Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations 59-155]
Nupur Thapliyal
1 March 2022 7:30 PM IST
![Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations 59-155]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408682-delhi-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations 59-155]")
NOMINAL INDEXCONTINENTAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION V. SUGESAN TRANSPORT PVT LTD. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 59 MOHD. NAZIM V. THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. CITATION: 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 60KRISHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 61Joy Dev Nath v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 62Bhopal Dal Udyog v. Food Corporation of India, FAO (OS) 415/2011 2022 LiveLaw...
NOMINAL INDEX
CONTINENTAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION V. SUGESAN TRANSPORT PVT LTD. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 59
MOHD. NAZIM V. THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. CITATION: 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 60
KRISHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 61
Joy Dev Nath v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 62
Bhopal Dal Udyog v. Food Corporation of India, FAO (OS) 415/2011 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 63
Shakiluddin @ Babloo v. The State CRL.REV.P.-150/2020 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 64
Miss M (Minor) v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., Crl. M. C. 1909/2020 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 65
Jagdish Sharma v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 66
FARHEEN SAINI & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 67
State v. Vishal Singh and other connected pleas 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 68
SAPTAHIK PATRI BAZAR ASSOCIATION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 69
ANKIT V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.A. 170/2020 CITATION: 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 70
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. V. NATIONAL AGRO SEEDS CORPORATION (INDIA), OMP (COMM) 432/2019 CITATION: 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 71
MOONSHINE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS TICTOK SKILL GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 72
SHAILENDRA GHAI V. ANIL GHAI & ORS 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 73
M/S RAYAPATI POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 75
NATHU RAM V. D.D.A & ANR. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 76
K.N. RAO & ANR. V. M/S. COMPOSITE SECURITIES LTD. & ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 77
TAJUNISSA & ANR. V. MR. VISHAL SHARMA & ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 78
PANKAJ SHARMA V. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, WP (C ) 1892/2022 CONNECTED WITH MANOJ KUMAR JHA V. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS., WP (C ) 2027/2022 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 79
WESTERN INFRABUILD PRODUCTS LLP V. M/S WESTERN STEEL INDIA & ANR. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 80
KAVITA TUSHIR V. PUSHPRAJ DALAL, CM (M) 13/2022 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 81
RAJEEV SHARMA V. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 83
MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. V. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 84
RAVINDER V. STATE 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 85
AIR CUSTOMS V. BEGAIM AKYNOVA 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 86
DR SANJEEV KUMAR RASANIA V. CBI AND ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 87
DEEPANSHU KHANNA & ANR. V. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 88
SH. HANSRAJ & ORS V. ESIC & ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 89
AMBIENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL V. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 90
KAMLESH KUMAR JHA V. DIRECTORATE GENERAL BORDER ROADS AND ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 91
SALEEM KHAN V. THE STATE (GOVT. OF GNCT, DELHI) 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 92
THARVINDER SINGH & ORS. V. VIRESH CHOPRA & ANR 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 93
TINIMO EFERE WOWO VS THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 94
M/S WEARWELL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED V. MOHD. NIZAM 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 95
SMT. NEELAM BATRA V. SHRI V. RAMCHANDRA RAO 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 96
UNION OF INDIA V. M/S APS STRUCTURES PVT. LTD, OMP (T) (COMM) 2/2022 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 97
MANUSHI SANGATHAN V. DELHI FIRE SERVICE 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 98
ABHA GEORGE & ORS VERSUS ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (AIIMS) & ANR. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 99
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD V. FARIDA SAROSH POONAWALA AND ORS 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 100
ALL INDIA AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION & ANR. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 101
FATEH SAHARAN V. ROHIT SAHARAN 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 102
VIKAS CHAWLA V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 103
THE CHIEF MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK V. SHRI PARAMJIT SINGH NANDA 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 104
PKF SRIDHAR AND SANTHANAM V. AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA. WP (C ) 12385/2021 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 105
TAQA INDIA POWER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. VS NCC INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LIMITED, OMP (EFA) (COMM.) 1/2018 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 106
NANCY GILL V. STATE 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 107
MAHESH V. STATE 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 108
MOHD. AFSAR V. STATE, CRL. A. 274/2020 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 109
JAHAN SINGH V. TRIBAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD TRIFED AND ANR 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 110
MANIKA BATRA V. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 111
AMIT @ SONU JAAT V. STATE AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 112
SAURABH AGGARWAL & ANR V. STATE & ANR.2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 113
LUV SHARMA & ORS V. STATE & ANR 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 114
COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE V. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 115
CHANDAN SINGH @CHINTU V. THE STATE AND ANR. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 116
CHANDRAKANT JHA V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 117
TARANJEET SINGH V. STATE 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 118
SUSHIL ANSAL V. STATE 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 119
ASHISH GUPTA V. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 120
FIITJEE LIMITED V. VIDYA MANDIR CLASSES LTD. & ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 121
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. V. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. & ORS.2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 122
BW BUSINESS WORLD MEDIA PVT. LTD. V. INDIA RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD.2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 123
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT V. GAGANDEEP SINGH & ORS 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 124
DHARAMRAJ V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 125
SATISH KANSAL V. SYNERGY TRADECO NV & ANR.2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 126
H.S. SAHNI V. MUKUL SINGHAL & ORS.2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 127
JASVINDER KAUR V. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS.2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 128
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE V. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 129
TASLEEM & ORS V. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 130
MOHD. SULEMAN V. NDMC & ORS.2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 131
JOGINDER TULI V. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 131
MD. EHRAZ ZAFAR V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 133
VINAY KHURANA V. SHWETA KHURANA 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 134
DR. SANJIV BANSAL V. DR. MANISH BANSAL 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 135
GOPALA KRISHNA MOOTHA V. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 136
JOHRINA BEGUM V. SUKHBIR SINGH 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 137
SUMER SINGH SALMAN V. VIKRAM SINGH & ORS 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 138
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. & ORS. V. 123MOVIESHUB.TC & ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 139
VIPIN SEHRAWAT V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SDMC 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 140
NIPUN MIGLANI V. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER & ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 141
MOHD FAROOQ V. STATE 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 142
DR MOHAMMAD AJAZUR RAHMAN V. UNION OR INDIA & ORS 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 143
DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH V. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 144
THARVINDER SINGH & ORS V. VIRESH CHOPRA & ANR 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 145
JAYABRATA BOSE V. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 146
SUNDER SINGH BHATI V. THE STATE 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 147
AFROZNISHA V. DELHI WAKF BOARD & ORS 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 148
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 149
KLJ ORGANIC LTD V. LTD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 150
RAVNEET KAUR V. PRITHPAL SINGH DHINGRA 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 151
BHARATI SHIVAJI & ANR V. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 152
RASHTRIYA PRAVASI PARISHAD V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 153
ROHIT SHUKLA V. DGMS (ARMY) 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 154
NOKIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2022 LIVELAW (DEL) 155
Case Title: Continental Engineering Corporation v. Sugesan Transport Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 59
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an execution petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act by a Decree Holder for an arbitral award because the the Judgment Debtor was carrying out its business in Chennai and it did not have any office or asset within Delhi jurisdiction.
The present petition was filed under Section 36 (the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court) of the Arbitration Act ('the Act'). The Court also relied on Order XXI, Rule 30 of CPC for grant of execution of a money decree.
While going through the assets of the Judgement Debtor, the judge noted that, the Judgement Debtor is a company carrying out its business in Chennai, its primary bank account is based out of Chennai and it does not have any office/ asset located in Delhi. The affidavit of assets filed by the Judgement Debtor also does not disclose an moveable/ immoveable assets within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
Case Title: MOHD. NAZIM v. THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 60
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR filed against a man accused of stalking, sexual harassing and circulating morphed photographs of an undergraduate girl, despite settlement between parties.
Considering the nature of offences committed against the girl, Justice Mukta Gupta was of the view that the FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the man later showed repentance for the offences committed as the same was a "serious assault on the fundamental right to live with dignity of the complainant."
Case Title: KRISHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 61
The Delhi High Court has observed that a fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure which entails not only the rights of the victims but also the interest of the accused.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri added that it is the duty of every Court to ensure that fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case.
"In furtherance of the above, adducing of evidence by the accused in support of his defence is also a valuable right and allowing the same is in the interest of justice," the Court said.
Case Title: Joy Dev Nath v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 62
The Delhi High Court has held that to prosecute a person for an offence committed under Section Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must show that the offence was committed in reference to the 'caste' of the victim/ prosecutrix.
Section 3(1)(w) penalizes a person, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent.
Case Title: Bhopal Dal Udyog v. Food Corporation of India, FAO (OS) 415/2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 63
The Delhi High Court observed that in breach of a contract, if the actual damages have been ascertained then the sole arbitrator is not justified in granting liquidated damages over and above such actual damages.
The Bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manmohan observed,
" In the present case as the actual damages suffered by the respondent were proven and accepted by the learned Sole Arbitrator, liquidated damages over and above such actual damages could not have been awarded. Accordingly, the Arbitral Award insofar as it grants Rs.8,38,656/- in favour of the respondent is set aside."
Case Name: Shakiluddin @ Babloo v. The State CRL.REV.P.-150/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 64
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Revision Petition filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing the charge of murder against the accused-revisionist.
It held that at the stage of framing charges, the Court need not consider the probative value of the evidence. A prima facie view of the materials on record is sufficient for framing charges.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar held:
"When the material placed before the Court discloses great suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be justified in framing charge. No roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial was being conducted. If on the basis of materials on record a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists."
7. Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Of 72 Yrs Old Accused In POCSO Case
Case Title: Miss M (Minor) v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., Crl. M. C. 1909/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 65
The Delhi High Court cancelled the bail granted to a 72 years old man, who is accused of raping a 7 years old girl child and is booked for the offence of Rape under Section 376 IPC and Penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The petitioner/ complainant had filed a petition under Article 227, read with Section 439(2) CrPC, assailing the order granting bail to the accused.
Case Title: Jagdish Sharma v. UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 66
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea filed by Congress Leader Jagdish Sharma seeking postponement of polls in States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Manipur, Uttarakhand and Goa in view of the growing cases of new Covid-19 variant Omicron.
The Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh expressed their displeasure and termed the petition as "frivolous" amid decline in the cases. It asked the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the plea and warned that the same will otherwise be dismissed with cost.
Accordingly, the plea was withdrawn from Court.
Title: FARHEEN SAINI & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 67
The Delhi High Court has granted police protection to an inter faith couple who was apprehending honour killing at the hands of woman's family members, after observing that their constitutional right to life and liberty was under threat.
Noting that the matter was sensitive in nature as the parties belonged to different religious communities, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said:
"There is no doubt that the present matter is of sensitive nature as the parties involved belong to different religious communities. The right to life and liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the same is an essential right to be protected, and in the present matter the Petitioners right was under threat at the instance of Respondents No. 3 to 5."
Case Title: State v. Vishal Singh and other connected pleas
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 68
The Delhi High Court granted bail to two men accused in the murder case of 85 year old woman, Akbari who died of asphyxiation due to inhaling smoke during the North East Delhi riots after her house was set on fire by a riotous mob. One other accused has however been denied relief.
Justice Subramonium Prasad denied bail to Vishal Singh. Relief was granted to Arun Kumar and Ravi Kumar, all booked in FIR 70/2020 registered at Bhajanpura police station.
11. Vendors Selling Essential Goods & Services Can't Be Equated To Regular Shops: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SAPTAHIK PATRI BAZAR ASSOCIATION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 69
The Delhi High Court has observed that participation of vendors in weekly markets in selling or dealing with essential goods and services is no ground to equate them with regular shops or establishments.
A Bench of Justicr Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh added that the nature of regular shops or establishment in a market area is very different from any weekly markets owing to the reason of density of both vendors and visitors.
"Footfall in a weekly market is much higher and therefore the risk of spread of disease in weekly market is much higher," the Bench said.
Therefore, the Court observed that a weekly market cannot be controlled and managed in the same way as regular shops or establishments in a regular market.
Case Title: Ankit v. State (NCT of Delhi) CRL.A. 170/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 70
The Delhi High Court recently referred to the law on appreciation of testimony of an injured witness, while upholding the judgment and conviction for attempted Murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri noted that the complainant/ witness had identified the appellant (convict) in Court and in cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the appellant was falsely implicated by him as he had taken loan from the appellant.
In this regard, the Judge referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Others (2011), to hold that the testimony of the complainant can be relevant and reliable, depending on the facts and circumstances of every case.
Case Title: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation (India), OMP (COMM) 432/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 71
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that the award of interest contrary to the express terms of the agreement between the parties would be susceptible to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.
However, Justice Vibhu Bakhru added, if there is no such agreement proscribing award of interest, the award of interest cannot be faulted.
The observation was made while dealing with an application filed by the National Seeds Corporation Limited under Section 34 of the Act, impugning an arbitral award rendered by a Sole Arbitrator.
Case Name: MOONSHINE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus TICTOK SKILL GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 72
In a case concerning alleged trademarks infringement, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction against the Defendants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unjustifiably using the trademarked word "Baazi" for its gaming services.
Holding that dishonest use of trademark "Baazi" or a similar word by a competitor of the registered proprietor of the trademark would suffice to restrain such user, the Court allowed the application of the Plaintiff/the registered proprietor for ad-interim injunction till the disposal of the suit.
Case Title: SHAILENDRA GHAI v. ANIL GHAI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 73
The Delhi High Court has said that it is incumbent on the Joint Registrar to consider the question of adequacy of court fees filed by a party, independent of any objections recorded by the Registry in that regard.
"It is underlined that when an objection as to adequacy of Court Fees is raised, it is incumbent upon the learned Joint Registrar to consider the question independently of any objections recorded by the Registry and to pass appropriate orders," Justice Asha Menon said.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved with the orders of the Joint Registrar dated 8th October, 2021 directing him to pay the deficient Court Fees without fail before the next date of hearing.
Title: M/S RAYAPATI POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 75
The Delhi High Court has observed that while computing the limitation period of 30 days prescribed under sec. 138(b) Negotiable Instruments Act for issuance of a valid legal notice, the day on which intimation is received by the complainant from the bank that the cheque in question has been returned unpaid has to be excluded.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri was dealing with a bunch of petitions filed under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaints qua them.
Case Title: NATHU RAM v. D.D.A & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 76
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is incumbent on the Trial Courts to consider the maintainability of suits at the initial stage so as to ensure that long delays do not take place, especially in respect of government land.
Justice Pratibha M Singh dismissed a second appeal challenging a single Judge's order against possession of the Appellants of a government land.
It was the case of the plaintiffs (Appellants herein) that they were in possession of the suit property situated in revenue estate of Humayunpur since the time of their forefathers. The original suit was filed against the DDA on the ground that on 8th May, 1984, DDA had threatened to demolish the construction of the house and asked the Plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the same.
Case Name: K.N. Rao & Anr. V. M/s. Composite Securities Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 77
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the phrase "first learns" used in the Limitation Act 1963 vide Articles 68 and 91(a) in its Schedule means "actual knowledge" of misappropriation and not merely "speculative knowledge."
Limitation under Article 68 pertains to specific movable property lost, or acquired by theft, or dishonest misappropriation or conversion. The period of limitation is 3 years, time from which begins to run when the person having the right to the possession of the property first learns in whose possession it is.
Similarly, Article 91(a) pertains to wrongfully taking or detaining any specific movable property lost, or acquired by theft, or dishonest misappropriation, or conversion. The period of limitation is three years, time fir which begins to run when the person having the right to the possession of the property first learns in whose possession it is.
Case Name: Tajunissa & Anr. V. Mr. Vishal Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 78
The Delhi High Court has held that invocation of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act results in a general bar to civil court proceedings, in light of Section 34 of the Act. However, this general rule is subject to the exceptions of fraud or absurd claims by the secured creditor.
Justice C. Hari Shankar, quoted the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. UOI (2004), in the context of this invocation:
"To the statutory proscription engrafted in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, the Supreme Court has, in the aforeextracted passage from Mardia Chemicals, chiseled out an exception, in a case in which "for example, the action of the secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent or his claim may be so absurd and untenable which may not require any probe whatsoever".
Case Title: Pankaj Sharma v. State Election Commission, WP (C ) 1892/2022 connected with Manoj Kumar Jha v. State Election Commission & Ors., WP (C ) 2027/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 79
The Delhi High Court has dismissed two petitions challenging a notification issued by the State Election Commission last month, changing the seats reserved in some wards under the General and Scheduled Caste category, for the upcoming municipal elections on the basis of descending order of percentage of population.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that relied reservation and rotation of seats for SC/ST members in municipal seats is not prohibited under Article 243T(1) of the Constitution.
The Court further noted that the power for rotation for the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes in different wards is vested upon the Central Government, and the delegation of this power to the State Election Commission (via a 1993 notification) has not been challenged.
Case Title: Western Infrabuild Products LLP v. M/s Western Steel India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 80
The Delhi High Court recently decided to refund the entire court fees in a trademark infringement case, which was amicably settled by the parties outside the Court.
In doing so, the Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait followed suit of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam.
In the said case, the Top Court had held that the parties who privately agree to settle their dispute outside the modes contemplated under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure are also entitled to refund of Court fees.
22. Order VII Rule 11 CPC | There Cannot Be Piecemeal Rejection Of Plaint: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kavita Tushir v. Pushpraj Dalal, CM (M) 13/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 81
The Delhi High Court has held that there cannot be a piecemeal rejection of a plaint under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In other words, Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all.
The observation is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. Therein, a Division Bench had held as follows:
"it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against the others. In no uncertain terms the Court has held that if the plaint survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial. 12. In view of this settled legal position we may now turn to the nature of relief."
23. 'Policy Matter': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Reduce Covid Booster Dose Interval
Case Title: Dishank Dhawan v. GNCTD, WP (C ) 5239/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 82
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking to reduce the time gap for administration of precautionary doses of Covid-19 vaccines (booster shots) to front line workers and senior citizens.
The Bench comprising of Chief Justice Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that it is an administrative decision and the Court cannot interfere in policy matters, based on the whims of the petitioners.
" These policies are made by Doctors who are subject-matter experts and High Courts will be extremely slow in interfering in such matters," the Bench remarked orally.
24. Espionage Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Freelance Journalist Rajeev Sharma
Case Title: Rajeev Sharma v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 83
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to freelance journalist Rajeev Sharma in connection with a case alleging that he supplied confidential information to Chinese Officials, in exchange of remuneration.
Enforcement Directorate had initiated investigation on the basis of an FIR filed against Sharma under the provisions of IPC and Official Secrets Act.
Justice Mukta Gupta pronounced the order after reserving the judgment on December 21, 2021.
Case Title: MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 84
The Delhi High Court has called for a report in respect of filling up of vacancies and infrastructure requirements across all District Fora and the State Consumer Redressal Forum in the city.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the Delhi Government to submit the said report within six weeks.
The Court also directed the said officer to coordinate with Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (Retd.), President of the State Consumer Redressal Forum, in order to ascertain the vacancies across the District Fora in Delhi and further requirements of the said fora and the State Forum.
The Court was dealing with a petition highlighting a grievance that the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (West), Janakpuri, Delhi had not disposed of the consumer complaint, which was filed way back in 2007.
Case Title: Ravinder v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 85
The Delhi High Court has held that a trustworthy testimony of a child witness is sufficient to record a conviction under the POCSO Act. At the same time, the Court struck a note of caution that the testimony has to be evaluated more carefully..
The observation was made by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while hearing an appeal against conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, which pertains to sexual harassment upon a child.
After perusing the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finally set aside the conviction of the accused, citing unreliable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Case Name: AIR Customs v. Begaim Akynova
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 86
In a case concerning illegal smuggling of gold by two Kazakh nationals, the Delhi High Court upheld the plea bargain reached between the Smuggler Respondent, Consul at the Kazakh Embassy, Air Customs Officer, and Senior SPP for the Customs Department vide Mutually Satisfactory Declaration (MSD).
Per the MSD, the Respondent pled guilty to Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. In return, the Respondent shall plead for a lenient sentence from the Court.
Accordingly, Trial Court sentenced her to a period of imprisonment already undergone along with a fine under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Title: Dr Sanjeev Kumar Rasania v. CBI and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 87
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for setting aside its own Judgment, citing the bar on review envisaged under Section 362 CrPC.
Section 362 stipulates that no Court, when it has signed its Judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
Explaining that the Court's inherent powers under Section 482 does not confer any new powers, at the cost of an existing provision under the Code, the Court held that the provision does not grant unlimited jurisdiction.
Case Title: DEEPANSHU KHANNA & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 88
The Delhi High Court has directed the University of Delhi to fill up all the available vacant seats across all the categories in its LLB course, with a period of two weeks, notwithstanding the cut-off date for admission.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that young students should not be denied the opportunity to pursue LLB degree who have shown their grit and determination in clearing the entrance examination.
The Court was dealing with the pleas moved by three students aggrieved of not being granted admission in LLB course of Delhi University despite availability of vacant seats. The Court directed that the University must consider all eligible candidates for filling up the vacancies including the petitioners.
Title: Sh. Hansraj & Ors v. ESIC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 89
The Delhi High Court has directed the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to constitute a committee in order to frame a broad policy for all its establishments in respect of contractual workers.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that the Committee shall consist of at least two experts, two representatives from the Workmen and two representatives from the Contractors, as also other officials, as the ESIC deems appropriate, in order to frame the proposed policy.
Title: AMBIENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 90
The Delhi High Court has observed that the purpose of admitting students to schools under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category is to ensure that students of the under privileged strata of society get access to quality education as envisaged under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
Justice Rekha Palli was dealing with a petition moved by a private unaided and recognised school, assailling the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Directorate of Education of Delhi Government vide which the school's request for grant of exemption from admitting 25 students in the EWS category based on the permissible intake to the schools was rejected.
Title: KAMLESH KUMAR JHA v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL BORDER ROADS AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 91
The Delhi High Court has held that an employee of the Border Roads Organisation has no fundamental right to claim a deputation to any other Organisation or Department like National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
A bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla added that since an employee of Border Roads Organisation has to work primarily in the said Organisation, he has only a right of fair consideration in accordance with the policy and needs of the organisation.
The Court dismissed a plea filed by one Kamlesh Kumar Jha challenging the rejection letter dated and show cause notice thereby seeking directions to the Border Roads Organisation to allow the his application for deputation to the NHAI on the ground of parity.
Case Name: Saleem Khan v. The State (Govt. of GNCT, Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 92
The Delhi High Court vindicated the case of the State upholding S. 307/324 IPC (attempt to murder/voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons) Conviction after confirming the reliability of the testimony of the injured witness.
Appellant's objections to procedural irregularities such as non-examination of public witness and non-recovery of the weapon of offense by the prosecution were brushed aside in light of the reliable testimony of the injured witness.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri highlighted the law on appreciation of injured witness according to a very high degree of reliability.
Thus, the testimony of an injured witness, unless countered by significant discrepancies, is highly reliable, removing all doubts as to the likelihood of the witness falsely implicating the attacker.
Title: THARVINDER SINGH & ORS. v. VIRESH CHOPRA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 93
The Delhi High Court has observed that once an application for amendment is allowed in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint has to be amended.
Justice Pratibha M Singh also reiterated that in case the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter.
The Court was dealing with a revision petition, the wherein the petitioners, who were defendants in the suit, had challenged the impugned order dated 28th July, 2020 by which the respondents (plaintiffs') application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed and the application of the Defendants under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.
The Plaintiffs were accordingly directed to file the amended plaint, on the next date of hearing or within 15 days upon resumption of normal hearing, whichever was later.
Case Name: TINIMO EFERE WOWO Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 94
In a case involving a foreign national arrested under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Delhi High Court clarified the liability of persons accused of offenses involving controlled substances and the foreigner's right to bail.
In this case, the Petitioner was the source person for Pseudoephedrine drug for a business chain operating in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. Holding the drug to be a "controlled substance", Justice Bhatnagar held that the bar of Section 37 is not applicable in this case.
Title: M/S WEARWELL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED v. MOHD. NIZAM
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 95
The Delhi High Court has observed that settlements entered into in industrial disputes are legal and valid even though provisions similar to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC do not exist in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that settlements can be entered into between Management and Workman even outside the court or conciliation proceedings as is clear from sec. 18(1) Industrial Disputes Act.
"Such settlements would be valid and legal. Upon a settlement being entered into, parties may place the same before the forum concerned and the same can be recorded, upon the Court being satisfied that the terms are legal, just and fair. A settlement under Section 18(1) would be binding on the parties. The usual procedure for recording a settlement would be that parties would file an application and appear before the court and confirm the settlement," the Court said.
Title: SMT. NEELAM BATRA v. SHRI V. RAMCHANDRA RAO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 96
The Delhi High Court has observed that under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant is entitled to the leave to defend the suit if he satisfied the Court that he has a substantial defence or that there are triable issues by way of which the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait made the following observations:
"Order XXXVII CPC was included in the Code of Civil Procedure with the intent to allow the plaintiff who has an undisputed liquidated claim against the defendant, who has no substantial defence and/or raises no genuine triable issues to obtain a quick and summary judgment without pointlessly being kept away from what is due, in respect of any monetary dues, to recover the dues swiftly by a summary procedure instead of taking the extensive route of a regular suit."
"But if the defendant satisfies the court that he has a substantial defence or satisfy the Court that there are triable issues by way of plea the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit."
Case Title: Union of India v. M/S APS Structures Pvt. Ltd, OMP (T) (Comm) 2/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 97
The Delhi High Court has held that recourse to Section 14 (failure or impossibility to act) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not available in respect of any challenge to the appointment of arbitrator under Section 12(1) of Act.
Section 12 provides for 'grounds of challenge', whereas sub section (1) provides that an arbitrator must disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality.
Justice Vibhu Bhakru has held,
" It is well settled that recourse to Section 14 of the A&C Act is not available in respect of any challenge to the arbitrator under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act."
Case Title: Manushi Sangathan v. Delhi Fire Service
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 98
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain the writ petition filed by Manushi Sangathan, an organization representing 67 hawkers and vendors, challenging the mock drill report submitted by Delhi Fire Service in the suo moto case registered last year following a fire incident at a building in the Nehru Place market.
The Bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla, which is already examining the matter in the suo moto case, chided the Petitioner, stating,
" You are committing an abuse of process by approaching this Court with multiple proceedings. You can't put fear of God in public authorities by filing by abuse of law".
The mock drill report stated that the time taken by various agencies in reaching the spot was too high thereby indicating that there were significant hindrances due to heavy pedestrian movement, heavy traffic, hawkers and parking problems. Accordingly, the report had recommended that the place may be made a hawker free zone.
Case Title: Abha George & Ors Versus All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 99
The Delhi High Court has allowed a petition filed by students of MSc Nursing at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), challenging an Office Memorandum (OM) of the Institution canceling their admission.
The students had been admitted based on the eligibility conditions in the Prospectus of AIIMS and offer letters. However, 2 months into the course, the Institution decided to cancel their admissions as it had released the qualifying examination results later than the due date. Thus, the students approached the Court, praying for relief.
Noting that the students had been studying for two months into the course, Justice Prateek Jalan ruled that the Institution could not now hold the students responsible for the University's shortcomings.
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD v. FARIDA SAROSH POONAWALA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 100
Reiterating that legal representatives of a person are entitled to motor accident claim, the Delhi High Court has upheld the compensation given to two children from the deceased's first marriage.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a plea impugning the award dated 22.03.2021 whereby the detailed accident report was disposed of and compensation was awarded to the children.
It was the case of the appellant, Insurance company, that the tribunal had erred in awarding compensation to two children of the deceased from his first marriage. It was submitted that they cannot be treated as dependent family members of the deceased.
It was also argued that the tribunal had erred in taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 41,807 whereas as per the claim of the wife of the deceased the salary was only Rs. 35,000 per month.
Case Title: ALL INDIA AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 101
The Delhi High Court has dismissed pleas challenging office order by which allowances of the Air India employees were reduced, observing that there was no discrimination rather there was a justifiable ground in reducing the allowances for the pilots and engineers.
Justice V Kameswar Rao said that it was for the Centre and Air India to determine, by taking into account relevant considerations, what ought to be the appropriate reduction in allowances.
"As long as the reduction is not palpably arbitrary, the scope of judicial review is very limited," the Court said.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by two associations namely India Aircraft Engineers' Association and Air India Aircraft Engineers' Association.
Title: FATEH SAHARAN v. ROHIT SAHARAN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 102
The Delhi High Court has observed that a minor child is entitled to claim maintenance for his upbringing by the father and that such a child is not bound by the divorce settlement regarding maintenance between his parents.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with an appeal filed by a minor child being aggrieved by the grant of interim maintenance by the Family Court at Rs. 15,000 per month.
The High Court had vide order dated April 22, 2021 enhanced the said maintenance amount and directed the father to pay Rs. 25,000 per month to the minor, considering that his school fee itself was in that range.
Observing that when the mother of the minor child obtained divorce by mutual consent, the maintenance was fixed in respect of the child at Rs. 5,000 per month, the Court said:
"It goes without saying that the appellant being a minor, is not bound by that settlement, and he is entitled to claim maintenance for himself for his upbringing from the respondent i.e., his father."
Case Title: VIKAS CHAWLA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 103
Noting that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave in nature, the Delhi High Court has observed that keeping an undertrial in custody would impact his right to defend himself during trial and that he will be clearly denied the right to a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the observation while granting bail to one Vikas Chawla accused of cheating HDFC Bank as well as BMW Financial Services to the tune of several crores of rupees by using forged and fabricated documents and emails.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 5th August, 2021 and was in custody since then. It was submitted that the investigation of the case was completed and Chargesheet was also filed. He also argued that all the incriminating evidences and materials against the petitioner were documentary in nature and that there was no chances of the petitioner tampering with the same.
Title: THE CHIEF MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK v. SHRI PARAMJIT SINGH NANDA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 104
The Delhi High Court has upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to a workman, guilty of forgery, fabrication of bank statements and other forms of misconduct, observing that the use of a bank's seal unauthorisedly is a matter of enormous gravity which cannot be simply brushed under the carpet.
Justice Pratibha M Singh also observed that forging the signatures of a colleague or even turning a blind eye to such forgery by a third party, and reaping benefits from the same is wholly impermissible.
The Court allowed the petition filed by Punjab and Sind Bank challenging the Award dated 9th October, 2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court wherein the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the Respondent Workman was unjustified and unwarranted.
Case Title: PKF Sridhar and Santhanam v. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India. WP (C ) 12385/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 105
The Delhi High Court recently observed that merely because a clause in the tender stipulates that the bids may be accepted or rejected without assigning any reasons, does not mean that the tender authority can act arbitrarily. It must have valid reasons for exercising its discretion.
The division bench comprising of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said,
" No doubt, the tender-inviting authority cannot act arbitrarily or whimsically, or out of mala fides in the matter of awarding or cancelling the tendering process. Even the clause which stipulates that they may not assign reasons for not accepting any bid, or rejecting the bids, does not mean that they should not have any valid reasons to justify their conduct."
The petitioner had preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the cancellation of the tender in question, issued by the respondent-Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India.
Case Title: TAQA India Power Ventures Private Limited and Ors. vs NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited, OMP (EFA) (Comm.) 1/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 106
The Delhi High Court has held that a Judgement Debtor cannot be permitted under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to file its objections against enforcement of an arbitral award in a piecemeal manner.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru held,
" The respondent cannot file its opposition in a piecemeal manner. It is seen that the present petition was filed in the year 2018 and has been pending since. Sufficient opportunity was granted to the respondent to file its objections, however, the respondent has limited its objection only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Court."
The respondent after completing his arguments regarding maintainability of the execution petition had submitted that in the event the Court finds that the petition is maintainable, the respondent should be given an opportunity to file its objection on merits.
Case Title: NANCY GILL v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 107
The Delhi High Court has observed that an accused person cannot be kept in custody indefinitely when the right to speedy trial is a concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"When right to speedy trial is a concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it can be presumed that one the facets would also be that the accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely."
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a woman seeking bail in an FIR registered under sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant, a jeweler by profession, had alleged that the petitioner, who was his customer, had dishonestly represented that the Prime Minister of India had started a programme wherein the King of Brunei wanted to start 14 Super Specialty Hospitals in different parts of India, with the first opening in Ahmedabad, Gujrat.
Case Title: Mahesh v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 108
"Speedy Justice is a Fundamental Right enshrined under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same needs to be given effect by this Court in letter and in spirit, else it will remain as a dead letter of law," the Delhi High Court observed on Tuesday.
The remarks were made while granting bail to an accused under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, languishing in jail for more than four years.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was hearing the regular bail application filed by Mahesh, who was allegedly found to be in possession of 20 grams of Ecstasy (commercial quantity).
The investigation against him was complete and chargesheet was also filed before the Sessions Court. Charges were framed against him in November 2018 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The High Court noted that till date, out of a total of 14 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined, and as such there is no probability of the trial being concluded in the near future.
Case Title: Mohd. Afsar v. State, Crl. A. 274/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 109
The Delhi High Court recently refused to accept the rough estimation of age, given by a rape victim's father, to determine whether the offences under the POCSO Act are attracted.
Justice Mukta Gupta observed that to determine the age of a victim, suspected to be a minor, Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 applies. It provides that the first priority has to be given to the Matriculation or equivalent certificate and in the absence thereof, to the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school.
In the instant case, the Bench noted that as per the date of birth recorded in the school first attended, the prosecutrix was a child in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act as she was below the age of 18 years.
Thus, even if in the cross examination, her father had given a rough approximation of her age, the same cannot be taken as an exact estimation of the date of birth of the prosecutrix.
Title: JAHAN SINGH v. TRIBAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD TRIFED AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 110
Dismissing a petition filed by an Accountant challenging his dismissal from service on being convicted in a criminal case, the Delhi High has observed that reinstatement in public service cannot flow as a matter of right where the acquittal of such person is not an honourable acquittal.
The petitioner who was working at the post of Accountant Grade I had approached the Court challenging the order dated March 19, 2013 whereby he was dismissed from service under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 based upon his conviction under sec. 7 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that the petitioner tried to extract a bribe for processing the release of an amount outstanding to a vendor.
The High Court had then vide order dated May 4, 2020 acquitted and exonerated the petitioner from all charges.
Case Title: Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 111
The Delhi High Court has appointed Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court as Chairperson of the Committee of Administrators to conduct the affairs of the Table Tennis Federation of India.
Justice Rekha Palli appointed a three member committee of administrators on Friday this week, thereby suspending the operation of it's Executive Committee after observing that prima facie, conduct of the federation was blameworthy.
"This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that till a deeper scrutiny of respondent no.1's affairs is carried out, either by the Union of India or by an independent Committee, a Committee of Administrators is required to be immediately appointed to conduct the affairs of the respondent no.1 federation," the Court said.
Case Title: AMIT @ SONU JAAT v. State and other connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 112
Observing that rape is one of the most barbaric crimes committed against the holy body of a woman and soul of the society, Delhi High Court has upheld conviction and sentence of three accused persons in connection with a gang rape case. The Court, however, acquitted three other accused in the matter.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed thus:
"Rape is one of the most barbaric and heinous crimes that is committed not only against the dignity of the rape-victim but also against the society at large. Dignity of every citizen is one of the basic precepts of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution, since these provisions are the "fons juris" of our Constitution. These crimes are against the holy body of a woman and soul of the society."
The Court was of the view that the object of the relevant penal law is to protect women from such offences and to keep alive the conscience of the society by weeding out such criminal proclivity.
Case Title: SAURABH AGGARWAL & ANR v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 113
The Delhi High Court has recently expressed concern over alarming increase in false sexual harassment, observing that the same are filed only to arm twist the accused and make them succumb to the demands of the complainant.
"This Court is pained to note that there is an alarming increase of cases under Section 354, 354A, 354B, 354C & 354D only to arm-twist the accused and make them succumb to the demands of the complainant," Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.
The Court also noted that the time spent by the police in investigating such false cases and in Court proceedings hinders them from spending time in investigation of serious offences.
"As a result cases which are required proper investigation get compromised and accused in those cases end up going scot-free due to the shoddy investigation. Valuable judicial time is also spent in hearing cases where false allegations are made and is consequently an abuse of the process of law," the Court said.
Case Title: LUV SHARMA & ORS v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 114
The Delhi High Court has recently said that it is pained to note the increasing tendency of filing rape complaints in matrimonial cases against male members of the husband's family, just to exert pressure.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said:
"This Court is pained to note that in matrimonial cases, there is an increasing tendency of filing such complaints for an offence under Section 376 IPC against the father-in-law, brother-in-law or any other male member of the family of the husband just to exert pressure on the family of the husband."
Case Title: COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) assailing an order which had suspended its registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 for 180 days under sec. 13 of the Act.
The impugned order dated June 7, 2021 was passed by Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Foreigners Division [FCRA Monitoring Unit], Ministry of Home Affairs whereby the FCRA registration was suspended, pending consideration for cancellation of the Certificate under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.
Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed the petition by observing that the provisions for suspension of certificate under sec. 13 and cancellation of certificate under sec. 14 of the Act are measures in keeping with the general mandate of the Act and the rules.
Case Title: CHANDAN SINGH @CHINTU v. THE STATE AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 116
The Delhi High Court has directed a man, accused outraging modesty of a woman, to do community service for a month observing that he cannot be let off simply because of a compromise with the complainant and that he has to atone for his sin of harassing a lady.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the man to do community service at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for a period of one month from February 10 to March 11, 2022. The Court also directed the man to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000 with the "Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund" within three weeks.
Case Title: CHANDRAKANT JHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 117
The Delhi High Court has observed that the foundational concept of parole is to enable a convict to re-establish his social ties in the community and with his family, and reintegrate himself in the society.
Denying relief to a man convicted for the offence of murder in three cases, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the provision for parole, under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, is seen as a positive reinforcement measure towards the convict.
Importantly, the Court observed thus:
"The foundational concept of parole is to enable a convict to, time and after, re-establish his social ties in the community and his family and reintegrate himself in the society. It enables him to maintain his social and familial obligations and responsibilities as well as maintain contact with the world outside the prison. Parole is usually a reward for good conduct during the time period of the serving of sentence by the convict."
Case Title: TARANJEET SINGH v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Observing that the right to bail is not to be denied merely because of sentiments of the community against the accused, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a robbery case.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh granted bail to one Taranjeet Singh seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under sec. 392 (robbery), 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC.
"It is well settled law that personal liberty is very precious Fundamental Right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case," the Court said.
"It is also settled law that grant or denial is regulated to large extent by facts and circumstances of each particular case, but at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of sentiments of the community against the accused."
Case Title: Sushil Ansal v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 119
The Delhi High Court has observed that suspending the seven year jail term awarded to real estate barons, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal in the evidence tampering case in Uphaar fire tragedy of 1997 would amount to eroding the faith of the public in the judicial system as it would entail allowing convicts to take advantage of the passage of time as well as the judiciary as an institution.
Justice Subramonium Prasad therefore dismissed Ansals' pleas seeking suspension of their seven-year jail term. The Court however allowed the petition filed by co convict Anoop Singh Karayat.
"This Court is of the opinion that suspending the sentence of the Petitioners would, therefore, amount to eroding the faith of the public in the judicial system as it would entail allowing convicts, whose finding of guilt has already been established, to take advantage of the passage of time as well as the judiciary as an institution," the Court said.
Case Title: ASHISH GUPTA v. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court has observed that a civil suit filed by a party seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of electricity having been dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy will not debar such party from filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva reiterated that electricity is one the Fundamental Rights for existence and is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to the party complying with other requirements.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking directions on Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) to either restore the electricity supply or install a fresh connection in the property in question.
Case Title: FIITJEE LIMITED v. VIDYA MANDIR CLASSES LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 121
Observing that malicious falsehood cannot become freedom of speech, the Delhi High Court has observed that care is to be exercised in order to avoid disparagement of another's products or denigration of the goodwill and reputation built by a competitor while engaging in advertising one's own products.
"While some latitude is to be given for hyperbole and commendatory expression for oneself with an attempt to show down the competitor, there can be no license to anyone to denigrate the competitor. The courts have protected parties who have been at the receiving end of such negative advertisements," Justice Asha Menon observed.
Case Title: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 122
The Delhi High Court has observed that while seeking review of orders passed in a civil suit, the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have to be satisfied.
Justice Asha Menon added that a re-hearing and re-appraisal of the material on record including pleadings, would fall within the scope of an appeal and not review.
"Error" has to be an error apparent on the face of the record to attract the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and must be a patent error which alone can be looked into in review proceedings," the Court said.
Case No: OMP (T) (Comm.) 3/2020
BW Businessworld Media Pvt. Ltd. v. India Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 123
The Delhi High Court recently terminated the mandate of a sole arbitrator appointed unilaterally at the instance of one of the contracting parties.
Justice Vikram Bakhru held that the mere fact that the petitioner did not object to the appointment at the material time and participated in the arbitral proceedings, would not stand in the way of terminating the mandate of such an arbitrator, for the reason that the appointment was made by a person ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT v. GAGANDEEP SINGH & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 124
The Delhi High Court has held that the offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is layered and multi-fold which includes the stages preceding and succeeding the offence.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the PMLA is a special enactment to combat the menace of money laundering, keeping in view the illegal practices that have been surfacing with respect to transfer and use of tainted money and subsequent acquisition of properties by using the same.
Case Title: Dharamraj v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 125
The Delhi High Court recently held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1861 against a dead person is null and void.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Manmohan relied on the case of Savita Kapila v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to answer the question of the validity of notice and consequent proceedings against a dead person. In the said case, it was held that,
"The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that notice under section 148 should be issued to a correct person and not to a dead person."
Case Title: Satish Kansal v. Synergy Tradeco NV & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 126
The Delhi High Court recently held that contracts in respect of Bank Gaurantees and Letters of Credit are independent of the main contract between the parties. Thus, even if there is a breach of the main contract, that cannot be a ground for injuncting payments under the Bank Gaurantees/ LCs.
Justice Amit Bansal observed,
" Merely because there is a dispute between the buyer and the seller with regard to the contract of supply of goods, that cannot be ground for interfering with the LC."
It added that there are only two exceptions to the aforesaid principle where courts would pass an injunction in respect of payments under an LC, in cases of 'egregious fraud and 'irretrievable injustice'. Egregious fraud has to be a fraud of the kind which goes to the very root of the matter, it clarified.
Case Title: H.S. Sahni v. Mukul Singhal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 127
The Delhi High Court recently delved into an issue relating to staying of subsequent suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 where there is identity of matter with previous litigation.
Section 10 CPC stipulates that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, in the same or any other Court in India.
Justice Asha Menon remarked that the fundamental test that is to be applied to determine whether Section 10 was applicable or not, is to see whether, on the final decision being reached in the first suit, such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit.
Case Title: JASVINDER KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 128
The Delhi High Court on Friday laid down the legal position regarding the detaining authority's obligation to communicate to a detenu the grounds of detention.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani observed that a detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that the grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be; and that he be afforded an opportunity of making a representation against the detention order at the earliest.
Case Title: Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 129
Calling it a misconceived and half baked petition, the Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea challenging an agreement between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Anil Ambani-led Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) in the year 2008.
The plea alleged that the agreement was executed by playing a fraud on public money.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma challenging the agreement dated August 25, 2008 entered between the parties, alleging that the same was hit by fraud, was contrary to public policy and was promoted by the parties jointly to siphon public money.
Case Title: TASLEEM & ORS v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 130
The Delhi High Court recently pulled up the city Police over non-appearance of it's investigating officers before the Court in criminal matters.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh termed the delinquency on the part of Police Department officers as most unfortunate, adding that the same must be strictly dealt with.
"It is observed by this Court that even in other cases as well the concerned Investigating Officer in those cases are avoiding appearance before the Court. The criminal justice machinery cannot be left at the mercy of the department and its officials where due to their negligence, cases are kept at abeyance and the entire machinery comes to a standstill," the Court said.
Case Title: Mohd. Suleman v. NDMC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 131
The Delhi High Court reiterated that it is a settled law that repeated representation does not extend limitation nor can be a ground to plead a fresh cause of action to overcome delay and laches.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice of D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed an appeal filed with a delay of 46 years from the date the shop in question was demolished and over 11 years from the rejection of representation, without an iota of explanation.
It observed,
" The shop in question was admittedly demolished in the year 1975 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2021, which is after a period of over 46 years. There is no explanation forthcoming in the writ petition or before this Court as to why the Appellant waited for nearly 5 decades to approach the Court. "
Case Title: Joginder Tuli v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 132
The Delhi High Court held that to give benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act; the document relied upon must be a registered document. Justice Sabronium Prasad noted that.
"Any unregistered document cannot be looked into by the court and cannot be relied upon on or taken into evidence in view of Section 17(1A) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act."
Case Title: MD. EHRAZ ZAFAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 133
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Tender invitations issued by Public Sector Undertakings and other registered Corporates or Companies, including Directorate General of Hydrocarbons, for empanelment of a Law Firm on the basis of money or turn-over criteria as being ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla dismissed the petition filed by Advocate Md. Ehraz Zafar which sought a direction on the Centre to formulate a new uniform guideline for engagement and empanelment of lawyers and advocates.
Case Title: VINAY KHURANA v. SHWETA KHURANA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134
The Delhi High Court has explained the scope of Judicial Separation and Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the scope of the two concepts is qualitatively different and that Judicial separation is a completely different relief that the aggrieved spouse may seek against the other, under sec. 10 of the Act.
"Thus, the aggrieved spouse may, instead of seeking the relief of divorce, seek a decree of judicial separation on the same grounds on which he/she may seek divorce. The law gives an option to the aggrieved spouse/petitioner to seek either of the two reliefs," the Court said.
Case Title: DR. SANJIV BANSAL v. DR. MANISH BANSAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 135
The Delhi High Court has observed that seeking legal redressal cannot tantamount to interference or obstruction to the course of justice in relation to contempt of Court.
Justice Asha Menon was dealing with a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from writing, circulating, speaking, publishing or making any demeaning remark or material against it or engaging in any conduct which causes mental pain and agony to the Plaintiff.
The suit also sought damages of Rs. 3 Crores. It also sought directions on the Defendant to withdraw the alleged ex-facie demeaning, derogatory, false and wrong allegations made against the Plaintiff in the suit.
Case Title: GOPALA KRISHNA MOOTHA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 136
The Delhi High Court has reiterated the various necessary factors to be kept in mind before making a person vicariously liable for offences committed by a company under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The Court dismissed a plea seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner also sought to quash an order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to him.
The respondent No.2 in the petition had filed a complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court alleging that he was appointed as the CFO of the India Ahead News Private Ltd. which is engaged in the business of running a TV news channel.
It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and the accused No.2, who was the son of the petitioner, were the directors of India Ahead News Pvt. Ltd. and that they were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company had been running the TV channel and actively controlling all the operations of the company.
Case Title: JOHRINA BEGUM v. SUKHBIR SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 137
The Delhi High Court has observed that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised by the High Court when the challenge is to the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal.
Justice Prateek Jalan added that where orders have been passed on consideration of the materials placed before the Rent Controller and the Tribunal, the High Court would not be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 assailing an order dated 18.11.2021, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rent Control Tribunal of the Rohini Courts.
Case Title: Sumer Singh Salkan v. Vikram Singh Mann & Ors., CM (M) 37/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 138
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated the principles that are to be applied by the Court while deciding an application for deletion from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC empowers the Court to delete or add parties to the suit.
The present petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside of the order whereby an application filed on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant no. 7 in original suit) seeking deletion from the array of parties was allowed.
Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. & ORS. v. 123MOVIESHUB.TC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 139
The Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 34 rogue websites indulging in online piracy by streaming streaming content of Universal City Studios LLC., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Netflix Studios, LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation and Disney Enterprises, Inc, through illegal means.
Justice Asha Menon directed the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue notifications calling upon the telecom service providers registered under them to disable access into India of the said websites within 36 hours.
The Court also directed the Internet Service Providers to block access to the rogue websites.
Case Title: VIPIN SEHRAWAT v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SDMC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 140
The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual cannot be permitted to hold two birth certificates, reasoning that the identity of a person is established not only by name and parentage but also by date of birth.
"Continuance of two birth certificates containing two different dates of birth would imply that one individual can pose as two different individuals; which error cannot be permitted to perpetuate," Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of South Delhi Municipal Corporation to cancel the birth certificate of the petitioner issued on September 24, 2013.
Case Title: Nipun Miglani v. Intelligence Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 141
The Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 1 lakh while dismissing a petition challenging the seizure of a luxury car and subsequent proceedings under the Customs Act, over non-payment of import duty.
Noting that the petitioner had violated the conditions of duty-free import and had also allegedly forged the bill of entry, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh orally remarked,
" This an absolutely pre-planned, well designed import and a fraud with Union of India. Fraud with a sovereign body is a criminal offence. It cannot be viewed lightly."
Case Title: Mohd. Farooq v State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 142
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL alleging that the CAA-NRC protest site at city's Shaheen Bagh area is illegally being converted into a memorial, with a direction to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation and other concerned authorities to look into the petitioner's grievance.
The plea was filed by one Mohd. Farooq, a resident of Shaheen Bagh area in Jamia Nagar, alleging that MLA Amanatullah Khan and councillor Abdul Wazid Khan are the main key persons who are raising illegal and unauthorized construction by grabbing government land and constructing a memorial, in the garb of establishing a park.
It is further alleged that the private Respondent is using MLA Local Area Development Funds for this purpose, thus propagating corruption during discharging his duties.
Case Title: Dr. Mohammad Ajazur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 143
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction upon the Parliament to bring into force the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
At the outset, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that enactment of law and bringing it into force are sovereign functions to be performed by the Parliament or the State Legislature under the Constitution, as the case may be. Hence, no direction, much less a writ of mandamus can be issued in this regard by the Courts.
The petitioner, Dr. Mohammad Ajazur Rahman, represented by Advocate Payal Bahl had submitted that the Act was passed by the Parliament in 2014, almost eight years ago. However, it is yet to be brought into force. Bahl added that the Act provides a framework to investigate corruption and misuse of power by public servants while protecting the whistle blowers. Hence, its implementation is imperative.
Case Title: DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 144
The Delhi High Court has directed micro blogging site Twitter to take down some of the tweets made by historian Audrey Truschke against historian Dr. Vikram Sampath over allegations of plagiarism against him with respect to his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Justice Amit Bansal was hearing an application filed in the suit filed by Sampath against Audrey Truschke and other persons over a letter sent by them to Royal Historical Society raising allegations of plagiarism against him with respect to a journal publication and his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and some alleged defamatory tweets made pursuant thereto.
The suit stated that Historian Audrey Truschke and other persons namely Ananya Chakravarti and Rohit Chopra wrote the letter dated February 11 to Royal Historical Society in London raising serious allegations of plagiarism.
Case Title: Tharvinder Singh & Ors v. Viresh Chopra & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 145
The Delhi High Court recently held that once an application for amendment of plaint is allowed, the same has to be amended within the given time frame.
Referring to Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, Justice Pratibha M. Singh noted that if the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, it cannot be amended thereafter.
" It is the settled position in law that once an application for amendment is allowed, in terms of the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 CPC, the plaint has to be amended. If the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter, as also confirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, " the Court said.
Case Title: Jayabrata Bose v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 146
The Delhi High Court recently held that Central Government Institutions/ PSUs and Autonomous Bodies other than those explicitly mentioned under the HRA General Rules and Orders are also covered under the Rules.
The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Talwant Singh and Rajiv Shakhdher in a case where a contention was raised that Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) is neither the department of the Central Government nor State Government, nor an autonomous body/ undertaking, nor a semi-government organization for the purposes of HRA Rules.
Thus, the petitioner, a government employee challenging an order of its employer for recovery of HRA on the ground that his wife was already receiving HRA from IGNOU and he is thus barred under Rule 5(c)(iii).
Title: SUNDER SINGH BHATI v. THE STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 147
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the accused.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that if there is no apprehension of interference in administration of justice in a criminal trial by an accused, then the Court should be circumspect while considering depriving the accused of their personal liberty.
"Therefore, the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial; this object is, thus, neither punitive nor preventative, and a person who has not been convicted should only be kept in custody if there are reasons to believe that they might flee from justice or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses," the Court added.
Title: AFROZNISHA v. DELHI WAKF BOARD & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 148
Noting that the Delhi Wakf Board was facing various constraints in it's functioning, the High Court recently sought response from the Delhi Government on the aspect of new CEO of the Board which was yet to be notified and also the grant in aid which was not released by the Government yet.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Delhi Government to file a status report and posted the matter for reporting compliance on 27th April, 2022.
The two factors on which the Court sought the status report are as under:
- No no fully functioning CEO for the Wakf Board. Though, an officer was appointed as the CEO, he has now been transferred to another area, and the new CEO is yet to be notified.
- The grant-in-aid for the Wakf Board has not been released by the GNCTD, and there is acute shortage of funds.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Versus Hamdard National Foundation (India)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 149
A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, held that in the absence of an independent inquiry, the revenue authorities cannot solely rely on the opinion of property broker firms and websites to determine the adequacy of rent received for invoking section 13(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessee Foundation received voluntary and corpus donations from Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) in a particular assessment year. Also, the Assessee had let out its property to the Wakf under a Lease Agreement. The Assessing Officer (AO), relying upon enquiry made from estate agents and information gathered from websites, held that the property was let out by the Assessee to the Wakf at a much lower rate than the market rate and therefore invoked the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act, adding the donations to the taxable income of the Assessee.
The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)). The ITAT allowed the appeal in favour of the Assessee, directing deletion of additions made by the AO. The revenue authorities filed an appeal before the High Court against the impugned order.
Case Title: KLJ Organic Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150
A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, excluded the time spent in prosecuting a tax appeal before an authority devoid of jurisdiction in computing the limitation period for filing a revision petition under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessee filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) (CIT (IT)) dismissing Assessee's Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of limitation. The Assessee also sought a direction from the court to the CIT (IT) to consider Assessee's Revision Petition on merits after condoning the delay in filing the petition.
Case Title: RAVNEET KAUR v. PRITHPAL SINGH DHINGRA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 151
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of residence under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law.
"Thus, where the residence is a shared household, it does not create any embargo upon the owner to claim eviction against his daughter-in-law. A strained frictional relationship between the parties would be relevant to decide whether the grounds of eviction exist," Justice Yogesh Khanna added.
92. Delhi HC Denies Relief To Artists Against Eviction From Govt Accommodations, Says Prior Inaction Not Basis To Invoke Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation
Case Title: BHARATI SHIVAJI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 152
The Delhi High Court has observed that prior inaction cannot possibly constitute a basis for invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation which itself is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution.
The observation came from a single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma who dismissed a bunch of petitions filed by various eminent Indian artists including dancers and musicians challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the Centre qua government allotted residences to them. The Centre had decided to cancel the allotment subject to the allottees being granted reasonable time to vacate the premises and identify alternate accommodation.
93. Delhi High Court Refuses To Hear Plea Against Akshay Kumar Starrer 'Prithviraj'
Case Title: Rashtriya Pravasi Parishad v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 153
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking to change the title of the upcoming movie 'Prithviraj', produced by Yash Raj Films. The movie starring actors Akshay Kumar and Manushi Chillar in the lead roles is set to release on 10th June, 2022.
The petitioner, Rashtriya Pravasi Parishad, submitted that the film is based on the life of Indian Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan. Advocate Sanjeev Beniwal, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the film is based on a "great warrior". However, its name is not reflective of the same.
Case Title: Rohit Shukla v. DGMS (Army)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 154
The Delhi High Court today dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to prevent the alleged use of fraudulent measures for securing employment in the Indian Army.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that in the garb of public interest, the petitioner had filed a "revenge taking type of petition" against one Karamveer Singh, who was purportedly appointed as a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) in the Indian Army in 2015.
95. Delhi High Court Directs Disposal Of Nokia's Rectification Application Over Refund Of Rs. 58 Crores Within Six Weeks
Case Title: Nokia India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 155
A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, directed the revenue authorities to decide Nokia's rectification application filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance with law by way of a reasoned order within six weeks.
Nokia filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to decide the rectification application filed by it under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and grant consequential refund along with the applicable interest under the Act. Nokia also sought a direction to the revenue authorities to refund over Rs. 58 Crores adjusted under Section 245 of the Act against the outstanding tax demand of the relevant assessment year.
