- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Delhi High Court Annual Digest...
Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part III [Citations 599 - 900]
Nupur Thapliyal
27 Dec 2022 8:41 AM IST
![Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part III [Citations 599 - 900]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/12/26/750x450_450873-delhi-hc-annual-digest-2022.webp "Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part III [Citations 599 - 900]")
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 599 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 900Nominal IndexAshwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 599Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 600SH AWANEESH CHANDRA JHA v. ANIL PRASAD NANDA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 601JOHNSON JACOB v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 602DHRUV TEWARI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 603Gulati Enterprises...
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 599 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 900
Nominal Index
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 599
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 600
SH AWANEESH CHANDRA JHA v. ANIL PRASAD NANDA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 601
JOHNSON JACOB v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 602
DHRUV TEWARI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 603
Gulati Enterprises versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 604
MR. VIJAY GUPTA v. MR. GAGNINDER KR. GANDHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 606
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. REACON ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 607
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Punam Devi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 608
OSRAM GMBH v. TEJMEET SINGH SETHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 609
ANISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 610
SH. NARDEV SONI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 612
Social Jurist v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 613
DSIIDC v. H.R. Builders, FAO(OS)(COMM) 77 of 2022 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 614
VIJAY SWAROOP LAV v. MS NISHA RATHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 615
NIPPON A&L INC. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 616
Dr Nand Kishore Garg v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 617
Deepak Upadhyay v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 619
IMRAN v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 620
Umesh v. State (and other connected matters) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 621
3M COMPANY v. MR. VIKAS SINHA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 622
NIKHIL GUPTA v. TANU GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 623
NOVO NORDISK A S v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 625
BRIGHT LIFECARE PVT. LTD. v. VINI COSMETICS PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 626
CITICAP HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 627
ROHITASH v. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 628
Amit Sahni v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 629
MRS. ANUGYA GUPTA v. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 630
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. v. JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 631
HEMA GUSAIN v. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 632
BEST AGROLIFE LIMITED v. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 633
M/S. SPML Infra Ltd. versus M/S. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634
META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 635
DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 636
Fresenius Medical Care Dialysis Service India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerry Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 637
Pratyush Prasanna v. State NCT of Delhi and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 638
Mrs. Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 639
JA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD v. MS SITHARA ENTERTAINMENT & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 640
ANIL KUMAR TALAN v. STATE (GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 641
SHRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 642
Nishant Chawla v. TDSAT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 643
SMT. SHASHI SEHDEV v. SH. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 644
Triveni Healthcure Private Ltd v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 645
Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 646
National Research Development Corporation and Anr. versus Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 647
Swastik Pipe Ltd. versus Dimple Verma 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 648
DLF HOMES RAJAPURA PVT. LTD v. LATE O.P. MEHTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 649
ALOK TRIPATHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 650
BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS v. RAMA ARORA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 651
Vishwanath Kumar & Ors. v. National Testing Agency & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 652
SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 653
SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 654
NEHA SAINI AND ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 655
Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 656
Madan Lal Suryawanshi v. Tara Devi (now deceased through its LRs) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 657
VEENA JOSHI v. CPIO,CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 658
Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Rajesh Kumar Pasricha 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 659
MS. X v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 660
DILIP KUMAR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 661
JAMSHED ADIL KHAN & ANR. v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662
FIROZ AHMAD v. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663
Glitter Overseas and Ors. v. MMTC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 664
Rahul Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 665
KRANTI ARORA v. DIGJAM LTD & O.P. KHAITAN (HUF) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 666
Chithra N & Ors. v. AIIMS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 667
SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 668
Court on its own motion v. DGCA & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 669
ABHISHEK RAY v. R. PAUL AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 670
Sunil Bhatia Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 671
PRADEEP KUMAR v. SMT BHAWANA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 672
MR. NEERAJ BHASIN v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 673
SARVAN KUMAR ALIAS KISHAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 674
DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 675
PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 676
SANDEEP WALIA v. MONIKA UPPAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 677
KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS THROUGH REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 678
VISHESH TANEJA v. REETA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 679
National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 680
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 681
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 682
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 683
MS X THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 684
VIPUL AGGARWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 685
SMT USHA RANI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 686
HARJI ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 687
RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. HIS EXCELLENCY LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 688
TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 689
NITIN REKHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 690
MS. M VICTIM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 691
Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equipments Litd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 692
SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 693
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 694
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 versus M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 695
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 696
JAGBIR v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 697
HINA & ANR. v. THE STATE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 698
NOVI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. W1.123MOVIES11.COM & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 699
SATYANARAIN KHANDELWAL v. PREM ARORA And other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 700
UNITED SIKHS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 701
HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT v. SHRI BRAHM SHAKTI PRINCE BEVERAGES PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 702
KUSHAL ANAND v. MANDHIR SACHDEVA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 703
JINDAL KUMAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 704
NATCO PHARMA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 705
Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 73-1 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706
MANJU DEVI v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707
JAEWOO PARK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 708
AIREEN INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 709
SUSHIL KUMAR v. CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCY AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 710
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. Bhatia Engineering Company 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 711
Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. versus Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 712
DB CORP LTD v. SHAILJA NAQVI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 713
SRF Ltd. versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 714
MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. NEERAJ FOOD PRODUCTS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 715
ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 716
Easy Trip Planners Ltd. versus One97 Communications Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 717
Food Corporation of India v. Adani Agri Logistics Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 718
PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 719
MANOJ MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 720
SMT. POONAM BHANOT v. VIRENDER SHARMA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 721
M/S. Unicon Engineers versus M/S. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 722
RAJENDER PRASAD PANT v. M/S EXCHANGE AGENCIES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 723
Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 724
TV Today Network Pvt Ltd v. Newslaundry & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 725
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 726
DR. ABHINAV KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727
NAMANPREET S DHILLON v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728
HIMANSHU GOEL v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 729
NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 730
SOUMITRA KUMAR NAHAR v. PARUL NAHAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 731
ANIL SAMANIYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 732
Shyama Power India Ltd. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 733
Buildmyinfra Private Limited versus Gyan Prakash Mishra 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 734
KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. RAMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 735
SH D.C. NARNOLIA v. CANARA BANK AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 736
MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 737
FAUJI & ORS. v. THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 738
Ajit Kumar v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 739
PCIT Versus Mamta Agarwal 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 740
Jasmine Kaur Chhabra v. UOI & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 741
KANWAL NAIN SINGH MOKHA v. REKHA KHURANA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 742
N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 743
DWARKA COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 744
GURMITO v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 745
SHAKARPUR SLUM UNION v. DDA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 746
NEELAM CHAUHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 747
NEW RISE FOUNDATION REGD. CHARITABLE TRUST v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 748
Piyush Kumar Dutt v. Vishal Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 749
Airport Authority of India (Kolkata Airport) v. TDI International Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 750
Court on its own motion v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 751
Priyanka Taksh Sood & Ors. versus Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 752
DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 753
Anil v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 754
M/s Best Buildwell Private Limited Versus ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 755
AKASH AGGARWAL v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 756
V v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 757
KAMINI ARYA THROUGH PEROKAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 758
M/s Expeditors International Of Washingtion, Inc. Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 759
SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS TITU v. STATE OF UT OF CHANDIGARH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 760
SANTOSH KUMAR JHA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 761
THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 762
M/s Scholastic India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Kanta Batra 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 763
Miss Indira Uppal Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764
SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765
DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 766
GHULAM SARWAR v. SMT. NILOFAR KHAN & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 767
Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 768
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 769
Sanser Pal Singh v. UOI & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 770
SULEMAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 771
MAN SINGH v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 772
URMILA & ORS. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 773
EXTREME COATING PRIVATE LTD v. JOTUN INDIA PRIVATE LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 774
Rohit Madan v Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 775
PCIT Versus Punjab & Sind Bank 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 776
VIFOR INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 777
Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. versus Ircon International Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 778
TRIDENT INFOSOL PVT LTD v UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 779
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION v. ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 780
RAKESH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 781
RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 782
FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 783
MOHD AZIZUL v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 784
SYED SHAHNAWAZ HUSSAIN v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 785
Vinod Kumar Kila v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 786
SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 787
SUNITA & ANR. v. VIJAY PAL @ MOHD. SABIR & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 788
JOGINDER SINGH RAINA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 789
KAJAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 790
Ashish Kumar Srivastava v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 791
AUSTIN NICHOLS & CO INC & ANR v. GWALIOR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 792
FIJA & ANR. v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793
ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 794
KAILASH SEWANI v. MANISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 795
Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796
MEHTA TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. and other connected petitions 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 797
Ernst and Young U.S. LLP versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 798
Whatsapp LLC v. CCI, Facebook v. CCI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 799
Jahid v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 800
Overnite Express Ltd v. DMRC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 801
Case Title: DEVASRI BALI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDRY EDUCATION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 802
Baba Alexander v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 803
Diageo Brands BV & Anr. v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 804
Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 805
HANZLA IQBAL v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806
VISHV MOHAN v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 807
RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA v. MANJU BHATIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 808
SMT. SHIPALI SHARMA v. State & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 809
VED PRAKASH MANCHANDA v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENTBOARD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 810
SHRI B K PARCHURE v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 811
ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. v. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 812
SGT. NAVNEET KUMAR SINGH (977823-F) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 813
OM PRAKASH v. THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY (REGO.) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 814
BHARTI SAHANI v. STATE (GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 815
Rithala Education Society Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 816
PVR Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 817
Babuddin v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 818
Royal Orchids versus Kulbir Singh Kohli & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 819
ANIL KUMAR & ORS. v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 820
SANJAY SARIN v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 821
NEETU SINGH & ANR. v. TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822
Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 823
BOLT Technology OU v. Ujoy Technology Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 824
MS HNUNPUII v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 825
BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 826
SIKANDER SONI AND ANR v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 827
TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED v. SHENZHEN COLOURSPLENDOUR GIFT CO LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 828
Puri Constructions Ltd v. Shailesh Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 829
SIDDHAST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 830
Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 831
KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 832
SHARAFAT SHEIKH @ MD. AYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 833
BIRPAL SINGH v. NUTAN MARATHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 834
SARVESH MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 835
RATTAN MEHTA & ANR. v. GAYATRI SHAH & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 836
Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar Versus Commissioner of CGST 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 837
Geeta Poddar v. Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 838
SCOUTS AND GUIDES FOR ANIMALS AND BIRDS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 839
LEELA MATHUR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 840
Shivam Pandey v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 841
M/S VERVE HUMAN CARE LABORATORIES v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 842
DR. L. PRAVEEN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 843
Drooshba Fabricators v. Indue Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 844
HATHKARGAH LAGHU PATANG UDYOG SAMITI (REG.) v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 845
JEEVESH SABHARWAL v. ARUNA GUPTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 846
H.S. RAI v UOI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 847
Dr. Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 848
HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 849
CROSS FIT LLC v RTB GYM AND FITNESS CENTRE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 850
State v. Rahul 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 851
VRS Natarajan versus OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 852
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS GUILD (INDIA) v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL CIVIL AVIATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 853
Durga Prasad v. LG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 854
GURJEET SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 855
NARINDER KHANNA v. GOVT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 856
Konika Poddar v. SL Stephen's College & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 857
NARENDER @ LALA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 858
Punita Bhardwaj versus Rashmi Juneja 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 859
MAYANK GARG v. DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 860
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 861
NIKHIL CHAWLA v. THE COCA COLA COMPANY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 862
OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 863
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 864
BIMAL KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 865
Mujeeb ur Rehman v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 866
EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 867
MOHD SHAKEEL & ORS. v. MOHD ISLAM 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 868
ANEESH GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 869
RAVINDER SURI & ORS. v. DAYAWATI (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 870
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 871
MOHD ERSHAD SOLE PROPRIETOR EK AGENCIES v. REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 872
BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 873
MIZPAH CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 874
M/S MAAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. M/S MINDWAVE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 875
ACCURATE AUCTIONEERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 876
NATURAL FATHER RAVINDER SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 877
MOHD AHSAN v. CUSTOMS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 878
PHULGITA DEVI v. KRISHAN KMAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 879
NEW MILLENNIUM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 880
JAGAT SINGH NAGAR & ORS v. STATE & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 881
M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 882
RAKESH MALHOTRA v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORYOFINDIAAND ORS & other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 883
LOTUS PAY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884
SHREYA BHARDWAJ THROUGH HER GUARDIAN v. SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 885
SANJEEV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 886
SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR GARG v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 887
TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 888
GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 889
Touchstone Holdings Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 890
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT– 4(3) v. XIONGWEI LI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 891
AAKASH CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR and another connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 892
VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. vs KIRAT VINODBHAI JADVANI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 893
AMITA VASHISHT versus TARUN VEDI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 894
VINOD RAWAT v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 895
WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. vs RAAJ COMPUTER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 896
X v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 897
X v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 898
Court on its own motion v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 899
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 900
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 599
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Government to consider a representation regarding a plea for changing the Call Sign 'VT' (Victorian Territory and Viceroy Territory) written on Indian aircrafts.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad granted liberty to Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay appearing in person to approach the concerned Ministry by way of a representation and also directed the said Ministry for considering it in accordance with law in a reasonable period of time.
The plea argued that VT sign is a reflection of colonial rule and that India being a sovereign country cannot be a territory of the Viceroy. It also claimed that most of the countries which went through colonial servitude have got rid of such signs and launched their own code.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 600
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition moved by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking to prohibit or regulate the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs in the national capital.
Ashwini Upadhyay, who was appearing in person, stated before the Court that the liquor shops established in the city were near schools or hospitals or religious places and were established contrary to the provisions as contained under Delhi Excise Act, 2019 read with Delhi Excise Rules 2010.
At the outset, the Bench remarked "The statute is there and everyone has to follow the statute."
Case Title: SH AWANEESH CHANDRA JHA v. ANIL PRASAD NANDA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 601
"Lady Justice is blindfolded only so as to be non-partisan; but not to be blind to mischief, deception or fraud being played-out before it by dishonest litigants making a mockery of the judicial process," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani added that a Court is not a casino for a litigant to place a bet masquerading as a legal claim and to later withdraw from the proceedings if he finds he has a losing-hand.
The Court observed that no legal proceedings may be initiated by a litigant by way merely of a gamble as if placing a wager, from which the litigant may conveniently withdraw at any time, if matters are not going his way.
Case Title: JOHNSON JACOB v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 602
The Delhi High Court recently rejected the argument set forth by an official of the Delhi Police that the corruption allegations levelled against him cannot be investigated by the Anti Corruption Branch of the Delhi government for the reason that the agency falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
In doing so, Justice Jasmeet Singh relied on Anil Kumar v. GNCT of Delhi where it was held that since the Delhi Police personnel serve the citizens in the national capital and the functions of the agency substantially and essentially relate to the affairs of Delhi, the Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi government has the jurisdiction to entertain and act on a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of a Delhi Police officer, and to investigate and prosecute the crime.
Case Title: DHRUV TEWARI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 603
The Delhi High Court has observed that when a look out circular (LOC) of intimation is issued against a person, the authorities at the airport or any other port cannot restrain or detain such person on the pretext that intimation of arrival or departure is required to be given to the originating agency.
Justice Mukta Gupta observed that such an action would indirectly serve as a detentive or preventive LOC. It added that it is well settled that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.
Case Title: Gulati Enterprises versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 604
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a voluntary statement made before the revenue authorities cannot substitute a statutory pre-show cause consultation notice, as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as it stood before 15.10.2020.
The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the contentions of the revenue department that because the petitioner's authorized representative gave a voluntary statement before the concerned officer, the need for issuing a pre-show cause consultation notice was waived.
Case Title: SAMARPAL & ORS v. UOI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 605
While granting relief to five jhuggi dwellers in the city, the Delhi High Court has observed that when the poor and deprived knock at the doors of the Court, it is required to be sensitive and sensitised in equal measure.
Justice C Hari Shankar further observed that the Court is required to remain alive to the fact that such litigants do not have access to exhaustive legal resources.
" Law, with all its legalese, is worth tinsel, if the underprivileged cannot get justice. At the end of the day, our preambular goal is not law, but justice with all its legalese, is worth tinsel, if the underprivileged cannot get justice."
CASE TITLE: MR. VIJAY GUPTA v. MR. GAGNINDER KR. GANDHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 606
The Delhi High Court has held that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC casts an obligation on the litigant to carry out all such amendments as are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy.
A single judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the use of word "shall" later in Order VI Rule 17 is mandatory in nature.
Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. REACON ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 607
The Delhi High Court has held that an initial filing unaccompanied with mandatorily required documents could not be considered as a valid filing. Thus, the first date of filing has to be considered the date on which the petition is re-filed with all valid documents.
In this case, the petition was filed against an Arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The respondent in the present dispute opposed the petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The respondent submitted that the petition was filed after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the impugned award and the petitioner had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Punam Devi, CS(COMM) 504 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 608
The High Court of Delhi has held that in an action for infringement of a trademark once it is shown that essential features of the trademark are adopted by the defendant, the difference in layout, packaging etc. would be of no consequence.
The Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit for permanent injunction filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Plaintiff) to restrain Punam Devi (Defendant) from using the trademark RANBAXY LABORATORIES.
The plaintiff is involved in the manufacturing of speciality pharmaceuticals since the year 1978. In 2014 they acquired all the assets along with intellectual property of Ranbaxy Laboratories along with its intellectual property including the trademark RANBAXY and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED.
Case Title: OSRAM GMBH v. TEJMEET SINGH SETHI AND ANR. CS(COMM) 84 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 609
The High Court of Delhi has injuncted a party from using the mark 'OSRAM' on the ground that it indulged in the trafficking/hoarding of the trademarks.
The Single Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that it cannot turn a blind-eye to large scale illegality committed by the defendant who had admittedly filed 416 trademark applications and was not doing any genuine business under any of these marks.
The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark OSRAM.
The plaintiff claimed that it had adopted the mark 'OSRAM' in 1906 and the same was registered in the year 1946 under trademark no. 1112537 in Class 11 and the mark is still on the register in its name.
Case Title: ANISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 610
The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing Disciplinary Proceedings to continue ad infinitum would not only be highly prejudicial to an individual but is also destructive of the Rule of Law.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with cross petitions filed by one Anish Gupta against the Union of India.
Gupta was serving as Officer on Special Duty (Legal at the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs), when he was suspended in August 2013. He was served with a Departmental Charge Sheet/ Memorandum of Charge pursuant to an incident of July, 2013. Admittedly, no criminal investigation or prosecution was ever initiated or contemplated against him.
Case Title: SHIV LINGAM v. THE STATE AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 611
Calling it a "disturbing trend", the Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the practice of Trial Courts in entertaining the bail applications despite the pendency of the same before the higher courts.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also noted that at times, the orders are mechanically passed without any substantial change of circumstances and in complete disregard to the observations or the factors which weighed with the higher court in declining the bail.
The Court also added that the consideration of bail application by subordinate court despite pendency of an application with the higher court or without consideration of grounds of rejection of earlier application by higher courts, may be an utter disregard to judicial discipline.
Case Title: SH. NARDEV SONI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 612
The Delhi High Court has observed that the axiomatic delay in approaching the court disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
While dismissing a plea filed after an inordinate delay of 62 years in a land acquisition matter, a division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth further added that the Petitioners had accepted the enhanced compensation without reserving any right whatsoever and the law does not permit a person to approbate and reprobate at the same time.
15. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Ensure Uninterrupted Supply Of Sanitary Napkins In Govt Schools
Case Title: Social Jurist v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 613
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Government to ensure that there is uninterrupted supply of sanitary napkins to the girl students in government-aided schools under its Kishori Yojana.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation preferred by NGO Social Jurist through Advocates Ashok Agarwal and Utkarsh Kumar, raising concern in respect of halting the scheme.
It was stated that the Department of Education of the Delhi Government had adopted a scheme namely Kishori Yojana scheme whereby the girl students were to be provided with sanitary napkins. However, since January 2021, the distribution of the same was stopped, putting the girls students to great discomfort.
Case Title: DSIIDC v. H.R. Builders, FAO(OS)(COMM) 77 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 614
The High Court of Delhi has held that the objection regarding the excepted matter would be an after-thought if the same was not raised before the arbitral tribunal.
The Division Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.G. Engineers v. UOI (2011) 5 SCC 758 to hold that only the question of determination of the quantum of compensation for delay is an excepted matter and the issue if the compensation is payable is an arbitrable matter.
Case Title: VIJAY SWAROOP LAV v. MS NISHA RATHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 615
Observing that maintainability and clarity of averments in an application are two entirely different concepts, the Delhi High Court has observed that an application which may be unclear or wanting in requisite details, does not suffer from maintainability on that ground alone.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 24th March, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge in a civil suit to the extent that it dismissed an application filed by one of the Defendants under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order VII Rule 11 read with Order I Rule 10 and sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
CASE TITLE: NIPPON A&L INC. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 616
The Delhi High Court has held that amendments to a patent specification or claims prior to grant ought to be construed more liberally than narrowly. It added that the only consideration that must be kept in mind is that the amended claims are not inconsistent with the earlier claims in the original specification.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M. Singh opined that an invention before and after amendment need not be identical in case of amendment before acceptance "so long as the invention is comprehended within the matter disclosed".
19. High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Suspension Of Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain Amid ED Probe
Case Title: Dr Nand Kishore Garg v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 617
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking suspension of Aam Aadmi Party minister Satyendar Jain who is under judicial custody in connection with a money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by one Dr. Nand Kishore Garg, who has been the Member of Legislative Assembly of Delhi (thrice) from Trinagar constituency.
The petition also sought issuance of guidelines pertaining to resignation or suspension of the ministers if a minister is arrested beyond stipulated time period of 48 hours as per the practice being followed relating to the public servants in term of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.
Case Title: M/S Path2way HR Solutions v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 618
The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to hear a petition against non-availability of "popular and niche liquor brands" in the city.
The Petitioner, M/S Path2way HR Solutions, had approached the Court stating that even minimalistic brands like "Royal Stag" are not available with L1 licensees.
While refusing to hear the plea, single bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma observed that popularity of a brand is a "subjective" concept and is not something for the courts to adjudicate. The Judge highlighted that the Delhi government's excise policy talks about uninterrupted supply of liquor, "not Black Label".
21. High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Alleging Operation Of Illegal Slaughterhouses In Delhi
Case Title: Deepak Upadhyay v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 619
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking to ban the illegal slaughterhouses running in the Delhi NCR region.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that the petitioner failed to give appropriate details about the said illegal slaughterhouses.
"You have not given one single example of any illegal slaughterhouse. You want us to do fishing and roving enquiry in entire Delhi. Where is the list of slaughterhouses?," the Chief Justice remarked orally.
Title: IMRAN v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 620
The Delhi High Court has rejected a contention that according to Muslim law, since the victim has attained the age of puberty, the rigours of POCSO Act will not be applicable.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the statement of object of the POCSO Act states that the Act is aimed to secure the tender age of the children and ensure they are not abused and their childhood and youth is protected against exploitation.
Case Title: Umesh v. State (and other connected matters)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 621
The Delhi High Court has observed that Special Courts must, on their own, initiate action for grant of interim compensation to child victims at the earliest, without waiting for them to file an application for the same.
Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with a bunch of pleas wherein a predecessor bench had sought to streamline the process of supplying FIRs pertaining to commission of sexual offences to DSLSA, for the purposes of granting interim compensation to the victims.
The development came after the Court was apprised that when the applications are moved before the Special Court for interim compensation, it takes two to three hearings before any effective order is passed in the same.
Case Title: 3M COMPANY v. MR. VIKAS SINHA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 622
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts Act brings about a substantial change in the provisions relating to the period of filing of the written statement and the power of the Court to condone the delay in filing of the written statement as far as the commercial suits are concerned.
Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC prescribes that written statement has to be presented within thirty days from the date of service of summons, failing which, delay of not more than 90 days (from date of service of summons) may be condoned by the Court.
Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act makes an amendment to the provision qua commercial suits of a specified value to provide that written statement has to be presented within thirty days from the date of service of summons failing which, delay of not more than 120 days (from date of service of summons) may be condoned by the Court.
Case Title: NIKHIL GUPTA v. TANU GUPTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 623
The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court, in exercise of its revisional power, cannot be seen as controlling the day to day affairs of the Trial Court.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 2nd May, 2022 whereby the Trial Court had rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was of the view that due to pendency of matters in the courts, the practice of appointing local commissioner for recording of evidence is being encouraged for the expeditious disposal of the matters.
Case Title: HUDA ANSARI & ANR. v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 624
While refusing relief to three candidates in connection with NEET-UG examination 2021, the Delhi High Court observed that there is no right which stands vested in their favour as they had been erroneously declared "successful" due to a technological glitch.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed thus:
"Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether a right stood vested in favour of the Petitioners, who were erroneously declared to be successful candidates on account of a technological glitch. The answer to this question has to be in negative, as no candidate can be permitted to take benefit of an inadvertent error."
Case Title: NOVO NORDISK A S v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 625
The Delhi High Court has directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to ensure that the recommendations are duly signed by the members of the Opposition Board under the Patents Act, 1970.
As per rule 56 of the Patents Rules, 2003, the Opposition Board shall conduct the examination of the notice of opposition along with documents filed and submit a report with reasons on each ground taken in the notice with its joint recommendation within three months.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that in order to preserve the integrity of the recommendation of the Opposition Board, it is necessary to ensure that the names of the members constituting the Board are clearly reflected both on the cover page and on the final page where the members should append their signatures to the recommendation.
Case Title: BRIGHT LIFECARE PVT. LTD. v. VINI COSMETICS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 626
The Delhi High Court has observed that an advertising campaign can be granted protection in law, if it signifies the source and has become distinctive of the party while adding that the threshold for establishing distinctiveness would however be quite high in such a case.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that while distinctive elements in advertising campaigns can be protected by the Court, unless and until there is enormous distinctiveness and likelihood of confusion or deception, the Court would not grant an injunction against an advertisement campaign, as the same may stultify creativity.
Case Title: CITICAP HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 627
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely placing the Sale Deed on record will not absolve a party from its burden to establish its right to claim compensation in respect of a land when the fact of possession in its favour is not established from the documents available on record.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea seeking a direction against the authorities to hand over or restore back the vacant and peaceful possession of a land. In the alternative, the Petitioner also sought a direction against the authorities to acquire the land in question under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act, 2013.
30. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of AAP MLA Ajay Dutt In 2020 Assembly Polls
Case Title: ROHITASH v. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 628
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party MLA Ajay Dutt in the 2020 Assembly elections, thereby seeking fresh elections from the said constituency.
Dutt had successfully contested the Assembly Elections of Delhi (Vidhan Sabha) 2020 from the Assembly Constituency – 48, Ambedkar Nagar (SC), held on February 8, 2020 as a candidate belonging to the Aam Aadami Party. He was declared as the elected candidate from the said constituency on February 11, 2020.
The plea alleged that Dutt had intentionally given false information in the election affidavit inasmuch as he had affirmed that there were no Government dues payable by him in respect of Government accommodation.
Case Title: Amit Sahni v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 629
The Delhi High Court has been told by its administrative side that additional commercial courts will be functional within six months in the national capital and that efforts were being made to ensure that requisite infrastructure is made available for the same.
Taking the statement on record, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, seeking establishment of 42 Commercial Courts in the city, as notified by the Delhi government last year, to ensure speedy redressal of commercial cases.
Case Title: MRS. ANUGYA GUPTA v. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 630
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the mere fact that both the prior user and the subsequent user are registered proprietors is irrelevant for the purposes of examining who generated the goodwill first in the market and whether the latter user is causing misrepresentation in the course of trade and damaging the goodwill of the former user.
Justice Navin Chawla added that the action for passing off is premised on the right of the prior user generating goodwill and shall remain unaffected by any registration provided under the Trademarks Act.
CASE TITLE: PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. v. JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 631
The Delhi High Court has held that a design identical with or even materially similar to a pre-existing design should not be published or registered. A single judge bench of Justice Navin Chawla also held that mere trade variants of what is already in existence or what is common to the trade is not capable of being registered.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Philips Lighting Holding, filed two suits claiming rights in the design of what it refers to as a "T-Shaped LED Bulb‟. Referring to the products of the defendants (including Syska LED Lights), the counsel for plaintiff submitted that the same are infringing copies of its registered design and ought to be injuncted.
The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants (in both the suits) were also guilty of passing off their impugned products as that of the plaintiff's on account of a deceptively similar look, feel and trade dress of both the products.
Case Title: HEMA GUSAIN v. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 632
The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in it cannot be granted.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff can only be decided after the trial. Therefore, a trial would be necessary and so, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in the plaint cannot be granted.
The bench also reiterated that there cannot be any partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It added that either the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or there can be no rejection at all.
CASE TITLE: BEST AGROLIFE LIMITED v. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 633
In reference to the Patents Act, 1970, the Delhi High Court has held that non-consideration of grounds raised in a pre-grant opposition by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, per se constitutes violation of principles of natural justice.
The observation was made by a single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, more particularly in reference to Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which provides that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus is not an invention, unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.
Case Title: M/S. SPML Infra Ltd. versus M/S. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634
The Delhi High Court has ruled that if a party fails to file an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for referring the parties to arbitration within the time available for filing the first statement on the substance of the dispute, which would include a written statement in the context of a suit, the party would forfeit its right to apply under Section 8(1) of the A&C Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that the amendment to Section 8 of the A&C Act by the 2015 Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act cannot be considered in isolation, in view of the fact that the Parliament has also enacted the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which came into force on the same date as the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
The Court observed that by virtue of the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Commercial Courts Act, the Parliament has curtailed the outer time limit for filing a written statement in a commercial suit. The Court added that the said amendments were made to ensure expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes.
Case Title: META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 635
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Meta (formerly known as Facebook), the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained the use of marks namely 'facebake' and 'facecake', Facebook marks, Facebook Visual Presentation and any other 'Facebook‟ formative trademarks of the social media giant.
Justice Navin Chawla also awarded nominal damages of Rs.50,000 in favour of Meta Platforms Inc. and against the defendants. The Court also directed the defendants to pay cost of the suit to Meta.
Meta moved the Court after being aggrieved over the adoption of the mark "Facebake" by the defendant no.1, namely Noufel Malol, which was allegedly mimicking the visual presentation by copying the colour scheme, font, commercial impression, and overall look and feel of Facebook, and thus was intentionally trading off the significant goodwill established in "Facebook‟ marks.
Case Title: DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 636
The Delhi High Court has taken a serious view of a case wherein the Husband deliberately avoided service in the divorce proceedings filed by his wife in India, refused to appear before the Court here and filed a separate divorce case in Canadian Court.
Justice Amit Bansal passed an interim injunction against the husband restraining him from proceeding with the divorce suit filed by him before the Canadian Court.
Case Title: Fresenius Medical Care Dialysis Service India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerry Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 637
The Delhi High Court has held that arbitration can be invoked by the insured even after entering into a subrogation-cum-assignment agreement with an insurance company.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that subrogation does not put an end to the right of the assured to initiate legal proceedings against the wrongdoer, it merely allows the insurer to step into the shoes of the insured to recover the damages.
Case Title: Pratyush Prasanna v. State NCT of Delhi and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 638
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday disposed of a batch of petitions filed amid the surge in cases relating to COVID-19, seeking directions for dignified burial or cremation of dead bodies.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the detailed status report filed by the local bodies, indicating the steps taken for increasing the number of crematoriums and burial grounds in the city.
The Court noted that as per the status report, while the pandemic like situation is not in existence anymore, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has not received any complaint of any kind in respect of lack of facility to cremate or bury an individual.
Case Title: Mrs. Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 639
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to ensure that an adequate notice is given to candidates desirous of wearing a kara or kirpan, regarding the additional requirement for them to reach the examination centre one hour before the reporting time. The court directed that the notice must be given well in advance so that no undue hardship is caused to them.
Justice Rekha Palli directed thus while dealing with a plea challenging denial of entry to a Sikh woman, for an exam being conducted by DSSSB, for the reason of her wearing kara.
"It is expected that not only the DSSSB but all other recruiting agencies who conduct similar examinations will take appropriate steps in this regard well before the conduct of the examinations," the Court added.
CASE TITLE: JA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD v. MS SITHARA ENTERTAINMENT & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 640
The Delhi High Court recently vacated its earlier ex-parte injunction order against M/s Sithara Entertainment which barred it from releasing the Hindi-dubbed version of its Telugu remake of the Malayalam film "Ayyappanum Koshiyum". A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, while vacating the earlier order, held that the owners of copyright in a cinematographic work will have the right to both sub-title and dub their work.
"...by the operation of law, Defendant No. 1 in its own right as a copyright owner has a right to dub the Telugu film in any language including Hindi and Plaintiff cannot assert any right to restrain Defendant No. 1 from dubbing the Telugu film in Hindi", the Court observed.
The plaintiff JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, in this suit, had sought for permanent injunction restraining defendants from dubbing the Telugu film "Bheemla Nayak" in Hindi as the plaintiffs have the right for Hindi remake of the Malayalam original.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR TALAN v. STATE (GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 641
The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing fabricated allegations against the entire family in matrimonial disputes may lead to further misuse of process of law.
"If false implication by fabricated omnibus allegations against entire family in the course of matrimonial disputes and differences, is allowed, it may lead to further misuse of the process of law and assume serious proportions," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed.
The Court made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to father of a married woman in an FIR registered under sec. 182, 192, 195, 203, 389, 420, 469, 470, 471, 500, 120B and 34 of IPC.
Case Title: SHRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 642
The Delhi High Court has observed that steps have been taken by the Central Government to bring the de-notified nomadic tribes into the mainstream of the Country.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions to make proper scheme and its implementation so that the each and every member of the de-notified nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India.
It was the case of the petitioner that the members of the de-notified Nomadic Tribes, Semi-Nomadic Tribes and Nomadic Tribes like Banjare, GadiaLuhar, Bawaria, Nat, Kalbelia, Bopa, Sikligar, Singiwal,Kuchbanda, Kalander etc. were being neglected and had not been properly brought into the mainstream.
Case Title: Nishant Chawla v. TDSAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 643
The Delhi High Court has held that whereas the "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is a constitutional goal, however, there is no absolute application of the principle by default, within or across organisations/ departments.
A single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that organisations as well as the government have the liberty to set different pay scale, where they make a reasonable, valid and intelligible classification for employees placed at similar grades and work profiles.
"(There are) several considerations to be borne in mind while deciding the issue of parity between two posts, whether in the same organisation or across different organisations/ departments. There is definitely no mathematical application of the principle of parity and "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and it is the Courts of the country that have laid down various factors for deciding the question of parity amongst different designations," the bench observed.
CASE TITLE: SMT. SHASHI SEHDEV v. SH. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 644
The Delhi High Court has held that recall applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC cannot be allowed merely for filling lacuna in cross-examination by engaging a new counsel.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar further held that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution was intended to be used sparingly for keeping subordinate courts within bounds and not for correcting mere errors.
Case Title: Triveni Healthcure Private Ltd v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 645
The Delhi High Court has held that a Start-up company cannot claim relaxation in tender processes as a matter of right, especially in certain fields like health care that require past experience and other qualifications.
While dismissing a writ petition filed by a start-up supplier against Delhi govt's Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital, a division bench of Chief Justice SC Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held,
"The executive instruction does not make it mandatory for any establishment to relax the condition in respect of turnover and prior experience/ EMD as the word "may" has been used in the policy Circular dated 10.03.2016."
The executive instruction was issued by the Centre in March 2016, titled 'Relaxation of Norms for Startups and Micro & Small Enterprises in Public Procurement on Prior Experience – Prior Turnover Criteria.'
Case Title: Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 646
The Delhi High Court has held that the words "circumstances arising out of marital relationship" used in reference to filing of suit for injunction under Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would include not only the husband and wife but may also include the parents-in-law.
A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar made it clear that what is to be seen is not the relationship between the parties but whether the circumstances in which the suit is filed arose out of a matrimonial relationship.
If the answer to the aforesaid is in the affirmative, then the provision would apply and the Family Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with such applications for injunction.
Case Title: National Research Development Corporation and Anr. versus Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 647
The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the principal agreement is non-existent, the arbitration clause contained therein would still apply.
The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that since the issue of limitation and arbitrability was not conclusive against the party, the issue was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The petitioner National Research Development Corporation and the respondent Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited entered into a 'Programme Aimed at Technological Self Reliance' Scheme (PATSER Agreement), for development of a GPS. Under the said PATSER Agreement, the respondent was provided financial assistance for the development of the GPS. In terms of the PATSER Agreement, a Royalty Agreement was also entered into between the parties, which provided for details regarding the payment obligations of the respondent.
50. Arbitration Clause Contained In A Tax Invoice Is Binding: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Swastik Pipe Ltd. versus Dimple Verma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 648
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a tax invoice is binding between the parties.
Noting that the opposite party had earlier received similar tax invoices, against which it had made payments, the Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao ruled that the party could not disown the clear stipulation contained in the tax invoice with regard to any dispute being referred to arbitration.
Certain goods were purchased by the respondent Dimple Verma from the petitioner Swastik Pipe Ltd. on a running account basis. On the basis of tax invoices issued by the petitioner, part payments were subsequently made by the respondent. After the respondent failed to clear the dues, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the terms and conditions of the tax invoice. The petitioner filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
CASE TITLE- DLF HOMES RAJAPURA PVT. LTD v. LATE O.P. MEHTA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 649
The Delhi High Court has held that applications under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of legal heirs, or under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code for setting aside abatement of proceedings must be considered liberally. However, the delay in moving such applications must be sufficiently justified.
A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar further stated that any such delay must meet the threshold requirement which an application seeking condonation of delay is required to meet.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that a consumer case was preferred by the respondents against the petitioner herein before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The consumer case was filed as a joint consumer complaint, and was stated to have been preferred in a representative capacity for the benefit of entire class of persons having the same interest.
Case Title: ALOK TRIPATHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is the duty of legal services authorities to ensure that opportunities to secure justice are not denied to any individual for any reason whatsoever.
"The principal objective of these Legal Services Authorities is to provide free and efficient legal representation to those sections of the society that are unable to access the same on account of socio-economic," a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.
The Court was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by a lawyer on the panel of Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC), seeking direction on the State to provide with the scanned copy or hard copy of the FIR, Chargesheet, evidence or other trial court records of the Under Trial Prisoners (UTPs) on a request or application made in that regard.
Case Title: BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS v. RAMA ARORA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has observed that if a document produced during cross-examination of a witness is admitted or denied by the said witness, such a document cannot be returned and has to be necessarily placed on the Court file.
Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the civil suit under Section 151 of CPC for allowing them to place on record additional documents.
It was the case of the plaintiffs that during the recording of evidence of the defendant witness, the plaintiffs had presented the 'returned envelope' in front of the witness to verify those addresses. However, the Local Commissioner refused to entertain or put those envelopes on record.
Title: Vishwanath Kumar & Ors. v. National Testing Agency & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 652
The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by 15 students seeking to postpone the NEET-UG 2022 exam to be held on July 17.
"This is totally a misconceived petition. It's just because these are students, the court will not be harsh. Had it been anyone else, this would have been dismissed with costs", a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula orally said while concluding the hearing.
"The pressure can only be eased by self study, not by the manner you are doing this. I wish the students all the best", Justice Narula said.
At the outset, the bench asked the petitioners why they are approaching the Court now, when the schedule of the exam was known in April 2022.
The petitioners' counsel submitted that the admit cards were only issued recently and that the petitioners had been pursuing representations before various authorities.
"How can 15 students ask for rescheduling of the exam? Such petitions should be discouraged", Justice Narula said.
Case Title: SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 653
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) must create a mechanism by which any trademark owner who has an objection to the registration granted to any domain name, can approach the said DNR and seek cancellation or transfer of the same.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that the same ought to be fairly considered through the mechanism which ought to be independent and impartial, for eg., through an Ombudsman.
"If the cancellation/suspension/transfer as sought is not agreed to through the said mechanism, then the IP owner can avail of its remedies in accordance with law," the Court observed.
CASE TITLE: SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 654
With respect to a decree for the possession of immovable property, the Delhi High Court has held that if the Decree Holders are aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors, they must implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them.
A single judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed,
"The manner in which the Decree Holders took possession of the properties from the Objectors was ex facie unlawful. The Decree Holders were aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors and also the possession of the Objectors in the aforesaid portions of the suit property. Despite this knowledge, the Decree Holders did not implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them. Even after the decree was passed, no legal notice was served on the Objectors to vacate the property, nor were they made parties in the execution proceedings and straightaway they were dispossessed from the portions of the suit property, of which they had been in a settled occupation for a long period of time."
Case Title: NEHA SAINI AND ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 655
"An application under Order XII rule 6 cannot be disposed of in such a laconic fashion. There has to be some modicum of reasoning in the order, meeting the grounds in the application," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure states that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
Case Title: Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 656
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while exercising the power of judicial review in matters relating to tenders conditions or award of contracts, Courts must be slow in interfering with the decisions, unless they are perverse.
"If the decision relating to terms or award of contract is bona fide and in public interest, Courts shall not exercise its power of judicial review to interfere, even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tender is made out," a division bench comprising Chief Justice SC Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held.
The observation comes in a writ petition filed by the Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association seeking to quash the Notice Inviting Tenders (NITs) issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited and BSES Rajdhani Power Limited for award of Electricity Distribution Network.
Case Title: Madan Lal Suryawanshi v. Tara Devi (now deceased through its LRs)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 657
The Delhi High Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution does not ordinarily warrant interference with the discretionary exercise of power by trial courts in condoning delay.
A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed,
" It is only where, therefore, there is complete non-application of mind in condoning delay which is inexorable, or where no reasons for condonation of delay are forthcoming in the order passed by the Court below, that an Article 227 Court would ordinarily interfere."
CASE TITLE: VEENA JOSHI v. CPIO,CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 658
The Delhi High Court has held that the words "inspection of work" under Section 2(j) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 does not include "inspection of property" under its ambit.
Section 2(j) stipulates that right to information means the right to information accessible under the Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; etc.
A single judge bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that as such, the word "work" under the aforementioned Section is to be read in conjunction with the expressions "documents" and "records" and not property.
Case Title: Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Rajesh Kumar Pasricha
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 659
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a prima facie case alone does not entitle a party to relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that there were highly disputed questions of fact involved in the dispute relating to the interpretation of the agreement between the parties. Holding that the possible extent of the claim likely to be awarded to the claimant vide the arbitral award cannot be a foregone conclusion, the Court set aside the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the counter-claimant to secure a certain amount in an application filed under Section 17 of the A&C Act by the claimant for interim measures.
CASE TITLE: MS. X v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 660
Refusing interim relief to a 25 year old unmarried woman seeking termination of her pregnancy of 23 weeks and 5 days, the Delhi High Court has observed that an unmarried woman, whose pregnancy arises out of a consensual relationship, is clearly not covered by any of the Clauses under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003.
The petitioner's pregnancy would complete 24 weeks on 18th of this month.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, stands, and this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot go beyond the Statute. Granting interim relief now would amount to allowing the writ petition itself."
CASE TITLE: DILIP KUMAR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 661
The Delhi High Court has held that it is not within the domain of the Courts, sitting in judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and in the expert domain of a Selection Committee.
A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela observed that it cannot act as an Appellate Authority and substitute its own opinion where the Competent Authority as well as the experts comprising the Search and Selection Committee, who are competent to decide the eligibility and suitability for a given post, have carried out the exercise in due compliance with the relevant statutes.
CASE TITLE: JAMSHED ADIL KHAN & ANR. v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662
The Delhi High Court has held that as per Section 160 CrPC, for the purposes of investigation, a police officer cannot summon a person situated outside the territorial limits of his police station or at most the territorial limits of his adjoining police station.
The provision empowers Police officers to require attendance of witnesses.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Poonam A. Bamba observed, " From the plain reading of the sub-section (1) of Section 160 Cr.P.C, it is evident that for the purposes of investigation, a police officer can require attendance of a person situated within the limits of his own police station or that of the adjoining police station and not someone who is situated beyond the said territorial limits."
Case Title: FIROZ AHMAD v. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663
The Delhi High Court has observed that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by High Courts to monitor the progress of cases before lower courts.
"It is not possible for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to monitor the progress of cases before the fora below," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 seeking a direction to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to decide a case expeditiously, preferably on day-to-day basis and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
Case Title: Glitter Overseas and Ors. v. MMTC Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 664
The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High CourtThe High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the challenge to an arbitral award is dismissed by the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not mean that the court has concurred with the view of the arbitral tribunal.
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru the Court held that merely because a different view was taken in another arbitration and the challenge against the award was dismissed by the Court would not mean that the Court had concurred with the view of the tribunal. The decision of the Court not to interfere with the award cannot be held to be a binding precedent as the court has not decided the questions of law and facts on the merit of the case but merely dismissed the challenge because of the grounds under Section 34 were not met.
Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 665
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation raising safety concerns and seeking to stop flying services of Spice Jet Limited, in view of recent flight mishaps in the past two months.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"The Aircraft Act provides for a very robust mechanism in respect of the aviation industry and this Court cannot stop an airline to operate in the Country based upon the averments made in the PIL."
Moved by Advocate Rahul Bhardwaj, the plea had referred to seven incidents, three in May, two in June and two in the month of July wherein many of the Spice Jet flights encountered mishaps.
CASE TITLE: KRANTI ARORA v. DIGJAM LTD & O.P. KHAITAN (HUF)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the plaintiff in a suit, being 'dominus litis', cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief.
A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Sudhir Kumar Jain observed,
"Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance."
Case Title: Chithra N & Ors. v. AIIMS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 667
The Delhi High Court has held that there is no rational basis behind the classification created by AIIMS among candidates aspiring for admission into its M.Sc. (Nursing) course, merely on the basis of the mode of learning their graduate course.
It noted that the degrees of candidates who have undertaken B.Sc. (Post Basic) through distance mode are recognized by UGC as well as the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and that they have the requisite eligibility qualification for seeking admission to M.Sc. (Nursing) at AIIMS.
It held that the AIIMS Act cannot be expanded to include the power to override or disregard the qualification recognized by INC.
Case Title: SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 668
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking deletion of names of the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) who are languishing in jail due to some pending cases or those decided against them so that they do not participate in the voting process for the Presidential Election 2022, scheduled for today.
While dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjeev Narula said that he will be passing an appropriate order later.
The plea was filed by one Satvir Singh, a 70 years old self employed carpenter, who had furnished a Nomination Form for conducting elections for the post of President. The same was however rejected by the Election Commission of India.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. DGCA & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 669
The Delhi High Court has asked the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to periodically review its guidelines concerning wearing of face masks in flights, while also adhering to the guidelines issued by the Government of India on COVID-19 protocols.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of an application filed by Bridging The Gap Foundation through Advocate Somnath Bharti seeking impleadment in a a suo moto case registered by the High Court following the experience of Justice C. Hari Shankar while taking an inland flight.
It was noticed that the norms are not being implemented on ground with the seriousness with which they are framed.
CASE TITLE: ABHISHEK RAY v. R. PAUL AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 670
The Delhi High Court has held that the original producer, lyricist and composer of a music album is entitled to a decree of declaration to that effect.
A single judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh thus granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of TV music composer Abhishek Ray, claiming rights over music album 'Kamasutra - Moods of Love'.
Ray had approached the High Court against Showtimes Events (India) Pvt. Ltd., run by defendants R. Paul and Michael Menezes.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff was the original composer, lyricist, producer and author of various songs contained in the album 'Kamasutra- Moods of Love'. The defendants approached the Plaintiff and agreed to produce an international musical incorporating the music compositions contained in the plaintiff's album.
73. Bhushan Steel Case: Delhi High Courts Grant Bail To CA For Alleged Negligence In Stock Audit
Case Title: Sunil Bhatia Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 671
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a chartered accountant for alleged negligence in stock audit.
The single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the ex-promoters/directors and similarly situated chartered accountants have been granted bail, so there is no reason why the applicant should be treated any differently.
The applicant is a senior citizen and a chartered accountant by profession. The applicant has filed an application seeking a grant of bail.
The allegation against the applicant was that he was a chartered accountant and one of the partners at ASRN & Associates failed to perform his duty independently and diligently by not verifying the stock in transit. The applicant is accused of being in collusion with the office bearers of M/s Bhushan Steel Limited.
Case Title: PRADEEP KUMAR v. SMT BHAWANA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 672
"To deny maintenance to an estranged wife and child is the worst offence, even from a humanitarian perspective," the Delhi High Court has observed on Monday.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dismissing with a cost of Rs. 20,000 a petition filed by a husband challenging Trial Court order directing him to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 as a consolidated amount towards interim maintenance to the wife and child till the disposal of the matrimonial matter.
"The malafide intentions of an estranged husband is to depress his income as much as possible, for sadistic pleasure, of seeing the agony of someone, who has no choice, but to be dependent on him, may be dictated by egoistic propensity to also possibly teach his wife a lesson for not falling in line with whatever be his dictates. Matrimonial relationships can come to an end for a variety of reasons including ego clashes. It is time that there is a change in the attitude when litigation is filed by one spouse against the other," the Court observed.
Case Title: MR. NEERAJ BHASIN v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 673
The Delhi High Court has observed that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a senior citizen may claim a right of exclusive residence even though he or she may only be able to establish a "right" or "interest" in such property, even if such right or interest be lower than an exclusive ownership right.
"Ultimately, the authorities under the Act are obliged to take into consideration the mental and physical well-being and security of the senior citizens and pass appropriate orders of protection bearing in mind the predominant purpose of the Act," Justice Yashwant Varma added.
Case Title: SARVAN KUMAR ALIAS KISHAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men who were incarcerated for about 7 years and 2 months for having been allegedly found in possession of 21 KGs of 'ganja'.
Justice Asha Menon noted that the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence was 10 years rigorous imprisonment whereas, both the men were incarcerated since 26th May, 2015 i.e. for 7 years and 2 months.
"A certain latitude is possible in the present case," the Court said while granting bail to Sarvan Kumar and Ranjeet Kumar in an FIR registered under sec. 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Case Title: DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 675
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an employee will not be entitled to seek permanency or regularization of service even if he has continued on ad hoc basis for decades.
"It is also settled law that even if a Scheme has been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for decades, it would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation," Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed.
The Court was dealing with a plea concerning an advertisement issued by Delhi High Court dated My 25, 2011 inviting applications for filling up the positions of "System Officer" and "System Assistants" to be deployed in subordinate courts.
78. Coal Allocation Per Se Does Not Amount To "Proceeds Of Crime" Under PMLA: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 676
Observing that the allocation of coal cannot be viewed as proceeds of crime per se, the Delhi High Court has observed that only the gains that may be obtained from criminal activity which are concealed or projected to be untainted can form the subject matter of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Yashwant Varma was of the view that it cannot be said that the allocation of coal is property as contemplated under the Act.
"It is pertinent to note that the Act essentially seeks to confiscate properties and assets that may be derived or obtained from criminal activity and which may then be concealed. It is thus evident that it is only gains that may have been obtained by the utilization of the allocation which could have possibly been viewed as proceeds of crime," the Court said.
The Court also observed that the commission of a predicate offense is the precipitate step for initiation of proceedings under the Act and that the offense of money laundering must be tried and established separately.
Case Title: SANDEEP WALIA v. MONIKA UPPAL
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 677
The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial disputes, it is seen that parties often don't disclose their actual income to the court, purportedly to avoid the liability of maintenance. Thus, it is open for the Court to determine maintenance based on their status and lifestyle.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed,
" Even experience shows that actual income is normally not disclosed by the parties. Under such circumstances, it is always safe to come to a realistic conclusion considering the status of the parties and their lifestyle etc."
The observation was made wherein the husband had challenged an order of the Family Court West, partly allowing his wife's application under Section 125 CrPC and granting Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance.
Case Title: KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS THROUGH REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 678
The Delhi High Court has observed that in the law of trade marks, the threshold for extending exclusive rights to the shape of a product, is quite high.
"The shape by itself should immediately be identifiable with the source of the product. For trade mark registration of shape of a product, the same can only be granted if it has acquired a secondary meaning," Justice Pratibha M Singh added.
The Court was of the view that for trade mark registration of shape of a product, the same can only be granted if it has acquired a secondary meaning.
"Generally, the novel shape of a product which has aesthetic appeal is protectable under the law of designs, if the requisite conditions are satisfied. However, under the law of trade marks, the threshold for extending exclusive rights to the shape of a product, is quite high. The shape by itself should immediately be identifiable with the source of the product," it said.
Case Title: VISHESH TANEJA v. REETA
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 679
The Delhi High Court has observed that the provision of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for maintenance, is intended to fulfil a social purpose and that its object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by a husband against a Family Court order whereby an application under sec. 125(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent wife, was partly allowed.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent were husband and wife. After their marriage, matrimonial disputes crept up and they started living separately.
82. Delhi High Court Stays Ban On Levy of Service Charge by Restaurants on Food Bills
Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 680
Delhi High Court has stayed CCPA guidelines that prohibited hotels and restaurants from levying service charges on bills.
The said regulations instituted by the CCPA for the prevention of unfair trade practices and protection of customer interest state that-
"...Service charge is being levied in addition to the total price of the food items mentioned in the menu and applicable taxes, often in the guise of some other fee or charge. It may be mentioned that a component of service is inherent in the price of food and beverages offered by the restaurant or hotel. Pricing of the product thus covers both the goods and services component. There is no restriction on hotels or restaurants to set the prices at which they want to offer food or beverages to consumers. Thus, placing an order involves consent to pay the prices of food items displayed in the menu along with applicable taxes. Charging anything other than the said amount would amount to unfair trade practice under the Act."
83. CPC Contemplates Execution Of A Foreign Decree And Not An Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The High Court of Delhi has held that remedy before the foreign arbitral tribunal would not be inefficacious when the bulk of the assets of a party are located in India as the interim order in a foreign-seated arbitration is not enforceable under the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula also held that an interim award passed in arbitration with seat in India is enforceable under Section 17(2) of the Act, however, there is no provision in the Act for the enforcement of an interim order passed in a foreign seated arbitration, therefore, any meaningful interim relief related to assets located in India can only be granted by Indian Courts.
The Court also observed that an application for interim relief qua the assets located in India would not be efficacious before the seat court as well as its order can also not be directly enforced under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It observed that CPC only contemplates execution of a foreign decree and not an order.
Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 682
The High Court of Delhi has held that an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act for pre-award relief can also be filed before the Court where the assets of the respondent are located.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the Court for the purpose of Section 9 application in a foreign seated arbitration would be as provided under Section 47 of the A&C Act.
The Court held that not every disposal of an asset would justify the grant of interim measure. It further observed that financial condition alone cannot be the reason for attachment before the award.
Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, they cannot be presumed to have entered into an agreement to exclude the applicability of Section 9 of the A&C Act as provided under the proviso to Section 2(2) of the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula held that the words "an agreement to the contrary" appearing under Section 2(2) cannot be presumed or interpreted on the mere assertion of a party but the same must be clearly borne out of the agreement between the parties.
CASE TITLE: MS X THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 684
The Delhi High Court has permitted a minor victim of sexual assault to terminate her pregnancy of 25 weeks and 6 days old pregnancy.
Justice Yashwant Varma, while noting that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act deals with pregnancies which may only extend upto 24 weeks, highlighted that in exceptional situations, the Court could invoke its extraordinary powers to permit for such termination, even when the provisions of the Act, when strictly construed, may not sanction the same.
"This Court is of the firm opinion that if the petitioner was forced to go through with the pregnancy despite the same having been caused on account of the incident of sexual assault, it would permanently scar her psyche and cause grave and irreparable injury to her mental health. The Court cannot visualize a more egregious invasion of her right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution."
CASE TITLE: VIPUL AGGARWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 685
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 276-CC (Failure to furnish returns of income) of the Income Tax Act, except with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner/appropriate authority.
A single judge bench of Justice Asha Menon held,
" Since the law provides that without sanction u/s 278B of the IT Act, the Department cannot proceed against a person found liable to prosecute him for the offence under Section 276 CC of the IT Act, the present prosecution must fail qua the petitioner. In the absence of a specific sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, the learned ACMM could not have taken cognizance of the complaint against him and then framed charge against him. The edifice built without foundation must crumble. "
Case Title: SMT USHA RANI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 686
Observing that reason is the soul of justice, the Delhi High Court has said that any order passed, whether in the exercise of judicial or administrative powers vested in the authority, must be speaking.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that an order disposing of an application necessarily requires recording of reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at in the order and failure to give reasons tantamount to denial of justice.
"In fact, the insistence on recording of reasons is meant to further the principles of natural justice, and specifically for ensuring that justice must not only be done but it also be seen to be done... Recording of reasons also operates as a legitimate restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative power by any authority and as such is a facilitator of Rule of Law," the Court said.
89. Mere Extension Of Bank Guarantee Does Not Itself Extend Claim Period : Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: HARJI ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 687
The Delhi High Court has held that the invocation of a bank guarantee has to be done in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantee, or else, the invocation itself would be bad.
A single judge bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao further observed that where the terms of bank guarantee provide a period 90 days from the date of expiry of the defect liability period as provided in the contract, invocation of bank guarantee after expiry of such period is not permissible, merely on account of extension of bank guarantee.
Case Title: RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. HIS EXCELLENCY LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking clean and hygienic supply of milk to Delhiites as a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was apprised by counsel appearing for the petitioner that the cattle in the city were dying on roads and were feeding on polythenes.
The plea, which had sought directions on the Court to advise the LG as well as Commissioner of Police for ensuring clean supply of milk, had claimed that the abandoned and pathetic condition of cattle was affecting the health of city residents for the reason of cattle feeding on contaminated polythene food and sewage water.
Case Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 689
The Delhi High Court has observed that a professional broadcaster is expected to bear in mind the minimum precautions which must be exercised while broadcasting content which may cause distress and disturb the sensibilities of an "ordinary and prudent viewer".
Justice Yashwant Varma made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by TV Today Network Limited challenging an order issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in March this year imposing the penalty of warning under Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
The development related to a broadcast aired by the India Today channel in February last year showing an incident of an elephant being mercilessly beaten by its caretakers.
CASE TITLE: NITIN REKHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 690
The Delhi High Court has held that there cannot be retrospective application of Section 2(31) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014.
A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that for issues that had arisen with respect to a share purchase agreement in 2010, the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules of 1975 shall be applicable.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner paid Rs. 40,00,000/- to the Directors of Respondent Company for issuance of shares in the said company. The Respondent failed to allot the shares as promised and returned the money to the Petitioners. It is alleged that the Respondent Company failed to repay the interest accrued on the amount in question as per Rule 17 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, which imposes a penal interest of 18% per annum on the deposits accepted by a private company from the public.
Case Title: MS. M VICTIM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 691
While observing that Judiciary is not immune from criticism, the Delhi High Court has observed that such criticism cannot be based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments to intentionally lower its dignity and respect.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, who was dealing with an appeal raising allegations against Trial Court and High Court judges, issued notice to the counsel appearing for the appellant to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
"There is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but several Judges of this Court. This vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief. An unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing and unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court," the Court said.
Case Title: Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equipments Litd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The High Court of Delhi has held that an award wherein a lumpsum amount is awarded against the specified claims without adjudication of the claims is unsustainable.
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award a lumpsum amount against specified claims of a party merely to meet the ends of justice.
The Court also held that an application under Section 34(4) of the A&C Act would not be allowed to clarify the amount of damages when the same is not based on any calculation.
The Court further held that an arbitral tribunal cannot also summarily reject the counter-claim of a party merely because they are belated as long as they are raised within the limitation period.
95. Challenge To Presidential Election Can Be Heard Exclusively By Supreme Court: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 693
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a petition challenging Presidential election can only be decided by the Supreme Court.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the only remedy in relation to a Presidential election can be by way of an election petition after declaration of the result. Further, Section 14(2) of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act, 1952 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to hear such matters.
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 694
The Delhi High Court has observed that the definition of 'public authority' as contained under sec. 2(h) of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has no application in a service matter.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with an application under sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved in regular second appeal pending before it.
The application, moved by on Rakesh Kumar Sharma, sought initiation of criminal proceedings against Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Private Limited, for committing perjury as per the averments made in its counter affidavit.
97. Explanation To Section 14A Of Income Tax Act Will Not Apply Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 versus M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Explanation to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, added vide the Finance Act, 2022, cannot be presumed to be retrospective in nature since it is clarificatory in nature and alters the law as it stood earlier.
The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. versus CIT (2005), the amendment to Section 14A, which is "for removal of doubts", cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even if such a language is used, since it alters and changes the law as it prevailed before.
98. No Section 40(a)(ia) Disallowance In Case Of Short Deduction Of TDS: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi High Court has held that no disallowance under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is called for in the case of a short deduction of TDS and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) has to be based on cogent material or reasoning by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: JAGBIR v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 697
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because an act of sexual abuse results in tying of knot between the victim and the accused or in birth of a child, it does not mitigate the act of rape. It added that the consent of a minor is immaterial and inconsequential in law.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that the act of claiming consent of the minor by accused, after luring such minor and entering into physical relationship, cannot be treated in a routine manner for the reason that rape is not only a crime against the victim but against the entire society which leaves little option for minor child "but to toe the line of the accused."
Case Title: HINA & ANR. v. THE STATE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 698
"Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family," the Delhi High Court has recently observed.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela further added that the State is under a Constitutional obligation to protect its citizens especially in cases where the marriage is solemnized between two consenting adults irrespective of the caste or community.
"The Constitutional Courts under our framework are empowered to pass orders to protect the citizens specially in the cases of the nature to which the present dispute pertains. Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family. Our Constitution ensures it too. It is not only the duty of the State but also its machinery and the agencies which ensure law and order to ensure that no harm comes to the citizens of this country," the Court said.
CASE TITLE: NOVI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. W1.123MOVIES11.COM & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 699
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a suit by Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., operating the online video streaming platform Hotstar, filed against various rogue websites apprehending illegal and unauthorized telecast of 'The Big Bull' film before its release last year.
While the movie was slated for theatrical release on 8th April, 2021, the suit was filed on 22nd March 2021 seeking an injunction blocking various rogue websites.
Justice Pratibha M Singh, who decreed the suit after observing that it has served the purpose, ordered thus:
"Considering the nature of the present suit that was intended to protect the Plaintiff's investment in the film 'The Big Bull' and to ensure that no unauthorised online telecast of the film takes place, the suit has served its purpose. All the rogue websites have been blocked and domain names have also been de-activated."
102. Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
Title: SATYANARAIN KHANDELWAL v. PREM ARORA And other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 700
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that it cannot be said that there is any lack of clarity or ambiguity in sec. 19 of the 2018 Amending Act which categorically states that its provisions will apply to cases relating to commercial disputes filed on or after the date of commencement of the Act, i.e. May 3, 2018.
Case Title: UNITED SIKHS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 701
The Delhi High Court has observed that any individual or organization cannot be denied meeting with victim for providing necessary legal aid and assistance, if so required by the victim, to ensure delivery of justice and fair trial.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that the said proposition however comes with a caution that such meetings must not be used inappropriately for creating any "law and order" situation or arousing the emotions of a particular community in an adverse manner, thereby disturbing the public tranquillity or likely to cause breach of peace.
CASE TITLE: HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT v. SHRI BRAHM SHAKTI PRINCE BEVERAGES PVT LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 702
The Delhi High Court on Thursday decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Hungarian company seeking protection of its trademark 'HELL' used for energy drinks. The court also directed the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.30 lakh to the Plaintiff as costs and damages.
The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the Defendants were using the mark 'HELLxxx' in respect of energy drinks. It was mentioned that a pervious suit was filed by the Plaintiff wherein the Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction. Two Local Commissioners were also appointed in the said matter who seized large amounts of infringing products from the premises of the Defendants. The parties had, thereafter, settled their disputes and had entered into a settlement agreement.
CASE TITLE: KUSHAL ANAND v. MANDHIR SACHDEVA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 703
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Article 227 of the Indian Constitution does not confer appellate jurisdiction on the High Court. An implicit corollary is that the manner of exercise of its jurisdiction by the court or forum below cannot be gauged on the basis of submissions which were never advanced before it.
A single judge bench of Justice Hari Shankar observed that the power conferred on the High Court by Article 227 is a power of superintendence and not a power of judicial review.
Title: JINDAL KUMAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 704
The Delhi High Court has observed that subjecting a citizen to police scrutiny including verification of personal documents for no good reason would entail a serious invasion of his right to privacy.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by a complainant seeking directions on the Delhi Police to make enquiry for correct identification of private person, after both the parties indulged in a quarrel.
It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent in the kalandra proceedings was using different names and identities and therefore the police must fix his true identity.
The plea thus sought directions on the Delhi Police to make an enquiry in respect of Adhaar Cards, Voter Cards, Driving License and Pan Cards existing in the name of various names allegedly being used by the respondent individual.
CASE TITLE: NATCO PHARMA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 705
The Delhi High Court has held that the proceedings in a pre-grant opposition and simultaneous examination of a patent application cannot result in a situation where the pre-grant opponent is kept in dark about the developments taking place in the examination process of a patent application.
A single judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh observed,
"For example, when amendments are filed by the Applicant, an immediate decision ought to be taken on allowing or disallowing the amendment so that there is transparency and clarity as to what are the claims being considered by the Controller. A short and brief order should be passed in respect of the amendments which should be uploaded on the website of the Patent Office so that everyone concerned would know the decision on the amendment. In any event, if an amendment is being carried out during the pendency of a pre-grant opposition, the ruling on the amendment ought to be sent to the pre-grant opponent as well."
Title: Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 73-1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706
The Delhi High Court has held that the tax payment software has to be tailor-made according to the needs, aspirations, and legal rights of the taxpayers and not that the taxpayers' legal rights have to be tailor-made in accordance with the software being used by the Tax Department.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that as the petitioners have paid the taxes, they should be given credit for the challans paid on Form 3 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act (DTVSV Act). The order/communication rejecting credit of taxes deposited under the DTVSV on the hyper-technical ground that challans have been deposited under the minor head '200' instead of '400' is unfair, illegal, and contrary to the objective of enacting the DTVSV Act.
CASE TITLE: MANJU DEVI v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground offered to the dependant of a deceased employee is a mere concession and not a right.
A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,
" The whole object behind granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession and not a right."
The petitioner in this case was the wife of an en employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd who passed away while in service due to a Road accident. Through the petition, the petitioner sought compassionate employment for her son under the Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A of the HPCL Employee's Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme, as per which she was entitled to the benefits as her deceased husband would have received had he superannuated.
Case Title: JAEWOO PARK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 708
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR filed by a woman, working as a domestic servant in the Petitioner's house who is accused of outraging her modesty, following a compromise between the parties. However, it imposed a condition on the Petitioner to provide two fully functional computers each with printers in two schools run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
"I am of the view that the entire police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the petitioner and useful time of the police has been invested. The State resources have been unnecessarily overburdened. Hence the petitioner must do some social good for the benefit of the society," Justice Jasmeet Singh observed.
Case Title: AIREEN INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 709
The Delhi High Court has observed that the service of show-cause notice is a vital communication for an institute as it affords an opportunity to them to put forth their stand qua the alleged deficiencies, failing which adverse consequences are bound to follow.
"This opportunity is thus, crucial for the institutes whose recognition and operation are at stake," Justice Sanjeev Narula added.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the decision of Western Regional Committee taken at its 322nd meeting held from 23rd to 24th November, 2020 whereby the recognition granted to Petitioner institute namely Aireen Institution of Education, for B.Ed. course was withdrawn.
CASE TITLE: SUSHIL KUMAR v. CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCY AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 710
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that merely because a body is obligated to comply with various statutory requirements, that cannot be conclusive to answer the question of whether it is discharging a public function.
Justice Yashwant Varma observed,
"The fact that the cooperative society is registered under the Act or that the Byelaws or the procedure of elections owe their genesis to the Act and the Rules, would not be sufficient to hold that it would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. This Court also bears in mind the principles enunciated by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Behari Srivastava where it was pertinently observed that merely because the affairs of a society are controlled by the Registrar that would not make that body "State" as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution."
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. Bhatia Engineering Company
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 711
The High Court of Delhi has affirmed the order of the lower Court by which it had set aside an arbitral award for not awarding interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 which are mandatory provisions of the MSMED Act.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that once the arbitrator has held that MSMED Act applies to the dispute between the parties, it must assign reasons for not awarding interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.
Case Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. versus Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 712
The Delhi High Court has ruled that when the main relief claimed by the claimant has been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award an interim or ancillary amount, which is included under the same claim, in favour of the claimant.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that when the main relief is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, axiomatically, the interim relief ought to be rejected as well.
The petitioner Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. awarded a contract to the respondent Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for construction of a certain property. After a dispute regarding the payment of dues for the work done by the respondent arose between the parties, the respondent invoked the Arbitration Clause and the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed.
The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award partly allowing the claim of the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay a certain sum of money to the respondent. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Delhi High Court challenging the arbitral award.
Case Title: DB CORP LTD v. SHAILJA NAQVI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 713
The Delhi High Court has observed that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act/ SHW Act), a victim's delay in filing appeal against the inquiry report can be condoned if such a delay is properly explained.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that sec. 5 of the Limitation Act (which provides for extension of prescribed period in certain cases) would apply in respect of appeals which may be sought to be preferred under sec. 18 of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.
"It would be completely antithetical and inimical to the very scope and purpose of the SHW Act, if a Court were to refuse to condone a delay of as little as 36 days in an alleged victim of sexual harassment preferring an appeal under Section 18 against the report of the inquiry committee. Such a delay – if properly explained – should, clearly, not stand in the way of the appeal of the alleged victim of sexual harassment being decided on merits, by the authority competent to do so," the Court observed.
Case Title: SRF Ltd. versus Union of India
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 714
The Delhi High Court has directed the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) to issue reports on the expenditure incurred by the assessee SRF Ltd. for the relevant assessment years in Form 3CL within six weeks.
The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the DSIR is statutorily bound to issue the Form 3CL within 120 days in accordance with Rule 6(7A) (ba) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, certifying the expenditure incurred by the assessee on its in-house R&D units.
In terms of the guidelines issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), requiring in-house Research and Development (R&D) units to have valid 'recognition', the petitioner- SRF Ltd.'s in-house R&D units were granted recognition.
Case Title: MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. NEERAJ FOOD PRODUCTS
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 715
The Delhi High Court has passed permanent and mandatory injunction against a manufacturer namely Neeraj Food Products for infringement of Cadbury's trademark 'GEMS' by using deceptively similar mark and packaging 'JAMES BOND' which was inspired by the character 'GEMS BOND', as used by Cadbury for promotion of their product.
Justice Pratibha M Singh also awarded actual cost of Rs.15,86,928 in favour of Cadbury, observing that it had spent a substantial amount of money towards litigation in a suit wherein interim injunction was operating since 2007, including court fee, counsels' fees and miscellaneous expenses. Rs. 10 lakhs were awarded in damages.
118. Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking Details Of SC Collegium's December 2018 Meeting
Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 716
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal against the order passed by a Single Judge which had declined a plea seeking information regarding decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium in a meeting held on December 12, 2018.
A bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that the observations of the single judge did not require any interference and thus the appeal was dismissed.
The Court had reserved the order last week after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Appellant, activist Anjali Bhardwaj.
Justice Yashwant Varma, vide order dated March 30, 2022, dismissed the plea after noting that the disclosures made by the respondents seemed to indicate that no resolution with respect to the agenda items was drawn by members who constituted the Collegium on 12 December 2018.
Case Title: Easy Trip Planners Ltd. versus One97 Communications Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 717
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an interlocutory order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is not amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the remedy under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be available against the said order.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a party can approach the Court against an interim order passed in the arbitral proceedings only if the order is appealable under Section 37 of the A&C Act; and that in all other cases, the party has to wait for the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and the rendition of the arbitral award.
Case Title: Food Corporation of India v. Adani Agri Logistics Ltd. O.M.P. (COMM) 82 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 718
The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot alter the express terms of the agreement by applying the business efficacy test when there is no ambiguity as to the intention of the parties.
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that Penta Test as propounded by the Supreme Court in Nabha Power Ltd v. Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. is only for the purpose of determining the intention when the terms of the agreement are not express or silent on an aspect, and would have no application when there is no ambiguity as to the contract between the parties.
The Court further held even if the tribunal is of the view that the arrangement between the parties is inequitable, it cannot alter the terms of the agreement to work out an equitable bargain between the parties.
Title: PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 719
Observing that the writ of mandamus is not a remedy against private wrongs, the Delhi High Court has observed that such a writ's scope is against the private authority which might be performing a public duty limited to the enforcement of such public duty.
Further adding that the Court cannot interfere with the internal management of a private body in a writ of mandamus, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"It is well settled that a writ of mandamus lies only for the purpose of a public or statutory duty. Writs are issued for the performance of public duties. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India is worded in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority but such private authority must be discharging a public function and the right sought to be enforced must be a public duty."
CASE TITLE: MANOJ MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 720
The Delhi High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is limited to cases where the person holding public office did not meet with the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramoniam Prasad also noted that the Court cannot sit in judgement over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of person to be appointed so long as the person chosen is eligible for such appointment.
CASE TITLE: SMT. POONAM BHANOT v. VIRENDER SHARMA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 721
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court has the authority to give necessary directions under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC on the procedural aspect as regards which party will lead evidence first. The bench further noted that correction of a procedural order was an inherent power of the court and may be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process.
Justice Mini Pushkarna said,
" The unequivocal position that emerges is that if the defendants set up a case, which if decided, would decide the issues raised in the suit completely, then the defendants can be directed to lead evidence first under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC. "
Case Title: M/S. Unicon Engineers versus M/S. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 722
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) after the termination of conciliation proceedings, without taking the dispute up for arbitration or referring it to an institution or centre for arbitration, is a nullity and does not constitute an arbitral award. Therefore, the Court ruled that it cannot be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan reiterated that the proceedings for conciliation and arbitration cannot be clubbed.
Case Title: RAJENDER PRASAD PANT v. M/S EXCHANGE AGENCIES & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 723
The Delhi High Court has observed that the order passed by an authority cannot be displaced merely because High Court can take another opinion on the same material in writ jurisdiction.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further added that although the writ jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is wide, but the same has to be exercised in circumspection.
"This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence," the Court said.
The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the impugned order dated 19th May, 2022, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of four months' salary w.e.f. 19th April, 2018 to 12th August, 2018 was rejected.
Case Title: Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 724
The Delhi High Court has granted eight weeks time to the Delhi Government for taking appropriate decision on the recommendation given by Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) to declare a ban on medically unnecessary, sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants and children except in cases of life-threatening situations.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation, an independent Trust, which sought guidelines specifying the conditions when medical surgery on intersex infants and children can be performed.
Case Title: TV Today Network Pvt Ltd v. Newslaundry & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 725
While denying interim relief to TV Today Network in the defamation and copyright infringement suit filed by it against news portal Newslaundry, the Delhi High Court has observed that every broadcaster has the right of fair comment on current events and of criticism and review, including of the programmes created by others.
Justice Asha Menon further observed that the right to broadcast programmes would be included in the right to free speech and expression. However, it was added that a balance would have to be struck between the two rights, the right to free speech and right to reputation.
"The defendants No.1 to 9, in the present case, have however asserted another right and that is the unrestricted "right to comment". This right to comment on the content created by others is claimed by them as an exercise in public interest," the Court noted.
Case Title: BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 726
The Delhi High Court has observed that under the law of patent, "unity of the invention" or "plurality of inventions" and whether they form a "single inventive concept" has to be gleaned from a reading of the claims.
Going through various provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, Justice Pratibha M Singh said:
"The complete specification also describes the procedures, processes, methods, including the best methods. But what is crucial to note, is the fact that the invention itself is defined in the claims. While such claims do have to be based on the disclosure in the specification, however even if a person does not read the complete specification and wishes to identify the invention, the place to look for it is in the 'Claims'."
"The Invention thus resides in the Claims. Accordingly, "unity of the invention"/ "plurality of inventions" and whether they form a "single inventive concept" has to be gleaned from a reading of the claims."
Case Title: DR. ABHINAV KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging a regulation mandating minimum marks of 50th percentile in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) as a mandatory requirement for admission to postgraduate courses.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there cannot be any compromise with the quality of doctors or specialists as it involves a risk to human lives.
"…this Court emphasizes that the lowering of the standards of medical education has the potential of wreaking havoc on society at large due to the risk that practice of medicine entails; it involves in its ambit the matter of life and death, and therefore, it would be unconscionable for this Court to interfere in the standards duly and diligently set by the governing authority," the Court added.
Title: NAMANPREET S DHILLON v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a US citizen found in possession of live ammunition at the Indira Gandhi International Airport at New Delhi, without any valid license.
Justice Jasmeet Singh granted relief while noting that 'conscious possession' is a core ingredient to establish guilt for offences under the Arms Act, 1959. The bench however ordered the Petitioner to provide a kit of Mosquito Repellent and Hand Sanitizer to each student of a primary school.
"Since the police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the petitioner and useful time of the police which could have been utilised for important matters has been misdirected towards these petty matters, therefore, the petitioner must do some social good for the society," the bench said.
Case Title: HIMANSHU GOEL v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 729
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a rape FIR registered by a woman under misguidance and wrong advice after a compromise deed was filed by the parties, subject to the condition that she will do social service in a blind school for two months.
Justice Jasmeet Singh was of the view that the woman had been very unfair in her conduct and that the criminal justice system was put in motion on account of her whims and fancies which need to be deprecated.
"However, I cannot lose sight of the fact that respondent No. 2 is staying with her family and has 4 children (one daughter aged 12 years and a set of triplets aged around 3 years.)," the Court said.
Case Title: NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 730
The Delhi High Court has observed that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot issue directions after deciding the inter se rights of the parties, like a civil court.
Justice Rekha Palli observed:
"Merely because the Commission, for the purpose of carrying out investigations or enquiring into any complaint, has the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and, therefore, is entitled to issue directions inter alia for enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the country, receiving evidence on affidavits, cannot imply that the Commission is equivalent to a Civil Court or that it can like a Civil Court issue directions after deciding the inter se rights of the parties."
Case Title: SOUMITRA KUMAR NAHAR v. PARUL NAHAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 731
The Delhi High Court has observed that the pendency of a divorce petition and rejection of an application for maintenance in such petition, would not disentitle the wife to seek maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
Justice Yogesh Khanna was dealing with a plea filed by a husband challenging the order and the maintenance petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. pending adjudication before the Family Court.
It was the husband's case that the impugned order and the maintenance petition were in direct violation of the consent order duly clarified and reiterated by a Division Bench of High Court and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the Family Court, without appreciating the orders passed on the issue, in a mechanical manner had dismissed the application filed by the husband for dismissal of the maintenance petition filed by the respondent wife.
Case Title: ANIL SAMANIYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 732
The Delhi High Court has observed that since the State has expertise and confidential information to evaluate threat perceptions of individuals, it is the State's job to protect the life, limb and property of its subjects.
Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a plea filed by a retired police official who was the Investigating Officer of the famous Nitish Katara murder case, where the son and nephew of Former Minister D.P. Yadav were convicted and sentenced to 25 years in jail.
It was the petitioner's case that he was provided a security cover since 2002 and was to be withdrawn later when he retired on November 30, 2021.
On November 24, 2021, the High Court had provided the petitioner with security cover till the next date of hearing and issued notice to the Respondents.
Case Title: Shyama Power India Ltd. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 733
The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot reject the claim of a party for refund of Liquidated Damages (LD) as barred by time if it was inextricably linked to the issue of Extension of Time (EOT) on which the decision of the competent authority was pending.
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the period of limitation for the purpose of refund of LD would only begin from the date of the decision on the issue of EOT if the imposition of LD was contingent upon the EOT.
Case Title: Buildmyinfra Private Limited versus Gyan Prakash Mishra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 734
The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the Agreement containing an Arbitration Clause has not been signed by a party to the dispute, the parties can still be referred to Arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that it is not necessary for the written document to be signed by all the parties, as long as the existence of an arbitration agreement can be culled out from the exchange of letters or other means of communication between the parties.
The petitioner Buildmyinfra Private Limited issued an offer letter to the respondent Gyan Prakash Mishra to join its employment, which was accepted by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent signed a 'Confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreement'.
Case Title: KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. RAMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 735
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against KHADI BY HERITAGE, engaged in selling of PPE kits, hand sanitizers and fireballs, in the trademark infringement suit filed by KHADI observing that there was a "reasonable expectation" that the latter misused the former's trademark to promote its products.
Justice Pratibha M Singh awarded damages to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs and costs of Rs.2 lakhs in favour of Khadi & Village Industries Commission and observed thus:
"Such misuse of the Plaintiff's mark 'KHADI' cannot be condoned by the Court, inasmuch as the mark and the name, as also, the logo, have been identically used by the Defendants. The use by the Defendants is deliberate, conscious and mala fide in nature."
CASE TITLE: SH D.C. NARNOLIA v. CANARA BANK AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 736
The Delhi High Court has held that it cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Indian Constitution, in cases of departmental enquiries, re-appreciate evidence which has already been reasonably considered by the departmental authorities.
A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also noted that it was not up to the High Court to adjudge upon the proportionality of the punishment in such cases. It observed,
" It is not at all open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Equally, it is not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court."
CASE TITLE: MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 737
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court held that a member of a Rifles' Association or Club cannot hold more than two firearms by claiming exemption under Section 3(2) of the Arms Act 1959. Justice Yashwant Varma stated that more than two firearms could only be held by a member on a temporary basis if holding of the additional weapon was licensed to the club or association that the said member was a part of.
Briefly, the facts of the case were that the petitioner had acquired a firearm license and was a life member of the National and State Rifles Associations. He acquired a point 22 bore target pistol in addition to the point 22 Rifle and point 32 revolver, already endorsed on his license.
Case Title: FAUJI & ORS. v. THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 738
The Delhi High Court has quashed two cross FIRs lodged by neighbours alleging assault and use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the ladies involved in the fight between them, after the parties arrived at a settlement.
As the parties undertook to implement a water harvesting scheme at city's Fatehpur Beri village, Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the parties to provide necessary financial resources and manpower to install and implement the water harvesting system as well as to maintain the same for at least a period of 10 years.
Case Title: Ajit Kumar v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 739
The Delhi Government has informed the Delhi High Court that the registration of e-Rickshaws and procurement of Fitness Certificate as well as checking of violation of the said conditions is a regular ongoing process.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was also informed that regular checks are being conducted at various places in the city to ensure that each and every e-Rickshaw and e-Cart is plying only after obtaining the Fitness Certificate.
The Court was dealing with a public interest litigation stating that there are about 22,000 unauthorized autos and 52,280 unlicensed e-rickshaws presently plying on Delhi roads.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Mamta Agarwal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 740
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora held that if no incriminating material is found during the course of the search, then no addition can be made in the assessment under Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act.
The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department carried out a search and seizure operation against M/s K.R. Pulp & Papers Limited under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at various residential and business premises. The company was stated to be managed and controlled by Madho Gopal Agarwal, Raj Gopal Agarwal, and Gopal Agarwal. The statements of Gopal Agarwal were recorded, and the statements of Madho Gopal Agarwal were recorded during the post-search inquiry.
Case Title: Jasmine Kaur Chhabra v. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 741
The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that it is making all possible efforts to ensure creation of separate toilets for the use of Transgender persons and that the same will be done on a fast track basis.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was further informed by the Delhi Government that as many as 505 toilets meant for Persons with Disabilities have been designated for the use of Transgender or Third Gender persons.
The status report filed on July 27 by Delhi Government's Department of Social Welfare further stated that a total of 9 new toilets for the use of Transgender persons had already been constructed and that further construction of 56 more toilets was underway.
Case Title: KANWAL NAIN SINGH MOKHA v. REKHA KHURANA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 742
The Delhi High Court has observed that the cross-examination cannot encompass questions that are scandalous or intended to cause humiliation to the witness.
Justice Asha Menon further observed that while there is a right to ask questions of a witness to impeach his creditworthiness, it cannot descend to harassment and humiliation of the witness.
The Court added thus:
"Thus, it is clear that both examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts. The reason why cross-examination is not confined to the facts to which the witnesses testified is obvious. The witness who is examined-in-chief is from the side of the party who has called him. Therefore, his testimony would be, in-chief relating to the case of that party. But since the opposite side is also required to prove their case, the right has been given to such adverse party to put questions that would be beyond the examination-in-chief."
Case Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 743
The Delhi High Court has observed that once the employee is sent back to his parent department, it is the competent disciplinary authority of the parent organisation which can issue a charge sheet against the misconduct even though it has taken place in the borrowing department.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which had refused to grant relief to 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.
Case Title: DWARKA COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 744
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to fill up within a period of six months the vacant posts at Indira Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital in city's Dwarka area, noting that the deficit staff deserved to be recruited as early as possible.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed Delhi Government's Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Department to carry out a periodic review after every 6 months for enhancing the number of beds and also the manpower in the said hospital.
"The hospital in question is catering to the needs of the people in and around Dwarka and there is no other Government Hospital," the Court noted.
CASE TITLE: GURMITO v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 745
The Delhi High Court has held that speedy trial form an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution and the denial of same may be a ground for bail in certain circumstances.
The single judge bench comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that denial of bail without any possibility of the trial concluding anytime soon would cause an infringement of the accused person's right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since the case was instituted under the NDPS Act, the court also recorded satisfaction regarding twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the Act.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that an application was filed seeking release of an accused under the NDPS Act on regular bail till final disposal of the case registered by the CBI.
Case Title: SHAKARPUR SLUM UNION v. DDA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 746
Observing the action of Development Authority (DDA) in removing alleged encroachers 'overnight', the Delhi High Court has observed that persons cannot be evicted with a bulldozer at their doorstep "early in the morning or late in the evening" without any notice, rendering them completely shelterless.
Justice Subramonium Prasad further added that a reasonable period has to be given to such persons and temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities.
"The DDA has to act in consultation with the DUSIB before embarking upon any such venture and persons cannot be evicted with a bulldozer at their door step early in the morning or late in the evening, without any notice, rendering them completely shelter-less. A reasonable period has to be given to such persons and temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities," the Court observed.
Case Title: NEELAM CHAUHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 747
The Delhi High Court has observed that no arrest should be made merely for the reason that that it is lawful, thereby adding that the police officer has to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Satendar Kumar v. CBI which has discussed compliances of sec. 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1943, Justice Anu Malhotra was of the view that the said provisions have to be adhered to by the Investigating Agency in the event the police officer considers it essential to arrest the accused persons.
"It is essential to observe that the said provisions come into play at the time of arrest of a person and the requirement of calling upon a person to appear before the police officer on his having credible information or where there is a reasonable suspicion of that person having committed a cognizable offence," the Court said.
Case Title: NEW RISE FOUNDATION REGD. CHARITABLE TRUST v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 748
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on an NGO alleging illegal and unauthorised construction in city's Neb Sarai area, observing that it was unfortunate that PIL forum was being used for blackmailing citizens.
Observing that it was a blackmailing type of litigation, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the NGO to deposit the cost to Army War Widows Fund within a period of 30 days.
The PIL was filed by New Rise Foundation Regd. Charitable Trust, claiming that it provides shelter to orphan children and food to the poor, alleging that an illegal structure was in existence admeasuring 600 sq. yards.
Case Title: Piyush Kumar Dutt v. Vishal Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 749
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in the annexure to the main agreement would be binding on the parties to that agreement.
The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that in view of Section 11(6-A) the justiciability of claims and the defences can only be determined through adjudication by the arbitrator.
152. Arbitral Tribunal Has The Power To Vacate/Modify Its Earlier Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Airport Authority of India (Kolkata Airport) v. TDI International Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 750
The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitral tribunal would be guided by the principles of O. 39 R. 1&2 of CPC while considering the issue of vacation/modification of an interim order.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the tribunal does not have the power of substantive review of its order, however, it does have the power to vacate or modify the conditions of the interim order.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 751
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to ensure that legal aid is extended to persons covered under the Act with promptitude, in order to avoid any inconvenience to them.
The Court closed the suo moto proceedings in the nature of public interest litigation which were initiated on its own motion based on a May 23 letter of Advocate Neha Rai, who highlighted the current state of affairs regarding implementing the said Act.
154. Remedy Under RERA Act Is Not A Bar For Initiation Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Priyanka Taksh Sood & Ors. versus Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 752
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute involving refund of payment under the 'Flat Buyer Agreement' from a real estate developer is arbitrable and is not barred by the existence of a concurrent remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the remedies available under the RERA Act are in addition to, and not in supersession of, the remedies available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and that the application of concurrent remedies under the A&C Act is not barred under the RERA Act.
Applying the 'Doctrine of Election', the Court ruled that since the party had not initiated any proceedings under the RERA Act, therefore, it was not barred from electing to avail the remedy of arbitration.
Case Title: DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 753
The Delhi High Court on Thursday observed that it would be appropriate for the Delhi police to take quick action in all the pending matters relating to violation of orders passed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 by filing complaints as required under law before the appropriate court, adding that such courts ought to dispose of the matters without further delay.
Justice Asha Menon added:
"The offence has been made cognizable only in order to facilitate the police to take immediate action, including the arrest of a person, who is found disobeying the orders issued for maintenance of law and order and in the interest of public health. That purpose cannot be converted into one that subjects the offender to unnecessary harassment and entails violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing the right to life, of which liberty is an inalienable facet."
Case Title: Anil v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 754
"The mere fact that during trial liberty of bail was not misused may not per se warrant suspension of sentence and grant of bail," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that even though a detailed examination of the merits of the case may not be required for suspension of sentence, however, the exercise of jurisdiction is to be made in judicious manner and for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
"The difference between grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. during trial as well as (suspension of sentence) Section 389 Cr.P.C. after conviction is well distinguished and presumption of innocence which is provided at the time of trial does not continue after the conviction of accused," the Court said.
Case Title: M/s Best Buildwell Private Limited Versus ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 755
The Delhi High Court has held that the show cause notice as well as the reassessment order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act were based on distinct and separate grounds. The department failed to provide the details of the transaction and the vendors from whom the bogus purchases were made.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that "the show cause notice primarily states that "it is seen that the petitioner has made purchases from certain non-filers." However, no details or any information about these entities were provided to the petitioner. It is not understood as to how the petitioner was to know which of the entities it dealt with were filers or non-filers!"
Case Title: AKASH AGGARWAL v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 756
In the context of e-commerce platforms, the Delhi High Court has held that permitting a third-party seller to 'latch on' to a Best-Seller's name or trademark is nothing but 'riding piggyback', which also constitutes passing off.
Justice Pratibha M Singh further said:
"It amounts to taking unfair advantage of the goodwill that resides in the Plaintiff's mark and business. In the context of e-commerce, this Court has no doubt that 'latching on' by unauthorised sellers results in and constitutes 'passing off' as known in the brick and mortar world. It is a mode of encashing upon the reputation of the Plaintiff which he has painstakingly built."
Case Title: V v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 757
The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that the Courts have to be sensitive to the situation where allegations have been lodged by mother of a minor victim against her own husband of having sexual contact with the daughter, that too in her presence in the house.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a husband, whose wife had alleged that he had sexually assaulted her five year old daughter.
The FIR was registered against the petitioner under sec. 377 of Indian Penal Code as well as sec. 6 of POCSO Act. Later, sec. 376AB (punishment for rape of minor under 12 years of age) of the Code was also invoked against him.
Case Title: KAMINI ARYA THROUGH PEROKAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 758
The Delhi High Court has taken suo motu cognizance to facilitate admission of an 8 year old child to school which could not be facilitated for the reason that her parents were in judicial custody in a murder case since July 2021.
Observing that the Court has to become the "voice of the voiceless", Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added thus:
"This court is of the opinion that the child must get admitted in a school at the earliest so that shadow of no unpleasant happening falls upon the child's life to darken her future."
The Court noted that the child, being an individual Indian citizen, enjoyed the Fundamental Rights including the right to Education and that the welfare of child should not only be considered in cases dealing with family disputes but also like the present one.
Case Title: M/s Expeditors International Of Washingtion, Inc. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 759
The Delhi High Court has held that the recovery of demand against issues decided in favour of the assessee is unwarranted.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Singh Arora has found that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has itself issued an Instruction dated February 2, 1993, giving guidelines for Stay of Demand. One of the guidelines for the grant of complete stay was "if the demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided in assessee's favour by an appellate authority or court earlier...."
Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS TITU v. STATE OF UT OF CHANDIGARH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 760
The Delhi High Court has observed that framing of charges cannot defeat the right of the prosecution to obtain an expert opinion on voice samples that it had been permitted to take by Court.
Justice Asha Menon added that the purpose of taking a voice sample is to investigate a crime, but it would be incorrect to interpret the same as meaning that the voice sample would have to be taken only within the time the chargesheet is filed and not thereafter.
The Court made the observations while dealing with a plea filed by an accused in a case relating to the leaking of the question paper set for Haryana Civil Services (Judicial) (Preliminary) Examination 2017. The trial was later transferred to Delhi.
Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR JHA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 761
"Any attempt to create an impression that one can over reach the law and still he can enjoy the liberty would not be comprehended in the constitutional scheme," the Delhi High Court has observed while denying anticipatory bail to a man in a rioting case.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav added that when an individual behaves in disharmonious manner, society disapproves and the legal consequences are bound to follow.
The development came in an FIR registered under sec. 145, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 308 and 505 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
164. Theobroma & Theos Settle Trademark Dispute Before Delhi High Court
Case Title: THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 762
Competing entities Theos and Theobroma have agreed before the Delhi High Court to settle their trademark infringement suit in respect of bakery related products and confectionery.
Justice Pratibha M Singh noted the said settlement conditions while dealing with a suit filed by Theos Food Private Limited against Theobroma Foods Private Limited seeking to restrain the latter from infringing the trademark 'THEOS', 'THEO'S' and 'THEO'S PATISSERIE & CHOCOLATARIE'.
It was the case of Theos to restrict Theobroma that was using the mark 'THEOS' as a prefix to the names of various food items being sold in its outlets.
With respect to the use of the mark or name 'THEOS'/'THEO'S' by THEOBROMA on social media, physical, online menu cards and signages of Theobroma, the parties agreed before the court that Theobroma shall restrict such use of the mark 'THEOS'/'THEO'S' only for the following five food items offered by it, along with variants of the same.
Case Title: M/s Scholastic India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Kanta Batra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 763
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the arbitral award cannot be set aside on the ground that the material relied upon by the Arbitral Tribunal does not measure up to the standards under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, held that an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, by relying upon the Bank Account statements and the Income Tax Return furnished by the Claimant, cannot be said to be an unreasoned award or an award based on no evidence.
Case Title: Miss Indira Uppal Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764
The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner's real intent was to ensure that gift tax is not levied on donee. The petition does not promote the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora has observed that as per the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Income Tax Act, 1961, the expression "relative" is not used in a similar context. The term "relative" being wholly context-specific, there is no reason to assume that the criteria used in defining it in one context will provide even a useful starting point in another context.
Case Title: SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765
The Delhi High Court has observed that although a sex worker is entitled to all the rights which are available to a citizen, she cannot claim special treatment if she violates the law.
"No doubt, a sex worker is entitled to all rights available to a citizen, but at the same time, if she violates the law, she would be subjected to the same consequences under law and cannot claim any special treatment."
The Court made the observation while denying interim bail to a woman, a sex worker, who had allegedly forced a minor girl into prostitution and did not allow her to leave the brothel house. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in a brothel house from where 13 minor girls were rescued.
CASE TITLE: DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 766
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person appointed as a daily wager or on ad-hoc basis, who did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification, cannot as a matter of right claim to continue in such employment.
The single judge bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,
"Upon having perused the records of the case and having analysed the facts of the case at hand, it emerged that the petitioner did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification. Despite the opportunities granted, he failed to undergo the requisite professional or skill-based training and failed to furnish the certificate for the same. As such, an employee on daily wages or appointed on an ad-hoc basis, as a matter of right, cannot claim to be employed for a position to which one is ineligible."
Case Title: GHULAM SARWAR v. SMT. NILOFAR KHAN & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 767
"The High Court is required, at all times, to respect the exercise of discretionary powers by the district judiciary and not to act in a manner as could convey an impression that the court is playing the role of headmaster," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice C Hari Shankar further added that if the High Court starts interfering with the orders passed by district judiciary in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is "bound to shake the confidence of the district judiciary" and "seriously impede the dispassionate exercise of discretion vested in them."
"In my considered opinion, it is only as a matter of chance hierarchal circumstance that this Court is "above" the district judiciary. Else, the district judiciary, and the learned Courts of which it is comprised, exercise jurisdiction which, subjectively, is co-equal to the jurisdiction exercised by this Court," the Court said.
170. Income Tax Dept. Can't Withhold Refunds In Mechanical And Routine Manner: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 768
The Delhi High Court has held that an order under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed in a mechanical and routine manner. The refunds cannot be withheld just because the notice under Section 143(2) has been issued and the department wants to verify the claim for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the order under Section 241A was generic and no attempt was made by the department to substantiate how the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue.
171. Amendment To Section 36(1)(va) Of Income Tax Act Is Prospective In Nature: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 769
The Delhi High Court has allowed the assessee- TV Today Network Ltd.'s claims for deduction of expenses in nature of 'consumption incentive' offered to the advertisers for booking more advertisement space.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, reiterated that the 'due date', in case of delay by the assessee in depositing the employees' contribution to Provident Fund under Section 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be reckoned as the date for filing the return under Section 139 (1) and not the due date as prescribed under the relevant Labour statute. The Court added that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va), vide the Finance Act, 2021, is 'for removal of doubts' and hence, it cannot be presumed to be retrospective since it alters the law as it earlier stood.
Case Title: Sanser Pal Singh v. UOI & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 770
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of the orders passed by it as well as the National Green Tribunal (NGT) banning sale of Chinese synthetic manjha used in flying kites.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Advocate Sanser Pal Singh seeking a complete ban on flying of kites as well as manufacturing, sale and storage of objects used in the same.
While the Court was of the view that a complete ban on flying of kites cannot be granted as kite flying is a "part of our culture and heritage", it said that the use of Chinese Maanjha or synthetic thread was "certainly causing grave concern."
Title: SULEMAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 771
The Delhi High Court has observed that the object of default bail is inherently linked to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, laying emphasis on safeguarding the life and personal liberty of the accused against arbitrary detention.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed by an accused in relation to a case registered under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, challenging the order of Trial Court wherein his plea for Default Bail was dismissed.
The Petitioner was in custody in the FIR registered under sec. 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed on March 3, 2021 without the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
Case Title: MAN SINGH v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 772
The Delhi High Court recently directed a site engineer, supervising an ongoing construction work, to contribute towards educational expenses of a child who was injured after a board present at the site fell on him.
The direction will remain in effect till the child clears 10th standard. The minor child is presently in 3rd standard.
The FIR was registered under sec. 283 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code by father of the minor child alleging negligence on the part of the Petitioner-engineer, who was employed with a private construction company.
The engineer therefore approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that the dispute was amicably settled between the parties.
CASE TITLE: URMILA & ORS. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 773
The Delhi High Court has held that notification by DUSIB (Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board) is an essential pre-requisite to be qualified/ recognized as a "jhuggi jhopri basti" for the purpose of its Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy of 2015.
A single bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed,
" A perusal of the 2015 Policy also makes it clear that only jhuggi jhopri bastis that have come up before 01.01.2006 are eligible for rehabilitation/re-location in terms of the said Policy. More importantly, by definition in the statute itself, notification by DUSIB is an essential pre-requisite to be qualified/ recognized as a jhuggi jhopri basti for the purpose of the Act and the 2015 Policy. "
In absence of such a notification, the Court vacated its interim order restraining the Delhi Development Authority from bulldozing jhuggi clusters in city's Gyaspur area in Hazrat Nizamuddin.
Case Title: EXTREME COATING PRIVATE LTD v. JOTUN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 774
The Delhi High Court has observed that the procedural formalities in the Code of Civil Procedure are "intended to facilitate litigation" by prescribing the course to be adopted and not to be "abused as an instrument of oppression" to frustrate validly instituted proceedings.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging the orders dated 16th August 2021 and 2nd February 2022, passed by the District Judge (Commercial Courts) in a civil suit which was preferred by the respondent against the petitioner.
The suit was filed as a commercial suit under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The petitioner, as the defendant in the suit, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the suit on the ground that it had been filed in violation of sec. 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which required the plaintiff to resort to pre-institution mediation before approaching the Court.
Case Title: Rohit Madan v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 775
This Delhi High Court has appreciated the efforts made by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change as well as other Ministries for ensuring implementation of the steps in respect of climate change and for "providing a better environment for the generations to come."
The development comes in a PIL filed by one Rohit Madan, seeking constitution of an Expert Committee to propose suggestions for taking all measures, including any legislative amendment, for following up on the promises made by the Union of India before UNFCCC.
"This Court really appreciates the sincere efforts made on the part of the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, Government of India as well as other Ministries for ensuring implementation of the steps in respect of climate change and for providing a better environment for the generations to come ," the Court said.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Punjab & Sind Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 776
The Delhi High Court held that the Punjab & Sind Bank is entitled to a refund of money deposited by it upon re-computation by the department and interest is liable to be paid under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that a sum has been found refundable to the assessee as a consequence of a reduction in the taxable income. The sum directed to be refunded to the assessee is a debt in the hands of the department, and for the department to term "payment of this debt" as "interest" is fallacious. In fact, it is on the payment of this debt that the assessee is demanding that the department be liable to pay interest for the period that the department retained the money.
CASE TITLE: VIFOR INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 777
The Delhi High Court has held that the jurisdiction of Competition Commission of India is not ousted merely because the information on which it seeks to initiate an enquiry relates to a patent.
A single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that so long as the CCI is duly and statutorily empowered to deal with all information which it may receive with respect to actions that may (i) impede competition, (ii) usher in an anti-competitive environment, (iii) relate to abuse of dominant position or (iv) the adoption of unfair trade practices.
180. Supersession Of The Arbitration Clause Must Not Be Inferred Lightly: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. versus Ircon International Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 778
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of the principle of 'when in doubt, do refer', as enunciated by the Supreme Court, if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, which is sought to be negated by a party by citing other provisions of a contract, which requires interpretation of the contract, the Court must lean towards referring the matter to arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that an arbitration agreement embedded in a contract is always considered a separate and severable clause, and that the supersession of the arbitration clause must not be inferred lightly.
The petitioner Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. entered into an agreement with the respondent Ircon International Limited. After certain disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the General Conditions of Contract and filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
Case Title : TRIDENT INFOSOL PVT LTD v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 779
Upholding Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)'s policy decision to keep away entities with pending criminal investigations from participating in its tender processes, the Delhi High Court has said that the condition, requiring the bidders to submit an undertaking that there is no ongoing enquiry against them, is imperative to maintain the integrity of projects which deal with matters of national importance, security and that are of immense public importance.
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad in the ruling dated August 1 said that the tenders are for procurement of instruments which are necessary for the security of the country and even generally the scope of judicial review under the tender jurisdiction is limited.
Title: NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION v. ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 780
"Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields, and the opinion of experts cannot be supplanted by a Court overstepping its jurisdiction," the Delhi High Court has observed.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad added that in examination matters, a candidate has to demonstrate that the key answers are "patently wrong on the face of it", adding that if there is any exercise conducted by the Court wherein the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides need to be taken into consideration, then that will "inevitably amount to unwarranted interference on the part of the Court."
Title: RAKESH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 781
The Delhi High Court has observed that a person exercising a legal right in the court of law has a corresponding obligation and duty from acting in a manner which may lead to violation of the rights of other individuals.
"Vindicating of any personal grievance by violent means has to be rejected at the threshold," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added.
The Court was dealing with a man seeking bail in an FIR registered under 186, 353, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
It was the prosecution's case that in July last year, a PCR call was made regarding damage inside Karkardooma Court. The complainant, Reader of the Court, gave a statement that he inquired about the status of his case which was pending in the Court. As the reader informed petitioner about the date fixed, the petitioner became furious and started vandalizing the furniture present in the court room.
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 782
Observing that the legal regime apropos sports administration in India has to be implemented fully and effectively, the Delhi High Court has put the affairs of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) in the hands of a Committee of Administrators (CoA) as per a recent Supreme Court order.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Manmohan concluded that if a sports federation does not comply with the law of the land, it will receive no recognition from the Government, thereby adding that the benefits and facilities to it will stop promptly.
"It is better that a legitimate body represents the cause of sportspersons than one simply masquerading as the real champion of Indian sports. Fairness and legitimacy needs to imbue all public affairs. Recalcitrant entities which defy adherence to rules of the game, while continuing to unjustly enjoy government‟s largesse and patronage, must be called-out," the Court added.
Case Title: FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 783
The Delhi High Court has observed that unless an active role is disclosed in the commission of the offences as complained of, an intermediary would be entitled to claim protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The provision exempts liability of intermediary in certain cases. It states that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it.
However, the provision will not apply if the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act.
Justice Asha Menon observed:
"When the intermediaries have been granted the ―safe harbour qua civil liability, and when a higher standard of culpability is required for a criminal prosecution, such "safe harbour" should be available even in respect of criminal prosecution. Thus, unless an active role is disclosed in the commission of the offences complained of, the intermediary, such as the present petitioner, would be entitled to claim protection under Section 79 of the I.T. Act."
Case Title: MOHD AZIZUL v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 784
The Delhi High Court has held that a man accused of sexually abusing a minor cannot be punished under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the offence of 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' when the alleged act falls short of 'penetration'.
The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that without penetration, such act is only an attempt to rape or aggravated sexual assault as per Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 10 of the Act with 5-7 years imprisonment and fine.
The Court was dealing with an appeal against conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three year old minor girl by one Mohd. Azizul. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years.
The bench noted that while there was sexual assault committed on the minor and the intent to commit rape was proved before the trial court, the statements of victim's mother and the MLC raised a doubt regarding penetration.
Case Title: SYED SHAHNAWAZ HUSSAIN v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 785
The Delhi High Court has ordered registration of FIR against BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in an alleged 2018 rape case observing that there was a complete reluctance on the part of city police to register the same.
Justice Asha Menon directed that the investigation in the matter be completed and a detailed report under Section 173 CrPC be submitted before the MM within a period of three months.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by the former Union Minister challenging the order of the Special Judge dated July 12, 2018 which had dismissed his revision petition against the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of FIR.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Kila v. CBI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 786
The Delhi High Court has quashed the charges framed against a Chartered Account for aiding his client in money laundering purely on the basis of confessional statements made by a co-accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
The Single Bench of Justice Asha Menon ruled that retracted statements made by a co-accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are inadequate to establish the participation in a conspiracy to facilitate commission of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The petitioner Vinod Kumar Kila filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court against the charges framed by the Special Judge, CBI under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
Case Title: SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 787
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday denied anticipatory bail to an accused in connection with the Jahangirpuri riots observing that his conduct was allegedly an "attempt to disturb the communal harmony of the area" by trying to create a "rift between two communities."
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also noted that suspicious material was found on the terrace of his house during the riots and he had been non-cooperative during investigation. It observed:
"Ensuring peace and harmony in the country and communities is the most sacred duty of not only the law enforcing agencies and the Courts but duty has been caste on every citizen of this country that they should maintain peace and harmony and ensure that their acts do not instigate and promote communal hatred or ill-will."
The Court further noted that the accused was named by one of the eye witness as one of the perpetrator.
Case Title: SUNITA & ANR. v. VIJAY PAL @ MOHD. SABIR & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 788
The Delhi High Court has observed that whenever a party claims a change in circumstance after an order granting maintenance has been passed under Section 125 CrPC, the appropriate recourse would be seeking relief under Section 127 of the Code, not filing a fresh petition under Section 125 of the Code.
Laying emphasis on the doctrine of res judicata, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the said principle has been evolved to prevent multiplicity of litigation regarding the same issues and puts an end to a finally adjudicated issue ensuring finality in litigation.
"This Court notes that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. will be covered by the principle of res judicata due to its universal applicability, as proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are Quasi- Criminal in nature. Once the petition has been adjudicated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. favourably by a Court of competent jurisdiction on merits, a subsequent petition cannot be preferred which arises from the same dispute having similar situations, circumstances and grounds as the previously adjudicated issues in the earlier petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C."
Case Title: JOGINDER SINGH RAINA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 789
Quashing a 2003 cheating FIR after settlement between parties, the Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on a 77 year old accused, directing that the same be deposited in PM Cares Fund for welfare of children (PM CARES for Children Scheme).
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma quashed an FIR registered under sec. 328, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code on the accused's plea, who was facing trial in the case for last 19 years.
While a co accused had died, the Court was informed that the matter was amicably settled between the petitioner and the 60 year old complainant after 19 years. The complainant informed the Court that she had received Rs. 32 lakhs as full and final settlement amount and had no objection if the FIR was quashed.
Case Title: KAJAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 790
Observing that every pregnant female deserves dignity during motherhood, the Delhi High Court has granted three months interim bail to a pregnant undertrial prisoner who was expecting her delivery in jail.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that pregnancy of a woman is a special circumstance which needs to be appreciated as giving birth to a child while in custody, would not only be a trauma to the mother but also create an everlasting adverse impact on the child, whenever questioned about his birth.
"Every pregnant female deserves the dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India during motherhood. The Court is expected to take note of interest of a child, who is not expected to be exposed to the prisons, until and unless there is a grave danger in releasing the petitioner on bail," the Court said.
Case Title: Ashish Kumar Srivastava v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 791
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to declare AAP leader Satyendar Jain as a person of 'unsound mind' thereby seeking his disqualification from the Delhi Legislative Assembly.
Jain is presently in judicial custody in a money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court cannot declare Jain as a person with unsound mind and cannot disqualify him from being a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Minister in the Government of NCT of Delhi.
Case Title: AUSTIN NICHOLS & CO INC & ANR v. GWALIOR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 792
Ruling in favour of Seagram's alcohol brand, the Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 20 lakhs damages and cost in its favour in a suit alleging trademark infringement in respect of Royal Stag whiskey by a company manufacturing Royal Champ whiskey.
Justice Navin Chawla permanently restrained Gwalior Distilleries Private Limited, engaged in sale of Royal Champ whiskey observing that the impugned label was a "colourable and slavish imitation" of ROYAL STAG label.
The Court also said that the same amounted to copyright infringement under sec. 51 read with sec. 55 of the Copyright Act.
Case Title: FIJA & ANR. v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793
The Delhi High Court has observed that as per Mohammedan Law, a minor girl who had attained the age of puberty can marry without consent of her parents and has a right to reside with her husband even when she is less than 18 years of age.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting protection to a muslim couple who got married in March this year as per Muslim rites and rituals. The plea was moved by the couple seeking directions to ensure that nobody separates them.
The parents of the girl opposed the marriage and registered an FIR under sec. 363 of IPC against the husband. Subsequently sec. 376 and sec. 6 POCSO were added.
Case Title: ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 794
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Kashmiri businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali challenging the Trial Court order denying him bail last year on the ground of COVID-19, in connection with a terror funding case.
Watali had challenged the order passed by Trial Court dated 15th May 2021 wherein it was concluded that there was no question of granting bail to him only on the ground of spread of COVID-19 pandemic. The Trial Court also took note of his medical condition as he was suffering from various ailments including diabetes, hyperthyroidism, piles etc.
Thereafter, on January 31, 2022, the Trial Court had, till further orders, directed Watali to be kept under house arrest at his Gurugram residence for his medical treatment.
Case Title: KAILASH SEWANI v. MANISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 795
Litigants cannot be casual about prosecuting the proceedings before the Court below and expect sanctuary from the High Court under Article 227, the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the jurisdiction vested in High Court by Article 227 is not expected to be used as an avenue for a party "to tide over the negligence exhibited by it before the Court below."
"Nor is Article 227 in the nature of mercy jurisdiction," the Court added.
The Court made the observation in a plea filed challenging an order dated 11th July 2022 passed in a civil suit wherein the petitioner was the defendant in. By the impugned order, the Civil Judge had rejected the petitioner's request to have the written statement taken on record.
Case Title: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an application under the Companies Act has been filed by a company in liquidation against the order of the revenue authorities rejecting the application for waiver of interest for delay in payment of tax dues, the said dispute would fall within the scope of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act).
The Bench consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal ruled that the VSV Act is not a taxing statute but one which provides a dispute resolution scheme for tax disputes and hence, it would be amenable to a purposive construction. The Court held that it was the intent of the legislature to include all sorts of disputes under the VSV Act, even if they were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax or the courts.
Case Title: MEHTA TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 797
The Delhi High Court today accepted an argument that a citizen cannot be deprived of the right to establish and administer an educational institution, unless the legislature in its wisdom decides to impose a reasonable restriction in general public interest on exercise of this fundamental right.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that any restriction on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India can only be by law and anything short of law would fall foul of the power under Article 19(6).
The Court thus agreed with the contention that the requirement under clause Article 19(6) can be met only by introduction of a statutory provision either in the Act or in the Regulation and not merely by the issuance of a circular or a policy decision taken by an authority, howsoever high.
Case Title: Ernst and Young U.S. LLP versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 798
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not an assessment for the purposes of Section 147 and hence, it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to come across some fresh tangible material to form a belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment in order to reopen assessment.
The Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that no opinion is formed by way of the order passed under Section 143(1), and that only an intimation is issued to the assessee when the return initially filed by it is processed; thus, the doctrine of change of opinion is not attracted.
Case Title: Whatsapp LLC v. CCI, Facebook v. CCI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 799
"The 2021 Policy places its users in a "take-it-or-leave-it" situation, virtually forcing its users into agreement by providing a mirage of choice, and then sharing their sensitive data with Facebook Companies envisaged in the policy," the Delhi High Court has observed while upholding the proposed investigation of Competition Commission of India (CCI) into WhatsApp's privacy policy.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the appeals filed by WhatsApp and its parent company Meta (formerly Facebook) against a single bench order declining to interfere with CCI's investigation into the 2021 privacy policy.
Noting that WhatsApp occupies a dominant position in the relevant product market, the Court observed that there exists a strong "lock-in effect" which renders its users incapable of shifting to another platform "despite dissatisfaction with the product" which is exemplified by how, despite an increase in the downloads of other applications like Telegram and Signal when the 2021 Policy was announced, the number of users of WhatsApp remained unchanged.
202. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Ragpicker Accused In Jahangirpuri Riots Case
Case Title: Jahid v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 800
In a first, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to one Jahid, a rag picker, arrested in connection with the clashes that broke out in city's Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.
Jahid, an 18 to 19 year old man, was in custody since April 17, 2022.
Justice Yogesh Khanna was of the view that Jahid was not identified in any of the CCTV footages. The Court also observed that investigation against him was completed as chargesheet stood filed in the matter.
"Looking at his period of custody; the investigation being complete, and the petitioner being no more required for the purpose of investigation, is admitted to bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty MM," the Court ordered.
Case Title: Overnite Express Ltd v. DMRC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 801
The High Court of Delhi has held that the power conferred on one party to unilaterally choose names from a panel of arbitrators and forwarding it to the other party to select its arbitrator from those names is violative of principle of impartiality in arbitration.
The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that such a unilateral exercise of power creates space for suspicion regardless of the merit of the selected arbitrators who happens to be retired District Judges.
The Court took a divergent view of its judgment in IWorld Business Solutions v. DMRC, wherein similar panel of five Members who were all retired District Judges was considered and it was held that considering that they were all retired Addl. District Judges/ District Judges, their impartiality and neutrality could not be questioned and the panel was held to be valid for nomination of any one as an Arbitrator.
Case Title: DEVASRI BALI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDRY EDUCATION & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 802
The Delhi High Court has observed that a greater degree of care and caution, as well as due diligence is required on part of the functionaries and office bearers of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to ensure that due process is not violated at the higher echelons while taking decisions that affect the lives of lakhs of students.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that while the Board's dedication and efforts to undertake continuous and comprehensive reforms and innovations in education is commendable, the responsibility vested and the trust reposed in the Board is also magnified.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a student aged 18 years who had appeared in the Class XII CBSE Board Examination for the Academic Session 2021-2022.
Case Title: Baba Alexander v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 803
Calling it a frivolous petition, the Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) to reconsider its decision of withdrawing DTC bus services to private schools in the city.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma added that it is always open to the DTC to review its decision as and when it feels that there are enough buses with it to be given to schools for the purpose of carrying children from their residences to schools and vice versa.
"Though this Court finds that the present petition is a frivolous petition, however, this Court is not inclined to impose costs on the Petitioner," the Bench also comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad added.
Case Title: Diageo Brands BV & Anr. v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 804
The Delhi High Court has held that that yardstick for determining infringement of a registered design is 'visual effect' and 'ocular impression' of the product as a whole.
The test is not to look out for subtle dissimilarities, but rather, to see if there is substantial and overall similarity in the two designs.
" Impugned design need not be an exact replica to constitute infringement. Minor changes in size are insignificant as the overall and substantial similarity is glaring and undeniably apparent to the naked eye," a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed.
The observation was made while deciding a suit filed by Diageo Brands, manufacturer of famous whisky brand 'Black Dog' against another alcohol manufacturer Great Galleon Ventures.
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 805
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on account of the export of legal services under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that, as per Rule 5, as long as the service provider provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, such a service provider will be eligible for a refund of CENVAT credit.
The respondent/assessee is a firm of legal practitioners, which renders legal services to its clients both in India and outside India. The assessee specialises in rendering services in the field of intellectual property rights and, as per a finding of fact returned by the Tribunal, 75-80% of its receipts are from the export of legal services. The assessee has sought a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on account of the export of legal services under Rule 5.
Title: HANZLA IQBAL v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806
"The person, who is in a consensual physical relationship with another person, is not required to judicially scrutinise the date of birth of the other person," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting bail to a man accused in a rape case. The complainant had alleged that after becoming friends, in September 2019, the petitioner called her to a hotel and established a physical relationship with her and also made her video, thereby blackmailing her.
The complainant further alleged that the petitioner forced her to have physical relationships with different people under the threat of releasing the video.
It was also alleged that around August, 2021, the complainant managed to escape from the petitioner's house where she was held captive, after which she met an advocate who helped her lodging the FIR.
On the other hand, it was the petitioner's case that the date of incident as alleged was September, 2019, whereas the FIR was filed after three years in 2022.
Case Title: VISHV MOHAN v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 807
The Delhi High Court has observed that a welfare State is expected to create conditions which are conducive to citizens with disabilities by providing them avenues for public employment.
A division bench comprising of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela was of the view that under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the State is enjoined to create conditions and opportunities for the welfare and betterment of the citizens with disabilities and those who are differently abled.
"The Central Government had enacted the said Act to ensure that the citizens falling in this category are not deprived of their rightful means of livelihood in respect of public employment. It is with a view to give impetus to the beneficial provisions of the said Act, that the Central Government and the State Governments created various avenues for public employment of such differently abled citizens," the Court said.
Case Title: RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA v. MANJU BHATIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 808
The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaintiff cannot adopt a dual policy of valuing the suit at a certain value for the purpose of jurisdiction and payment of court fees.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further added that though it is in the discretion of the plaintiff to value his suit as per his bona fide belief and discretion, but once the suit has been valued in terms of sec. 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, the court fee shall become payable on the same amount in terms of sec. 7 of the Court Fees Act.
The Court made the observation while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed on behalf of defendant in the suit for rejection of the plaint on account of payment of deficient court fees.
Case Title: SMT. SHIPALI SHARMA v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 809
The Delhi High Court has observed that a judge, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227 of CrPC, cannot merely act as the post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before it.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav added that the Judge should not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Section 227 of the Code provides for discharge of an accused. It states that upon consideration of the record of the case, documents submitted and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, if the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused.
Case Title: VED PRAKASH MANCHANDA v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENTBOARD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 810
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere possession of a Tehbazari right does not entitle the occupant to usurp the Government land or to raise 'pucca' construction over it.
Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea filed by one Ved Prakash Manchanda seeking directions on the authorities to regularise his long and continuous occupation in his favour in respect of premises of a property in city's Madangir, by way of executing a Lease Deed or other document.
It was the petitioner's case that since 1990-91 he was enjoying this site as a Tehbazari site and the Respondents authorities used to collect License Fee, damages and penalty from time to time. The petitioner also claimed that electricity connection was sanctioned in his favour based on the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the authorities.
Case Title: SHRI B K PARCHURE v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 811
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no legal bar to always postpone the requirement of sanction at a later stage of proceedings. If the acts complained of have a connection with the official duty, provision of Section 197 CrPC is attracted for obtaining sanction immediately at the time of taking cognizance.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed:
"….there is no doubt that a question of sanction can arise at any stage of proceedings but the same gets attracted immediately at the time of taking cognizance, if the facts of the case or act of the accused, are so intricately connected to his official function that it cannot be segregated. There is no legal bar to always postpone the requirement of sanction at a later stage...If Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, to any of the acts committed by a public servant as no public servant can be allowed to commit an offence in the discharge of his official duty. The entire legislative intent would be frustrated."
Case Title: ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. v. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 812
The Delhi High Court has set aside a 2015 arbitral award directing Antrix Corporation Limited, commercial and marketing arm of ISRO, to pay US$ 562.2 million to Devas Multimedia Private Limited over wrongful repudiation of contract.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that the arbitral award dated September 14, 2015 suffered from patent illegalities and fraud and was also in conflict with the Public Policy of India.
The Court thus allowed the plea filed by Antrix under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: SGT. NAVNEET KUMAR SINGH (977823-F) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 813
The Delhi High Court has observed that issuance of Posting Order resulting in transfer, especially for all those pertaining to Armed Forces, is a necessary exigency of service which should not be interfered by a Court as the Armed Forces are the best judges to exercise their own discretion.
"Posting Order resulting in transfer, which is in the absence of a violation of any statutory requirements, rules, regulations or like or which is unless vitiated by some sort of bias or malafide or vindictiveness further do not call for any interference from Courts," a division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee added.
Case Title: OM PRAKASH v. THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY (REGO.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 814
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Trial Courts are wholly competent to decide the questions of fact and law which may arise before them, many of which may be res integra and previously undecided by any superior court.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the a Trial Court is well within its authority to decide all such issues and can even be the first judicial authority to take a view on a subject.
The Court also has stressed upon expeditious disposal of proceedings before the District Courts observing that the same has become a pressing necessity in today's day and age.
Case Title: BHARTI SAHANI v. STATE (GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 815
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere enjoyment of the interim benefit granted by it does not, in any manner, lessen the allegations which need to be considered on merits.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that the Court is required to consider the nature of accusations, supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or apprehension of threat to complainants and prima facie satisfaction in support of charge.
218. Re-assessment Order Passed Without Considering Detailed Reply Of The Assessee: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rithala Education Society Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 816
The Delhi High Court held that the significance of issuing a show cause notice prior to issuing a re-assessment notice has been lost because the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act was made without taking into account the detailed reply filed by the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh has observed that the department has not examined the petitioner's plea that the petitioner-society has included all the transactions carried out by the Citizen Model School in its books of accounts.
Case Title: PVR Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 817
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal of PVR Ltd. and allowed the deduction on the difference between the price at which stock options were offered to employees of the appellant company under ESOP and ESPS and the prevailing market price of the stock.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Biocon Ltd. and has observed that an assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 37(1) if the expenditure has been incurred. The expression "expenditure" will also include a loss, and therefore, the issuance of shares at a discount where the assessee absorbs the difference between the price at which they are issued and the market value of the shares would also be expenditure incurred for the purposes of Section 37(1).
Case Title: Babuddin v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 818
The Delhi High Court today granted bail to one Babuddin, an accused in relation to the clashes that broke out in April in city's Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.
Noting that Babuddin was in custody since April 27, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Yogesh Khanna granted bail after observing that he was no more required for further investigation.
The Court also noted that chargesheet qua the accused has already been filed and that a co-accused was also recently granted bail in the FIR in question.
Case Title: Royal Orchids versus Kulbir Singh Kohli & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 819
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a MOU which is in the nature of a commercial transaction between two private parties is by its very nature determinable and hence, the said MOU can be terminated even in the absence of any termination clause contained in it.
The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that since the MOU was not capable of specific performance due to the statutory bar contained in Section 14 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the party was not entitled to any interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR & ORS. v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 820
The Delhi High Court has quashed a cheating FIR of 2017 following a settlement between the parties and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the accused persons as well as the complainant to be utilized for plantation of trees along the national highways.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the cost be deposited in the Green Highways Fund which is formed pursuant to a project for Greening (Plantation & Its Maintenance) of National Highways, launched by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.
Case Title: SANJAY SARIN v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 821
The Delhi High Court has recently reiterated that where proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the bank for which it has remedy under the Act, no writ petition should be entertained.
Justice Sanjeev Narula further observed that the extent of liability of a personal guarantor would have to be determined in light of the agreement between the borrower, i.e., the corporate debtor and the personal guarantor, for which the appropriate forum would be the Debt Recovery Tribunal and not the High Court.
Case Title: NEETU SINGH & ANR. v. TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822
The Delhi High Court has observed that copyright infringers cannot be permitted to seek shelter under messaging platform Telegram's policies merely on the ground that its physical server is in Singapore.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that Indian Courts would be perfectly justified in directing Telegram, which runs its massive operations in India, to adhere to Indian law and orders passed by them for disclosure of relevant information relating to infringers.
The bench further observed that the disclosure of personal data for the purpose of any proceedings, which would include proceedings related to infringement of copyright, would be a recognized exception to data privacy under Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 of Singapore.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 823
The Delhi High Court recently rejected an appeal by Sun Pharma, claiming that Hetero Healthcare's drug used to treat advanced breast cancer had infringed its trademark.
A Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan upheld the decision of the Commercial Court. It held that it was apparent that the mark adopted by Sun was nothing but the first six letters of the ingredient, 'Letrozole,' which is the international non-proprietary name (INN) of a salt.
Case Title: BOLT Technology OU v. Ujoy Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 824
The High Court of Delhi has held that when the plaintiff makes an offer to the defendant to amicably settle the dispute and the defendant refuses the offer then in that circumstance, the requirement of pre-litigation meditation stands satisfied.
The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh while reiterating that pre-litigation mediation as provided under Section 12-A of the CCA is a mandatory provision, held that the conduct of the defendant in refusing to amicably settle the dispute violates the spirit of Section 12A of CCA, therefore, he cannot turn around and object on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement.
The Court further reiterated that where the plaintiff is seeking an urgent relief, the requirement of pre-litigation mediation would not be a bar to the maintainability of the suit.
Case Title: MS HNUNPUII v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 825
The Delhi High Court has observed that a property cannot be demolished on the ground that it is unauthorized, unless the owner or resident is given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that it is no answer to compliance with the principles of natural justice to contend that if an opportunity was granted, the persons affecting would not have had any defense to offer.
"To my mind, there can be no question of demolishing any property on the ground that it is unauthorized, until and unless the person owning the property and/or in possession of/residing in the property, are given an adequate opportunity of hearing and due principles of natural justice are complied with," the Court observed.
Case Title: BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 826
The Delhi High Court has observed that urgent interim relief including at ex-parte and ad-interim stage is extremely important in intellectual property rights cases as they not only involve interest of parties to the case but also the consumers of products and services in question.
Justice Pratibha M Singh further added that such reliefs are granted by Courts not merely for protection of statutory and common law rights, but also in order to avoid confusion, deception, unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketplace.
"Intellectual property cases relate to a wide gamut of businesses such as - medicines, FMCG, food products, financial services, technology, creative works such as books, films, music, etc. Recent trends also point towards large scale misuse on the internet. In some cases, due to misuse of known marks and brands, the consumers are being duped into parting with large sums of money. The rights of the parties are affected almost on a daily basis as there is continuous manufacturing, selling, and offering of services or goods to the customers," the Court added.
Case Title: SIKANDER SONI AND ANR v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 827
In connection with the gang rape and murder of a woman in 2012 whose body was found in semi-naked condition, the Delhi High Court today modified sentence of two convicts to rigorous imprisonment for life not less than 20 years without remission.
The Court also upheld the Trial Court's sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life for gang rape and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence of causing disappearance of evidence and giving false information.
A young female's dead body (aged 24-26 years) was found lying in a semi naked condition, blood oozing out from the mouth, nose and ears of the body and injury marks all around the face. Upon arrest, the two accused had pointed out the place of incident near city's Nehru Stadium where they had gang raped the woman in a car.
On the basis of the disclosure of one of the convicts, the police team went to his village and recovered two small rings and a car. The TIP of the recovered case property was conducted where the husband of the deceased identified her purse and slippers and confirmed it during his testimony before the Trial Court.
Case Title: TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED v. SHENZHEN COLOURSPLENDOUR GIFT CO LTD & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 828
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 20 lakhs in favour of Vistara Airlines in its trademark infringement suit filed against a company selling identical keychains and baggage tags, in the same aubergine and gold colour combination, on a Chinese e-commerce platform AliExpress.
It was Vistara's case that despite the e-commerce platform being based mostly in China, the website contained several listings by the seller baggage tags and keychains bearing the 'VISTARA Marks' in the identical color combination without its authorisation which were also eligible for shipping to India.
Case Title: Puri Constructions Ltd v. Shailesh Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 829
The Delhi High Court has recently held that in the case of a Class action Consumer Complaint, the amendments in the complaint cannot be allowed without following the mandate under Order 1 Rule 8(4) of CPC.
Allowing the petition against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), Justice C. Hari Shankar observed:
"If at a later point of time, the complainant/complainants desires to abandon any part of the claim, Order I Rule 8(4) permits such abandonment provided, prior thereto, the Court issues notice, once again, to all persons so interested, i.e. all persons whose interest the original complaints purported to espouse, in the same manner as envisaged by Order I Rule 8 (2) i.e. either individually or, if that were not possible, by public advertisement."
Title: SIDDHAST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND AN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 830
In a domestic arbitration between Siddhast Intellectual Property Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (Siddhast) and Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, (CGPDT), while filing its Statement of Defence, CGPDT had also filed its Statement of Counter-claims against Respondent No. 1 - Siddhast along with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead a French company Questel SAS as Respondent No. 2 in its Counter-Claims only on the basis of a "Consortium Agreement" between Siddhast and Questel SAS though there was no written agreement between Questel SAS and CGPDT. Ld.
Sole Arbitrator allowed the application; hence, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed for not being maintainable as the impugned interim order passed by the Arbitrator could be challenged u/s 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 after passing of the award.
Case Title: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 831
The Delhi High Court has held that the attempt by the CIT to exclude genuine disputants of tax liability from the possibility of settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act (VSV) is extremely hyper-technical.
The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal has observed that any proceeding challenging a decision by the department in respect of tax, interest, penalty, fee, etc. would come within the purview of a "dispute", which would enable a party to approach the department for a resolution under the VSV Act.
CASE TITLE: KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 832
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Registrar of Trademarks should consider 'special circumstances' mentioned under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before rejecting the applications filed with it seeking registration of marks.
Section 12 permits registration of identical or similar trademarks in respect of the same or similar goods or services, by more than one proprietor, in case of "honest concurrent use" or in "other special circumstances" which in the opinion of the Registrar, make it proper so to do.
Case Title: SHARAFAT SHEIKH @ MD. AYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 833
The Delhi High Court has held that simply putting signatures in English language does not "by any stretch of imagination" show that the detenue understands English language and as a consequence understood the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed:
"…the mere signing of documents in English does not automatically translate to the detenue having a working knowledge of English so as to fulfill the mandate of Article 22(5)."
Case Title: BIRPAL SINGH v. NUTAN MARATHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Delhi High Court today observed that once the management of a Minority Educational Institution makes a "conscious choice" of appointing a qualified person from the "Minority community" to lead the said institution either as a Vice Principal or Principal, then the Court cannot go into merits of such a choice or rationality or propriety of the process of choice.
Adding that the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is absolute in this regard, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further observed:
"Every linguistic minority may have its own social, economic and cultural limitations. It has a constitutional right to conserve such culture and language. Thus, it would also have a right to choose teachers, who possess the eligibility and qualifications, as provided, without really being influenced by the fact of their religion and community and the same can be done by the process defined by the school management."
237. Delhi High Court Dismisses Ex-CFO's Plea Against PwC Ltd Seeking Action For Criminal Defamation
Case Title: SARVESH MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 835
The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal liability cannot be fastened on the basis of a person holding a position in any company, with nothing more to specify the role played by such a person in the commission of a crime.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by a former Chief Finance Officer (CFO) of M/s Pricewaterhousecoopers Private Limited, who had sued the company and its Chairperson for defamation, after he was labelled as a "disgruntled ex-employee" by a company Spokesperson in articles published in the Economic Times and Outlook Magazine in 2017-18.
Case Title: RATTAN MEHTA & ANR. v. GAYATRI SHAH & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 836
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is incumbent upon a person answering the interrogatories to be truthful in the answers and if the person is eventually found to have given false answers, they can be visited with consequences like perjury, since the answer given in response to interrogatory can be used in evidence.
"Under Order 11, Rule 22 CPC, the answer given in response to an interrogatory can be used in evidence, and therefore, its correctness and veracity will be established only at trial," Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed.
239. Intention To Evade Tax Is Absent, Taxpayer Needs To Be Given Another Chance: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar Versus Commissioner of CGST
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 837
The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner/taxpayer needs to be given another chance to establish why the subject goods did not reach their designated designation before the expiry of the e-way bill.
The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has remanded the matter to the respondent to take a fresh decision on the matter, after giving the petitioner due opportunity to produce relevant material and evidence to establish its case.
Case Title: Geeta Poddar v. Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 838
The High Court of Delhi has held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is non-est, therefore, it cannot be a bar to the maintainability of a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Ac.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that passing of an award would not give sanctity to the non-est proceedings and the mere fact that the petitioner did not challenge the unilateral appointment under Section 14 of the Act cannot deprive it of the right to approach the court for appointment of independent arbitrator.
Title: SCOUTS AND GUIDES FOR ANIMALS AND BIRDS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 839
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to ensure strict compliance of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 as well as the amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (The Transport of Animals) Rules, 2020 while transporting camels to the city for the purpose of their participation in Republic Day Parade.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways as well as the Border Security Force to ensure strict compliance of the SOP read with the Rules governing the field in the matter of transport of camels.
The Court thus disposed of a PIL filed by a trust namely Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds alleging transportation of camels into the city from the State of Rajasthan in violation of the statutory provisions as contained under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Title: LEELA MATHUR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 840
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Municipal Corporation constituted for the purpose of providing basic public goods amenities cannot shirk off its responsibility by citing financial constraints.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while pulling up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) after a 80 year old lady's house had gone down below the road level due to re constructions, thereby causing damage to the property.
Both the lady as well as the MCD had filed cross appeals challenging an order passed by the Single Judge dated February 12, 2020 imposing costs of Rs.3. Lakhs as compensation on the MCD and directing it to hand over a pump to the old lady to avoid water logging in the house.
Title: Shivam Pandey v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 841
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed a law student namely Shivam Pandey persuing masters from University of Delhi seeking compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs for the damages suffered to his health due to the cause of air pollution in the city. Apart from compensation, the plea also sought health insurance of Rs. 25 lakhs.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma observed that the law student failed to place on record any material evidence which may "even remotely" establish any personal injury suffered by him on account of air pollution.
Calling the petition as misconceived, the Court dismissed the same and orally told the petitioner, who was appearing in person, thus:
"Sir remember, Court is a serious place. Filing and the right to you to file a petition in this Court, is not merely a tool for your resume and you cv. Next time you have a serious issue to raise, you are most welcome to do so..."
Case Title: M/S VERVE HUMAN CARE LABORATORIES v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 842
The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of judicial review in matters of government contracts is limited and can only be exercised if there is patent unreasonableness, irregularity, irrationality or illegality in the decision-making process of the authority which places public interest at large at a risk.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad added that in the absence of the said circumstances, Courts should normally exercise judicial restraint while deliberating upon contractual matters so as to not generate "problematic ramifications" affecting the State's ability to enter into contracts and trade with private entities.
Case Title: DR. L. PRAVEEN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 843
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to three officials accused in connection with Biocon bribery case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observing that though the offence alleged is grave, the trial in the matter would take ample time.
A bench of Justice Anu Malhotra noted that chargesheet was already filed and investigation in the matter was completed. It thus granted bail to Dr. S. Eswara Reddy (Joint Drugs Controller), L. Praveen Kumar (Associate Vice President of M/s Biocon Biologics Limited) and Dinesh Dua (Director of M/s Synergy Network India Private Limited).
CBI had filed an FIR in June this year under sec. 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Case Title: Drooshba Fabricators v. Indue Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 844
The High Court of Delhi has held that non-payment or insufficiency of stamp duty on the underlying agreement cannot render the arbitration clause invalid.
The Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited[1] and Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.[2] to hold that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C should impound the unstamped/inadequately agreement and direct the parties to cure the defect before the arbitrator could adjudicate upon such an agreement.
The Court further held that the requirement of pre-arbitral steps in the form of negotiation/conciliation would stand satisfied when the petitioner issues several notices to amicably settle the dispute, however, no response comes from the respondent.
Case Title: HATHKARGAH LAGHU PATANG UDYOG SAMITI (REG.) v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 845
The Delhi High Court has observed that a person engaged in kite flying cannot modify the kite flying thread to sharpen it by using sharp metallic or glass components and adhesives for the purposes of sparring with fellow sports persons.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan noted the clarification made by the Delhi Government in respect of its notification imposing a complete ban on the sale and production of chinese manjha for kite flying, that the activity will be permitted only from cotton thread, free from any sharp, metallic or glass components.
Title: JEEVESH SABHARWAL v. ARUNA GUPTA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 846
The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases involving question of examining a witness on Commission wherein such a witness is disabled or otherwise not in a position to attend Court, the Court has to exercise its power to examine the witness to see that no miscarriage of justice takes place.
"The question of examining the witness on Commission arises in the case where such a witness is disabled to attend the Court due to old age or hazardous condition of her health, not in a position to move about or the witness is incapable of attending the Court for any other reason. In such cases, the Court has to exercise its power to examine the witness to see that no such miscarriage of justice does takes place," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
The Court added that where it is not possible for a witness to attend the Court, a procedure is prescribed under sec. 284 of CrPC to examine the witness by the Court Commissioner.
Case Title : H.S. RAI v UOI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 847
The Delhi High Court has observed that it can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either when the person or authority to which the writ is to be issued is located within its territory, or the cause of action, in part or whole, arises within its territory.
Thus, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed the plea of H.S. Rai, an aggrieved employee of Projects and Development India Limited (PDIL), who had moved the Court to set aside the penalties imposed on him during a disciplinary enquiry for allegedly misappropriating company funds.
The Court held that since both the original authority and the appellate authority under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA Rules) of the organisation were constituted and made their respective orders in Jharkhand, the petitioner could not have approached the Delhi High Court merely because he was a resident of Delhi.
Case Title: Dr. Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 848
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India to ensure strict compliance by political parties of its guidelines concerning COVID-19 norms during elections.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL seeking to debar candidates and campaigners of political parties from campaigning in elections, "either permanently or for a stipulated period of time", if they repeatedly violate mandatory masking guidelines issued by Election Commission.
Case Title: HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 849
The Delhi High Court has directed Amazon India to remove listing of famous 'ROOH AFZA' product not originating from the Hamdard Group, thereby granting an ad-interim injunction in its favour.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that since 'ROOH AFZA' is a product which has been consumed by the Indian public for over a century now, the quality standards have to comply with the applicable regulations prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
The suit was filed by Hamdard National Foundation (India) and Hamdard Dawakhana against two companies namely Amazon India Limited and M/s. Golden Leaf, relating to its product and mark of 'ROOH AFZA'.
Case Title : CROSS FIT LLC v RTB GYM AND FITNESS CENTRE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 850
The Delhi High Court recently granted permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of Cross Fit LLC against a gym and fitness centre unauthorizedly using its trademark.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the defendant gym had failed to enter appearance despite service of notice and as such, no ex parte evidence would be required in the matter.
The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant is a gym and fitness centre owned and operated by its proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma and is using the identical mark 'CROSSFIT' in respect of identical services relating to gym and fitness. The Plaintiff acquired knowledge of the use of the said mark by the Defendant in September, 2020.
The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has been prominently displaying the mark 'CROSSFIT' at its premises, literature, online pages as hashtags since March, 2018.
Case Title: State v. Rahul
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 851
More than 10 years after his acquittal in October 2011 by a Trial Court here, the Delhi High Court on Friday convicted a man for raping a 11 year old minor victim in the year 2010 and awarded a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the appeal filed by the prosecution in the year 2014 against the Trial Court order dated October 20, 2011 whereby one Rahul was acquitted in FIR registered under sec. 376 and 377 of Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court had granted him benefit of doubt by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
In April 2010, the minor victim while returning from school, had gone to a public toilet when the man had followed her and forcibly took her to male toilet, removed her clothes and committed rape upon her.
The man was apprehended some days later and was taken to the police station. The matter was reported to the police after seven days of the incident.
Case Title: VRS Natarajan versus OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 852
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that all interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal are not amenable to challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that there is no statutory or other legal bar under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), including under the proviso to Section 34 (2A) of the A&C Act, against raising the interlocutory order passed by the Arbitrator rejecting the application for amendment of Statement of Claims, as a ground for challenging the final award. Thus, the Court ruled that the said interlocutory order was not challengeable under Article 227.
The Court observed that it was difficult to envisage a situation in which an order would be amenable to challenge under Article 227, but would not be challengeable under Section 34 of the A&C Act, in view of the bar contained in the proviso to Section 34(2A).
Case Title: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS GUILD (INDIA) v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL CIVIL AVIATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 853
The Delhi High Court has observed that the conduct of Breath Analyser Tests (BAT) for staff of Air Traffic Controllers, commercial pilots, cabin crew and other staff members shall continue depending upon the guidelines issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation in light of the status of COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was considering a clutch of petitions relating to the Breath Analyzer Test which the ATCs and commercial pilots need to undergo before joining their duty at the airports.
The DGCA had moved an application seeking certain modifications in the order dated 11th May, 2021 passed by the Court while issuing a slew of directions for the administration of Breath Analyzer Test at all airports for all ATCs, pilots, cabin crews and other personnel.
Case Title: Durga Prasad v. LG
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 854
Observing that charges against a policeman posted as SHO at Kingsway Camp police station, charged with misconduct during the 1984 anti Sikh riots, were serious in nature, the Delhi High Court on Monday said that the competent disciplinary authority shall be free to pass an order of punishment against the cop Durga Prasad.
Durga Prasad, now retired, was charged for not making any preventive detention, not deploying proper force in the area of posting, not taking any action in dispersing miscreants during the anti Sikh riots.
Terming the riots as the most unfortunate tragedy, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad orally remarked that many innocent lives were lost during the riots.
Case Title: GURJEET SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 855
The Delhi High Court has observed that the effect of non-compliance of any mandatory provision under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Investigating Officer or any irregularity or illegality committed at the time of making of the seizure memo is essentially a matter of trial and cannot be looked into at the stage of bail, unless there is any glaring irregularity which will make the seizure itself illegal.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while denying bail to one Gurjeet Singh in an FIR registered under sec. 18 and 25 of NDPS Act.
Singh was found in possession of two polybags containing black colour material, later found to be "afeem". The substance was found to be 750 grams (one polybag containing 400 gms and other 350 gms). On search of almirah in Singh's house, a cash amount of Rs. 2,52,15,350 was found.
Case Title: NARINDER KHANNA v. GOVT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 856
The Delhi High Court has dismissed with 1 lakh cost a public interest litigation seeking a list of 186 private liquor vendors allegedly harassed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea at admission stage and directed the cost to be paid to the Army War Widows Fund within a period of 30 days.
The plea filed by one Narinder Khanna, an advocate by profession, also sought a direction to be issued to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi to identify those persons who are causing harassment to 186 liquor vendors forcing them to close their shops, thereby depriving them of their right of livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Konika Poddar v. SL Stephen's College & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 857
The Delhi High Court on Monday said that St Stephens college must follow the admission policy of the Delhi University for the academic sessions 2022-23 for students belonging to non-minority category applying to undergraduate courses.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that St Stephens college shall follow the directive that 100% weightage must be given to CUET 2022 score for the admission of students belonging to the non minority category applying to such courses.
The Court therefore directed St Stephens college to withdraw its admission prospectus and issue a fresh public notice declaring the amended admission procedure.
The Court also observed that the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of Constitution of India accorded to minority institution cannot be extended to non minority members.
Case Title: NARENDER @ LALA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 858
Setting aside the orders of conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a man in 2018 who was unrepresented by a lawyer before the Trial Court, the Delhi High Court has remanded the case back to the Trial Court for cross examination of certain prosecution witnesses.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal was of the view that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice to the man as when number of witnesses were examined, he was not represented by a counsel and that the legal aid counsel, who was present before Trial Court, was appointed on the same day and was asked to cross- examine the witnesses.
Narender was convicted for offence of murder punishable under sec. 302 of IPC on March 20, 2018. He was sentenced on 4th May, 2018 by the Trial Court for life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Case Title: Punita Bhardwaj versus Rashmi Juneja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 859
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application for amendment of statement of claims on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage, does not constitute an interim award and thus, it is not challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
While observing the distinction between the rejection of application for amendment of claims and counter claims on the ground of limitation vis-Ã -vis on the ground that the amendment was sought belatedly, the single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that Section 23 (3) of the A&C Act vests discretion in the arbitral tribunal to disallow a party to amend or supplement its pleadings on the ground that the application is filed belatedly.
The Court thus ruled that dismissal of an application for amendment of claims on the ground of delay is an interlocutory order, which is not susceptible to challenge under Section 34.
262. DHJS Exam: High Court Refuses To Re-Evaluate Answer Sheet Of Aspirant Unsuccessful By One Mark
Case Title: MAYANK GARG v. DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 860
The Delhi High Court has observed that in rare and exceptional cases where it is established that there is a manifest error in evaluation of examination papers, the court may exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide appropriate relief.
A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan added that in cases where it is established that the right of candidates for a fair evaluation in accordance with the specified procedure has been impinged, it may be necessary for the courts to exercise the said power to ensure that the rights of examinees are preserved.
The Court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by a candidate (an advocate) seeking a direction on Delhi High Court to recheck or re-examine his answer-sheets in respect of examination paper, Law-III in respect of Delhi Higher Judiciary Services.
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 861
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which enables the court to appoint a guardian for a party before it which is missing.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code envisages appointment of guardians only to protect the interests of persons who are adjudged to be of unsound mind or are found, on enquiry by the Court, to be incapable of prosecuting their case by reason of mental infirmity. The provision cannot be applied in case a party is missing.
264. Coke Studio v. Cook Studio: Trademark Suit Settled In Delhi High Court After Mediation
Case Title: NIKHIL CHAWLA v. THE COCA COLA COMPANY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 862
Nikhil Chawla, a man running a popular online platform called 'COOK STUDIO' engaged in blogging and production of video relating to cooking, has settled a trademark suit filed by him against 'The Coca Cola Company' which is owner of famous music platform Coke Studio.
Chawla, proprietor of the firm trading as "The Chawla Group" had filed a suit against 'The Coca Cola Company' seeking declaration of non infringement of the registered trademark 'COKE STUDIO', a music platform.
Justice Pratibha M Singh noted that the parties had amicably arrived at a settlement and found the terms of the settlement as lawful.
265. Would Subsequent Agreement Cover Past Transactions ? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court
Case Title: OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 863
The High Court of Delhi has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the High Court cannot examine an issue as to whether the arbitration clause in a subsequent agreement would govern past transactions of similar nature as it requires detailed consideration of clauses and surrounding circumstances.
The Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Act does not permit the High Court to examine issues that would require an interpretation of the contract, therefore, all such issues are to be referred to arbitrator.
Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 864
The Delhi High Court has directed former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy to ensure that possession of his government accommodation, allotted to him in 2016 for a period of five years, is handed over to estate officer within a period of six weeks.
Swamy, who has been provided with Z category protection by the Centre, was allotted government accommodation on 15th January 2016 on a license for a period of five years. The said premises was allotted to him on account of the threat perception which was assessed by the Centre.
Swamy then became a member of the Rajya Sabha which term came to an end on 24th April 2022. While Swamy was serving as a member of the upper house, the government accommodation continued to remain and the allotment ultimately came to an end by efflux of time.
Swamy had then moved High Court arguing that bearing in mind the security arrangements which are required to be made for a Z category protectee, the accommodation which was originally allotted to him must be continued in his favour.
Case Title: BIMAL KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 865
The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere exculpatory statement made to officials of Enforcement of Directorate (ED) cannot suffice to form a reasonable ground to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence of money laundering.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while denying bail to one Bimal Kumar Jain, who was booked by ED for indulging in money laundering, alleging that he along with other co-accused persons had incorporated and operated 450 Indian entities and 104 foreign entities for routing proceeds of crime and also enabled purchase of offices and properties with untainted funds.
ED had alleged that Jain's brother had placed funds in his companies and layering was done by routing the proceeds of crime into various companies that had dummy shareholders and Directors.
Case Title: Mujeeb ur Rehman v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 866
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday disposed of a petition filed last year during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic seeking directions to the Delhi Government to formulate and implement an effective plan with sufficient infrastructure to provide certain facilities pertaining to the dead bodies infected from COVID including mortuary, funeral, transportation and handling facilities.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad closed the PIL filed by lawyer Mujeeb ur Rehman who alleged that during the peak of pandemic last year, city's population was severely suffering due to the lack of facilities regarding mortuaries and funeral facilities including lack of dead body transportation and handling facilities.
Case Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 867
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a convict in the Mumbai Twin Blast case (7/11 Bomb Blast case) challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) denying him information regarding the proposal and all documents concerning grant of sanction for prosecution under sec. 45(1) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and National Investigation Act, 2008. He is presently serving his sentence in Nagpur Central Prison since July, 2006.
The CIC, while upholding the view taken by CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs, had found that the disclosures would stand exempted under sec. 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Case Title: MOHD SHAKEEL & ORS. v. MOHD ISLAM
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 868
The Delhi High Court has observed that a stay order cannot be stayed, except in rare and exceptional cases where restoration of the status quo ante at an interlocutory stage is imperative in the interest of justice.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that where a judgment or decree is injunctive in nature, meaning that where the judgment or decree injuncts either of the parties before the Court from performing any particular act, no stay of such an order can be sought as it would amount to "placing the clock back and restoring the status quo ante."
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 25th March 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge concerning a suit instituted by one Mohd Islam (respondent) against the petitioners in the petition. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge on 11th January 2022.
Case Title: ANEESH GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 869
The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial cases where settlement has taken place, offence under sec. 377 of Indian Penal Code can be compromised and FIR can be quashed as parties have to move ahead in life.
Justice Talwant Singh thus concurred with the decision of a coordinate bench in Rifakat Ali & Ors v. State & Anr. decided on February 26, 2021 wherein the Court had quashed an FIR under sec. 377 of IPC on the ground that the parties had compromised the matter with each other only because it arose out of a matrimonial dispute.
"So, the view of the co-ordinate bench is that in matrimonial cases, where settlement has taken place, even the offence under Section 377 IPC can be compromised and FIR can be quashed as parties have to move ahead in life. I concur with the said view," the Court observed in a ruling dated September 6.
Case Title: RAVINDER SURI & ORS. v. DAYAWATI (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 870
The Delhi High Court has observed that merits of the rival stands cannot be a material consideration while examining whether a particular question that the party desires to pose to a witness is relevant or irrelevant.
"Relevance or irrelevance is to be decided by juxtaposing the question that is being sought to be put with the pleadings of the parties and their rival stands before the court, and not with respect to the merits of such stands," Justice C Hari Shankar added.
The proceedings emerged in relation to an Eviction Petition instituted by respondent against the petitioners before the Additional Rent Controller seeking their eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 871
In connection with a bunch of pleas concerning proliferation of fraudulent domain names resulting in monetary loss to public, the Delhi High Court has directed various domain name registrars (DNRs) to appoint grievance officers in compliance of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 within a period of one week.
In an order passed on September 14, Justice Pratibha M Singh added that if the said compliance is not made, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology will be free to proceed in accordance with law against such DNRs who have been offering their domain name registration, hosting and related services in India, without complying with the local laws.
Case Title: MOHD ERSHAD SOLE PROPRIETOR EK AGENCIES v. REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 872
The Delhi High Court has observed that in order for any person to obtain copyright registration of an artistic work which is being used or is capable of being used in respect of any goods and services, the no objection certificate (NOC) is mandatorily to be obtained under the proviso of sec. 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The said proviso states that the application for entering particulars of the copyright work in the Register of Copyrights shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks to the effect that no trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been registered or that no application has been made for such registration.
"The purpose behind this provision is to ensure that there is no conflict between labels, packagings, etc. registered or used by trademark owners and registrations granted under the TM Act. The registration of copyright in respect of artistic works is, thus, founded on the basis of the NOC issued by the Trademark Office," Justice Pratibha M Singh added.
Case Title: BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 873
The Delhi High Court has held that a temporary official who is purely appointed on daily rated or work charge basis for specific period to do a specific job, cannot claim to be a regular employee of an establishment and thus cannot claim seniority for the period of his service rendered on work charge basis.
Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea filed by BSES Yamuna Power Limited challenging an award passed by the Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal whereby the services of a workman, namely Ramji Lal, were regularised to the post of Mason Grade-I.
The workman was initially appointed as a worker on work-charge basis. Later, he was engaged as a Mason w.e.f. March 1975. In March 1976, his services were terminated, thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute which passed an giving relief of reinstatement and continuity in service with full back wages.
Case Title: MIZPAH CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 874
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Ministry of Home Affairs' notification dated April 26, 2013 specifying the officers competent for compounding the offences before institution of any prosecution, issued under sec. 41(1) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.
The said provision states that any offence punishable under the FCRA Act, not being an offence punishable with imprisonment only, may, before the institution of any prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such sums as the Central Government may specify in a notification in the Official Gazette.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan was of the view that the impugned notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under sec. 41 of the FCRA and the same did not fall foul of any provision of the Act.
Case Title: M/S MAAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. M/S MINDWAVE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 875
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere non-filing of a 'legal proceedings certificate' is not concealment of such a material nature so as to disentitle the plaintiff to file a suit seeking an injunction, wherein it apprehends infringement of its trademark.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan was dealing with a plea filed by M/s Maan Pharmaceuticals Limited challenging an order passed by Trial Court dismissing its application filed under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
A suit was filed by M/s Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Maan Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking permanent injunction restraining it from using the trademark "BUPROEX-N". MINDWAVE claimed to be the registered owner of the said trademark and it alleged unauthorized use of the said trademark by MAAN.
Case Title: ACCURATE AUCTIONEERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 876
The Delhi High Court has observed that neither Article 19 nor any other provision of the Constitution of India recognizes a right inhering in an individual to compel the Government to enter into a contract.
Justice Yashwant Varma added that it is only when the State choses to enter into a contract by inviting bids and offers that it must follow a fair and transparent process of selection and ensure that all eligible parties are placed on an even pedestal.
The Court thus dismissed a plea challenging a 2018 Circular issued by the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance with reference to earlier circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Case Title: NATURAL FATHER RAVINDER SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 877
The Delhi High Court has observed that every school, including schools under the State Government, has the liberty and autonomy to maintain the standards it has set out for itself.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that laying down an eligibility criteria for admission in different classes cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal and that the said discretion lies with the school or any other authority under which the school lies.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the father of a minor girl challenging the validity of a Circular issued by the Delhi Government dated 27th July 2022 whereby it had mandated minimum 71% marks for admission in Science Stream in Class XI in city's Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya school for the academic year 2022-23.
Case Title: MOHD AHSAN v. CUSTOMS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 878
The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that if the contraband seized falls within the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the weight of the neutral substance would not be ignored while determining the nature of the quantity seized, whether small quantity, commercial quantity or in between.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Amit Sharma was dealing with a plea wherein three questions were referred to it by a single judge bench concerning the issue pertaining to miniscule percentage of a narcotic substance under the Act.
281. Orders Bereft Of Reasoning Liable To Be Set Aside In Revisional Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PHULGITA DEVI v. KRISHAN KMAR & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 879
The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders which are bereft of reasoning cannot be termed as good orders and the same are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by one Phulgita Devi challenging the order passed by the Trial Court whereby her application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.
Order VII Rule 11 sets out various cases whereby a plaint can be rejected.
In the application, the petitioner had claimed that the suit has was filed after allowing of eviction petition filed by her and dismissal of a revision petition as well as SLP by Supreme Court filed by the plaintiff.
Case Title: NEW MILLENNIUM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 880
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to constitute special expert teams to conduct surprise visits of law colleges that lack minimum infrastructure and adequate facilities.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the inspection reports of the law colleges shall be uploaded on its website, within one month of such inspection.
"If any colleges upon such inspection are found to be lacking minimum infrastructural facilities, then the BCI must take immediate steps to close such colleges. This is a much-needed therapy that ought to be introduced to cure the maladies that legal education is suffering from," the Court added.
The observations were made while the Court expressed concern over the condition of legal education including the status of infrastructure.
283. Delhi High Court Restores Bail In View Of Disputed Fact About Accused Threatening Complainant
Case Title: JAGAT SINGH NAGAR & ORS v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 881
The Delhi High Court has recently restored bail to three men after the parties lodged counter FIRs against each other, noting unless the investigation in both the cases reaches its logical conclusion, it cannot be assumed that the accused persons had violated any of the conditions of bail granted by the lower court or tried to influence the administration of justice.
The Court also reiterated that once bail is granted, the same should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, adding that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail.
Case Title: M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 882
The Delhi High Court has held that duty drawback for goods should extend to unutilized goods which were available at the time of conversion of the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit into a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU).
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakhdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the restriction against the claim of concession in duties and taxes applied only vis-Ã -vis plants, machinery and equipment that had already been installed. The petitioner was allowed to carry forward the advance authorization to the convertedunit,t i.e., 100% EOU, and thereafter fulfil the outstanding export commitment.
The issue raised was whether the petitioner is entitled to duty drawback, confined to customs duty component, against deemed exports, even where it has claimed cenvat credit.
Title: RAKESH MALHOTRA v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORYOFINDIAAND ORS & other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 883
The Delhi High Court has said that it expects the Delhi Government's health information management system, in order to provide an end to end solution for all information related to health institutions, will be developed as expeditiously as possible.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad thus closed a bunch of pleas filed concerning the management of COVID-19 situation in the city.
In a recent status report, the Delhi Government informed Court that a letter of Intent has been issued to M/S NEC corporation Ltd. which has started work and that all the modules of health information management system for the two hospitals namely, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital & Guru Govind Singh Hospital and allied medical institutions will be completed by September 2022.
The Court was also informed a mobile application will also be developed along with the software solution by the agency.
Title: LOTUS PAY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884
The Delhi High Court has ruled that payment aggregators fall within the definition of designated payment system under Section 23A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has the power to issue guidelines for efficient management for such payment systems.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju passed the ruling while dismissing a plea filed by Lotus Pay Solutions Private Limited, a company engaged in the business of providing recurring payment solutions for businesses through an authorised payment system, challenging Clauses 3, 4 and 8 of the circular dated March 17, 2020 issued by RBI titled "Guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateway".
Title: SHREYA BHARDWAJ THROUGH HER GUARDIAN v. SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 885
Dismissing the petition filed by the daughter of a lower court judge for admission under government quota in the Sanskriti School, the Delhi High Court has said Delhi Judicial Service officers cannot be included in the category of Central Officers (Group A) category for the purposes of the reservation scheme in the educational institution.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh passed the verdict on a petition contending that a judicial officer, who is holding a Civil Group A Gazetted Post by virtue of Rule 3(c) of the Delhi Judicial Rules 1970, has to be treated on a par with a government servant holding corresponding post in accordance with Rule 33 of DJS Rules.
60 percent seats in Sanskriti School are reserved for children of officials of Civil Services, Defence Cadre and allied Services like Group-A Civil Service.
The Court in the order said the reservation made by the School for admission was in the nature of welfare measures for a limited category of Government Officers and that the categories included in Quota did not specify the Delhi Judicial Service.
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 886
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a plea filed during the second wave of COVID-19 against Centre's permission for conducting Phase II and III clinical trials of Covaxin in the age group of 2 to 18 years.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Ors. wherein it was held that Centre's policy on COVID-19 vaccination policy was reasonable.
The Apex Court had rejected the contention that restricted emergency use approvals had been granted to COVISHIELD and COVAXIN in haste, without thorough review of the relevant data. It was also observed that the challenge to the procedures adopted by the expert bodies while granting regulatory approval to the vaccines on the ground of lack of transparency cannot be entertained.
Title: SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR GARG v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 887
The Delhi High Court has said that the delay in getting scientific reports related to investigations not only has a high social cost but leads to extreme suffering of the victim's family as they remain unaware of the exact cause of death.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the delay for "whatever reason" cannot be countenanced under law and may even lead to "degradation or putrefaction of the samples" negating the very purpose of examination.
The court made the observation while expressing concern over an inordinate delay in forwarding of histopathological examination report of a 14-year-old boy whose family claimed that he had died under suspicious circumstances.
Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 888
The Delhi High Court has held that mere looming presence of a website in a geography and ability of the customers to access the same is sufficient while granting relief of injunction in matters pertaining to trademark infringement.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri added that in trademark infringement cases, it is the possibility of confusion and deception in the mind of public due to infringing trademark that is good enough for the court to grant injunction.
"Even if a website is not directed at customers in a particular country, the fact that they are not restricted by the website to have access to it, is enough to characterise it as targeting. Targeting need not be a very aggressive act of marketing aiming at a particular set of customers," the Court said.
291. Burden Of Proof Lies On Accused When Last Seen Together With Deceased: Delhi High Court
Title: GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 889
The Delhi High Court has said that in a case where the accused is last seen together with the deceased, the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of the incident as the accused himself would have "special knowledge" of the incident. The burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act in such case would be on the accused, said the court
Section 106 provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
"Therefore, last seen together itself is not a conclusive proof but along with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between the accused and the deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused, etc. non- explanation of death of the deceased, may lead to a presumption of guilt," a division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal observed.
Case Title: Touchstone Holdings Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 890
The Delhi High Court has held that the reassessment notices issued between 1st April 2021 and 30th June 2021, will be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the re-assessment notice dated 29.06.2021, which has been issued within the extended period of limitation, is not time-barred.
Title: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT– 4(3) v. XIONGWEI LI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 891
Upholding a Trial Court order by which look out circular (LOC) issued against Xiongwei Li, CEO of Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited was quashed, the Delhi High Court permitted him to travel abroad subject to depositing of an FDR of Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Anu Malhotra added that the condition so imposed will be forfeited on account of Xiongwei Li's non-joining of the investigation and non-appearance as and when directed by the Trial Court.
"…further the respondent (Xiongwei Li) shall also adhere to the conditions imposed vide order dated 17.8.2022 in the bail order of the learned Trial Court of informing the complainant seven days prior to leaving India," the Court directed further.
Title: AAKASH CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR and another connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 892
Noting that lawyers add elaborative judgment extracts while drafting bail pleas, the Delhi High Court has requested counsels to adhere to "basic principles of pleading" and mention only facts, legal provisions and grounds on which bail is sought.
Justice Talwant Singh observed that there is no need for the drafting counsels to attach copies of the judgements along with pleadings as it results in making them too bulky.
Stating that the lawyers are at liberty to cite judgements at the time of arguments, the Judge added:
"These citations may be handed over to the Court Master at the time of arguments or they may be filed online just before the petitions are listed for final arguments. I earnestly hope that the learned drafting counsels will bear this in mind in future."
Title: VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. vs KIRAT VINODBHAI JADVANI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 893
Refusing to grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of a known Delhi-based jewellery showroom, the Delhi High Court Wednesday said 'Vasundhra' is a common name in India and an exclusive right to use the same cannot be granted.
The court made the observation in an order passed on an application filed by Vasundhra Jewellers, which has a showroom in Pitampura. The company owning the showroom has filed a suit against a Gujarati businessman, who manufactures garments under the name 'Vasundhra Fashion', and sought directions to restrain him from using the mark similar to its trademark - 'Vasundhra Marks'
Justice Navin Chawla at the outset noted that marks of the plaintiff have been duly registered but all of them are 'device marks' and it does not hold any registration in the word 'Vasundhra'.
Case Title: AMITA VASHISHT versus TARUN VEDI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 894
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure would apply only where the whole subject matter in both the proceedings is identical.
Section 10 CPC prevents the trial of a suit in a matter regarding which there is already a case pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. When the same parties file two or three cases in the same matter, the competent court has the power to stay proceedings of another court.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that since suits, which are pending before different courts, may often have overlapping issues and result of one may influence the outcome of another, the Code contains various provisions to deal with such contingencies.
Title: VINOD RAWAT v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 895
The Delhi High Court has observed that where a cross examination has been conducted extensively, it would be against the mandate of law to re-summon the witness especially in a case of sexual offence.
Observing that the right to fair trial is a constitutional goal and a fundamental right of every individual, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that where evidence sought to be brought on record is essential to issue involved in the matter, the power to summon material witness or examine person in attendance under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure must be invoked.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a man accused in a rape case against a Trial Court order dismissing his application under Section 311 of the Code for recalling of two prosecution witnesses including the victim. The FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.
Title: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. vs RAAJ COMPUTER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 896
The Delhi High Court has ruled that passing off old and used hard-disk drives, after tampering with their labels and printed circuit board, as new products is clearly an infringement of the trademark of the original manufacturer.
In its decision on a suit filed by Western Digital Technologies Inc (WD) - a known manufacturer of storage devices, the court said passing off plaintiff's goods as new and unused leads to deception, loss and injury to an unwary customer and also dilution of trademarks as well as unfair trade practices.
"The plaintiff is held entitled to damages quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), especially keeping in view the recovery made by the Local Commissioner as also the potential loss and injury that the unwary consumer shall suffer on purchasing such counterfeit product from the defendants," said Justice Navin Chawla in the ruling dated September 21.
Title: X v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 897
Dealing with a case where a minor boy was sexually abused by his own father, the Delhi High Court has observed that such cases cannot be treated as cases of matrimonial discord, as the child has his own individual constitutional right to get justice.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added that it will be highly unfair to deny the child victim the right to get justice merely because the accused was his real father and that his parents had matrimonial discord.
The Court thus refused to quash an FIR registered against the father under Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The father was accused of inappropriately touching his minor son and sexually abusing him on multiple occasions over a period of three years. It was alleged that due to the his acts, the minor child started experiencing extreme night mares and emotional disturbances.
Title: X v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 898
Allowing a woman's prayer for immediate termination of the pregnancy of her minor daughter, the Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to ensure that the procedure is done at the national capital's All India Institute of Medical Science on government expenses.
The government and private hospitals had earlier refused to terminate the pregnancy since the family of the teenager was unwilling to report the case to the police.
Section 19 of the POCSO Act makes it mandatory for any person apprehending an offence under the Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge about the same, to report such incident to a Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. The medical practitioners also are obliged under law to file a report regarding the pregnancy.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 899
The Delhi High Court has observed that extracting confession from a child regarding the manner in which the offence was committed by him is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of a preliminary assessment report required to be prepared under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
As per Section 15(1) of the Act, a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is required to make a preliminary assessment regarding the juvenile's mental and physical capacity to commit an offence and the ability to understand its consequences along with the circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed.
However, there are no guidelines as to how the Board would conduct such a preliminary assessment.
The observations have been made by a division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal while dealing with a criminal reference concerning issuance of guidelines to be followed by Juvenile Justice Boards in conducting preliminary assessment to try a juvenile as an adult.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 900
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere presence of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against the wife does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband - when it is due to his own conduct she is not able to stay with him.
Emphasising that every case seeking compensation in matrimonial dispute has to be dealt with according to its facts and circumstances, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that every judgment, though filed under the same provision, cannot be painted and penned with the same stroke of a brush.
"Before parting with this case, this Court wants to observe that the Judges dealing with such cases should keep in mind the objective behind Section 125 Cr.P.C ... and the need to give a dignified existence to people ... who need to be maintained lawfully by the persons bound by law ... to maintain them expeditiously and with sensitivity," the Court added.
Other Digests:
Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part I [Citations 1 - 300]
Delhi High Court Annual Digest: Part II [Citations 301 - 598]
Delhi High Court Annual Digest: Part IV [Citations 901 - 1216]
