 'Spot Admission' round on account of the caste certificate.
The caste certificate submitted by the petitioner alongwith his application did not belong to the current financial year. The petitioner had thus impugned the University's action of not giving him anytime to submit the requisite certificate.
Justice Rekha Palli allowed the plea and directed that the petitioner will be permitted to appear in the 1st semester exams along with the exams for subsequent semesters as per the practice being followed by the University.
Case Title: NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR v. OM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 355
The Delhi High Court has observed that while it is for the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to grant or refuse recognition to the institutes upon satisfaction of all the norms laid down, the State Government, though is to be consulted, cannot cause an impediment in such process.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla added that even at the stage of grant of affiliation, the State Government or affiliating body cannot undermine the position of the NCTE and refuse to grant affiliation to the institution on the very same grounds, that have already been scrutinized by, and otherwise fall within the domain of NCTE.
Case Title: SUMANDEEP VIDYAPEETH, AN INSTITUTE DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 356
Noting that the country has been staunchly promoting the Ayurvedic system of medicine after the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, the Delhi High Court has said that it is the need of the hour to encourage institutes which possess the necessary infrastructure for running ayurvedic medical colleges, to contribute to the bigger goal of strengthening the infrastructure of this system of medicine in the country.
Justice Rekha Palli made the observation while allowing a plea filed Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, an Institute Deemed to be University, desirous of starting a new Ayurvedic Medical College with 100 seats in the undergraduate (UG) programme Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery for the Academic Year 2021- 2022.
Case Title: VISTRAT REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASIAN HOTELS NORTH LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 357
The Delhi High Court has observed that the issue as to whether any third party is required to be impleaded in the proceedings is covered by the Doctrine of Competence-Competence and that it will be for the Arbitrator to decide the said issue.
Justice Mukta Gupta observed thus:
"Therefore, once a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in the absence of a third party to the agreement or that third party is required to be impleaded in the proceedings, is covered by the Doctrine of Competence-Competence and it will be for the Arbitrator to decide the said issue."
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: VEENA GARG v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 358
The Delhi High Court has observed that when participating in the tender, a bidder cannot seek for deviation from the tender document which has been accepted on his own accord.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that it goes against contractual obligations steeped in accepting such a tender, and therefore, violates the principles under Article 14 of the Constitution with respect to other bidders.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking directions on the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to refund the amount retained by them to the Petitioner along with interest of 18% p.a. from the date of deposit.
Case Title: MR BHAVANISHANKAR H SHARMA THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH SATISH KUMAR TIWARI v. SRS PRIVATE INVESTMENT POWAI LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR ROHIT DAVE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 359
The Delhi High Court has observed that a petition filed under sec. 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not confer any power on the Court to expunge any part of the order of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a plea filed under sec. 14(2) read with sec. 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and also for expunging the adverse and prejudicial remarks contained in order dated October 5, 2021 of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Respondent party had filed the subject claim before the Arbitral Tribunal on March 23, 2021 of the value of approximately Rs. 248 cores besides interest.
Case Title: ULTIMATE INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED v. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 360
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is only in cases where proceedings for levy of penalty have been initiated on account of alleged "misreporting of income" that an assessee is prohibited from applying and availing the benefit of immunity from penalty and prosecution under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea challenging the order dated 26th March, 2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi under sec. 270A for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Title: RAZIA BEGUM v. COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 361
The Delhi High Court has handed over investigation of a missing man, a truck driver, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) observing that police authorities of three States including Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh were "simply dragging their feet."
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea filed by Razia Begum, widowed mother of the missing truck driver namely Mohd. Parvez who was missing for months. The truck was spotted for the last time on 19th February 2018, when the CCTV captured its movement in Shahjahanpur, District Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.
In the meantime, considering the financial status of the Petitioner whose son was missing, the Court directed that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs is released in her favour as interim compensation.
Case Title: COSCO INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. v. JAGAT SINGH DUGAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 362
The Delhi High Court has observed that the filing of a written statement within the prescribed time but without an accompanying affidavit of admission or denial of documents, does not amount to non-est filing since it cannot be said that nothing was filed at all.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani further added that the same would however amount to a defect, that is required to be cured after it is brought to the attention of the party by the Registry.
"Chapter VII Rule 3 only bars taking on record a written statement that is filed without an accompanying affidavit of admission/denial of documents. Filing of the written statement and it being taken on record are two separate and distinct matters," the Court said.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking setting aside of order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the Joint Registrar, declining to take the defendant's written statement on record.
Case Title: SUSHIL ARORA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 363
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the notification conferring powers of Presiding Officer of the Designated Court and Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to each and every Officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) in pursuance of the transfer or posting orders made by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
The impugned notification dated September 15, 2010 issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi conferred the said power to be exercisable by each of such officer of the DHJS with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post of Presiding Officer or Judge of the Designated Court or Special Court.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that it is entirely for the High Court, headed by the Chief Justice to decide on the aspect of transfer and posting of the Officers of the Judicial Service of the State.
Case Title: SAURABH BHARDWAJ v. DELHI POLICE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 364
The Delhi High Court has expressed dissatisfaction at the report filed by the Delhi Police with respect to the security arrangement made outside Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's residence, which was attacked by an "unruly mob" on March 30.
" This kind of incident happening at residence of a constitutional functionary is very disturbing state of affairs. What kind of bandobast did you have? You need to look into your functioning. It could have been anybody, any Minister, Judge," the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed at the outset.
It has therefore directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to look into the aforesaid lapse and inquire into: firstly, whether bandobast was adequate; secondly, the reasons for failure of arrangements; and thirdly, fix responsibility for the admitted lapse.
Case Title: GOVERNMENT E MARKETPLACE v. UNILEX CONSULTANTS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 365
The Delhi High Court has observed that the nominative fair use is permissible in so far as the use is such that it does not depict sponsorship by the trademark owner and the use is "reasonably necessary".
Normative use refers to use of another's trademark to identify one's own goods or services. This defence has following three requirements: First, the product or services in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Government E Marketplace (GeM), a National Public Procurement portal and end to end online marketplace from where both Central and State Government Ministries or Departments, CPSUs and SPSUs effect the procurement of goods and services. The mark used by the Plaintiff is 'GeM' along with the logo.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR SETH v. LALIT KUMAR SETH AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 366
The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be even more restricted with an order passed by the court below under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
"If, therefore, the courts below are functioning in a manner which calls for correction in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in the court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the court would interfere; else, the court would hold its hands," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
On the question of whether to grant, or not to grant, injunctive relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, is discretionary, the Court said that there is no right that inheres, in any party, to interim injunction under Order XXXIX.
Case Title: SH. DINESH SHARMA v. MRS. KRISHNA KAINTH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 367
The Delhi High Court recently affirmed a judgment on admission, passed by the court below in exercise of its discretionary powers under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, on the ground that the defence set up was such as to make it impossible for the party to succeed.
In this regard, Justice V Kameswar Rao observed,
" Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can also be invoked when the objections raised against rendering a judgment are such, which goes to the root of the matter or whether the objections are inconsequential, making it impossible for the party to succeed, even if entertained. "
The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 in a Civil Suit concerning a suit property.
Case Title: Religare Finvest Ltd v. Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 368
The High Court of Delhi has held that the sufficiency of the stamp duty on the arbitration agreement is a jurisdictional issue under Section 16 of the A&C Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has held that an objection as to the deficiency in the stamp duty shall be decided as a preliminary issue since the inadequately stamped arbitration agreement can neither be taken in evidence nor can be acted upon, therefore, the tribunal should direct the parties to first get the agreement sufficiently stamped before adjudicating rights and obligations under the agreement.
The Court reiterated that when an insufficiently stamped instrument is presented before the arbitrator, he shall impound the same and direct the parties to pay the requisite stamp duty.
Case Title: SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v. KINETIC LIFESCIENCE (OPC) P. LTD. AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 369
The Delhi High Court has observed that the phonetic identity or similarity is an important index of similarity or deceptive similarity of one mark against the other competing mark and that the tests of phonetic, visual and structural similarity or identity are disjunctive and not conjunctive.
Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit for permanent injunction filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited concerning it's trademark, prominently displayed on the website www.sunpharma.com. The plaintiffs are involved in the manufacturing of speciality pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients since the year 1983, having 45 manufacturing sites in 6 continents and 10 world class research centres with over 30,000 strong multi-cultural work force from over 50 different nationalities.
Case Title: THE BRITISH SCHOOL SOCIETY v. SANJAY GANDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 370
While dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by the British School Society over the mark 'The British School', the Delhi High Court has directed changing of names of four schools run by Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society, purportedly using identical name.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the defendants to change the name of their schools w.e.f. 1st May, 2022 and apply to the CBSE, with whom they are presently affiliated.
"The process shall be undertaken in an expeditious manner so that no inconvenience is caused to the students studying in the schools of the Defendants. Certificates, prizes, medals, etc. to be given to the students presently studying in Defendants' schools shall be issued in the name of 'The British School' only till the end of academic year 2021-2022 and not beyond that," the Court added.
Case Title: ALKA GHALOT v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 371
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking to remove election symbols from the ballot paper, including the Electronic Voting Machine for the city's Municipal Corporation polls.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed thus:
"Though the level of literacy has increased in the State of Delhi, and the presence of a photographs of the candidates on the EVM may also aid in empowering the illiterate to properly exercise their right of franchise in favour of the candidate of their choice, in our view, the election symbols still play an important part in the election process in the country. In our view, in the absence of a clear prohibition, it is not for this Court to guide the policy or frame a law in this regard."
Noting that Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India vests the power and duty to conduct elections to the Municipalities on the State Election Commission and that the State Legislature has been empowered to make provisions with respect to all matters relating to elections to the Municipalities, the Court was of the view that it is for these institutions to decide the Rules for conduct of a free and fair election to the Municipality, including use of election symbols.
Case Title: DUMPALA MEENAVATHI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 372
The Delhi High Court has constituted a Committee, to be led by a District Judge, to keep a close watch and monitor the situation at Adhyatmik Vidyalaya, a spiritual ashram in Rohini led by absconding self-styled godman Virendra Dev Dixit. The ashram is said to confine over 100 women in "animal-like" conditions.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that women and children are a vulnerable class and therefore, some vigilance is required to keep a check on the functioning of these institutions.
Case Title: NAVIN SONI v. MUNISH SONI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 373
Observing that the absence of rule of law or the presence of utter disregard for the rule of law propels a country towards inevitable ruin, the Delhi High Court has said that it is the duty of the Court to take a strict view when there is non-compliance of judicial orders.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the Courts should not hesitate in wielding the sword of contempt when grappling with a situation pertaining to wilful disobedience.
"The process of due course of administration of justice must remain unimpaired. Attempts to circumvent or undermine judicial decisions need to be viewed seriously in order to ensure that the functioning of our country is unhindered, especially during turbulent times. It is only the rule of law which not only cements the civilised functioning of a country, but also drives a country towards progress and development," the Court observed.
Case Title: JITENDRA KUMAR GARG v. MANJU GARG
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 374
The Delhi High Court has observed that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.
Justice Subramonium Prasad also said that the provision was enacted to ensure that women and children are provided maintenance by the husband so as to protect them from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution.
"The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman's sustenance, along with that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities," the Court observed.
Case Title: Jan Sewa Welfare Society v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 375
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking removal of police booths allegedly built on footpaths meant for public use.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that it is open to the Petitioner to raise grievance against any particular booth which is causing obstruction to public movement. However, it is not inclined to pass a general direction in this regard.
The development ensued in a PIL filed by a NGO namely 'Jan Sewa Welfare Society', claiming that construction of police booths on footpaths/ roads by Delhi Police has resulted in grave inconvenience to the general public.
Case Title: Jindal Realty Limited versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 376
The Delhi High Court has quashed an assessment order passed by the revenue department without issuing a prior show cause notice and draft assessment order to the assessee. The High Court has ruled that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory procedure prescribed under the "Faceless Assessment Scheme" under the Income Tax Act.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that when there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, the availability of an appellate remedy does not bar the maintainability of a writ petition.
CaseTitle: GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL v. ARSH VERMA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 377
The Delhi High Court has observed that child-bearing age for the young couple should not be irretrievably prejudiced by the non-grant of a relieving order for the All India Service officers.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed:
"….the right to a healthy family life, to start a family and the right to parenthood have to be respected while balancing the careers and duties of the officers concerned. Time and tide wait for none. Child-bearing age for the young couple should not be irretrievably prejudiced by the non- grant of a relieving order for the officers to start their family."
Delhi High Court Stays Reopening of Income Tax Assessment Keeping In View The Credentials Of BHEL
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus PCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 378
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has stayed the reopening of income tax assessments, keeping in view the credentials of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL).
BHEL, the petitioner, has challenged the order issued under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018–19.
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act deals with the issuance of a notice if any income has escaped recomputation or assessment.
Case Title: Hunch Circle Pvt. Ltd. v. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 379
The High Court of Delhi has given primacy to an exclusive jurisdiction clause over the seat clause in an arbitration agreement. The Court held that when a clause confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court other than the seat court, then only the court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred shall decide all the applications arising out of the arbitration agreement.
The Agreement between the parties stipulated that the courts, at the place where the main premised of the petitioner is located which admittedly is in Gurgaon, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with applications for interim measures and the enforcement of arbitral award. It further designated New Delhi as the seat of arbitration.
Case Title: TARUN PREET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 380
The Delhi High Court has granted compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to a victim of Connaught Place shootout which took place on 31st March 1997. The man was grievously injured and continued to carry shrapnel in his body.
The Court observed that the injury caused due to the state action where the police officials were convicted of criminal offences needs to be considered at "higher standard" as compared to ordinary cases of negligence and inaction.
Justice Pratibha M Singh clarified that the order was being passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the incident was not an ordinary incident.
Case Title: DEEPAK v. RAMESH SETHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381
Observing that the right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play, the Delhi High Court has said that the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed thus:
"The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. No doubt, where a party is unconscionably indolent, the Court may put its foot down and close the right of the party to lead evidence; else, as adversarial litigations are meant to be tried after allowing the parties to an adequate opportunity to place their respective stands on record, the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like."
Case Title: BHARTI ANAND v. SUSHANT ANAND AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 382
The Delhi High Court has observed that the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the "shared household" under Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Prateek Jalan observed thus:
"Just as the woman living fleetingly or casually at different places, would not convert those places into a "shared household", the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the "shared household"."
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a wife challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court to the extent that summons in her complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were not issued to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Case Title: SHADAB v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 383
The Delhi High Court has observed that while granting parole, a humanist approach needs to be taken affording convicts an opportunity to resolve their personal and family issues and to encourage offenders to demonstrate a commitment in relation to the society.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that that parole is a relief granted by the State which goes a long way for redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners and that they are ultimately aimed for the good of the society and, therefore, are in public interest.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking directions on the State to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three months. The petitioner was a life convict serving sentence in a murder case.
The petitioner had undergone incarceration for about 10 years and 10 months in actual without remission and had also earned remission of about 01 year 07 months and 11 days as on May 5, 2020.
Case Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. BOOKING.COM B. V. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 384
The Delhi High Court recently granted injunction in favour of Make My Trip while observing that use of its registered mark by competitors even as metatags is an infringement under Trademarks Act and that third party bidding on trademarks as sponsored keywords for use by internet search engines can constitute misrepresentation.
The observation was given by Justice Prathiba M. Singh,
"In view of the facts, orders and legal position as discussed above, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the use of the Plaintiff's registered mark 'MakeMyTrip' on the Google Ads Program as a keyword would amount to trademark infringement. The same would be detrimental to the Plaintiff's monetary interest as also to the brand equity of the Plaintiff's mark. To allow competitors such as www.booking.com and even Google to encash upon the reputation of the Plaintiff's mark for their own monetary advantage is not permissible in the opinion of the Court."
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 385
Observing that the entire process of redevelopment of the Kalkaji temple would be severely jeopardized if encroachments happen on a daily basis either by vendors or any other unauthorized occupants, the Delhi High Court has directed erection of boundary wall surrounding the temple premises in order to prevent such encroachments.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple
Noting the concerns expressed about continuous encroachment into the Kalkaji Mandir premises, as also into the land which was adjacent to the Mandir area, the Court said:
"….it is deemed appropriate to secure the entire land surrounding the Kalkaji Mandir premises, being used for the activities of the Mandir, by erection of a barricade or a boundary wall for safeguarding the entire land."
Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR BANGA v. KAILASH MAKKAR AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 386
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree that is to be executed and give relief to the judgment debtor that was expressly denied to him.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a revision petition challenging the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby the objection petition filed by the Petitioner under sec. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction order passed as well as an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the objection petition, was dismissed.
A suit for eviction was filed by the Respondents regarding a property claiming themselves to be the owners of the said property which they purchased from the previous owners by way of sale deed dated 09.09.1987.
The Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Reduce The Liquidated Damages On 'Guess Work': Delhi High Court
Case Title: Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Cobra Instalaciones Y. Services S.A. & M/s Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. (JV)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 387
The High Court of Delhi has held the arbitral tribunal cannot reduce the liquidated damages on 'guesswork' if it finds that it is genuine pre-estimated damages and it is not possible to quantify the damages.
The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru held that once the arbitrator finds that the employer has suffered substantial losses due to the fault of the contractor and the contract provides for liquidated damages which were genuine pre-estimate of the loss as the quantification of the claim is not possible, then the arbitrator cannot reduce the amount of the damages on guesswork.
The court partially set aside the award on the ground that the arbitrator has taken inconsistent views regarding the imposition of liquidated damages and made guesswork without there being any material on record to make an educated guess as to the quantum of damages payable.
Case Title: V K VERMA v. CBI
2022 LiveLaw (Del) 388
Delhi High Court recently observed that revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial.
The observation came from Justice Chandra Dhari Singh who also said that the revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below:
"The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record." court said.
Case Title: OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT. LTD. v. PARVEEN JUNEJA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, High Court is not to go into the merits of the claim or the counter-claim, if any, of the parties.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that the High Court has to examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and there are any disputes unless ex-facie it is apparent from the record that the disputes are a mere deadwood.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Oyo Hotels and Homes Private Limited seeking reference of disputes to a Sole Arbitrator under a Lease Deed dated 23.10.2019.
Case Title: DR. SANJIV GUPTA & ANR. v. SH. S.S. VERMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court has observed that registration is not necessary where family arrangement is oral and that the same is necessary only if the terms of the arrangement are reduced into writing.-
"It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable" Justice Najmi Waziri reiterated.
Case Title: KV SAGAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on a litigant seeking transfer of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) despite a similar plea being dismissed as withdrawn by the Court on earlier occasion.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with a plea seeking transfer of investigation of FIR to C.B.I. A similar criminal writ petition with identical prayer was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court vide order dated March 22, 2022.
The facts of the case were that the petitioner had purchased a pair of shoes from Woodland. Since the shoes were found to be defective, an online complaint was made. After lot of communications, the pair of shoes was taken back for repairs. The petitioner did not receive any response from the shoe company and, as such, a complaint was filed but FIR was not registered.
. 'Not Uncommon To Shift Graves When They Obstruct Development': Delhi HC On Waqf Board's Appeal Seeking Stay On Transfer Of Burial Ground To ITBP
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain an intra-court appeal preferred by the Delhi Waqf Board, challenging a single judge order refusing to stay Centre's decision of transferring a portion of its purported property, said to be in use as a burial ground, to the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla rejected the contention raised by the appellant that irreparable loss will be caused if the transfer is not stayed, inasmuch as the land in question was being used as a burial ground.
The bench further said that since the impugned order is only an interim order, it is not inclined to interfere with the same, especially in view of the fact that the rights of the Appellant have been "sufficiently protected".
Delhi High Court Extends Interim Order Allowing Reopening Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz Till October 14
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 393
The Delhi High Court this week allowed reopening of five floors, including Ground floor as well as four floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz till October 14.
Justice Jasmeet Singh extended the operation of the interim order dated April 1, 2022 wherein the mosque was allowed to reopen for offering of prayers during the Ramzan month.
The said interim order shall continue to remain in force till October 14, the next date of hearing.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020.
This comes in a plea filed by Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020. The Court's permission was in continuation of its previous order dated March 16, 2022 wherein four floors of the masjid premises were allowed to remain open on Shab e-Barat.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR v. KISHAN SARRAF & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 394
In the context of condonation of delay, the Delhi High Court has observed that indolence, beyond a point, results in forfeiture of the right to secure justice.
Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the appeal challenging the impugned order dated 30th November, 2015, which was initially challenged before the High Court after nearly three years in 2018.
The Court said that there was no explanation as to why the plea was filed in 2018 after three years of the passing of the impugned order.
"There being no reasonable explanation for the delay in preferring the present appeal, and learned Counsel being unable to assist the court in this regard, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and non-prosecution," the Court said.
It added "Indolence, beyond a point, results in forfeiture of the right to secure justice. The process of the court cannot be held at ransom, awaiting the convenience of the appellant."
Case Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 395
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Family Court granting divorce in favour of the wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 observing that the wife had well established the ground of mental cruelty by the husband.
The Family Court had granted divorce to the respondent wife under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the HMA solely relying on ground of mental cruelty.
While upholding the same, a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed thus:
"Husband and wife are two pillars of the family. Together they can deal with any situation, balancing the family in all circumstances. If one pillar gets weak or breaks, the whole house crashes down. The pillars can withstand all the abuses together, the moment one pillar gets weak or deteriorates, it becomes difficult to hold the house together. When one pillar gives up, and puts all the burden on the other pillar, then it cannot be expected that one pillar will single handedly hold the house together."
Case Title: ZAKIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 396
The Delhi High Court has observed that a detention order passed by the Detaining Authority based on "illegible" copies of documents suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed.
It added that a further failure and non-supply of legible copies of all documents to the Detenu, despite request and representation, renders the order of detention illegal and bad in law.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar allowed the petitions filed by two detenus namely Zakir Khan and Sanjeev Kumar praying for quashing of detention orders dated November 26, 2021 issued under sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
Chhatrasal Stadium Murder: Delhi HC Refuses To Transfer Trial From Rohini Court, Directs Witnesses To Seek Recording Of Evidence Through Virtual Mode
Case Title: AMIT KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 397
The Delhi High Court has directed the prosecution witnesses in relation to the Chhatrasal Stadium murder case to approach city's Rohini Court seeking recording of their evidence through virtual mode.
The case relates to the death of former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankhar. Wrestler Sushil Kumar is one of the accused in the matter.
Justice Jasmeet Singh disposed of a plea filed by victims and prosecution witnesses in the case who alleged being beaten mercilessly by more than 20 gangsters of various gangs of the city when the alleged incident took place, which resulted into death of one of victims namely Sagar Dhankar.
The plea had therefore sought transfer of trial in the case from Rohini Court to some other district court in the interest of safety of the victims and prosecution witnesses for a fair and impartial trial as also an 'in-camera' day-to-day hearing in the matter.
DHL International Courier: Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of Infringing Mark 'DLH'
Case Title: DHL INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. DLH EXPRESS SERVICES PRIVATE LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 398
Delhi High Court recently granted permanent injunction in favour of DHL International, a well recognized courier service company, against DLH Express services, holding that the two trademarks are identical and deal in similar services.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed:
"Considering the fact that the Defendant has already changed the name DLH and the use of the impugned mark has also been stopped, this is a fit case for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, by way of summary judgment. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the paragraphs 61(a) to 61(c)."
The Plaintiff - DHL International GmbH, a German company had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, trade dress, dilution and tarnishment, passing off, damages etc., against the Defendant - DLH Express Services Private Ltd. It was claimed that DHL is a distinctive logo and trade dress, which was initially adopted in 1969, has evolved over the year.
Party Can't Exhaust Alternate Remedy In SC Before Approaching HC U/Art. 227; There Can Be No Appeal From 'Caesar' To 'Mark Antony': Delhi HC
Case Title: LUCINA LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court has observed that a party cannot be directed to exhaust the alternate remedy available before the Supreme Court before approaching the High Courts under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
Referring to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Justice C Hari Shankar said:
"There can be no appeal from Caesar to Mark Antony."
The Court was dealing with a matter concerning a complaint filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the petitioner Lucina Land Development Ltd. and others by 51 allotees of flats in a project titled Indiabulls Greens Panvel.
ITAT Final Arbiter Of Facts, Its Order Can Be Interfered With Only If There Is Substantial Question Of Law, Manifest Illegality/ Perversity: Delhi HC
Case Title: THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2- AGRA v. MADHUR MITTAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 400
Observing that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is the final arbiter of the facts, the Delhi High Court has observed that the High Court can interfere with its order only if there is substantial question of law or there is manifest illegality or it suffers from perversity.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with an appeal challenging the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by ITAT. The appellant had stated that the assessee had filed return of income for assessment year 2008-09 declaring an income of Rs.2,82,271 under sec. 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
On 28.09.2010, search and seizure operation under sec. 132 of the Act was carried out in Triveni Group and a search warrant under sec. 132 (1) of the Act was issued and executed in the name of the assessee as well. The assessee belonged to the Triveni Group. A notice under sec 153A of the Act was also issued to the assessee.
Factual/ Legal Errors In Arbitral Award Falling Short Of Perversity Do Not Merit Interference U/S 34 Or 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. MOVIE TIMES CINEPLEX PVT. LTD. v. M/S. MRG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 401
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Arbitrator or Tribunal is the final arbiter on facts as well as in law, and even errors, factual or legal, which stop short of perversity, do not merit interference under sec. 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was dealing with an appeal under sec. 37 of the Act challenging the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Single Judge of High Court which had dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under sec. 34 of the Act seeking setting aside of the arbitration award dated 01.06.2016.
Movie Times had filed a suit against the respondents seeking injunction and recovery of rent against the respondents in respect of the leased premises. The same was disposed of vide order dated 07.10.2009, directing Movie Times to take recourse to arbitration, resulting in the appointment of the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, who passed the Arbitral award dated 01.06.2016 in relation to the disputes in respect of the Lease deed.
Non Filing Of Response Due To Technical Glitch In E-Filing Portal: Delhi High Court Quashes The Order And Directs Fresh Hearing
Case Title: Ankit Kaul Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 022 LiveLaw (Del) 402
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the taxpayer could not file a response under the Faceless Scheme due to a technical glitch in the e-filing portal.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the ex-parte order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The department passed the order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act without taking the written submission of the petitioner on record.
Trees Only Hope Of Environmental Redemption In Commercialized Cities, Must Not Be Cut Needlessly: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 403
The Delhi High Court has observed that trees hold out as welcome and assuring living entities of hope, sanity, environmental redemption and even companionship and that they must not be allowed to be cut needlessly or wantonly.
Justice Najmi Waziri observed thus:
"In this capital city with its ever-bourgeoning populating, the cacophony of voices and rampant commercialization of every other street – robbing the residents of the familiar ambience of their residential neighbourhood, the ever-increasing motor-vehicular traffic, the choking air-pollution and the ever-creeping concretization, trees hold out as welcome and assuring living entities of hope, sanity, environmental redemption and even companionship."
"Defamatory": Delhi High Court Directs Twitter To Take Down 5 More Tweets Posted By Historian Audrey Truschke Against Vikram Sampath
Case Title: DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 404
The Delhi High Court has directed micro blogging site Twitter to take down five more tweets posted by historian Audrey Truschke against historian Dr. Vikram Sampath over alleged plagiarism with respect to his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Justice Amit Bansal was of the view that the tweets in question were defamatory in nature and that there was a link posted in the said tweets to the letters, the publication of which was injuncted by the Court vide orders dated 18th February, 2022 and 24th February, 2022.
The Court was dealing with an application filed on behalf of Sampath under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a direction for taking down of further defamatory tweets posted by Truschke on Twitter.
Case Title: SIRONA HYGIENE PRIVATE LIMITED v. PARULBEN NAVNATH CHOTHANI TRADING AS SHIV ENTERPRISE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 405
The Delhi High Court has observed that the sale of counterfeit or knock-off products has become prolific on the internet, which needs to be arrested in order to protect the owners of the trade marks as also the customers who purchase such products.
Justice Pratibha M Singh made the aforesaid observation while dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited against M/s Parulben Navnath Chothani, trading as Shiv Enterprise.
Three e-commerce websites namely Snapdeal, Meesho and Amazon, through their companies were arrayed as Defendant No. 2, 3, and 4 respectively whereas Defendant No. 5 was a John Doe defendant.
Case Title: M/S GARG BUILDERS THROUGH SHRI MOHINDER PAL GARG v. HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD. AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 406
The Delhi High Court has settled down the basic principles relating to bank guarantees, their invocation and the interdiction of such invocation.
While observing that commercial contracts often contain clauses requiring the contractor to furnish bank guarantees, Justice C Hari Shankar said that such bank guarantees are either bank guarantees provided towards security for having been awarded the contract, or performance bank guarantees to guarantee performance of the contract, though, on occasion, other bank guarantees such as bank guarantees towards mobilization advance etc. may also be required to be provided.
The Court added that the contract, in such cases, also provides for the circumstances in which the bank guarantees could be invoked, as well as the purpose for requiring the bank guarantees to be provided in the first place.
Case Title: BABLU TIWARI @ JATA SHANKAR TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 407
The Delhi High Court has observed that an accused cannot, as a matter of right claim de novo trial, except where he is able to show and prove his claim of ineffectiveness of counsel's assistance and his representation falling below an objective standard of reasonableness, to the satisfaction of the court.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that such a relief is to be granted sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, where it appears prima facie that the apprehension of the defendant is sincere and bonafide and the defence counsel has utterly failed to build any defence owing to his incompetence.
The facts of the case are that an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 02.09.2016 under sec. 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 alleging that on 31.08.2016, when the prosecutrix was returning from tuition, an unknown male person touched the breasts of the prosecutrix and attempted to flee.
Case Title: SUCHIT GUPTA v. GAURAV SAINI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 408
Observing that needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers who are expected at all times to maintain composure and poise, the Delhi High Court has set aside Rs. 5 lacs cost imposed by a Additional Rent Controller with a 'word of advice'.
Unequivocally expressing its discomfiture at the manner in which the order was passed, Justice C Hari Shankar said:
"In order that the career of the learned ARC, who appears to be a fairly young Judicial Officer, is not prejudiced, I deem it appropriate to close this matter by setting aside the impugned order insofar as it imposes costs of ₹ 5 lacs to the petitioner, with a word of advice to the learned ARC to ensure that, in future, a great degree of temperance is exhibited by him in discharge of his judicial functions."
"Unwarranted and needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers, who are expected, at all times to maintain composure and poise, befitting the office they hold."
Case Title: SATISH SACHIV BABA v. CPWD (M.R.D.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 409
The Delhi High Court has observed that an acquittal in criminal proceedings in which the guilt of a person has to be held to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, does not preclude the disciplinary proceedings in which the charges of misconduct have to be established on a preponderance of probabilities.
Justice Anu Malhotra observed that mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not prevent the management to proceed with the departmental proceedings against an employee.
"…the acquittal in criminal proceedings in which the guilt of a person has to be held to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, does not preclude the disciplinary proceedings in which the charges of misconduct have to be established on a preponderance of probabilities to continue and to consequentially result into a penalty inclusive of a penalty of termination of service in the event of an employee having been held to have violated the service rules," the Court observed.
Relief For HT Media: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Interim Injunction Against Infringing Website Hindustan Times Marathi
Case Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus DIPALI SANTOSH RAO & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 410
The Delhi High Court recently granted ex-parte interim injunction in favour of HT Media Limited which runs news publications in various languages in the name Hindustan Times, against a party using a deceptively similar logo and domain name.
Justice Jyoti Singh observed:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
The Plaintiff company operates with the domain names "hindustantimes.com" and "marathi.hindustantimes.com".
It has moved the High Court seeking injunction against domain name/ website "hindustantimesmarathi.com" primarily engaged in publishing, hosting, communicating, etc. news, articles, stories, columns, etc. in Hindi and Marathi to Indian readers and viewers, said to be using a deceptively identical logo to the plaintiff's name.
Delhi High Court Upholds Order Of Revenue Department Imposing Enhanced Compounding Charges On Subsequent Offences
Case Title: M/s Maspar Industries Private Limited & Ors. versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax TDS & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 411
The Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the revenue department imposing enhanced compounding charges on subsequent applications for compounding of offences relating to late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that compounding of offences cannot be taken as a matter of right and it is for the law and authorities to determine as to what kind of offences should be compounded and under what conditions. The Court added that there is a rationale behind imposing a higher rate for subsequent offences as the revenue department wants to incentivize compliance.
The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) had compounded the offence pertaining to late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) committed by the petitioner M/s Maspar Industries Private Limited. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Chief Commissioner.
Case Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC & ORS. v. VEGAMOVIES.RUN & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 412
In a matter relating to copyright infringement, the Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 12 websites which were illegally streaming, hosting and making available to public the original content of Universal City Studios LLC, without its authorization.
Observing that Universal City Studios LLC had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the 12 websites from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public or communicating to the public any cinematograph work or content in relation to which Plaintiffs had a Copyright.
The Court also directed Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) to take immediate steps and issue requisite Notifications, calling upon various internet and telecom service providers registered under them to block the said websites.
Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Interim Injunction In Favour Of Hindustan Unilever, Orders Blocking Of 5 Rogue Websites
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD & ANR. versus UNILEVERR1.IN & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court recently granted ex parte interim injunction in favour of FMCG giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and against 5 rogue websites including "Unilever1.in" on ground that their trademark and website domain is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.
The injunction was granted by Justice Jyoti Singh:
"Having heard learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
The application was preferred by the Plaintiff- Hindustan Unilever under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
Case Title: ANISH DAS TALUKDAR (MINOR) THROUGH MS. SASMITA DAS TALUKDAR (LEGAL GARDINAN AND MOTHER) AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 414
The Delhi High Court has appointed a Court Commissioner-cum-Returning Officer for the purpose of conducting elections for the executive committee of the Taekwondo Federation of India.
Observing that the sport of Taekwondo was suffering and the genuine Taekwondo players were not getting the opportunity to represent the country, Justice Rekha Palli said:
"It would, therefore, be in the interest of the sport to direct holding of fresh elections to the executive committee of the Taekwondo Federation of India so as to enable the Union of India to take expeditious steps for recognizing a suitable federation as the National Sports Federation for the sport of Taekwondo."
The Court thus appointed retired Justice Sistani as the Court Commissioner-cum- Returning Officer for holding the elections to the executive committee, while adding that the elections will be held within a period of two months.
Case Title: K RAJAPANDIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 415
The Delhi High Court has observed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and is not to be withheld as a punishment.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that though the possibility of evidence being tampered or the witnesses being influenced has also to be kept in perspective, however, one single circumstance, cannot be treated as a universal validity or necessarily justifying the grant of refusal of bail which is largely influenced with the nature/seriousness of offence.
The Court thus granted bail to a 19 year old law student who was languishing in jail for a period of about two months, noting that the investigation was over, his custodial interrogation was not required and the chargesheet was also filed.
High Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi University's Decision Of Holding Upcoming Examinations In Physical Mode
Title: Vemika Verma and Others v. University of Delhi and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the decision of the Delhi University of holding the upcoming even semester examinations in May 2022 in the physical mode.
Justice Rekha Palli, who was of the opinion that it was not the stage to issue any directions, however granted liberty to the petitioners, who were students of the Delhi University, to approach the Court in case of further change in circumstances.
Accordingly, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.
The plea had challenged a notice issued by the University dated February 11, 2022 whereby it was decided that the May examination of even semester will be held in physical mode.
Case Title: TOSHIAKI AIBA AS THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA v. VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 417
"In the modern times of globalization, foreign creditors cannot be treated differently from domestic creditors," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Amit Bansal observed thus while dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on behalf of the applicant (defendant no.2) seeking rejection of the plaint.
Case Title: PCJ SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(1) DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 418
The Delhi High Court has directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) be more cautious while passing the Assessment Orders.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also directed Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to ensure that any glaring mistakes do not occur in the future.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the assessment order dated 30th March, 2022 passed by National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi under sec. 147 read with sec. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and demand notice dated 30th March, 2022.
The counsel for the petitioner had stated that the facts and figures mentioned in the impugned assessment order dated 30th March, 2022 did not pertain to the petitioner.
Case Title: Director General Central Reserve Police Force versus Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Del) 419
The Delhi High Court has ruled that inordinate and unexplained delay in rendering the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India and is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that award of damages arbitrarily and without any basis also falls foul of the public policy of India.
The petitioner Director General of Central Reserve Police Force floated a tender inviting bids. The respondent Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd. submitted its bid and was declared successful. Thereafter, the parties entered into an agreement. After certain disputes arose between the parties, the respondent invoked the agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act before the Delhi High Court for appointment of an arbitrator. A sole arbitrator was appointed by the Court to adjudicate the disputes under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The arbitrator passed an award in favour of the respondent, along with costs and interest. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act against the arbitral award before the Delhi High Court.
If The Contract Is Extended By The Employer, It Cannot Be Allowed To Reduce The Period Of The Extension Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
Case Title: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. IJM Corporation Berhad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 420
The High Court of Delhi has held that when the employer has granted the contractor an extension of time for a specified period, it cannot turn around to contend that the extension was only provisional and it is allowed to reassess or reduce the number of days by which the execution of the contract was executed.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjiv Sachdeva has held that once the period of the contract has been extended by the employer, it cannot be allowed to retrospectively reduce the period of the extension.
The Weak Financial Condition Of A Party Cannot Be The Sole Ground To Deposit Security Or Bank Guarantee: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Manish Aggarwal and Anr v. RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 421
The High Court of Delhi has held that the weak financial condition of a party cannot be the sole ground to direct the party to deposit a security or bank guarantee to secure the amount involved in the arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held merely because a party is in financial distress, it cannot be the sole ground to direct it to deposit the security when the other party has failed to satisfy the arbitral tribunal that it has a prima facie case in its favour and that the party against whom such relief is sought is trying to transfer or dispose of its assets from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to obstruct or delay the enforcement of the award.
The Court held that the purpose of Section 17 of the A&C Act is not to securitise an unsecured and indeterminate sum, therefore, the tribunal would not allow an application for direction to a party to furnish security unless the party claiming such a relief satisfies the arbitrator that it is likely to succeed in arbitration and the other party is transferring its assets intending to render the award unenforceable.
Case Title: KINRI DHIR versus VEER SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 422
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a review petition seeking to challenge an order giving visitation rights to father only if he resided in the same building.
Justice Kameswar Rao observed:
"In any case, this Court, while modifying the impugned order of the Trial Court dated October 28, 2021, had noted the fact that the minor child is of tender age of less than three years and it is no denial to the fact that ultimately while giving visitation rights, it is the interest of the child, which is paramount. I see no reason to entertain the petition, the same is dismissed."
This Review Petition was filed by the respondent/applicant seeking review of the order dated March 24, 2022 whereby this Court granted him visitation rights to the minor child, subject to the respondent/applicant residing in the same property. He informed the Court that he had also filed an SLP previously before the Supreme Court challenging the order to the extent of the condition i.e. allowing visitation only when he's living in the same property.
Case Title: Union of India versus Indian Agro Marketing Co Operative Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 423
The Delhi High Court has ruled that since no alternate remedy is available to the claimant to challenge the order of the arbitrator terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), hence, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the said order of the arbitrator is ex facie maintainable.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar reiterated that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to recall the order passed by it under Section 25(a) of the A&C Act terminating the arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: RAKESH @DIWAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 424
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not barred from seeking parole, as discretion has been vested in the Competent Authority to grant parole to such a convict under "special circumstances".
Justice Asha Menon added that while there is no doubt true that the Legal Services Authorities at all levels endeavour to provide excellent legal assistance to those in prison, however, to deny the convict an opportunity to engage with other counsel to enable him to make up his mind freely, as to whom he would wish to engage, would violate his constitutional rights to legal representation.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking release of the petitioer on parole for a period of eight weeks on the grounds of filing Special Leave Petition.
Case Title: BELA CREATION PVT LTD v. ANUJ TEXTILES
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 425
The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases where parties are represented by counsel, the said counsel have a bounden duty to ensure that pleadings, filed before a Court, are intelligible.
Giving a word of caution, Justice C Hari Shankar expressed displeasure over filing of an application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure after opining that the same did not contain a single sentence which was grammatically or syntactically correct.
Thus, the Court rejected a plea challenging an impugned order dated 24th February, 2022 wherein the Trial Court had rejected an application under Order VII Rule 14 filed by the petitioner, defendant in the civil suit, with costs of Rs. 5000.
Case Title: Amit Gupta Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence Headquarters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 426
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mukta Gupta has ruled that the bail amount can be paid by cash ledger and debit ledger of the Input Tax Credit (ITC).
It has been alleged by the department that the petitioner is one of the directors/key persons in M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., M/s Progressive Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s JBN Impex Pvt. Ltd. and allegedly the mastermind behind devising a mechanism of availing ITC on the strength of bills of various suppliers which were non-existing and fictitious, thus availing fraudulent ITC worth Rs. 27.05 crores, which he further passed on. The petitioner received a total of Rs. 260 crores in ITC from the three companies.
Title: NIKITA CHANDEL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 427
Every lawyer, who appears for his client, has a right of fair hearing, irrespective of who the complainant is," the Delhi High Court has recently observed recently.
Justice Talwant Singh was dealing with a plea filed by seven accused persons seeking anticipatory bail directly in the High Court after claiming that since the complainant was an advocate, a fair hearing before the District Court was not possible because their counsels may be heckled during arguments.
Title: GEETA SINGH v. PRADEEP SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 428
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case where the Company has also been accused, the liability cannot be said to have been arisen only qua the private person and that the Company has to be proceeded against legally by giving it an opportunity to be heard.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the liability of a private person, in his capacity of a Director or any other authority to act on behalf of the Company, if has to be severed from the liability of the Company, cannot arise against him when the Company itself is also an accused.
"Such liability against the person would arise when the accused person has issued the cheque in his personal capacity which is distinguishable from his capacity as an employee or Director of a company. Where the Company has also been accused, the liability cannot be said to have been arisen only qua the private person and the Company has to be proceeded against legally by giving it an opportunity to be heard," the Court said.
Title: STARBUCKS CORPORATION v. TEAQUILA A FASHION CAFE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 429
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 2 lakhs damages and an amount of Rs. 9,60,100 in favour of Starbucks Corporation in a trademark infringement suit filed by it over the usage of its registered trademark'FRAPPUCCINO'.
Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with the suit filed by the plaintiff, Starbucks Corporation against one Teaquilla A Fashion Cafe, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing it's registered trademark "FRAPPUCCINO" either alone or with any prefix or suffix or any other confusing and deceptively similar trademark in relation to their goods, services and business as well as passing off.
Case Title: Youth Against Crime v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 430
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday cleared the release of Ranveer Singh starrer Yashraj film "Jayeshbhai Jordaar" after it was assured by the producers that relevant disclaimers, to the effect that Pre-natal sex determination is a criminal offence, shall be depicted in relation to an ultrasound scene and another connected scene.
A division bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri disposed of a plea filed by an NGO namely Youth Against Crime, challenging the film over depiction of a prenatal sex-determination scene in the trailer. The film is set to hit the theatres on May 13.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday cleared the release of Ranveer Singh starrer Yashraj film "Jayeshbhai Jordaar" after it was assured by the producers that relevant disclaimers, to the effect that Pre-natal sex determination is a criminal offence, shall be depicted in relation to an ultrasound scene and another connected scene.
A division bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri disposed of a plea filed by an NGO namely Youth Against Crime, challenging the film over depiction of a prenatal sex-determination scene in the trailer. The film is set to hit the theatres on May 13.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Former Religare CFO Krishnan Subramanian In RFL Scam Case
Title: KRISHNAN SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 431
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Krishnan Subramanian, former CFO of Religare Enterprises Limited, in connection with the Fortis Religare Scam case involving the alleged financial scam of disbursal of loans worth thousands of crores to shell entities having no financial strength.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh granted bail to Subramanian subject to Subramanian furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 Lac with two sureties each of the like amount.
Title: LAXMI & ANR v. SHYAM PRATAP & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 432
The Delhi High Court has observed that the daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law provided she has inherited some estate of her husband.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a plea filed by a widowed daughter-in-law and grand-daughter under sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 3rd May, 2019 deferring their claim for interim maintenance in a petition under sec. 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Case Title: RIT Foundation v. UOI and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 433
The Delhi High Court has passed a split verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher has held that the exemption to the husband from the offence of marital rape is unconstitutional. Exception 2 of 375, 376B IPC was therefore struck down by him as violative of Article 14.
"The impugned provisions in so far as they concern a husband having intercourse with his wife without consent are violative of Article 14 and are therefore struck down", Justice Shankdher held.
However, Justice C Hari Shankar said that he does not agree with Justice Shakdher. Justice Harisankar has held that Exception 2 to Section 375 does not violate Constitution and that the exception is based on an intelligible differentia.
RELATED
Case Title: Kedar Nath Babbar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 434
The Delhi High Court held that the court was only required to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the assessment. The sufficiency of the correctness of the material cannot be considered while issuing the reassessment notice.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that the courts should exercise their writ jurisdiction very sparingly if there is an "alternative efficacious remedy." The petitioner cannot be allowed to short circuit the procedure merely out of convenience. If a statutory forum is created by law for the redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
Case Title: Union of India versus Delhi State Consumer Co Operative Federation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 435
The Delhi High Court has ruled that abrupt issuance of orders by the Arbitral Tribunal terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), without holding any hearing and without issuing any show cause notice, is unsustainable and suffers from perversity of approach.
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that to ensure that an Arbitral Tribunal performs the duty entrusted to it is a core aspect of the supervisory function of the High Court, and thus where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to decide the review applications filed by the claimant seeking recall of the order terminating the arbitral proceedings, the Court can invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Section 65-B Of Indian Evidence Act Does Not Apply To Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Millennium School v. Pawan Dawar, O.M.P. (COMM) 590/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 436
The High Court of Delhi has held that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to arbitral proceedings.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that although the principles of the Evidence Act usually apply, sensu stricto, the specific provisions of the Act do not apply.
The Court further held that an objection as to the non-compliance with the requirement of Section 65-B shall be raised at the earliest opportunity. Failure to take such an objection at the material time deprives the other party to take such an objection at a later stage.
Case Title: PEPSICO INC. & ANR. versus JAGPIN BREWERIES LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 437
The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex parte injunction in favour of Pepsico against a liquor company allegedly using their mark i.e. Mirinda.
A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that Pepsico had successfully made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction since the balance of convenience lies in their favour. :
"This Court is of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
Case Title: Extramarks Education India Private Limited V. MES Central School, ARB. P. 327 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 438
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot be deemed to have waived its right to invoke arbitration merely because it has filed a written statement in respect of disputes that are not covered under the agreement.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that a suit in respect of a dispute that is not governed by the arbitration agreement is not an impediment to the invocation of the arbitration.
Case Title: Kiran Infra Engineers Limited versus Northern Railway
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 439
The Delhi High Court has held that whether a supplementary agreement between the parties, rescinding the arbitration clause contained in the principal contract, is contrary to law or not in view of taking away the right of a party to invoke arbitration, is required to be decided by the arbitrator himself.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva ruled that the disputes raised by the party contending that the supplementary agreement was hit by Section 17 and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, since it was signed by the party under duress and undue influence, are disputes which the Arbitral Tribunal is competent to rule upon.
Title: AZHAR RASHEED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 440
The Delhi High Court has called for framing of medical protocols at national level for guidance of medical practitioners doing aesthetic surgeries and hair transplantation procedures.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta directed the Centre as well as the Delhi Government to take steps for ensuring that "mushrooming Salons" carrying hair transplantation procedures under unprofessional hands without requisite qualification and in absence of medical supervision, are checked.
The Court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to take necessary measures to ensure that incidents of medical malpractice are not repeated and action is taken against such Salons wheresoever the hair transplantation treatment or aesthetic surgery is being extended at the hands of technicians or unqualified professionals without any medical supervision in defiance of established protocols and norms.
Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 441
The Delhi High Court has observed that the overall development of the children should ideally involve both the parents and that the settlement agreement should reflect the same.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a contempt plea filed by a wife for the alleged non-compliance of the order passed by the Family Court.
It was stated by the counsel appearing for the Petitioner wife that the Respondent husband had violated the order dated which was based on a settlement agreement inasmuch as the husband was neither coming forward for second motion nor was he fulfilling his obligations with regard to the monetary settlement of the child.
Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SATBIR & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 442
The Delhi High Court has observed that the jurisprudence does not extend to accommodating and condoning all inordinate or unjustifiable delays by the governmental agencies while adding that each case of such delay has to be examined on its individual merits.
A division bench comprising Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed thus:
"Although courts would take an accommodative view apropos appeals or reviews filed by Government departments, as there could be administrative delays, for which the Government's interest and the overall public interest should not suffer."
Case Title: GAIL (India) Ltd. V. Trivendi Engineering & Industries LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 443
The High Court of Delhi has held that liquidated damages can't be imposed when the Engineer-in-Charge holds that the cause of delay is explained.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that when the Engineer-in-Charge was entrusted with the task of examining the causes of delay, and it had analysed and accepted the justification provided by the contractor and recommended several extensions without the imposition of LD, it was not open for the employer to levy LD when the delay was not attributable to the contractor and so was determined by the Engineer-in-Charge.
Case Title: Gujarat Gas Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd and Ors., O.M.P.(I)(COMM) 125 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 444
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot demand its 'Right to First Refusal' after making a counter-offer to the seller.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that when the party that has been given the right to first refusal (RoFR) makes a counter-offer, the seller becomes entitled to sell the subject goods to the third parties.
The Court further held that the court while exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot grant interim relief in the nature of specific performance when it will undoubtedly and obviously be the essential claim and relief that the petitioner will seek in the arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 445
The Delhi High Court has observed that extraordinary powers of High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not meant to be exercised at the disposal of the affluent accused who do not leave any stone unturned to arm-twist the law of the land and administrative machinery to achieve their scrupulous ends.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed a plea filed by Religare Finvest's ex Promoter, Malvinder Mohan Singh in connection with Religare Finvest scam case, challenging the order dated 7th December 2021 passed by the Trial Court which had dismissed his request to consult physically with his lawyers outside jail premises, while in custody, in order to prepare for proceedings before the Supreme Court, High Court and various district courts.
Case Title: NIRMAL JINDAL v. SHYAM SUNDER TYAGI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 446
Observing that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, the Delhi High Court has said that the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined."
Title: JASBIR SINGH v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 447
The Delhi High Court has observed that if the period of deprivation pending trial or disposal of criminal appeal becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India would receive a jolt.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that the delay in disposal of criminal appeals pending in the High Court is matter of serious concern to all those involved in the administration of criminal justice.
Case Title: SHRI HARI SHAMSHER KAUSHIK v. SHRI JASBIR SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S ACCURA CARE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 448
The Delhi High Court has observed that if no offence is attributed to the company, it is but the natural corollary, that its Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of its business cannot be saddled with any liability.
Observing that the Company being arrayed as the accused must be found to have committed an offence, Justice Asha Menon added:
"Thereafter, through the legal fiction created by Section 141 of the N.I. Act, the Directors and other persons responsible for the conduct of its business also become vicarious liable."
Case Title: MILLENNIUM EDUCATION FOUNDATION V. EDUCOMP INFRASTRUCTURE AND SCHOOL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, ARB.P. 326 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 449
The High Court of Delhi has held that the mere pendency of an insolvency petition under Section 9 of the IBC is not a bar to the appointment of an arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has held that merely because an insolvency petition is pending, it cannot be an embargo on the power of the Court to decide arbitration applications. It is only when the insolvency petition is admitted and the moratorium is declared that the proceedings under the Arbitration Act would be non-maintainable.
The Court further held merits or validity of the demand notice are not to be decided by the Court while exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: ASHISH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 450
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has initiated the process of proclamation or attachment proceedings under sec. 82 or 83 of Cr.PC despite the pendency of the anticipatory bail application before High Court, the same does not bar the consideration of such an application.
Section 82 contemplates procedure for issuing proclamation against a person absconding. Section 83 talks about attachment of property of person absconding.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with an anticipatory bail application in an FIR registered under sec. 420, 467, 120B of IPC read with sec. 66D of the IT Act.
Case Title: DR VIMLA MENON AND ANOTHER v. GOPINATH MENON
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 451
The Delhi High Court has observed that under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, the question of whether any of the parties to the suit is required to be orally examined on any aspect relevant to the controversy is a matter of discretion.
Order X of the Code provides for the examination of parties by the Court.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed thus:
"A bare reading of Order X of the CPC makes it apparent that the question of whether any of the parties to the suit is required to be orally examined on any aspect relevant to the controversy is essentially a matter of discretion. Where a court feels that, in order to elucidate matters in controversy in the suit, oral examination of one or more of the parties to the suit is necessary, the court is empowered to so order."
Order XVA CPC | Mere Default In Payment Of Rent On Court's Direction Doesn't Justify Striking Off Defence Of Defaulting Tenant: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RASHI MISRA v. B KALYANA RAMAN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 452
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere default in payment of rent as directed by the Court under Order XVA(1) of Code of Civil Procedure cannot, ipso facto, justify passing of an order striking off the defence of the defaulting tenant.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 07th December, 2019, passed in a civil suit by the Trial Court in which the petitioner was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.
The impugned order adjudicated three applications preferred by the petitioner as the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 and sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, the impugned order struck off the defence of the petitioner, purportedly in exercise of jurisdiction under the proviso to Order XV-A(1) of the CPC.
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India versus MEP Chennai Bypass Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 453
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal is permitted to fix its fee, if its appointment is made by way of an ad hoc agreement between the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that where the Arbitral Tribunal has accepted its appointment outside the mandate of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR), it is entitled to determine its fee and is not bound by ICADR Rules. The Court upheld the order of the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the arbitral fee separately for the claims and the counter-claims. The Court added that the Arbitral Tribunal's observations that the arbitral fee is to be determined in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), does not mean that the fee has to be charged cumulatively on the claims and counter-claims.
Case Title: Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL) v. Cobra Instalaciones Y Services Sa and Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. JV
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 454
The High Court of Delhi has held that there would be no question of recovery of deferment charges on the liquidated damages when the liquidated damages are themselves not payable.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that deferment charges cannot be treated as separate charges payable irrespective of whether the liquidated damages are payable or not.
The Court held that these would only be payable when the liquidated damages are held to be payable.
Time Of 8 Hours To File Reply To Show Cause Notice, Not Reasonable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rahul Biala Vs ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 455
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that the time of eight hours to file a reply to the show cause notice was neither reasonable nor effective. The assessee could not have provided relevant information and documents to establish his case in such a short period of time.
The petitioner/assessee submitted that the reasonable time was not given to file a reply to the show cause notice, which was issued only on March 30th, 2022 at 16:21 p.m., effectively giving the petitioner only eight hours' time to file a reply to the show cause notice.
Delhi High Court Dismisses With Cost Plea Filed By Former CBI Head M Nageswara Rao Against Removal Of His Twitter Verification Tag
Case title - M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 456
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000 the plea filed by former Central Bureau of Investigation head and Retired IPS Officer M. Nageswara Rao against the decision of microblogging website Twitter to remove his verification tag, also known as blue tick from his account.
Justice Yashwant Varma was of the view that a similar plea with identical prayers was disposed of by the Court vide order dated April 7, 2022, by giving liberty to Rao to reapply for verification.
Consequently, Rao had, in compliance of the said order, reapplied for the Verification Tag last month. However, Rao was aggrieved about the fact that Twitter had not re-instated the Verification Tag attached to his twitter handle till date.
Case Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. LOOKPART EXHIBITIONS AND EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 457
The Delhi High Court has appointed Dr. Arul George Scaria as an expert to assist it in the interpretation of sec. 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to the extent of fair use and fair dealing of sound recordings in marriage ceremonies and weddings.
Dr. Scaria is the Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Centre for Innovation, IP and Competition at National law University, Delhi.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the issue raised would have large scale implications for artists such as lyricists, music composers, singers, sound recording producers and owners on the one hand as also, for entities involved in the organisation and management of weddings and other social events.
'No Different From Offering Freebies': Delhi HC Dismisses Challenge To Practice Of Political Parties Promising "Cash Benefits" In Election Manifestos
Case Title: Parashar Narayan Sharma v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 458
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the alleged practice of political parties offering cash benefits in lieu of votes during elections.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla was of the view that the issue has already been considered by the Supreme Court in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, and the present case is no different.
In Subramaniam Balaji (supra), the issue of political parties promising freebies to voters if elected to powers was raised. In the said judgement, the Top Court had directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines, in consultation with all the recognized political parties, that directly govern the contents of the election manifesto.
Case Title: SINGH & SINGH LAW FIRM L.L.P & ANR. v. SINGH & SINGH LAW, PLLC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 459
Delhi High Court recently granted ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of "Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP" against a company namely Singh and Singh Law, PLLC and two others, on grounds that the names are deceptively similar and can cause a confusion in the minds of clients in India and abroad.
Present suit was instituted by the Plaintiffs, aggrieved by the use of the name "Singh & Singh", "Singh & Singh Law", "Singh & Singh Law, PLLC" and other derivatives, by Defendants No. 1 to 3.
Case Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. DR. NAVEEN AGGARWAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 460
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is meant to uphold the majesty of law and that it cannot sit in appeal of the Orders passed by the lower Courts and Tribunals.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the contempt jurisdiction is invoked to ensure that public respect and confidence in the judicial process remains impaired.
"This jurisdiction is sui generis and allows the Court to exercise such power to punish a person who is guilty of contempt for the sole purpose of preventing non-adherence of the rule of law. In order to exercise such jurisdiction, the Courts must act judicially, and must not be hypersensitive. Once the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court must proceed with the contempt so as to uphold the majesty of law," the Court added.
Case Title: BURGER KING CORPORATION v. SWAPNIL PATIL & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 461
The Delhi High Court has recently granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of 'BURGER KING' in the trademark infringement suit filed by it against the defendants alleging that they were misusing, its registered trademarks and also engaging in registering infringing domain names incorporating the trademark 'BURGER KING' and operating fake websites without its permission and authorisation.
Justice Jyoti Singh thus restrained the defendants from advertising, offering any goods or services, using or registering corporate names, domain names or pages bearing the trademarks BURGER KING, BK or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks.
The Court also directed disclosure of the WHOIS details with respect to the domain names www.burgerkingfranchises.co.in and www.burgerkingfranchises.in and blocking access to the same.
Case Title: KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. MR. RAMAN KWATRA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 462
The Delhi High Court has observed that where a case of infringement is made out, an injunction has to necessarily follow and that it is no defence to the defendant to urge that the user of the allegedly infringing mark was honest and concurrent.
Justice C Hari Shankar, who found a prima facie case in favour of Kei Industries Limited for an interlocutory injunction, thus restrained the defendants, or anyone acting for their behalf from using the impugned mark 'KEI' in relation to any electrical goods or instruments, including electrical fans, room coolers, geysers, electric heating apparatus etc., pending disposal of the suit.
Mere Expiry Of Employee's Deputation Period Does Not Divest Disciplinary Authority From Initiating Enquiry For Misconduct: Delhi High Court
Case Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 463
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the period of deputation of an employee may have come to an end, it would not divest the Disciplinary Authority of the company, Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFCL) in the present matter, from initiating an enquiry.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a petition filed by a man, employed as an Executive Director in the Power Finance Corporation Limited, challenging a chargesheet wherein he was proposed to be proceeded against in disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions made in Rules 28 and 30 of the Power Finance Corporation Limited (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
NEET-UG Mandatory For Admissions To BSc In Military Nursing Service: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NTA Notification
Case Title: SALONI YADAV & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 464
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by aspirants seeking admission in Military Nursing Service courses, challenging the notification issued by the National Testing Agency that made clearing of NEET-UG examination a prerequisite.
Justice Rekha Palli dismissed the contention that the exam pattern was changed last minute on account of the extension granted by the NTA to apply for the NEET-UG exam and that candidates will get more than two months' time to prepare and appear in the exam.
Case Title : KERZNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v VIKAS AGGARWAL & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 465
The Delhi High Court recently granted injunction in favour of Kerzner International, a company which owns the chain of Atlantis resorts in Dubai, Bahamas and China, against one Vokas Aggarwal using the mark 'Atlantis Park Ballroom' in respect of a banquet hall.
Though the resort is not situated in India, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed,
" Plaintiff's mark 'ATLANTIS', owing to the unique nature of the resorts which are run by it, have prima facie, gained enormous global reputation, especially in the Indian subcontinent. "
Case Title: APARNA BHAT v. SAKSHI SINGH & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 466
The Delhi High Court has called for community participation for the purpose of preservation of trees, while asking the land-owning agencies to consider engaging RWAs and citizens' groups in the nurturing and preservation of trees.
"When citizens claim the environment as their own and participate in its preservation and rejuvenation, wonders could happen. The efforts of governmental agencies would receive an immense boost and positive results are likely to be visible sooner than one would anticipate," Justice Najmi Waziri added.
AO & PCIT Failed To Consider Balance Of Convenience And Irreparable Injury While Deciding The Stay Application: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Seven Seas Hospitality Private Limited Versus PCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 467
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Principal Commissioners of Income Tax (PCIT) have considered the three basic principles, i.e., the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, while deciding the stay application.
The petitioner company/assessee filed an application for a stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CIT (A) against the additions made by the department was pending adjudication. The assessee was under financial stress on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. The accounts of the assessee have been declared as NPA by all the banks due to non-payment of principal instalment and interest to the banks.
Case Title: SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ministry of Finance
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 468
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam A. Bamba has directed the designated committee to manually process payments of an assessee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).
The petitioner/assessee, while taking recourse to the SVLDRS to avail the benefits provided, had attempted to remit the "amount declared" electronically. The only reason remittance could not go through was that there was a miniscule discrepancy between the figure mentioned in the Icegate challan and the amount that was sought to be transmitted.
Case Title: BHARAT PETRORESOURCES LIMITED v. JSW ISPAT SPECIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 469
The High Court of Delhi held that the claims rejected by Resolution Professional in the insolvency proceedings on the ground that they arose after the Insolvency Commencement Date (ICD), are to be decided by the arbitrator.
The Court held that extinguishment of claims that arose after the Insolvency Commencement Date (ICD) is a contentious issue that is to be decided by the arbitrator when the parties have an arbitration agreement.
The Court reiterated that the scope under Section 11 of the A&C Act is confined to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Court is not to decide any contentious issue while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act.
Case Title: HARSH SEHGAL v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 470
The Delhi High Court has observed that the applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will be extended to appeals arising out of complaint cases that have been filed prior to the amendment of 2018.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a batch of pleas seeking setting aside of order dated 5th February, 2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts.
It was argued by the petitioners that sec. 148 of the NI Act was never intended to be made applicable to all pending appeals but only for the appeals which were filed after the amendment came into force. It was added that the that the amended provisions are not retrospective for appeals filed prior to the amendment.
Case Title: SANDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 471
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Trial Court would not be powerless to modify orders of custody and disposal of property pending trial as provided under sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per changed circumstances.
Justice Asha Menon added that the power to modify orders passed under sec. 451 Cr.P.C. is inherent in the provision as the purpose is only safe custody and production "during trial".
Delhi Govt Can't Implement Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme Without LG's Approval: High Court
Case Title: DELHI SARKARI RATION DEALERS SANGH DELHI v. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 472
While setting aside the Delhi government's scheme for doorstep delivery of ration, the Delhi High Court has observed that the decision of the Council of Ministers headed by Delhi Chief Minister to roll out the said scheme cannot be described as an Executive action taken by, or in the name of the Lieutenant Governor.
The Court reasoned that the same cannot be done since the LG had expressed his disagreement, which stood unresolved as the scheme was placed before the President.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh thus quashed the three tenders issued by the Delhi Government in respect of the doorstep ration delivery scheme.
Read Also: Right To Dignity Not Offended Merely By Queuing Up At Fair Price Shop: High Court On Quashing Delhi Govt's Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme
Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 473
As an interim measure, the Delhi High Court on Thursday stayed further felling of trees in the city observing that there is no other way to mitigate the ecological and environmental degradation.
Justice Najmi Waziri, who was hearing a contempt plea concerning felling of trees, stayed the said exercise by the authorities till June 2, the next date of hearing.
Noting that ex-facie, it was evident that the large scale denudation of fully grown trees only worsens the ecological balance in the city, the Court ordered thus:
"It would therefore be in the fitness of things and in the public interest as well as for the sake of environment of present as well as future generations that tree felling in Delhi is not permitted till the next date so as to ensure that felling is done only when it is fully assured by the applicant that the trees would atleast be transplanted."
"No Infirmity": High Court Upholds Delhi Police's Standing Order Mandating Inclusion Of Advocate's Details In Criminal Dossier Of Accused
Case Title: SAURABH AGARWAL v. STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 474
The Delhi High Court has upheld a standing order issued by the city police mandating inclusion of Advocates' details in Criminal Dossier of an accused, observing that there was no infirmity in the same.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla was of the view that merely because particulars of the advocate may be entered into the confidential record, it does not follow that such an advocate would be hounded or put under surveillance.
"The purpose of the Criminal Dossier is merely to record the particulars of the accused, including the name of the advocate who may be representing such an accused. Merely for this reason alone, it cannot not be said that the Standing Order suffers from any infirmity or violates any Fundamental Rights of the accused, as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The said information is not placed in public domain. It is confidential," the bench added.
Non Consideration Of Detailed Reply To Show Cause Notice Submitted After Stipulated Time, Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order
Case Title: Divya Capital One Private Limited Vs. ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 475
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has quashed the reassessment order, alleging income of more than Rupees one lakh crore having escaped assessment on the grounds of violation of natural justice.
The petitioner/assessee has submitted that the order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act was passed without considering the replies filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice.
The petitioner filed a preliminary response to the show cause notice in which she objected to the validity of legal notice under Section 148A(b) on the grounds that there was no evidence that income had escaped assessment.
Right To Lead Evidence May Be Closed If Party Acts In 'Recalcitrant Fashion', Unjustifiably Refuses To Produce Witnesses For Examination: Delhi HC
Case Title: M/S BHARAT INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. SMT. SANJANA SAINI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 476
The Delhi High Court has observed that where a party is acting in a recalcitrant fashion, and refusing to make the witness available for examination or cross- examination on repeated occasions without due justification, the court may close the party's right to lead evidence.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that while it is a matter of Court's discretion which takes a call on the request of the party to lead evidence and that the Court may be ill-inclined in a petition under Article 227 to interfere, it said that such principle applies equally to the Court which passed the order under challenge as to the Court which is seized of the challenge under Article 227.
Initiation Of Reassessment Proceedings By Income Tax Officer Without Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Quashes The Proceedings
Case Title: Indus Tower Ltd. Versus ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 477
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that since the petitioner jurisdictional Assessing Officer is headquartered in Delhi, the income tax officer from Jaipur had no authority to send a notice proposing the beginning of reassessment proceedings.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the initiation of reassessment proceedings.
The petitioner contended that there was no valid jurisdiction with the Income Tax Officer located at Jaipur for the issuance of notice or proposed initiation of reassessment proceedings. The jurisdiction over the petitioner lies solely with the Income Tax Officer at New Delhi.
Case Title: People for Better Treatment v. National Medical Commission
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 478
The Delhi High Court has refused to issue orders for initiation of action against doctors alleged to be involved in the November 2021 strike.
Disposing of the public interest litigation filed by a Kolkata based NGO namely 'People for Better Treatment', a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed,
" In our view, before any disciplinary action can be taken, it would be necessity for complainant who must first approach the State Medical Council to make out specific grievance based on actual events since that would be necessary for State Medical Council to initiate disciplinary action against an identified doctor who may have gone on strike,"
Not Feasible To Entertain Plea Relating To Road Development Work In Madhya Pradesh Merely Because Ministry Office Is In Delhi: High Court
Case Title: Intercontinental Consultants v. Ministry of Road & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 479
The Delhi High Court has expressed its distinction to hear a matter pertaining to debarment of a contractor by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of India, in connection with its alleged failure to perform the road development work in Madhya Pradesh.
The plea was filed in the Delhi High Court by Intercontinental Consultants, stating that the head office of the Ministry is in Delhi and the competent authority which issued the SOP under which the order debarring the appellant was issued also has its office in Delhi. Since a single Judge had refused to entertain the matter, the instant appeal was preferred.
Case Title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. MR FAYYAZ SHAIKH & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 480
While dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by Cable News Network (CNN) news channel, the Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against various entities over use of identical mark 'CNN' while providing similar news services.
Justice Pratibha M Singh also awarded Rs. 3 lakhs cost in favour of CNN news channel, observing that its rights in the mark 'CNN' were undisputed and unchallenged and that the same had been declared as a well-known mark.
"Thus, the use of an identical mark for identical services is clear infringement of the Plaintiff's rights in the 'CNN' mark. There can be no justification for the Defendants to use an identical mark," the Court said.
No Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Granted To Taxpayer: Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order
Case Title: Omkar Nath Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 481
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh has quashed the assessment order as an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to the taxpayer.
The petitioner/assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2018-2019 on 31.03.2019. The petitioner pegged his taxable income at Rs. 29,66,880.
The Assessing Officer picked up the petitioner's case for scrutiny and issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Apparently, the AO had also issued several notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act between 24.11.2020 and 15.02.2021.
Case Title: RAJESH GUPTA v. RAM AVTAR, O.M.P. (COMM) 121/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 482
The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot allow forfeiture of a substantial amount of consideration without the proof of actual loss solely on the ground that it was referred to as Earnest Money under the contract.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru partly set aside an award on the ground that the arbitrator wrongly allowed the forfeiture of Earnest Money which formed a substantial portion of the total consideration without the respondent proving actual loss suffered by it.
Licensing Of Software Products By Microsoft Is Not Taxable In India As Royalty: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CIT Versus Microsoft Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has ruled that licensing of software products by Microsoft in the Territory of India by Microsoft is not taxable in India as royalty.
The department had challenged the order passed by the ITAT for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000. The ITAT ruled that the licencing of software products of Microsoft in the Territory of India by the respondent/assessee, i.e., Microsoft, was not taxable in India as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act read with Article 12 of the Indo-US Direct Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Case Title: Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd Versus ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 484
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, a minimum time of seven days has to be granted to the assessee to file reply to the show cause notice.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the Notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential order issued under Section 148A(d) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The department has issued a notice to petitioner under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act on 22nd March, 2022 on the ground that the petitioner had made cash deposits in its bank accounts but had not filed its Income Tax Return. The Petitioner was asked to furnish a reply to the notice on or before 25th March, 2022. The Petitioner duly replied to the said notice on 25th March, 2022 clearly explaining that all the cash deposited by the petitioner was received from the members of the society. The petitioner had also explained that KYC of all the members were properly done and books of accounts of the Petitioner were duly audited and were furnished to the Registrar of Companies.
Case Title: M/S SRI SHYAM INCORPORATION & ANR. v. M/S SHREE BALAJI INDUSTRIES
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 485
The Delhi High Court has observed that temperance and dignity in language is of absolute essence in pleadings filed in judicial proceedings.
Justice C Hari Shankar further added thus:
"It is not permissible for any litigant, especially in a petition filed through Counsel, to attribute qualities such as obstinacy to a judicial forum. Courts do not pass orders based on personal predilections, but to conform to the correct position in law as they perceive it to be."
Implement Order On Nurses' Salary In Pvt Hospitals Before July 12 : High Court Warns Delhi Govt Of Contempt Action
Title: INDIAN PROFESSIONAL NURSES THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY SIJU THOMAS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 486
The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Delhi Government for not implementing an earlier order passed by it in the year 2019 regarding payment of nurses working in private hospitals as well as nursing homes.
Observing that the conduct of the Delhi Government could be construed as wilful disobedience of judicial orders, Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed dissatisfaction by ordering thus:
"It is expected that the GNCTD shall comply with the Order dated 22.07.2019 before the next date of hearing. In case the said Order is not complied with, the concerned Officers are directed to be present in the Court to explain as to why contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against the erring Officers."
The next date of hearing is July 12, 2022.
Person Invoking Article 226 Jurisdiction Must Come With Clean Hands, Must Disclose Complete & Correct Facts: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 487
The Delhi High Court has observed that a person approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with a pair of clean hands, adding that there must be disclosure of full, complete and correct facts.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla also observed that a petitioner should not suppress any material facts and also not take repeated or parallel recourse to legal proceedings.
The Court made the observations while dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment of a Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by Association of MD Physicians with cost of Rs.25,000.
Case Title: ABHISHEK GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 488
The Delhi High Court has observed that the purpose of detention order is a preventive measure and if the detenu is not served or detained at the earliest possible, keeping in view the spirit of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the purpose is defeated.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta quashed the detention order issued under sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) to detain the petitioner in custody for a period of one year.
Apart from challenging the detention order, the petitioner had also challenged the further order under sec. 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 directing him to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within seven days of the publication of the detention order.
Case Title: AKRITI AGGARWAL & ANR. v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 489
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by two final year law students seeking directions on Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University for providing certified copies of answer-scripts to students as per the fee prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012 at candidate's request.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta however clarified that the Court has not examined the issue as to whether the charges or fee prescribed by the University of Rs. 1,500 per examination answer sheet is excessive, or could be said to defeat the right to obtain information, as no challenge was raised to the prescription of the said fee under its Rules.
Filed by Akriti Agarwal and Lakshya Purohit through Advocate Paras Jain, the plea sought a direction in compliance of the Supreme Court judgment in the case titled ICSI v. Paras Jain wherein it was held that if a candidate seeks information under the RTI Act, then payment has to be sought under the rules made therein.
Waiver Under Section 12(5) Of A&C Act Has To Be By An Express Agreement In Writing: Delhi High Court
Case Title: AK Builders versus Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 490
The Delhi High Court has ruled that any right under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), that deals with the ineligibility of certain persons to be appointed as an arbitrator, can be waived of only by an express Agreement in writing entered into after the disputes had arisen between the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru dismissed the contention that since the petitioner had participated in the arbitral proceedings it was precluded from raising any objections towards the appointment of the Arbitrator. The Court reiterated that a person who is ineligible to act as an arbitrator would also be ineligible to appoint an arbitrator.
Case Status: M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd v. Shivani Cosmetics
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 491
In the case of competing trademarks of a cosmetics range, the Delhi High Court awarded damages of Rs. 10 lakh to M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Looking at the similarity of the defendant's product to the Blue Heaven range, Justice Pratibha M. Singh remarked,
"...this is not a case of innocent adoption, and the Court cannot encourage such dishonest conduct on behalf of the Defendant. Thus, taking a reasonable assessment of the products which may have been sold by the Defendant, the present suit is decreed for Rs.10 lakhs as damages. In addition, Rs.2 lakhs is awarded as costs."
A suit was filed by M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademark, trade dress, copyright, writing style, color combination, label, packaging, passing off goods, delivery up, retention of account of profit along with further damages.
Case Title: ASLAM SHER KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 492
The Delhi High Court has put the affairs of Hockey India in the hands of Committee of Administrators (CoA) as per a recent Supreme Court order, observing that its administrative setup was erroneously or illegally constituted because of the Life President and Life Members.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma added thus:
"The Government of India cannot grant recognition to a NSF whose constitution is not in consonance with the Sports Code. The posts of Life President, Life Member in the NSF are illegal so is the post of CEO in the Managing Committee. These posts are struck-down. All such references in the Constitution/Memorandum of Association of R-2 will have to be removed."
The Court relied on the recent Supreme Court order in All India Football Federation vs. Rahul Mehra dated May 18, 2022.
Defendant In A Plaint Cannot Insist That Plaintiff Should Sue A Third Party: Delhi High Court
Case Title: AAA VEHICLEADES PVT LTD v. BALKISHAN GUPTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 493
The Delhi High Court has observed that a defendant in a plaint cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a third party, adding that he can only defend the plaint qua the allegations against him.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the defendant cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a party whom the plaintiff has not chosen to sue. The Court added that if the plaintiff fails to sue a necessary party, it would be at the risk and cost of the plaintiff.
"A defendant in a plaint cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a third party. He can only defend the plaint qua the allegations against him. It is open to a defendant to contest his liability, qua the plaintiff, and, in an appropriate case, the defendant may also be entitled to move an application for rejection of the suit outright, if it fails to make out any sustainable cause of action against the plaintiff invoking, for the purpose, Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC," the Court observed.
Case Title: PUMA SE v. HI-TEC POINT TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 494
The Delhi High Court has directed Google LLC to remove the application 'PUMA GUARD' from its Google Play Store while dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by 'PUMA'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by the Plaintiff PUMA SE seeking protection of its mark 'PUMA' which was coined and adopted by it internationally in 1948.
'PUMA' is one of the world's leading sports brand designing, developing, selling and marketing footwear, apparel and accessories. The mark 'PUMA' has been used in India from 1980's onwards and the same is registered under several classes.
The Defendant No.1 M/s Hi-Tech Point Technologies Pvt. Ltd. started a GPS service through electronic application by the name 'PUMA GUARD'. Defendant No.2 Black Box GPS Technology OPC Pvt. Ltd. also launched a device with GPS tracking and anti-theft capabilities under the mark 'PUMA'.
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 495
Observing that redevelopment of city's Kalkaji Temple can commence only if all persons who are in occupation of dharamshalas vacate the said premises, the Delhi High Court has said that it will direct final vacation of the same by all occupants on June 1.
Justice Pratibha M Singh, who was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of the temple, added that the pujaris or baridaars who are occupying the dharamshalas shall make submissions before the Court concerning the timelines of such vacation on the said date.
"The pujaris/baridaars shall submit their suggestions with regard to the redevelopment, to the ld. Administrator within 15 days of obtaining the layout plan. Pursuant to the same, such parties shall appear before the ld. Administrator on 4th June, 2022 at 5 P.M., by which time all the suggestions of the pujaris/baridaars shall be submitted. On the said date, the ld. Administrator would consider the suggestions given with respect to the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir," the Court added.
Delhi High Court Asks Sharjeel Imam To Approach Trial Court Seeking Interim Bail In Sedition FIR
Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v. The State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 496
The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted liberty to Sharjeel Imam to approach the Trial Court seeking interim bail in an FIR against him involving the offence of Sedition under sec. 124A of Indian Penal Code, in view of recent Apex Court order wherein the sedition law has been kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.
The development came after Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the interim bail application before the High Court, submitting that according to a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, the bail application has to be moved in the first instance before the Special Court and if aggrieved, an appeal would thereafter lie before the High Court.
'Can't Direct Legislature To Amend/ Broaden Any Law': High Court Dismisses Plea To Include Group A, B, C & D Officers Under Delhi Lokayukta Act
Case Title: Help India Against Corruption v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 497
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Group A, B C and D officers of the Delhi government within the scope and ambit of the Delhi Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1995.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed that it is not for the Courts to issue a writ of mandamus to the legislature to either enact or amend the law in a particular way, as may be required by the Petitioner.
" A government functionary indulging in corruption activities, first of all it is a Criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is also subject to departmental inquiry. So it is all covered...We can quash a law if it is unconstitutional. We can interpret the law. But we cannot direct enactment of the law," Justice Sanghi said.
Case Title: Ketan Ribbons Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 498
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, while directing the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to pass the fresh assessment order, held that the taxpayers have an independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order.
The Assessing Officer had extended the timeframe for filing objections to the show cause notice and draft assessment order dated April 22nd, 2021, from April 26th, 2021, to May 17th, 2021. The Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order dated May 23, 2021 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in violation of the principle of natural justice.
Case Title: M/S Chhavi & Ors v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 499
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal pertaining to admission in B.Sc. Nursing courses, challenging the notification issued by the National Testing Agency (NTA) that made clearing of NEET-UG examination a prerequisite. The appeal was preferred from the order of a Single Judge, refusing to interfere in the matter.
A Division Bench bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta noted that the case of the appellants is no different from the earlier decided case of Saloni Yadav where it was held that there is no infirmity in NTA's decision to include a mandatory eligibility condition of qualifying the NEET-UG as a pre-condition for admission in Military Nursing Service courses.
It held that merely because the appellants are desirous of competing for B.Sc. (Nursing) as opposed to the Military Nursing Service, it makes no difference. It noted that the distinctions sought to be drawn by the appellants between the courses are wholly irrelevant.
Real Estate Appellate Authority Can't Initiate Suo Moto Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PRAVEEN CHHABRA v. REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 500
The Delhi High Court has held that the Real Estate Appellate Authority cannot possibly be recognized as conferred with the power to initiate proceedings suo moto or on its own motion.
Analyzing the relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Justice Yashwant Varma added that the Appellate Tribunal is a creation of statute and that it is not an authority which may be recognised as being vested with inherent powers.
"Regard must also be had to the fact that the Appellate Tribunal is not part of the hierarchy of traditional judicial institutions which constitute the judicial system of our country. It is an appellate forum whose origin and formation stems from the provisions of the Act. It is in that sense an adjudicatory authority which owes its existence and authority to a special statute," the Court observed.
Titles Of Films Are Capable Of Being Recognised Under Trademark Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT AND ANR. v. YOGESH PATEL AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 501
The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a contention that titles of films cannot be registered under Trademark Law and has held that the word 'SHOLAY' being the title of an iconic film cannot be held to be a mark devoid of protection.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that certain films cross the boundaries of just being ordinary words and the title of the film 'SHOLAY' is one of them.
"Titles and films are capable of being recognised under trademark law and in India 'SHOLAY' would be a classic example of such a case," the Court said.
It added,
"If there is one film that transcends generations of Indians, it is 'SHOLAY'. The said film, its characters, dialogues, settings, box office collections are legendary. Undoubtedly, 'SHOLAY' is one of the biggest, record-breaking films that India has ever produced, in the history of Indian cinema...The mention of the word 'SHOLAY' immediately creates a connection with the movie 'SHOLAY'. There are industry estimates which claim that, although the words 'SHOLAY' may have a dictionary meaning in Hindi (specifically, 'burning coal'), upon the movie going public, the word 'SHOLAY' came to be associated only with the film."
Thus, it awarded Rs.25,00,000/- as costs and damages to Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd. and Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd. which holds rights in the film.
Case Title: A-One Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Energy Efficiency Services Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 502
The High Court of Delhi has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to return of Court Fess when the parties are referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the benefit of Section 16[1] of the Court Fees Act would only be available to the plaintiff when the parties are referred to arbitration for settlement in terms of Section 89 of the CPC and not under Section 8 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: JAI KUMAR JAIN AND ORS v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 503
The Delhi High Court has condemned the practice of lodging FIRs on frivolous and minor issues, adding that the Judicial system and state resources are already heavily burdened and litigants must be conscious of their actions.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Jasmeet Singh added that such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety.
"Parties before lodging an FIR, must have due regard as to not only the nature and gravity of what offences they are alleging but also the state and police resources that go into investigating those matters, which are ultimately put up before court to only be quashed," the Court said.
Case Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. WWW.HINDUSTANTIMES.TECH & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 504
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of HT Media Limited which runs news publications in various languages under the registered trademark Hindustan Times, against a rogue website using a deceptively similar domain name.
Passing an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of HT Media, Justice Pratibha M Singh restrained the use of www.hindustantimes.tech, consisting of the word 'Hindustan Times'. It also restrained the website from publishing any content including articles, stories, columns, reviews, etc., being in violation of HT Media's copyright.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD & ANR. v. M/S JINDAL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 505
The High Court of Delhi held that the arbitrator cannot re-write the terms of the agreement between the parties merely because they flout business common sense.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that an award wherein the arbitrator re-work a bargain between the parties merely because it is commercially difficult for one party to perform the same would be against the fundamental policy of Indian Law and vitiated by patent illegality.
The Court held that when the agreement confers on one party the right to place an additional order on the same terms and conditions during the currency of the contract, the condition under the agreement must be given effect to and the arbitrator cannot negate the mandate of such a stipulation.
Case Title: Sanjay Roy versus Sandeep Soni & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 506
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitral award that is not in consonance with the judicial decisions and principles laid down by the courts of India would be in violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law and thus in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, upheld the order of the Single Judge setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 on the ground that the Arbitrator had failed to apply the basic fundamental law as contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The High Court of Delhi has held that the provisions for the quantum of damages under Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (LARR Act) would apply to arbitrations under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948.
The Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla has held that the provisions of the LARR Act being beneficial in nature would also apply to all the pending arbitrations under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act.
The Court further held that only the provisions qua the quantum of compensation under the LARR Act are made applicable and the arbitrator appointed under Section 7 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act would continue to determine the amount of compensation and not the collector under the LARR Act.
Case Title: Suresh Chand Gupta Versus State of Govt. Of NCT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 508
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be initiated under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act as valuation of the goods is less than Rs.1 Crore.
The single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has observed that the department has not examined any witness to prove its case against the petitioner. The Court below while passing the summoning order has not assigned any reason for summoning the petitioner.
The Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed a criminal complaint under Section 132 and 135 (1)(a) of the Customs Act, before the Trial Court. The complaint stated that intelligence reports have been received that M/s Elgin Electronics, of which petitioner was the Proprietor.
Can't Compel Party To File Documents On Which It Did Not Rely Except For Certain Specific Eventualities Mentioned In CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KRISHAN KAKKAR v. KIRAN CHANDER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 509
The Delhi High Court has observed that no Court can compel a party to file documents on which the party did not choose to rely, save and except in respect of certain specific eventualities for which provisions are contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that in any litigation, the choice of the documents which are to be brought on record is the sole prerogative of the party who files the documents.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging orders dated 8th July, 2021 and 6th May, 2022, passed by the Additional District Judge in a civil suit.
The order dated 8th July, 2021 rejected an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in in the suit, seeking dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Towards the conclusion of the impugned order, the ADJ directed the respondent to file two documents.
Case Title: SANJAY SINGH v. SUKHPAL KAUR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 510
Observing that the Courts have to march in sync with the latest developments in technology, the Delhi High Court has said that the reluctance of the judges to conduct virtual proceedings is not in alignment with the technological advancements.
Adding that the system of conducting Court proceedings through video conferencing is being encouraged by the Apex Court as well as the High Court, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed thus:
"It is thus expected of the judges in the District Courts also to ensure that such a system of conducting the proceedings through video conferencing is put to usage. Virtual proceedings provide an opportunity to modernise the system by making it more affordable and citizen friendly, enabling the aggrieved and/or litigants to access justice from remote parts of the country and the world."
Case Title: NIZAMUDDIN KHAN v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 511
The Delhi High Court has observed that matters regarding liberty of a person have to be dealt with cautiously and that a balance has to be struck between respect for his fundamental rights and free and fair investigation as well.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma made the observation while granting bail to a man in an FIR registered under sec. 376D, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
It was the case of the complainant, real sister of the petitioner, that the incident in question had allegedly taken place in March 2019. When a query was put to the counsel for the complainant regarding reason for the delay in lodging of the FIR, it was stated that since it was a sensitive relationship, at the instance of their father who had unfortunately passed away in October, 2021, the complainant did not lodge any complaint.
Case Title: Amrish Gupta v. Gurchait Singh Chima
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 512
The High Court of Delhi held that a party cannot dispute the jurisdiction on account of non-existence of the arbitration agreement after submitting to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that generally, the arbitration clause contained in the main agreement would also fall when the validity of the main agreement is challenged and the dispute would be non-arbitrable.
However, when a party agrees to refer the dispute to arbitration and chooses to dispute only the main agreement without laying any challenge to the arbitration clause, it is deemed to have waived its objections qua the arbitration clause and it cannot contend that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
Case Title: SH JAGMOHAN KASHYAP v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not mutually exclusive.
Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the aggrieved person can seek interim maintenance before the Magistrate while also seeking a permanent maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
"The only caveat is that maintenance granted by one court will be factored in by the other court before granting or refusing maintenance," the Court said.
Case Title: JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE & CULTURE AND ANR v. PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 514
The Delhi High Court has observed that a party approaching the Court alleging contempt, cannot call upon the Court, in a contempt jurisdiction, to interpret the judicial order differently from the manner in which it reads and that only those directions which are plainly self-evident have to be taken into account to determine the violation or disobedience.
Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a plea alleging contempt of judicial orders passed in a trademark infringement case, thereby seeking direction to hold the respondents guilty of gross, deliberate and continuing contempt of the orders.
Case Title: HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TICTOK SKILL GAMES PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 515
The Delhi High Court has observed that the use of keywords for promoting a business using competitor's trademark would be violative of the rights of the trademark owner.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that there would be no difference in the use of trade marks as a keyword on search engines as opposed to use as a keyword on App store searches.
"So long as the key words are being used for promoting a business, using a competitor's trade mark, the same would be violative of the rights of the trade mark owner," the Court said.
Case Title: SH.PANNA LAL v. BHAGMAL KATARIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 516
The Delhi High Court has observed that the restoration applications are to be dealt with liberally as the right to represent one's cause before a Court is a fundamental right.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge which had dismissed a restoration application filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended, in the restoration application, that on the date when he was absent for the hearing, the proceedings were taken up virtually and that he was unable to join the proceedings.
The Senior Civil Judge, in passing the impugned order, had proceeded solely on the ground that, as per the dates of physical hearing, notified by High Court, the matter was taken up on physical hearing on 30th October, 2021 when the petitioner was absent.
Case Title: KARIM HOTEL PVT LTD versus KAREEM DHANANI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 517
Coming to the aid of Old Delhi's popular Mughlai food outlet "Karim's", the Delhi High Court has restrained Mumbai based businessman Kareem Dhanani from opening any further restaurants under deceptively similar marks, till August 8.
Justice Prathibha M. Singh further directed Dhanani to ensure that in the restaurants run by him or by his franchises, no representation is made to the customers that it is associated with the Karim's at Jama Masjid.
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 518
Observing that fairness and legitimacy need to imbue all governmental affairs, the Delhi High Court has observed that it is imperative that no further exemptions be granted to or lenience be shown to National Sports Federations who are not complying with the Government of India's National Sports Code, 2011.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that no NSF or Sports Entity should be seen to be receiving benefits which are unjust.
Private Schools Must Fill Up Backlog EWS Seats In Next 5 Yrs: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL AND ANR v. VENKATESHWAR GLOBAL SCHOOL AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 519
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government to make every endeavour to ensure that the backlog of unfilled EWS seats in private schools, both on private and government lands, is filled-up in the next five years in a phased manner; i.e., 20% of the vacancies each year, in addition to the mandated annual 25% intake.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan further directed the Delhi Government to ensure that the 25% seats in the Economic Weaker Section (EWS) category students shall be filled up on the basis of declared sanctioned strength at the entry level, irrespective of the actual number of students admitted in the General category.
Case Title: COLORBAR COSMETICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FACES COSMETICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 520
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Canada based company Faces Cosmetics from selling and manufacturing its products under the mark 'Velvette Matte' in the trademark infringement suit filed by Colorbar Cosmetics.
Justice Pratibha M Singh granted ad interim ex parte injunction in favour of Colorbar Cosmetics Private Limited by restraining Faces Cosmetics India Private for manufacturing, selling and offering for sale cosmetics and other products under the mark 'VELVET MATTE' or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark VELVET MATTE, till September 19, the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Panipat Jalandhar National Highway 1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 521
The High Court of Delhi has held that multiple arbitrations with regard to existing claims on same contract are to be avoided.
The Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that permitting the parties to have multiple arbitrations for the adjudication of the existing disputes related to the same contract would entail multiple observations.
The Court further held that there is no absolute bar in terms of Entry 22 to the Vth Schedule against the appointment of the same person as the arbitrator in more than two arbitrations within a period of three years.
Delhi High Court Permits Actress Jacqueline Fernandez To Travel Abroad For IIFA Event
Case Title: ED v. Jacqueline Fernandez
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 522
The Delhi High Court yesterday upheld a Trial Court order which had granted permission to Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez to travel abroad to Abu Dhabi, UAE for IIFA Awards events. The development comes in backdrop of a money laundering case being probed by Enforcement Directorate involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain however modified a condition in the trial court order to the extent that the actress shall submit an FDR of Rs. 1 crore alongwith an undertaking that in the case she did not return to the country, the said FDR shall be forfeited in favor of the agency before the concerned Court alongwith surety of Rs. 1 crore.
Case Title: NEHA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 523
The Delhi High Court has observed that insistence of spousal consent for organ donation would impinge upon the right of the wife to be in control of her own body.
Interpreting relevant provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 as well as Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Justice Yashwant Varma further added that a spouse cannot be recognised in law to have a superior or supervening right to control a personal and conscious decision of the donor
Case Title: Shalen Bhardwaj v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 524
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Police to take action against its officials who are found not following Covid-19 masking policy and violating Motor Vehicles Act by not wearing helmets while riding their vehicles.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed,
"Police officers are equally bound by directions issued by DDMA, as any other citizen. We are of the view that they should lead by example."
Case Title: Gurjar Samaj Sarv Sangthan Sabha Ekta Samanya Samiti v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 525
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a plea against Akshay Kumar starrer "Samrat Prithviraj" for allegedly depicting the ruler as a Rajput King. The plea claimed that Prithviraj Chauhan was a Gurjar King. The film is set to hit the theatres on June 3.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta closed the matter after counsel for Yash Raj Films made a categorical statement that the movie is absolutely neutral and does not refer to any caste, either Rajput or Gurjar.
Case Title: Himanshu Shekar v. Prabhat Shekhar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 526
The High Court of Delhi has held that the embargo under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act would not apply to a distant relative of the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that in terms of Explanation 1 and Entry 9 to the Seventh Schedule r/w Section 12(5) only spouse, sibling, child, parent or life partner of a party would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
The Court observed that the father-in-law of the niece of the parties cannot be held to be a close relative of the parties to attract the rigours of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: CJDARCL LOGISTICS LTD. v. RITES LTD AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 527
The Delhi High Court today imposed a hefty cost of Rs. 12.5 crores on a private company namely SARR Freights Corporation, for concealing the information about its blacklisting in a tender matter and directed that the said cost shall be utilized for installation and operationalization of a smog tower before the advent of winter season in the city.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the amount of Rs. 12.5 crores shall be deposited by the company with the Registrar General of the High Court within 2 weeks.
The Court said that the smog tower shall be based on the same working and operational guidelines as the Connaught Place smog tower.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the amount of Rs. 12.5 crores shall be deposited by the company with the Registrar General of the High Court within 2 weeks.
Title: VIVEK KUMAR YADAV v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 528
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the final answers keys of the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2022, which was declared after considering the objections raised by various candidates.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed four pleas filed the candidates who were unsuccessful in being shortlisted to appear for the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination as the marks secured by them in the preliminary examination fell short of the specified threshold.
Case Title: BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR. v. NORTHERN REGIONAL POWER COMMITTEE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 529
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre through Ministry of Power to examine the rival claims and consider the validity of the right of the States of Haryana as well as Delhi for continued allocation of Dadri-II power plant.
Justice Yashwant Varma also asked the Centre to explore avenues which may safeguard the interests and projected needs of the two States and take an appropriate decision based on a holistic examination of all the facts that may be placed before it.
Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 530
The Delhi High Court has allowed NDTV promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel abroad between 1st to 30th August, 2022.
The development came in the backdrop of a Look Out Circulars (LOC) having been issued against the duo by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The LOC in turn was opened pursuant to the registration of two FIRs dated 2 June 2017 and 19 August 2019.
Accordingly, an application was filed by Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy seeking permission from the Court to permit them to travel abroad from August 1 to 30, 2022.
Case Title: SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 531
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by an accused in connection with the Jahangirpuri riots seeking directions on the city police not to harass him and his family members in the name of interrogation.
The plea was filed by one Sheikh Ishrafil, who is alleged by the prosecution to be one of the main conspirators and perpetrators of the entire incident, thereby adding that he was evading the process of law. His eldest son was sent to judicial custody, on allegations of being involved in the riots.
Case: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 532
The High Court of Delhi has held that acknowledgment of an amount as due and payable under the ledger/statement of accounts, constitutes a fresh cause of action and extends the period of limitation.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the period of limitation for an amount that is shown as outstanding in the book of accounts would get extended from the date of such acknowledgement in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Title: SANJIT BAKSHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 533
The Delhi High Court has observed that taking of cognizance is a judicial function and that the judicial orders cannot be passed in a mechanical or cryptic manner.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has added that at time of taking cognizance, a Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the proposed accused or to evaluate the merits of the material collected during investigatio or to pass a detail order giving detailed reasons while taking cognizance. The Court added that the order taking cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind.
Case Title: RAJESH KAPOOR v. OFFICE OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 534
The Delhi High Court has upheld a circular stipulating that the city's district court employees can be allowed to visit a foreign country only during Summer Vacations, Winter Vacations, Public Holidays and in case of any exigency.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed a plea challenging the order dated January 31, 2022 passed by the respondent, Office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, whereby it had rejected the application of the petitioner, who held the post of Senior Personal Assistant in the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge at Rohini Courts.
Case Title: SMT BABITA SHARMA & ANR. v. THE SHANKAR COOP. URBAN T/C SOCIETY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 535
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no mandate, in law or otherwise, requiring the executing court to decide the application under Order XXI Rule 26 of Code of Civil Procedure for stay of execution proceedings, on the very first day.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Executing Court is entitled to call upon the Decree Holder to file a reply to the application before taking a decision thereon.
Case Title: Juki India Private Limited versus M/s Capital Apparels Technology Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 536
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an MoU has been signed by the parties for settlement of dues arising under an agreement, arbitration can be sought for violation of the terms of the MoU, even if the MoU does not contain an Arbitration Clause.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that since the MoU was a part of the dispute covered by the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement, the dispute between the parties could be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 537
The Delhi High Court has held that mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted bail to nine accused persons who had approached the Court by way of filing an appeal challenging the Trial Court order denying bail to them in a matter involving offences under sec. 16, 18, 20 of the UAPA and under sec. 120B, 204, 409 and 471 of IPC.
Case Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 538
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Centre to ensure that monies, patronage and other facilities to National Sports Federations will be resumed only when they comply with National Sports Code, 2011 and judicial orders.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that the entire exercise of ensuring compliance is expected to be completed by the end of this month. However, in the interim, the Court said that the assistance provided to sportspersons through the Sports Authority of India will be ensured and wherever necessary, augmented.
CaseTitle: ADITI BAKHT v. ABHISHEK AHUJA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 539
The Delhi High Court has said that judges must not act in any manner which gives rise to slightest of doubt in the minds of lawyers and litigants as their conduct is noted and observed by the litigants.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma made the said observation while expressing displeasure over the conduct of a Family judge who had shared his personal mobile number with both the parties and admittedly met one of the parties in chamber, which had unnecessarily given a cause of reasonable apprehension of bias.
Case Title: SARITA BAKSHI v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 540
The Delhi High Court has observed that in India, a brother does not abandon his divorced sister and accordingly, the expenditure borne by him in supporting his sister must be taken into account while passing an order of maintenance in favour of his wife.
" There is no skepticism about the fact that the sister receives maintenance from her husband, but the brother cannot be a mute spectator to her misery if and when she needs his help. Some provision needs to be made in his list of expenditure to support her sibling...though while apportioning the income of the respondent, one portion of income of the respondent cannot be apportioned to the sister, some amount as expenditure on yearly basis has to be kept aside for the divorced sister as moral obligation of the respondent," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 541
Observing that the occupants of the dharamshalas and pujaris cannot claim a vested right to remain in city's Kalkaji Temple premises, the Delhi High Court has directed that such dharamshalas shall be vacated on or before 6th June, 2022.
Justice Pratibha M Singh, who was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning redevelopment of the temple premises, added that in case of failure to comply with the direction, the concerned SHO shall take steps, in consultation with the Administrator, to evict the said pujaris and the dharamshala occupants.
Case Title: ARSHAD AHMAD AND ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542
The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial offences, quashing of FIR is welcome as it shows that parties have decided to put an end to the lis as well as to the misery they undergo due to a matrimonial case pending between them.
"The fact that now-a-days Sections 376 and 354 of IPC are being used along with Section 498-A IPC, which later on are compromised and are brought to this Court for quashing, needs to be curbed," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further added.
IPR Suits Below Rs. 3 Lakhs Threshold To Be Listed First Before District Judge (Commercial) To Determine Whether Valuation Is Deliberately Undervalued: Delhi HC
Title: VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543
The Delhi High Court has held that in a case where a plaintiff values an IPR suit in the city district courts below the threshold of Rs.3 lakhs, such suits would be listed before the District Judge (Commercial) first in order to determine as to whether the valuation is arbitrarily whimsical or deliberately undervalued.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that it would be mandatory for IPR suits to be ascribed a 'specified value', in the absence of which the valuation of the suit below Rs.3 lakhs would be arbitrary, whimsical and wholly unreasonable.
"This Court is cognizant of the fact that the valuation of intellectual property is by itself a very complex process. It is clarified that the Commercial Court is not expected to value the specific IP on the basis of any mathematical formulae but to broadly take into consideration whether the said IP would be worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs, which is the threshold for the Commercial Court to exercise jurisdiction," the Court said.
Case Title: CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544
The Delhi High Court has observed that the opportunity of re-examination cannot be used to give a chance to a witness to undo its statement made in cross-examination and fill in the lacunae in evidence.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed seeking to injunct the defendants, who were occupants, from unlawfully entering any part of the first floor including the balcony of a Shop on the ground floor of the premises.
Issues were framed in the suit on 2nd August, 2019 and a Local Commissioner was appointed to record evidence of the parties.
Show Cause Notice Mailed To The Wrong Email Address: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter To The Assessing Officer For A Fresh Decision
Case Title: M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545
The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has remanded the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh decision as the department mailed the show cause notice to the wrong email address.
The petitioner/assessee submitted that the department alleged that the petitioner's claim for IGST Refund was incorrect and, hence, the amount "is required to be disallowed." An IGST refund, being a balance sheet item, is not a claim made in the profit and loss account and it cannot be termed as "income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment". Hence, in terms of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act as well as the first proviso to Section 148, the show cause notice was patently illegal.
Case Title: Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546
The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has quashed the reassessment order issued without considering the reply filed by the assessee.
The petitioner/assessee stated that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were void ab initio. The proceedings were initiated in the name of "Damian Estate Developers Private Limited", which was a non-existent entity as it had amalgamated with the petitioner company with effect from April 1st, 2016.
"Diabolic & Brutal": Delhi High Court Awards Imprisonment For Remainder Of Life To Three For Gang Rape & Murder Of 3-Yr-Old
Case Title: JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547
The Delhi High Court has awarded life sentence (for remainder of life) to three men for gang rape and murder of a three year old minor child observing that the same was done in a diabolic and brutal manner.
Upholding the conviction of the three, a division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna exercised its appellate jurisdiction by awarding life sentence under Section 376(2) and 302 of Indian Penal Code. It observed that the imprisonment of life for the remainder of life would be an appropriate sentence in the facts of the case.
The prosecution case was that an FIR was received 6th January, 2012 informing that a dead body of girl aged about 3-4 years was found in city's Ramesh Nagar. The body was found by an MCD sweeper who took it out while cleaning a nala. The same was identified later by minor's father.
Read Also: Trial Court Cannot Qualify Life Imprisonment Awarded By It To Remainder Of Natural Life: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Delhi High Court Awards ₹5 Lakhs Cost In Favour Of Hungarian Company 'Hell Energy' In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT. v. & BEN GROUPO PVT. LTD. & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 548
The Delhi High Court has awarded a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs in favour of a Hungarian Company engaged in the business of production and sale of energy drinks under the brand names 'HELL' and 'HELL ENERGY' in a trademark infringement suit filed by it.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed that the said amount be paid by July 15, noting the fact that mediation proceedings between the parties were not successful and also that the Defendants were ex-distributors of the company in question.
Case Title: INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (ITDC) v. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD. (BMEL)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 549
Observing that fairness of procedure is in public interest, the Delhi High Court has said that full disclosure of relevant facts and developments apropos a property or asset or a commercial entity, is expected for a fair commercial transaction, especially from entities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan further added that it is expected that actions of such entities would always be imbued with the spirit of fairness.
The Court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ITDC) under sec. 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing its petition under sec. 34 of the Act against an Arbitral Award.
Case Title: M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitrator holding that the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted at any other place, would not change the seat of Arbitration as provided in the Arbitration Clause.
The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the Arbitrator cannot decide anything contrary to what has been decided by the parties.
The petitioner M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels was awarded a contract by the respondent Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for hiring services. Thereafter, the respondent terminated the contract vide a notice. The petitioner issued a legal notice invoking the Arbitration Clause and called upon the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator.
Case Title: Charu Kain v. High Court of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 551
The Delhi High Court has held that a person of a reserved category, committing a bona fide mistake of applying under General category for an examination should be given an opportunity to rectify the same, so long as their action does not cause prejudice to any person.
In this case, the petitioner, who is currently posted as an Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services had appeared for the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2022 as a General Category candidate, instead of a Reserved category (SC) candidate due to a bona fide mistake. Here, had the petitioner been considered as a Reserved Category candidate (SC), she would make the cut off for appearing in the Mains examination as she had secured 119.5 marks, which was above the cut off (115.5 marks) for Reserved Category candidates. However, she did not make the cut off for the General Category which was higher than 119.5.
Slum Dwellers Rehabilitation: Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Non-Allotment Of Low-Cost Flats Under JNNURM Scheme
Case Title: In Re: Housing for the Poor in Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 552
The Delhi High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of non-allotment of flats constructed under Centre's Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Scheme, which was to be implemented by the Delhi Government, for rehabilitation of slum dwellers in the city.
Justice Pratibha M Singh noted that a large number of houses were either constructed or partially constructed but the same were yet to be allotted for rehabilitation of slum dwellers.
License Of Liquor Vend Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Because Public Sentiment May Be Opposed To Its Location: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE v. M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 553
The Delhi High Court has observed that unless the license of a liquor vend is shown to fall foul of any statutory provision or otherwise established to be in violation of any rule or regulation, the same cannot possibly merit cancellation, merely because "public sentiment" may be opposed to its location.
Justice Yashwant Varma further added that public opinion or sentiment is not a factor relevant or germane under the Delhi Excise Act for locating a liquor vend.
The Court was dealing with a petition preferred by the Department of Excise assailing the order of 28 June 2019 passed by the Financial Commissioner. The impugned order restored the excise license which was granted to the respondent, M/S 2 Bandits Restaurant, setting aside an order in terms of which the same had been cancelled.
Court May Note Objections On Oral Evidence During Trial, Admissibility To Be Decided While Pronouncing Verdict & Not At Time Of Examination: Delhi HC
Case Title: DUSHYANT KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 554
The Delhi High Court has observed that the question whether the evidence is to be included or excluded from consideration while pronouncing the final verdict is to be taken at the end and not at the time of examination.
Justice Jasmeet Singh added that where the Court finds that any question put by the defense is inadmissible or not relevant, it should record its observation and thereafter permit the witness to answer the question.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the rejection of questions by the Special CBI Judge of Rouse Avenue Courts, during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness in November 2021.
Case Title: PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555
The Delhi High Court has observed that a newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a writ petition filed by one Prakash Singh laying allegations of racial discrimination and harassment against Agence France-Presse, a French private international news agency, against him. The Court dismissed the plea as not being maintainable.
Advocate Raghav Awasthi appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the fact that Agence France-Presse was constituted by an Act of Parliament of France.
It was argued that its essential functions would indicate that it was an autonomous civil entity which had been constituted for the purpose to seek out, in France as well as abroad, the elements of a complete and objective information service and also to place that information at the disposal of users in exchange for payment.
Delhi High Court Orders To De-seal Business Premises, Directs Assessee To Produce Documents
Case Title: M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam S. Bamba has ordered the department to de-seal business premises and directed the assessee to produce documents.
The department has sealed the business premises of the petitioner under Section 67 (4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 for the want of documents.
As per Section 67 (4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017, the officer authorised shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle or receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box, or receptacle is denied.
Delhi High Court Appoints Former Justice Pankaj Naqvi As Administrator To Handle Affairs Of Judo Federation Of India
Case Title: HARYANA STATE JUDO ASSOCIATION v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 557
The Delhi High Court has appointed former Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Pankaj Naqvi, as administrator to handle day to day affairs of Judo Federation of India.
Justice Yashwant Varma also directed that in the interim, the erstwhile President, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Federation shall extend all cooperation to the Administrator in conducting the affairs of the Federation.
"The Administrator shall be authorized to make appropriate arrangements for the governance of the Federation until elections are held," the Court added.
Case Title: MAMTA DEVI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 558
While quashing an FIR registered after a fight resulting in simple injuries, the Delhi High Court directed the complainant as well as the respondent parties to clean river Yamuna for a period or 45 days.
Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the parties to work with Delhi Jal Board Team under the supervision of Member, Drainage.
"At the end of satisfactory service, the petitioners and respondents will be given a certificate by Delhi Jal Board for Yamua Cleaning and this certificate by each of the petitioners and respondents must be placed on record within one week of their receipt," the Court directed.
Tendency To File Cases Of Outraging Woman's Modesty In Disputes Between Neighbours To Settle Scores Needs To Be Curbed: Delhi High Court
Case Title: TARUN AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 559
The Delhi High Court has observed that the tendency of filing cases of outraging modesty of a woman under Section 354 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, in the disputes between neighbours to settle scores needs to be curbed.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while quashing an FIR registered under sec. 354, 452, 506, 509, 354B and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The complainant had stated that the parties were neighbours and a dispute had arisen over some misunderstanding, pursuant to which cross FIRs were registered.
Case Title: DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. v. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 560
The Delhi High Court has observed that an institution which cannot pay its long outstanding salaries for years, which are statutorily due, draws attention to its financial stability and its right to continue as an employer.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan was of the opinion that it is for the State Government to look into the matter and ensure that the educational institutions comply with and conform to the strict norms of law.
The Court was dealing with an LPA filed by Delhi Sukh Gurudwara Management Committee concerning non-payment of outstanding amount to teachers paid under the Sixth Pay Commission for the past eight years.
Case Title: JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 561
The Delhi High Court has observed that the determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the husband and the standard of living that the wife was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income with reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law including the liabilities, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid.
The Court was of the view that the phrase "change of circumstances" referred to in Section 127(1) of CrPC is a comprehensive phrase which also includes change of circumstances of husband.
Case Title: YOGESH JAGIA v. JINDL BIOCHEM PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562
The Delhi High Court has observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that a Magistrate is the silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidences before summoning of the accused and must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a practicing Advocate enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi since 1991 and the Respondent Complainant was a real estate development company.
Case Title: MASTER DIVYAM BHATEJA THROUGH FATHER MR VINOD BHATEJA v. BHAI PARMANAND VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 563
The Delhi High Court has observed that while the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 guarantees the right to education, however, it nowhere provides that the said right can be unconditionally enforced against a private unaided school.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta upheld the validity of Rules 35 (Striking off the name from the rolls) and 167 (Name of the student to be struck off for non-payment of fees and contributions) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
The plea filed by a minor through his father had challenged the said Rules as being ultra vires to Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 21A read with provisions of Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 and contrary to the provisions of section 75 of Juvenile Justice care and Protection Act, 2015.
Case Title: UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 564
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, after the matter is remanded back to it by the Court under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not a fresh arbitral award that can be challenged by filing a separate petition under Section 34(1).
The Court observed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Delhi High Court for challenging the arbitral award, the matter was remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal by the Court, and that the Tribunal thereafter passed an order.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a party cannot be precluded from raising additional grounds, which had arisen as a result of the subsequent order passed by Arbitral Tribunal, to challenge the arbitral award.
Police Post Not A Place Where Public Servants Are To Be Attacked With Fire Arms, Dandas Or By Pelting Stones On Them: Delhi High Court
Title: NAVED v. THE STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565
While denying bail to a man accused of attacking a Police Post and firing at the police officials from an illegal weapon, the Delhi High Court has observed that the Police Post is not a place where the public servants are supposed to be attacked with fire-arms, Dandas and Lathis or by pelting stones on them.
Justice Talwant Singh was of the prima facie view that the FSL report showed that the man was holding a fire-arm in his hand. The Court also noted that a sub inspector, complainant in the matter, was the main target of the attack by the accused persons, who had sustained severe injuries.
The Sub Inspector was the Chowki In-charge, whose place of posting being the Police Post was attacked by a group of people, who were armed with Dandas, Lathis.
Case Title: Mukish v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566
The Delhi High Court has upheld life sentence awarded to a man for committing rape on a 4 year old minor girl within his close family.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an appeal filed by one Mukish, challenging the Judgment dated 28th November, 2019 and order on point of sentence dated 29th November, 2019 passed by POCSO Judge.
The Court had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and awarded sentence of Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000.
Title: BRINDA KARAT AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 567
The Delhi High Court has observed that hate speeches especially delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the constitutional ethos and violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also observed that the same is in blatant derogation of the fundamental duties prescribed under the Constitution and therefore warrant stringent peremptory action on the part of Central and State Governments.
The judgment began by referring to a shloka from Bhagwat Gita which states that whatever action is performed by a leader, common men follow in his footsteps; and whatever standards he sets by his acts, are pursued by his subjects.
"The persons who are mass leaders and occupy high offices must conduct themselves with utmost integrity and responsibility. Leaders elected in a democracy like that of India, owe their responsibility not only towards the electorate in their own constituency, but also towards the society/nation as a whole and ultimately to the Constitution. It is they who are the role models for the ordinary masses. Thus, it does not befit or behove the leaders to indulge in acts or speeches that cause rifts amongst communities, create tensions, and disrupt the social fabric in the society," the Court observed.
The observations were made while the Court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by CPM leader Brinda Karat and politician KM Tiwari against a trial court order rejecting their plea for registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the year 2020.
Case Title: Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 568
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where the underreporting of income allegedly done by the assessee is due to the re-computation of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, it would not amount to misreporting of income.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed that the underreporting of income by the assessee was due to the increase in the disallowance made under Section 14A, which was voluntarily estimated by the assessee and later recalculated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same material.
The Court held that in some cases underreporting of income may result in misreporting of income, however, the underreporting allegedly done by the assessee would not amount to misreporting of income.
Disclosing Elaborate Reasons For Passing 'Interception Orders' May Affect Intelligence: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 569
The Delhi High Court has observed that the disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness.
"The disclosure of elaborate reasons for interception orders would be against the modified disclosure requirements of procedural fairness which have been universally deemed acceptable for the protection of other facets of public including the source of information leading to the detection of crime or other wrongdoing, sensitive intelligence information and other information supplied in confidence for the purpose of government or discharge of certain public functions," Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.
The Court thus dismissed a petition filed by one Santosh Kumar who had challenged an order passed by Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30th January 2018 which permitted interception of his telephonic calls in the exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419 (A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules 2007.
Supplementary Chargesheet Must Disclose Novel Evidence, No Cognizance Where No New Material Discovered By Further Investigation: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SURENDER @ TANNU @ TANVA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 570
The Delhi High Court has observed that where no new material or evidence has been discovered by the further investigation, any cognizance taken by the Magistrate may be said to be in contravention to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that there has to be an extent of novelty in the report or Supplementary Chargesheet filed by the Investigating Agency, which leads to discovery of material or evidence in a manner which was not before the Court in the primary report or Chargesheet.
Case Title: THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 571
The Delhi High Court has observed that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction could grant an extension in filing a response to an FER (First Examination Reports), given that the applicant did not have the intention to abandon its patent application.
Justice Pratibha M Singh held that the consequence of a patent being abandoned and the Applicant being deprived of exclusivity for his invention, was quite extreme. Such a consequence should not be imposed on the applicant for no fault of its own.
Case Title: HANUMAN BENIWAL AND ORS. v. VINAY MISHRA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 572
The Delhi High Court has observed that alleging that the voting strategy of an individual or of a political party or their nominees has been sold off without any foundational basis, deeply causes irreparable harm, loss and damage to the reputation of such an individual or party concerned and clearly encroaches upon the right of privacy.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that while reputation is an integral part of the dignity of each individual, there is a need for balance between the freedom of speech and expression vis-Ã -vis the right to reputation.
Case Title: VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 573
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by an individual candidate seeking directions on the Election Commission of India to grant him permission to file Nomination for the candidature of Rajya Sabha Election 2022.
A vacation bench comprising of Justice Poonam A. Bamba rejected the plea of one Vishwanath Pratap Singh after observing that the date for filing of Nomination Forms for the polls were already over. The last date for submission of nomination was May 31.
"It is also not in dispute that the list of candidates for the aforesaid elections has already been published and the said elections are scheduled for 10.06.2022 i.e. today," the Court noted in its order dated June 10.
S.19 Prevention Of Corruption Act | 'Failure Of Justice' Is A Facile Expression, Courts Must Be Circumspect While Determining It: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DEVENDER GUPTA v. CBI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 574
In reference to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that a judicial order may be interfered with in case of irregularity in grant of sanction coupled with failure of justice, the Delhi High Court has cautioned,
"The criminal Court, particularly the superior Court, should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or it is only a camouflage."
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed a plea filed by a public servant named as an accused in a CBI case registered under sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act Against A Deceased Assessee Is Invalid : Reiterates Delhi High Court
Case Title: Davinder Singh Thapar versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 575
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of escapement of income from assessment, against a deceased assessee is invalid in law.
The Division Bench of Justices Jyoti Singh and Anoop Kumar Mendirattaobserved that though the notices were issued by the revenue authorities pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, however, the said order did not deal with the issue of whether the notices could be issued against the deceased assesses. Therefore, the Court quashed the notices issued by the revenue authorities against the deceased assessee.
Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order For Not Giving Opportunity To File Objection To SCN
Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited Vs DCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 576
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has quashed the assessment order as the assessee was not given an opportunity to file an objection to the show cause notice.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the reassessment notices for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 as well as the assessment orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax.
The petitioner contended that the notices and the orders were void as they had been issued in the name of 'Jindal Menthol & Investment Pvt. Ltd.', a non-existing entity as it had merged with the petitioner company with effect from April 1, 2013.
Summons U/S 160 CrPC Cannot Be Issued By Police Officer Without Registration Of FIR: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KULVINDER SINGH KOHLI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 577
The Delhi High Court has observed that summons or notices under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be issued by a Police Officer in order to set investigation into motion and that registration of FIR is must for the same.
Section 160 CrPC provides for a Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the said observation while answering the question as to on what stage a notice under Section 160 of Code can be issued.
The Court observed that without registration of FIR, an investigation cannot be said to have been initiated. Furthermore, it said that even for an enquiry to be held legal and valid, the Police Officer has to act in accordance with provisions of the CrPC and he may not act beyond his powers by conducting a preliminary enquiry without making a report to a Magistrate.
Plaintiff Not Entitled For Refund Of Court Fees If Parties Are Referred For Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: A-ONE REALTORS PVT.LTD. v. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578
The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaintiff cannot be entitled for refund of court fees in the event of an application under sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being allowed and the parties being referred for arbitration.
Justice Amit Bansal reiterated that a litigant is not entitled to refund of court fees in case of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
"On the same analogy, the plaintiff cannot be entitled for refund of court fees in the event of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being allowed and the parties being referred for arbitration. The rationale being that the plaintiff has invoked a wrong remedy of filing the suit when it should have invoked the arbitration proceedings," the Court observed.
Case Title: SAJID KHAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 579
The Delhi High Court has observed that in deciding the case of parity, the role attributed to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victim is of utmost importance.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta denied bail to one Sajid Khan accused in an FIR registered under sec. 392, 397, 411 and 34 of Indian Penal Code along with sec. 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
It was the case of the prosecution that in April last year, a PCR call was received regarding robbery at gunpoint. During investigation, the complainant informed that while he was present in the office at about 10 AM, 3 boys entered into the office and robbed an amount of Rs.9,98,170 from Mannapuram Finance Ltd. with the help of gun and knife and thereafter fled from the spot.
"Causing Financial Loss To Public": Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Using "Amazon" Trademark
Case Title: AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. AMAZONBUYS.IN & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 580
The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of online marketplace Amazon by restraining various vogue websites from using its trademark 'AMAZON'.
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained websites namely https://amazonbuys.com, its Facebook page by the name of Amazon Franchise' and https://estoreamazon.in.
The Court was dealing with a suit filed by Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited and its affiliate arguing that its copyright subsisted in its Website and Domain Name i.e., amazon.in as well as in the overall 'look and feel' of the website 'www.amazon.in'.
Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 581
The Delhi High Court has granted time to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to ensure payment of the outstanding decreetal amount to Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) on or before August 5.
The development came in connection with the plea filed by DAMEPL seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017.
The High Court on March 10 had directed DMRC to pay the entire decreetal amount of over Rs 4,600 crore along with interest in two equal instalments in two months. The said order was upheld by the Supreme Court on May 5.
DAMEPL had then approached the High Court claiming that despite the direction of payment of the awarded amount, DMRC had paid only a sum of Rs. 166.44 crores to DAMEPL on March 14, 2022, and had not paid any amount thereafter.
'Momentary Lapse, Can't Affect Future Perversely': Delhi HC Grants Relief To NIFT Aspirant Who Inadvertently Disclosed Identity In Entrance Exam
Case Title: SAMRIDDHI KHANDELWAL v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 582
The Delhi High Court has observed that a momentary lapse on the part of the candidate must not be met with such a severe punitive action which would cause grave and irreparable prejudice and affect the candidate's future perversely.
Justice Sanjeev Narula granted relief to a candidate namely Samriddhi Khandelwal by directing National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) to allow her to join the counselling on the basis of her results of the online invigilated or remote proctored NIFT Entrance Exam, 2022.
The said Exam was divided into two parts – a written exam which was held on 06th February and a Situation Test which was to be held from 2nd April 2022 onwards.
Case Title: ANISH SINGH THAKUR v. THROUGH ANUBHAV GUPTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 583
The Delhi High Court has restrained a YouTube channel "Bear & Bulls Capitals" from posting any defamatory or derogatory material against another channel "Booming Bulls Academy", in any manner on any media platform till November 28th, 2022.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed by Anish Singh Thakur, the proprietor of "Booming Bulls Academy" which runs an academy that gives training on how to trade in the share market. The plaintiff had a channel on YouTube where the training videos are posted.
It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Anubhav Gupta also ran a channel on YouTube in the name "Bear & Bulls Capitals", which was its competitor.
Title: M/S K.B.G. ENGINEERS v. DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 584
The Delhi High Court has appointed former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Madan B. Lokur as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between a partnership firm namely M/S K.B.G. Engineers and Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd (DTTDC) from five different tenders for construction and renovation work in relation to various projects.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was of the view that there was a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties and that none of the disputes sought to be raised by the firm were ex-facie non-arbitrable.
The petitioner firm had approached the High Court by way of filing five petitions under sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes in question.
Plea Of 'Passing-Off' Can't Be Negated Solely On Ground That Plaintiff Had Asserted Trademark Rights In Registered Designs: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED v. PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR.
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 585
The Delhi High Court has held that a plea of passing-off cannot be negated solely on the ground that the Plaintiff had asserted trademark rights in the registered designs. A composite suit seeking action in respect of both design infringement and passing off is maintainable.
A single judge bench comprising Justice Jyoti Singh observed that while it is trite that asserting trademark rights in registered designs makes the designs vulnerable, however, where the elements of the design are used as a larger trade dress get-up, presentation through its packaging etc., the passing off claim shall lie.
Right To File Objection To SCN Can't Be Denied Due To One Day Delay: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that the right to file an objection to the Show Cause Notice cannot be denied owing to a one-day delay.
The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notice passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The petitioner was given time till April 8, 2022, to reply to the show cause notice dated March 30, 2022. The order under Section 148A(d) was issued without taking the petitioner's request for adjournment or detailed response to the Show Cause notice into account.The order proceeded on the basis that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause notice.
Practice Of Filing Representations In An Attempt To Extend Cause Of Action To Overcome Delay Should Be Discouraged: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VINDHYA GURUKUL COLLEGE & ANR. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 587
The Delhi High Court has observed that the practice of filing representations, in an attempt to extend the cause of action as a ground to overcome the delay, should be discouraged.
Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Vindhya Gurukul College against the decision taken by Northern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 266th meeting wherein it was granted recognition for only 50 seats (one basic unit) of B.Ed. course, as opposed to the original decision taken in an earlier meeting wherein recognition was granted with an annual intake of 100 seats (two basic units).
The Petitioners had thus sought a direction to restore the recognition in terms of the original decision dated 20th May, 2016 or in the alternative, a direction to the Respondents to decide it's representations.
Case Title: SWASTIKA GHOSH v. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 588
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas filed by table tennis players Swastika Ghosh and Manush Shah seeking their inclusion in the list of 4 selected players for the men's and women's team for the Commonwealth Games 2022.
It was the case of the petitioners that their names were not included in the final selection list by the Selection Committee and the Committee of Administrator despite fulfilling the selection criteria as laid down by the federation.
Taking note of the fact that the Committee of Administrator had weighed different factors, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma refused to interfere in the same while in exercise of its power of judicial review
Rent Controller Cannot Call Upon Landlord To Carry Out Repairs Of Tenanted Premises Under Delhi Rent Control Act: High Court
Case Title: BABA RAHIM ALI SHAH & ANR. v. SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 589
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 whereby the Rent Controller can call upon the landlord to carry out repairs of the tenanted premises.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Rent Controller may permit the tenant to carry out repairs under sec. 44(3) if, after receipt of notice from the tenant in that regard, the landlord fails to repair the premises. The expenses may then be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord or be recovered from the landlord.
The Court thus dismissed a plea challenging an order dated 26th May, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby an application under sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with sec. 50 and 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioners (landlord), as the defendants in the civil suit, was dismissed.
Case Title: INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. INTRA LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 590
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained two manufacturers of the pharmaceutical products from manufacturing, selling, advertising and promoting the products using the trademark 'LOOZOUT', which was deceptively similar to the registered trademark 'LOOZ'.
Justice Jyoti Singh also restrained the manufacturers from manufacturing and selling products under any other mark which was identical or deceptively similar to 'LOOZ' or its variants so as to amount to infringement or passing off.
The suit was filed by Intas Pharmaceuticals Private Limited regarding trademark infringement by three defendants. While the suit was settled qua defendant no. 1, there was no appearance on behalf of the two manufacturers, who were defendant no. 2 and 3.
Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Retail Store From Selling Any Counterfeit Product Under 'Hettich' Trademark & Logo
Case Title: HEETICH MARKETING-UND VERTRIEBS GMBH & CO. KG., & ANR v. GUPTA STORE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 591
The Delhi High Court has restrained a retail store from selling any counterfeit product or any other related goods under the trademark and trade name HETTICH and HETTICH Logo.
Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Heettich Marketing-Und Vertriebs Gmbh & Co. against a retail store namely Gupta Store seeking to restrain it from infringing the trademarks 'HETTICH' and its logo.
It was the case of the Plaintiffs that the trade name and trademark HETTICH owes its origin to its founding father, way back in the year 1888. The Plaintiffs were a part of diversified group of companies, having operations in multiple countries across the world and engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling furniture, fittings, door hinges, runners, etc., which had led to the said mark becoming distinctive of their products and immense goodwill.
Case Title: DR. MAHENDRA SINGH RANA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 592
The Delhi High Court has directed All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to admit a doctor in its specialised course, namely M. Ch. Minimal Access Surgery & General Surgery, in the next academic session, commencing from July, 2022.
Justice Sanjeev Narula was of the view that justice would be served in allowing the doctor to join the said course and that to allow the seat to remain vacant for a super-speciality course would serve the interests of none.
"If a doctor, like the Petitioner, undergoes training for such a course, it would only prove a valuable addition to the healthcare system. This weighs heavily with the Court for granting the relief as prayed for," the Court said.
Case Title: Shubham Thakral Vs ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 593
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer as just 3 days' time was granted to respond to the income tax notice.
The petitioner/assessee has assailed the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order passed under Section 148A (d) for the Assessment Year 2018–19.
The assessee contended that only three days' time was granted to the assessee to respond, as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. Despite the fact that the annexure attached to the notice gave the petitioner eight days to respond, the e-filing submission portal was closed earlier, in violation of Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: ASLAM SHER KHAN v. NARINDER DHRUV BATRA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 594
The Delhi High Court has restrained Narinder Dhruv Batra from discharging functions as President of Indian Olympic Association.
A vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma added that the Senior Vice President will take over the duties and responsibilities of the President and shall also perform any other tasks or functions as directed by the President, the Executive Council or the General Meeting.
"This Court considers that the functioning of Sports Federation should be above any kind of doubt. The purity in the functioning of such federations are much more important, than the individual who hold the positions," the Court observed.
Delhi High Court Orders Suspension Of Domain Name, Blocking Of Website 'My Voltas Care' In Trademark Infringement Suit By 'Voltas'
Case Title: VOLTAS LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 595
The Delhi High Court has ordered suspension of the domain name as well as blocking access to the website www.myvoltascare.com in a trademark infringement suit filed by home appliance company- Voltas.
A vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma restrained owner of the website from using the registered and well-known trademark VOLTAS and its logo including the Website or listings on social media websites or e-commerce sites.
The Court was dealing with a suit filed by Voltas Limited seeking permanent injunction restraining one Ashok Kumar from infringing its registered trademark through the website www.myvoltascare.com.
Case Title: SEHNAZ v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 596
Granting relief to a woman convict, the Delhi High Court recently modified a suspension of sentence condition for deposit of surety bond to deposit of a personal bond instead, on account of her being unable to furnish the surety.
Observing that every day of freedom matters, Justice Jasmeet Singh was of the view that the accused cannot be made to stay in jail for the reason that she could not furnish surety.
'May Cause Mental Trauma': Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Child's 9 Days' Custody To Mother For Foreign Travel
Case Title: PANKAJ JAIN v. PARUL JAIN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 597
The Delhi High Court has observed that in matters relating to custody of children, Court has to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the children.
A vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated June 8, 2022 passed by the Family Court whereby the Court permitted the mother to take the child to Malaysia for a period of nine days.
The Family Court had added that the mother shall bring back the child to Delhi positively on July 3 for her to attend the school which would reopen after summer vacations. The had Court also directed both the mother and father to strictly adhere to the custody and visitation schedule in terms of its earlier judicial orders.
Case Title: Pink City Expressway Private Limited versus National Highways Authority of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 598
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) cannot be exercised for directing specific performance of the contract itself.
The Division Bench of Justices Jyoti Singh and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that a direction to the opposite party to extend the contract for a further period would amount to granting specific relief of the contract, which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The Court ruled that power under Section 9 can only be exercised for preservation of the subject matter of the dispute till the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Other Digests:
Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part I [Citations 1 - 300]
Delhi High Court Annual Digest: Part III [Citations 599 - 900]
Delhi High Court Annual Digest: Part IV [Citations 901 - 1216]
