- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Delhi High Court Quarterly Digest:...
Delhi High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations: 1 - 265]
Nupur Thapliyal
8 Jun 2022 2:00 PM IST
![Delhi High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations: 1 - 265]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/06/08/750x450_421156-delhi-high-court-quarterly-digest-january-to-march-2022.jpg "Delhi High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations: 1 - 265]")
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265Nominal Index RAKESH KUMAR v. VIJAYANTA ARYA (DCP) AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1 xyz v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 2 FUTURE RETAIL LTD. Vs. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 3 VANDANA SINGH v. SATISH KUMAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 4 CHARU SONEJA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS 2022...
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265
Nominal Index
RAKESH KUMAR v. VIJAYANTA ARYA (DCP) AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1
xyz v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 2
FUTURE RETAIL LTD. Vs. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 3
VANDANA SINGH v. SATISH KUMAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 4
CHARU SONEJA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 5
BHIKAM MASIH v. M/S TRIG DETECTIVES PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 6
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 7
Rajat Jain and Ors. v. UPSC & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 8
Hamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 9
MILASH ARROL NORONHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 10
SANGEETA THAPA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 11
RAM NAWAL v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 12
POONAM SETHI v. SANJAY SETHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 13
SWATANTRA KUMAR JAYSAWAL v. STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 14
VST Industries Ltd. v. Rudra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 15
Case Title: Kumar Piyush Pushkar v. GNCTD & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 16
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 17
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. All India Petroleum Dealers Association Registered & Ors., LPA 24/2021; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. All Haryana Petroleum Dealers Association Registered & Ors., LPA 20/2021 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. Bihar Petroleum Dealers Association & Anr., LPA 31/2021. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 18
AMR-BBB Consortium v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd; ARB.P. 1247/2021 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 19
Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 14528/2021 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 20
Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 21
Union of India v. Hemant Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 22
JATINDER PAL SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 23
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. SMT ANITA DEVI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 24
ICICI BANK LIMITED v. RASHMI SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 25
Teenu & Anr. v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 26
Surendra Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 27
Rahul Bhardwaj v. State, WP (C) 14483/2021 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 28
Shafiq Khan & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 29
ENVIRAD PROJECTS PVT. LTD. v. NTPC LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 30
Mohd. Tahir & other connect bail pleas v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 31
Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Satya Pal & Ors., CM (M) 66/2022 and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 32
NEMI CHAND GOD v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 33
MOHIT BANSAL v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 34
THE STATE, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA (UIDAI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 35
PRAMOD v. STATE OF NCT DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 36
FLICK STUDIOS PVT. LTD v. GRAVITY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 37
COMMODORE PAVAN CHAUHAN v. ANUSHA CHAUHAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 38
SHRI FAJALUR RAHAMAN v. I.P.G.C.L. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. (W.P.(C) 890/2020) and B S PURIA v. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. & ANR. (W.P.(C) 3495/2021) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 39
Huawei Telecommunications (India) Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. WIPRO Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 40
SULEMAN ABBAS & ORS. Vs. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 41
Ankur Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 632/2022 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 42
GS Sandhu & Anr vs Geeta Aggarwal 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 43
Global Car Group Ltd. & Anr. V. Mohit Goyal & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 44
Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd and Ors vs Shiva Kumar Jindad and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 45
AASHIMA GOYAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 46
J. S. Arora v. DVC & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 47
DR KARUNAKAR PATRA v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 48
Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. v. Sourabh Jinal & Ors., CS (Comm) 247/2019 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 49
Juhi Chawla and others v Science and Engineering Research Board and others 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 50
M/S. Hero Fincorp Limited v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 51
Vijay Kumar Nagpal v. Parveen Kumar Nagpal 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 52
Chairman, Arya Girls Senior Secondary School v. Director and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 53
MOHD SHAKEEL @ SHAKEEL AHMED v. MST SABIA BEGUM & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 54
ASIF v. STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 55
Amrinder Singh & Raja Through: Spa Holder Sukhjinder Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 56
Bela Goyal Proprietor of Ispat Sangrah (India) v. VIIPL – MIPL JV (Jaipur) & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 57
Avin Dalal v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 15179/2021 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 58
Continental Engineering Corporation v. Sugesan Transport Pvt Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 59
MOHD. NAZIM v. THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. 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
SHRI MUKESH KUMAR v. SMT KAMLESH DEVI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156
Raj Singh Gehlot v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 157
Gautam Thapar v. Enforcement Directorate 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 158
Abhigyan Singh v Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 159
Komal Rastogi v. Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 160
Gaurav Dalal v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 161
Adhir Kumar Verma v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 162
Saurabh Mittal Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 163
BLACK DIAMOND TRACKPARTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS v. BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 164
SH. HARNAM DASS LUTHRA (NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) v. USHA CHAUHAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 165
SMT.USHA @ DURGAWATI DEVI v. SH DILIP KUMAR SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 166
Avjit Saluja v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 167
Aanchal Mittal & Ors. Versus Ankur Shukla 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 168
X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 169
M/S. LG Electronics India Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 170
Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 171
Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 172
Mujeeb Ur Rehman v. Registrar General, Delhi HC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 173
Kurz India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174
Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi Versus Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 176
Kailash Gahlot Vs. Vijender Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 177
BHAGWATI TRANSFORMER CORP. AND ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 178
SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY v. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 179
DEVINA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 180
PURAN CHAND GUPTA & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 181
SHRI ASHOK PANWAR & ANR v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 182
AMARJEET SINGH DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 183
Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Versus Gracemac Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 185
CAPT SIMRANJIT SINGH SAMBHI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 186
DIGAMBER JAIN MAHILA ASHRAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 187
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 Versus M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 188
ROSHAN LATA ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 189
Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 190
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 191
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 192
Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 193
Amit Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 194
La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195
ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 196
AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. v. LAMINA SUSPENSION PRODUCTS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 197
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 198
ANJANI GUPTA v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 199
RAY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 200
DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. DR. KRATI MEHROTRA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201
JIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203
SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204
STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 205
SANTOSH TRUST & ANR. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 206
WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 207
ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 208
KINGS FURNISHING AND SAFE CO v. THE COMMISSIONER & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 209
DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 210
Jagdish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 211
LALIT RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 212
MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
ANUPAM & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 214
ANKUR MUTREJA v. AVIATION EMPLOYEES BUILDING SOCIETY LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215
Om Sehgal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 216
M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT v. M.J. PRASAD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 217
POONAM v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 218
KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 219
SETTU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 220
Radha Bisht v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 221
Ericsson India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 222
ANIL KUMAR @ NILLU v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 223
OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR v. ANJANI GUPTA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 224
Mayur Batra Versus ACIT And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 225
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC v. MR. SURJEET LAL & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 226
x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 227
ALOK KUMAR TIWARI v. MAMTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 228
x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 229
Sushil Kumar Dhar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 230
M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 232
KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 233
KENT RO SYSTEM LTD. & ANR. v. GATTUBHAI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 234
IMAGINE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S GREEN ACCESSORIES THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235
KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 236
UNION OF INDIA v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 237
GURJIT SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 238
FOOMILL PVT. LTD. v. AFFLE (INDIA) LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 239
SANJAY GUPTA v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 240
UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. SH D.C. CHATURVEDI & ANR. and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241
MOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242
PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243
HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 245
Anand Kumar Pandey v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 246
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 247
MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ HUSSAIN v. NIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 248
ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. VINAY G DAVID & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 249
ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 250
PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251
VANDANA VERMA v. ROOP SINGH & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 252
RUIA EXPORTS & ANR. v. MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 253
BURBERRY LTD v. ADITYA VERMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 254
REENA PASWAN & ANR v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 255
Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 256
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA (HQ) PTE LTD v. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257
MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. TATA MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 258
Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259
RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED v. SARAO DISTILLERY (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 260
DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 261
Radhika Ashar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 262
Ankur Gupta v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 263
JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sithara Entertainment & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 264
Rakesh v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR v. VIJAYANTA ARYA (DCP) AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court held a police officer guilty of contempt of court for arresting a man in violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar. The Court sentenced the police officer to one-day imprisonment for contempt of court.
Justice Najmi Waziri also imposed a fine of Rupees 2000 on the police officer and directed him to pay costs of Rupees 15,000 to the petitioner, who had suffered incarceration for 11 days before release on bail.
In the judgment, the Court observed that subsequent release or acquittal of an innocent is no reparation to the loss of reputation and personal liberty caused by illegal arrest.
Case Title: xyz v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 2
Observing that reproductive choice is a facet of reproductive rights of a woman and a dimension of her personal liberty, the Delhi High Court has allowed termination of 28 weeks foetus of a 33 year old woman. The foetus was suffering from various abnormalities including Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) with Absent Pulmonary Valve Syndrome (APV).
Justice Jyoti Singh also observed that the mother cannot be deprived of the freedom to take a decision to continue or not to continue with the pregnancy in the backdrop of the foetal abnormalities brought forth in the Medical Opinion of the Board.
"As repeatedly held by the Courts, in the judgements referred above, reproductive choice is a facet of reproductive rights of a woman and a dimension of her 'personal liberty', enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus the Petitioner cannot be deprived of the freedom to take a decision to continue or not to continue with the pregnancy, in the backdrop of the foetal abnormalities brought forth in the Medical Opinion of the Board," the Court said.
Case Title: FUTURE RETAIL LTD. Vs. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 3
The Delhi High Court has held that the High Court, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot dictate to a duly constituted Arbitral Tribunal, the manner and the procedure of carrying out the arbitration proceedings.
On the aspect of the limited scope of interference under Article 227 over Arbitral Tribunal's procedure, Justice Amit Bansal added that there is only a small window for interference with orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227.
The observations came while the Court dismissed the two petitions moved by the Future Group challenging the two orders passed by the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal.
The impugned orders deferred the hearing in the plea filed by Future Group seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings instituted by Amazon. Future Group sought a direction that the the Arbitral Tribunal should first hear its applications to abort the proceedings before final hearing of the matter. Turning down this plea, the High Court said that Article 227 cannot be invoked to challenge the case management orders passed by an Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: VANDANA SINGH v. SATISH KUMAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 4
The Delhi High Court this week dissolved marriage between a couple on the ground of cruelty, observing that the husband treated the wife as his 'overseas wife', only to use her as a temporary companion and that their marital bond was beyond repair.
Observing that continuation of such a matrimonial bond is sufficient to cause immense mental cruelty to the wife, Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh said that there was no reason to keep the moribund marriage alive.
"The objective of the institution of marriage is to bring two souls together, who embark on the adventurous journey called life. They share experiences, smiles, sorrows, achievements and struggles. They uplift and support each other in all situations with their emotional, mental and physical presence. On this journey of life, they create personal, social and spiritual bonds, everlasting memories, future plans, through which they co-exist in the society," the Court said.
"An essential aspect of marriage is being present in each other's life, physically and emotionally. It is not to say that every marriage, where the couple stays apart from each other for work or other obligations consensually, is a broken one. However, a marriage where there is neither sharing of emotions, nor of dreams, joys, sorrows, memories (happy or sad), is merely a legal bond," it added.
Case Title: CHARU SONEJA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 5
Reiterating that personal liberty is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms, the Delhi High Court has observed that once bail is granted to an accused pending completion of the Trial, the same must only be retracted in the face of grave and exacerbating circumstances.
Analyzing the difference between an order 'rejecting' an application for bail and an order for 'cancellation' of bail, Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that the party challenging bail already given needs to demonstrate, by showing evidence and instances, that the person enlarged on bail has been threatening the victim and may consequently cause personal harm to the victim or her family, is tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses to the extent that it would vitiate the Trial and lead to a miscarriage of justice.
"Personal liberty is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms. Once granted to an accused pending completion of the Trial, it must only be retracted in the face of grave and exacerbating circumstances," the Court said.
Case Title: BHIKAM MASIH v. M/S TRIG DETECTIVES PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 6
The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant ought not to suffer merely because a wrong entry or a wrong date is entered in it's Advocate's court diary, thereby precluding his appearance before the Court on the fixed date.
Justice Pratibha M Singh however added that the Court or the Tribunal would have to examine as to whether the said wrong entry is merely an excuse or whether it is genuine.
"Advocates who appear before a court of law usually have the practice of maintaining their court diary. The entries in the same are maintained by court clerks working with advocates. In the said diary, the previous date, the number and name of the case, is entered. Some advocates' offices or court clerks also enter the forum where the case is listed. Once the matter is over, the next date is entered in the diary. In the diary, on the date to which the matter is adjourned, the case name is again entered. In this process, it is usual for a wrong entry to take place, due to inadvertence by the court clerk or counsel," the Court said.
Case Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 7
The Delhi High Court has held that the bidding process for disinvestment of then national airline, Air India, was not rigged in favour of the Tata Group.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the bidding process saw keen competition with seven Expression of Interests and two bidders, and it cannot be said that the process was tailor made to facilitate the Talace Private Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Sons, which emerged as the highest bidder.
Holding thus, it dismissed the petition filed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, seeking quashing of the disinvestment process, on the ground that the bid process was arbitrary, corrupt, against public interest and rigged in favour of Tata group.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses BJP MP Subramanian Swamy's Challenge To Air India Disinvestment Process
Case Title: Rajat Jain and Ors. v. UPSC & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 8
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea seeking postponement of UPSC Civil Services Mains Examination, 2021 scheduled from January 7 to January 16, 2022, in view of Covid-19 third wave and spread of the new Omicron variant.
Justice V Kameswar Rao said, "I find, the press release do indicate that the UPSC is conscious of the prevailing situation and the safety and convenience of the candidates. Preparations for such an important exam are made well in advance maintaining confidentiality and secrecy in respect of answer sheets and question papers and all preparations being in place, it shall not be in public interest to interdict the process. The apprehension of 19 petitioners cannot outweigh the interest of thousands of other candidates, (apart from public interest), who have toiled themselves to prepare themselves for the examination."
Going through the averments made in the petition, the Court was of the view that they were general in nature without any specific details.
Case Title: Hamdard National Foundation (India) & Anr. v. Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 9
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, when rectification proceedings are pending, the suit against infringement of Trademark has to be stayed, pending final disposal of such proceedings.
Justice Asha Menon thus stayed the suit filed by Hamdard Dawakhana, against alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'Rooh Afza'. The Bench observed, " In the light of Section 124(1)(b)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the suit is stayed pending the final disposal of the rectification application filed by the plaintiffs. On the conclusion of those proceedings, either side may move an application for listing of the suit before the court."
Case Title: MILASH ARROL NORONHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 10
The Delhi High Court has held that the Medical Manual (Manual of Medical Examination and Medical Standard for Various Entries into Army, TRG Academies and Military School) cannot be stated to be the sole repository of all ailments that may make a person medically unfit for appointment in the Armed Forces.
A bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manmohan added that the Medical Manual cannot lay down all the complex ailments or grounds that would make a candidate unfit for appointment to Armed Forces, whose demands are most extracting with the personnel being posted to extreme weather conditions.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a law graduate who had applied for the post of Judge and Advocate General (JAG) in 'JAG ENTRY SCHEME 27TH COURSE (OCT 2021)'. After completing two stages of the selection process, he was recommended as the top candidate in his batch, for a medical examination.
Case Title: SANGEETA THAPA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 11
The Delhi High Court has allowed termination of pregnancy of a 28 year old woman whose gestational period had exceeded 28 weeks after taking note of her mental and emotional distress apart from the foetus abnormalities.
Justice Rekha Palli relied on a recent order of a coordinate bench wherein the Court allowed termination of 28 weeks foetus of a 33 year old woman observing that reproductive choice is a facet of reproductive rights of a woman and a dimension of her personal liberty. The Court had also observed that the mother cannot be deprived of the freedom to take a decision to continue or not to continue with the pregnancy in the backdrop of the foetal abnormalities brought forth in the Medical Opinion of the Board.
The petitioner in this case had sought medical termination of her pregnancy on the ground that the foetus was suffering not only from Edward Syndrome (Trisomy 18) but also from non-ossified nasal bone and bilateral pyelectasis.
Case Title: RAM NAWAL v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 12
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to a man for raping a 5 year old minor victim in a POCSO case. The Court observed that penetration is sufficient in order to constitute an offence under Section 376 (rape) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and that presence of the semen is not necessary.
"Undoubtedly, as per the FSL and DNA fingerprinting report neither any semen was detected nor were the alleles from the appellant accounted in the blood smears or the vaginal smears of the prosecutrix. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, penetration is sufficient and it is not necessary that semen needs to be essentially present," Justice Mukta Gupta observed.
The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment dated 12th January, 2018 wherein the appellant was convicted under sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. Sec. 6 of prescribes the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Case Title: POONAM SETHI v. SANJAY SETHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 13
The Delhi High Court has observed that a father cannot abdicate his responsibility of looking after his unmarried daughters and that he has a duty and obligation to maintain them, including taking care of their expenses towards education and marriage.
A Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh added that 'Kanya Daan' is a solemn and pious obligation of a Hindu Father, from which he cannot renege.
The Court thus directed the father to pay a sum of Rs. 35 Lakhs and 50 Lakhs towards the expense of marriages of his two daughters.
It allowed an appeal filed by the wife challenging a Family Court order, though granting her divorce on the ground of cruelty, however, denying maintenance for herself and the two major daughters.
Case Title: SWATANTRA KUMAR JAYSAWAL v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 14
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a Government Servant containing allegations of rape, observing that such an FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties and their subsequent marriage as it does not waive off the offence alleged.
Reiterating that the act of rape is not an act against individual but is an offence against the society, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar was of the view thus: "In the present case, the petitioner is a Government Servant, working as Superintendent with Customs & CGST department, Govt. of India, holding a Gazetted post. So being a Government Servant, he is expected to maintain high moral rectitude and decent standard of conduct in his personal/private life and not bring discredit to his service by his misdemeanours."
It added, "In fact a Government servant has all the more responsibility as far as his conduct is concerned towards the society. Rape not only destroys the personality of the victim but it also scars the mental psyche of the victim which remain embedded on the mind of the victim for years together. The charges of rape are of grave concern and cannot be treated in a casual manner."
Case Title: VST Industries Ltd. v. Rudra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 15
The Delhi High Court has upheld the ex-parte interim injunction order against TOPAZ, a cigarette brand, allegedly passing off its goods as that of another cigarette brand, TOTAL, by adopting deceptively similar packaging/ trade dress.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait decided not to interfere with the impugned order, stating, " the basic background colour of the packaging / cigarette box is shade of dark metallic black and dark blue colors, which is identical. Both the boxes also contain ribbed lines which run across their respective surfaces. The front and back view of the packaging is in similar font and even the placement of letter is similar."
It added, "Plaintiff's TOTAL branded cigarettes sticks have the words 'Dual Flavor' mentioned in golden letters and defendants have mentioned the words 'Twin Flavor' on their TOPAZ cigarette and font, style, colour and placement of matter of both the sides is exactly similar. All these points were weighed in the mind of the Court when this Court had prima facie opined to grant restraint order in favour of plaintiff."
Case Title: Kumar Piyush Pushkar v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 16
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL challenging public advertisements issued by the Delhi Government wishing Christmas to the citizens, allegedly to promote the political interests of the Aam Aadmi Party.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh noted that a representation in this regard is already pending consideration before the Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising (CCRGA), constituted at the directions of the Supreme Court.
Thus, it ordered, " A Committee is already constituted by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner has already preferred a representation before the said committee and the same is pending consideration. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition."
17. Delhi High Court Sets Up Confidentiality Club To Look At Third-Party Agreements
Case Title: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 17
To maintain necessity of industry confidentiality, a single judge bench of Delhi High Court has allowed for the constitution of a confidentiality club comprising of eight lawyers and two experts to inspect third-party agreements and documents to look into alleged infringement of patents in a case pertaining to patented technology relating to radio communication.
Among the series of cases filed by Philips against Chinese companies for allegedly infringing their "Standard Essential Patent" (SEP), an interim order was pronounced on Saturday in Philip's suit against Vivo.
The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, assembling, importing, selling, offering for sale, advertising including through their and third-party websites, mobile phones including the models mentioned in the plaint and any further or other devices or models inclusive of UMTS enhancements and LTE technologies that result in alleged infringement of the plaintiff's patents. The plaintiff had filed an interim application seeking interrogatories to be submitted and production of certain documents under Order 11 Rules 2 and 14, read with S.151, CPC, from defendants No. 1 and 2.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. All India Petroleum Dealers Association Registered & Ors., LPA 24/2021; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. All Haryana Petroleum Dealers Association Registered & Ors., LPA 20/2021 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. Bihar Petroleum Dealers Association & Anr., LPA 31/2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 18
The Delhi High Court has upheld the power of Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) to formulate Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDGs) in public interest, i.e., for the benefit of the consumers as well as to protect the rights of the employees at Retail Outlets (ROs).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed, " MDG is a Guideline issued by the OMCs, Instrumentalities of the State to regulate the R.O. Dealers." It added that the ROs are bound by such guidelines.
" The relationship between the OMCs and the Dealers is governed by the Dealership Agreements, under which, more particularly Clause 43 thereof, the Dealers have undertaken to be bound and to comply with the rules and regulations of the Government, including the directives issued by OMCs and thus the MDGs formulated by the OMCs, are binding on the Dealers."
Case Title: AMR-BBB Consortium v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd; ARB.P. 1247/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 19
The Delhi High Court recently allowed an application seeking appointment of sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the claimant allegedly exhausted its remedy by approaching the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
As the Respondent party submitted that disputes are arbitrable and it has no objection if this Court appoints an Arbitrator, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait allowed the application filed under Sections 11(6) and 10(2) of the Act.
The Arbitrator is directed to ensure compliance of Section 12 of the 1996 Act before commencing the arbitration and to decide the fee after consulting with the parties. The petition was filed by a Consortium of two companies against a Public Sector Undertaking.
Case Title: Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 14528/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 20
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Central government's recent 'faceless assessment scheme', launched with an aim to eliminate the human interface between the taxpayer and the income tax department, does not mean that the assess shall not be given a personal hearing.
The division bench comprising of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla observed, " a quasi judicial body must normally grant a personal hearing as no assessee or litigant should get a feeling that he never got an opportunity or was deprived of an opportunity to clarify the doubts of the assessing officer/decision maker. After all confidence and faith of the public in the justness of the decision making process which has serious civil consequences is very important and that too in an authority/forum that is the first point of contact between the assessee and the Income Tax Department."
It added that the identity of the assessing officer can be hidden/protected while grating personal hearing by either creating a blank screen or by decreasing the pixel/density/resolution.
Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court has held that the State was unjustified in restricting an individual's right to travel abroad by issuance of a Look Out Circular when it could not establish any evidence that the right would be 'detrimental to the economic interests of India'.
Justice Rekha Palli was hearing a Writ Petition filed by a businessperson of garment manufacturing based in Delhi to quash a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him by the Respondents, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Income Tax Department.
The Court noted that the LOC had remained in force for almost three years, during which period, the respondents have admittedly not taken any further action against the petitioner.
Case Title: Union of India v. Hemant Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 22
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the extension of limitation by the Supreme Court would apply to decisions rendered by the Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
While hearing an appeal filed against an order of the Appellate Authority which had dismissed an appeal filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation, Justice Pratibha M Singh clarified that the extension of limitation by an order of the Supreme Court dated 23.09.2021 would apply to decisions of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
It further directed that the same be communicated to all the other authorities under the Act, so that the benefit of the computation of the period of limitation is extended to all and multiplicity of proceedings as has happened in the present case is avoided.
Case Title: JATINDER PAL SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has observed that if illegally intercepted messages or audio conversations pursuant to an order having no sanction of law are permitted, it would lead to manifest arbitrariness and would promote scant regard to the procedure and fundamental rights of the citizens.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh thus set aside two orders passed by Special Judge which had framed charges against one Jatinder Pal Singh in 2012 in a case registered by CBI, on the basis of evidence gathered through such illegal means.
The case alleged that there was a criminal conspiracy with the object to show favor qua recognition of the courses and grant of permission pertaining to Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Patiala as mandated by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the relevant MCI Regulation and Rules for admission into 4th year of the MBBS course for the academic session 2011-2012.
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. SMT ANITA DEVI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 24
The Delhi High Court has observed that the insurance company cannot avoid it's liability of compensating the deceased's family, even if the offending vehicle was stolen and was being unauthorisedly driven by someone else.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva added that in order to avoid the liability, the insurer must establish that there was a willful breach on the part of the insured.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the order passed by the Tribunal which had directed the insurance company pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the driver who had stolen the vehicle.
25. "Sending Photograph Of Summons Through WhatsApp Not Overreach Of Judicial System": Delhi High Court
Case Title: ICICI BANK LIMITED v. RASHMI SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 25
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by a Commercial Court to the extent of issuing a show cause notice of criminal contempt after a plaintiff had sent the photograph of summons to the defendant through WhatsApp.
The Court said that the same cannot amount to overreaching the judicial system or running a parallel system with the judicial system.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a plea challenging the Commercial Court order wherein notice was directed to be issued to the ICICI Bank Ltd., the petitioner, through the Chairman, as to why criminal contempt should not be initiated against him for overreaching the process of the Court.
Case Title: Teenu & Anr. v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 26
The Delhi High Court has rapped the Uttar Pradesh police for "complete forgery of documents" regarding place of arrest of two individuals who were family members of a man, who had married a woman against her family's wishes.
The father and brother of the man, who married a woman against her family's wishes, were arrested by the UP Police for kidnapping. The couple, a major, claimed to have married out of their own free will. They alleged that the arrests were made from their residence in Delhi, without informing the Delhi Police.
The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier informed the Court that it had suspended the concerned SHO and Sub Inspector and that a SIT was formed to probe the matter.
Case Title: Surendra Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 27
While granting bail to two men accused of a multi-crore scam, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, "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."
Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj v. State, WP (C) 14483/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 28
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking sustainable development in the national capital, by formulation of a 'One Person One Tree' policy.
Noting that the subject matter of drafting policies lies exclusively within the domain of the legislature, the Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the petition. It observed,
" It ought to be kept in mind that predominant role of this court is to interpret the law and not enact the law, except in exceptional cases. Drafting of policy is within the domain of the Respondent. Hence, no case is made out by the Petitioner for issuing a writ of mandamus for drafting a policy."
Case Title: Shafiq Khan & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 29
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal, filed against an order passed by the division bench, with Rs. 5,000 cost.
The Bench comprising of Chief Justice D. N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh made it clear that a "LPA against a division bench order is not tenable in law."
"File the appropriate remedy. A Special Leave Petition or whatever recourse is permissible in law," it orally told the Appellant.
The observation was made in appeal filed against an order dated 12.10.21 passed by the bench in Yuva Sangharsh Samiti v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., WP(C) 6649/2021.
Case Title: ENVIRAD PROJECTS PVT. LTD. v. NTPC LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 30
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that no single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, i.e., unbiased adjudication of dispute between the parties.
Accordingly, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dismissed a unilateral arbitral clause imposed by NTPC, a Public Sector Undertaking, in its contract with the petitioner-company for a power project.
The Court held that the power to appoint an arbitrator in such a circumstance devolves on the Court.
Case Title: Mohd. Tahir & other connect bail pleas v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 31
"It is the Constitutional duty of the Court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power," observed the Delhi High Court while granting bail to 6 accused persons in a riots case.
Justice Subramonium Prasad granted bail to Mohd. Tahir, Shahrukh, Mohd. Faizal, Mohd. Shoaib, Rashid and Parvez in a case alleging that a mob caused vandalism, put on fire a sweet shop as a consequence of which a 22 year old boy namely Dilbar Negi died after sustaining burn injuries. (FIR 39/2020 PS Gokulpuri)
Case Title: Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Satya Pal & Ors., CM (M) 66/2022 and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 32
The Delhi High Court recently observed that filling of claim before Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') does not absolve the Director from his liability under a Decree when he is party in person as well.
The Petitioner, Managing Director of company Shree Shyam Pulp and Board Mills Ltd. had signed a Settlement Agreement where he and the Company were jointly described as "the second party".
The Agreement was to fix non-payment of rent by the Company and vacate the lease premises. When the Company failed to vacate the premises, the Landlords filed execution petitions.
Case Title: NEMI CHAND GOD v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 33
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to provide a safe travel passage to a woman who had married a man against the wishes of her family. The husband was employed in Chennai.
Uniting the woman with her husband, Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J. Bhambhani took note of the fact that both were major individuals and that the woman had married with her own free will and volition, although against the wishes of her parents.
The Court also took note of the marriage certificate dated November 22, 2021 issued by an Arya Samaj Mandir as an evidence of their marriage.
Case Title: MOHIT BANSAL v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 34
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is a clear need for the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to create a framework wherein there is proper disclosure by candidates who apply to become Chartered Accountants, at the inception itself.
Justice Pratibha M Singh said that there is also a need for a continuing disclosure, may be on an annual basis for members to inform the ICAI if there are any criminal cases or conviction against them, so that the ICAI is not kept in the dark.
"The power, discretion and duty of ensuring the purity of the Register of Members is upon the ICAI. Thus, in the case of convictions, the factum of the said conviction and the offences qua which the applicant was convicted ought to be disclosed," the Court said.
Case Title: THE STATE, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA (UIDAI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 35
The Delhi High Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to disclose information of over 400 aadhar card holders who were allegedly issued fake aadhar card certificates for the purpose of enrolment in civil defence training in the city.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a case wherein the investigation revealed that in the year 2019, the then District Magistrate of Shahdara, along with others public servants had committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official position with an ulterior motive to give benefit to ineligible persons, approximately 450 candidates with fake Aadhar Cards who had enrolled for training in Civil Defence.
The case emerged after a complaint was received by city's Anti Corruption Branch alleging that the manner of recruitment of marshals for DTC buses was illegal. It was alleged that the recruitment process was manipulated by the District Magistrate who had issued fake certificates, certifying as Delhi residents for making Aadhaar Cards, to over 400 people from his home state of Rajasthan.
Case Title: PRAMOD v. STATE OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 36
The Delhi High Court has observed that while granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a Court must have "reasonable grounds" to believe prima facie innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.
Section 37 of the Act deals with classification of the offences contained within the Act and provides for cases where bail can be granted to the accused person. It provides dual conditions for bail in case of certain offences: one, prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and two, the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.
37. Unsigned Invoices A Valid Basis To File Summary Suit Under Order 37 Of CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: FLICK STUDIOS PVT. LTD v. GRAVITY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 37
The Delhi High Court has held that unsigned invoices can be a valid basis to file suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 37 of the Code talks about summary procedure and institution of summary suits.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a petition challenging the order dated 12th October, 2021 passed by the District Judge of the Saket Courts whereby the commercial suit filed on behalf of the petitioner was converted from a suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC to an ordinary suit for recovery.
This was done on the ground that the invoices raised by the petitioner on the respondent did not bear the signatures of either parties.
Case Title: COMMODORE PAVAN CHAUHAN v. ANUSHA CHAUHAN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 38
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Family Courts are expected to function so as to bring about a settlement between the parties if possible, adding that the endeavour of the Court cannot simply be to dispose of the matters, one way or another at the cost of sacrificing the cause of justice.
A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside an order passed by a Family Court which had dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Family Court had dismissed the said application after observing that the appellant had failed to lead evidence, closing the right to the appellant to lead evidence.
Case Title: SHRI FAJALUR RAHAMAN v. I.P.G.C.L. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. (W.P.(C) 890/2020) and B S PURIA v. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. & ANR. (W.P.(C) 3495/2021)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 39
The Delhi High Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority, though not competent to impose major penalties of compulsory retirement, dismissal and removal, can initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of the same.
It noted that there is nothing to suggest that the Appointing Authority alone would be the Competent Authority to institute the disciplinary / major penalty proceedings.
The Court indicated that the Director (Technical), being the "Officer (Concerned)" of the Petitioners, designated with issuing major and minor penalties per the DOP, was eligible to issue charge sheet, notwithstanding him not being the Appointing Authority.
Case Title: Huawei Telecommunications (India) Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. WIPRO Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 40
The Delhi High Court has held that the Limitation-period of 3 years for seeking Appointment of Arbitrator commences from the date of expiry of 30 days period, reckoned from date of issuance of the notice invoking arbitration.
Holding thus, it has allowed the Petitioner, Bharat Sachar Nigam Limited (BSNL), to proceed with Arbitration against the Respondent, WIPRO Limited.
Case Title: SULEMAN ABBAS & ORS. Vs. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 41
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the concept of tehbzaari, street hawking and vending does not envisage that the hawker or vendor would fix himself to any particular place or erect any structure whether permanent or temporary on it's own.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also added that there is no question of any hawker or vendor staking a claim to occupy any public space in the name of hawking and vending round the clock by placing a structure, temporary or otherwise, at the site and converting the same into a shop where the hawker or vendor and his goods can permanently remain.
The Court was dealing with a petition seeking directions on North Delhi Municipal Corporation not to disturb or create obstacles in the business activities of the petitioners, a total of 20 traders, on the alternate tehbzaari sites allotted to them vide order dated December 29, 2021.
Case Title: Ankur Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 632/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 42
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking necessary action against frequent blockade of roads in the national capital, in the name of protests.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh directed the concerned Respondents to look into the grievance raised by the Petitioner and decide his representation in according with the law, rules, regulations and government policies, as early as possible.
Moved by lawyer Ankur Bhasin, the petition, while citing various recent events, stated that the city has become a "symbolic protest site" for various pressure groups causing great inconvenience to the common masses by hampering their daily routine.
43. Filing Affidavits Of Personal Assets Not Permitted Under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: GS Sandhu & Anr vs Geeta Aggarwal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 43
The Delhi High Court has held that Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a judgment debtor (company) or its directors to file their list of assets.
Justice Amit Bansal thus set aside the order of the District Judge, Patiala House Courts directing the Directors of the Judgement-Debtor Company ('Petitioner') to file affidavits of personal assets.
" Just because the petitioners are directors of the judgment debtor company, they cannot be directed to disclose their personal assets."
44. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Owner Of 'Cars 24' In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: Global Car Group Ltd. & Anr. V. Mohit Goyal & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 44
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Global Car Group Ltd., owner of the brand Cars 24, against alleged infringement of its trademarks by the Defendants.
Finding a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff, Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Global Car under Order 39 Rules 1, and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court further directed the Defendants are directed to remove/ delete the social media accounts and listings on third-party e-commerce websites maintained under the infringing marks which are identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs'.
Case Title: Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd and Ors vs Shiva Kumar Jindad and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 45
The Delhi High Court has held that sufficiency of evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs is required to be considered during trial and not while deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Holding thus, Justice Prateek Jalan upheld the order of the Civil Judge at Karkardooma Court, refusing to look into the documents produced by plaintiff to establish his claim of title over a disputed land and dismissing the Defendant's application for rejection of plaint.
The Bench observed, " It is well settled that, for the purposes of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is duty bound to consider the contents of the plaint, and not to examine the sufficiency of the evidence or the defence put forth by the defendant."
Case Title: AASHIMA GOYAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 46
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) is entitled to seek information from credible sources before concluding, as to whether or not the concerned candidate for civil services has correctly claimed reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh was dealing with a petition filed by one Aashima Goyal challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal to challenge the decision of DoPT whereby her candidature for Civil Services Examination, 2019 was cancelled.
According to the petitioner, she became aware of her candidature being cancelled only when she received information in December 2020 in response to her RTI application.
Case Title: J. S. Arora v. DVC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 47
The assessment of work and performance of a probationer is the function of the employer and the Court should only invoke its power of Judicial Review where such action is tainted by arbitrariness and capriciousness and the courts should be wary of substituting their opinion on such questions, Delhi High Court noted.
Justice Yashwant Varma, in a case pertaining to alleged unlawful termination of services of a probationer as Director (HRD) of Damodar Valley Corporation, further noted that even the Union government can only interfere in respect of matters which are not provided for in the Regulations framed by the Corporation and where the regulations clearly make provisions for the stipulation of work and assessment of such work and do not envisage any role to be played by Union government with regard to the same, only the corporation itself has the mandate to govern on such issues.
Case Title: DR KARUNAKAR PATRA v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 48
The Delhi High Court has expressed its anguish at how Sections 354A and 506 of IPC were falsely invoked in an FIR at the drop of a hat to register one's displeasure at the conduct of another individual, observing that the aforesaid merely trivializes the offence of sexual harassment.
Justice Subramonium Prasad also added that such false invocation of the said provisions casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment.
The Court made the said observations while quashing an FIR registered under Section 354A (sexual harassment) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) against an Assistant Professor at the University of Delhi, petitioner in the matter.
Case Title: Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. v. Sourabh Jinal & Ors., CS (Comm) 247/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 49
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that "provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC make it clear that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit".
The observation was made by Justice Suresh K Kait, while hearing an application filed by the defendant in a trademark infringement suit, seeking to bring on record certain additional documents.
It may be noted that Order VIII Rule 1(1) provides that the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence.
Case Title: Juhi Chawla and others v Science and Engineering Research Board and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 50
The Delhi High Court has expunged the remarks made by the Single Judge against Bollywood and environmentalist Juhi Chawla while dismissing her civil suit against 5G Roll.
Modifying the impugned order, Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also reduced the cost imposed vide the impugned order from Rs. 20 Lakhs to Rs. 2 Lakhs, observing that the same may be retained as some of the applications filed in the civil suit were indeed completely meritless.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by Chawla and others challenging the single judge decision which had dismissed the civil suit as being defective and not maintainable with a cost of Rs. 20 lakhs.
51. No Bar On Pursuing Criminal Proceedings After Arbitration Has Commenced: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Hero Fincorp Limited v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 51
Observing that commencement of arbitration does not bar a party from pursuing criminal proceedings, the Delhi High Court directed the Police to investigate the complaint lodged by a Non-Banking Finance Company against one of its defaulting borrowers.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, " there is no bar of pursuing criminal proceedings once arbitration has commenced."
In the instant case, the Bench noted that the facts on the face of it prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. It thus added, "Section 154 Cr.P.C provides for the registration of the First Information Report in respect of cognizable offences, which the police is mandated by law to register in writing and thereafter investigate into it."
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Nagpal v. Parveen Kumar Nagpal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 52
The Delhi High Court recently decided an application that was filed under a wrong statutory provision, stating that quoting a wrong provision does not create a bar or stand in the way of Court considering the application.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait relied on Gotham Entertainment Group LLC & Ors. Vs. Diamond Comics Pvt. Ltd. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4009 and Nitish Arora vs. State of Delhi, 2007 (141) DLT 21, to observe, "...under Section 151 of CPC, this Court has inherent power to consider an application wherein a wrong provision is mentioned. It cannot be an obstacle for granting the relief".
Case Tile: Chairman, Arya Girls Senior Secondary School v. Director and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 53
In a ruling that vindicates a terminated probationer battling civil and criminal proceedings by a private aided school for 26 years, the Delhi High Court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs.
Justice Jyoti Singh upheld and partly modified the Order of Delhi School Tribunal, quashing the dismissal order of the School Authorities due to not adhering to the relevant statutory requirements.
The School had failed to conduct an inquiry before termination on allegation of serious Misconduct and did not seek prior permission of the DoE, which is mandatory under Rule 105(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
The probationer was terminated for allegedly forged and fabricated school certificates and graduation degree.
Case Title: MOHD SHAKEEL @ SHAKEEL AHMED v. MST SABIA BEGUM & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 54
The Delhi High Court has observed that while the task of deciding the marital status of the parties has been conferred with Civil Courts, the Court under maintenance proceedings under sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. may not usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that in order to preserve the social intent of sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can render the prima facie finding about the factum of marriage, which will not be a conclusive finding for any other purpose apart from the order on maintenance.
"Thus, the litmus test for determining the marital status of the parties in maintenance proceedings is prima facie satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate and nothing more. It is also pertinent to note that the abovementioned decisions bring out the fact that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are designed to reduce the vagaries of the neglected wife and children," the Court said.
Case Title: ASIF v. STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 55
The Delhi High Court has modified the conviction and sentence of a man from sec. 397 of Indian Penal Code to sec. 392 as the prosecution had failed to prove the use of a deadly weapon.
Justice Mukta Gupta was of the view that the prosecution is required to prove the nature of the weapon of offence used specially in the case of knife or blade.
"In the absence of the use of a deadly weapon being proved by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained and is required to be modified to an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC," the Court said.
Case Title: Amrinder Singh & Raja Through: Spa Holder Sukhjinder Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 56
The Delhi High Court has held that the accused cannot recourse to a third party, such as a Power of Attorney holder, to represent him in criminal proceedings.
Citing the mandatory requirement of personal appearance of the accused in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court noted that the presence of third parties in criminal cases would defeat the very purpose of the criminal justice system.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed a petition under Article 227, Constitution of India read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, seeking quashing of proceedings through the Petitioner's Representative holding his Special Power of Attorney (S.P.A.).
Case Title: Bela Goyal Proprietor of Ispat Sangrah (India) v. VIIPL – MIPL JV (Jaipur) & Ors.,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 57
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that for the purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction of Courts, a company is presumed to carry its business from where its principal office is located.
In the present case, where the Defendant-company claimed to operate from Jaipur, Justice Yogesh Khanna further made it clear:
" the company has its principle office at Delhi; this Court shall have the jurisdiction. Merely by mentioning on the invoices viz. the disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction at Jaipur would not snatch away the jurisdiction of this Court as there was no exclusion clause in the invoices."
Case Title: Avin Dalal v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 15179/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 58
The Delhi High Court recently held that merely because the Petitioner was not granted 15 days' gap between his Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination for recruitment in the Police force, it cannot be said that there was any fault in the procedure adopted.
The Petitioner, a CAPF aspirant, had claimed that even though candidates are granted 15 days period to the candidate to make an appeal before the Review Medical Board, he was forced to submit his appeal on the very same day on which the DME was conducted.
As a consequence, the petitioner could not bring his weight within the permissible limit, thereby being denied an opportunity to be selected.
59. Arbitral Award Is To Be Executed At A Place Where Judgment Debtor Resides, Carries Business Or Has Assets: Delhi High Court
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.
60. "Serious Assault On Dignity Of Complainant": Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIR Of Stalking, Sexual Harassment Despite Settlement Between Parties
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."
61. Fair Trial Is Hallmark Of Criminal Procedure, Court's Duty To Ensure Fair & Proper Opportunities To Accused For Just Decision: Delhi HC
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.
62. S. 3(1)(w) Of SC/ST Act Does Not Come Into Play When Offence Had No Reference To Prosecutrix's Caste : Delhi High Court
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.
" The Complainant does not allege in her complaint that she was sexually victimised by reason of her caste status throughout her relationship with the Petitioner/Applicant," the Court noted in the facts of the instant case. It thus allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused," the Court said.
63. Liquidated Damages Over & Above Actual Damages Cannot Be Awarded By Sole Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
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."
64. 'Strong Suspicion' Of Prima Facie Case Based On Materials On Record Sufficient To Frame Charges; Need Not Assess Probative Value Of Evidence: Delhi HC
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."
65. 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.
While refraining from commenting on the merits of the case, Justice Manoj Ohri observed,
"On a prima facie view of the statements of the child victim during investigation and trial as well as her MLC, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order granting bail to respondent No. 2, as the same suffers from perversity and is unsustainable under the facts and circumstances of the case."
66. Assembly Elections 2022: Delhi HC Refuses To Entertain Congress Leader's Plea To Postpone Polls In Five States Amid Third COVID Wave
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."
68. Delhi Riots: High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused Of Killing 85 Yrs Old Woman, One Denied Relief
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.
69. 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.
75.NI Act- Limitation Period For Issuance Of Legal Notice To Exclude Day On Which Intimation Received From Bank About Return Of Cheque: Delhi HC
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.
81. 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."
82. '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.
83. 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.
152. 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.
153. 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.
155. 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.
Case Title: SHRI MUKESH KUMAR v. SMT KAMLESH DEVI & ANR.
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156
The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to correction of jurisdictional errors or cases where a view taken by the court or tribunal is perverse, in the sense that no reasonable court could have taken the same view.
Justice Prateek Jalan made this observation while dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, being the Principal District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts.
The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 1 against an order of the Additional Rent Controller by which her application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.
Case Title: Raj Singh Gehlot v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 157
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea of Ambience Group promoter Raj Singh Gehlot in connection with a money laundering case. (Detailed order awaited)
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri had reserved the order earlier this month after hearing Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Gehlot in the matter. Advocate Zoheb Hussain appeared on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement.
Gehlot is accused of siphoning off the loan amount and diverting funds while entering into a criminal conspiracy.
A loan was allegedly sanctioned to M/s AHPL by a consortium of banks led by J&K Bank, Ansal Plaza, Delhi for construction of a hotel.
Gehlot was accused of siphoning off the money in connivance of bank officials through a web of shell companies and his associates.
Case Title: Gautam Thapar v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 158
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail plea filed by Avantha Group Promoter Gautam Thapar in connection with the Yes Bank loan fraud case. (Detailed order awaited)
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri pronounced the order after reserving the same earlier this month. The Court heard Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Thapar in the matter. The bail plea was opposed by Amit Mahajan representing Directorate of Enforcement.
Thapar was arrested in August last year in connection to the allegations of misappropriation of funds granted by Yes Bank in the form of Loan.
An ECIR was registered against Gautam Thapar, M/s. Avantha Realty Ltd., M/s. Oyster Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and others, alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery for diversion and misappropriation of public money during the period 2017 to 2019, thereby causing losses to the tune of Rs. 466.51 Crores to Yes Bank.
Case Title: Abhigyan Singh v Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 159
Case Title: Komal Rastogi v. Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 160
Case Title: Gaurav Dalal v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 161
Case Title: Adhir Kumar Verma v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 162
The Delhi High Court has held that for selection to armed forces, the candidates must be fully fit and no benefit of doubt in this regard can be given to them.
It further held that the medical opinion of doctors of the Forces, who are well aware of the demands of duties and the physical standards required to discharge the same, cannot be discarded and would, in fact, prevail over the report of private or even other government doctors.
The Court further clarified that Medical Manuals for entry to the Forces cannot be said to be laying down all the complex ailments/grounds that would make a candidate unfit for appointment to Armed Forces. The recruiting medical officer may use his clinical acumen, to the best of his knowledge and keeping in view the best interests of the Forces.
In Gaurav Dalal v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr., WP (C ) 6595/2021, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for the appointment of a Constable, on the ground of 'undescended testis'. The petitioner alleged that disqualification on this ground is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In the case of Adhir Kumar Verma v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors., WP ( C ) 14926/2021, the petitioner, a Sub-Inspector aspirant, was declared unfit for 'Multiple keloid in Central area of chest and single keloid right scapular area'. This led to the petitioner filing the present petition.
Case Title: Saurabh Mittal Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 163
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the summons against a person accused of creating numerous fake firms and availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently. The court observed that there should be reasonable apprehension of coercion by the GST Department for 'summons proceedings' to be conducted through CCTV Cameras.
The single bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar has refused to quash the summons on the grounds that ​​the investigation is still at a nascent stage and that the present case involves fraud of Rs 350 crores approximately and around 200 firms are involved in placing fraudulent ITC.
Case Title: BLACK DIAMOND TRACKPARTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS v. BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 164
Case Title: SH. HARNAM DASS LUTHRA (NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) v. USHA CHAUHAN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 165
Case Title: SMT.USHA @ DURGAWATI DEVI v. SH DILIP KUMAR SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 166
The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
"…it may be noted that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being one of judicial superintendence cannot be exercised to upset conclusions, howsoever erroneous they may be, unless there was something grossly wrong or unjust in the impugned order shocking the court's conscience or the conclusions were so perverse that it becomes absolutely necessary in the interest of justice for the court to interfere," Justice Asha Menon observed.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 by the petitioners, defendants in the suit, against an order dated 10th January, 2022 passed by the Commercial Court, Saket Courts.
In the case of Harnam Dass Luthra v. Usha Chauhan, the Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 challenging a judgment wherein appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Additional Rent Controller was dismissed, thereby allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent landlady under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
In Smt. Usha v. Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh, the Court held that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and discretionary and that it does not extend to reappreciation of evidence as an appellate forum.
It said that the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, will not intervene to correct every error of law or fact committed by the courts below.
167. How Much Liquor Can An Individual Store At Home In Delhi? High Court Answers
Case Title: Avjit Saluja v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 167
The Delhi High Court has affirmed that an individual, aged above 25 years, can possess 9 litres of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor, i.e., whisky, vodka, gin and rum, and 18 litres of beer, wine and alcopop.
The observation was made by Justice Subramonium Prasad while adjudicating upon a petition for quashing of the FIR registered against a Delhi resident, for illicit liquor storage at his home.
132 bottles of liquor were recovered from the Petitioner's house, who did not possess a valid Liquor license. This included 51.8 litres of whisky, rum, vodka, gin, and 55.4 litres of wine, beer, alcopop.
Accordingly, he was booked under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
168. Delhi High Court Rules, Parties Under LLP Agreement Cannot Confer Jurisdiction On Courts
Case Title: Aanchal Mittal & Ors. Versus Ankur Shukla
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 168
A Single Bench of Delhi High Court of Justice Amit Bansal, has held that carrying of business in any place does not confer jurisdiction on courts to adjudicate a dispute inter se partners in an LLP.
The Partner of an LLP, registered at Hyderabad, had filed a suit before a Commercial Court in Delhi against the denial of access by remaining partners to the business accounts of LLP. The District Judge allowed the petition, dismissing the challenge to territorial jurisdiction raised by the remaining partners/ defendants on the ground that the business of LLP was undertaken in Delhi, therefore, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts in Delhi under the LLP Agreement is legally valid and enforceable. The remaining partners challenged the decision by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, before the High Court.
Case Title: X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 169
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the bail of a man accused of raping a 37 year old woman suffering from bipolar mental disorder episodic mania and psychotic features after taking her undue advantage, while directing him to surrender in custody within a week.
Justice Mukta Gupta noted that the Trial Court failed to notice that the accused was living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix, thus was aware of her mental faculties.
The Court said "The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to notice that the respondent No.2 was living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix, thus was aware of the mental faculties of the victim and taking advantage thereof, as her marriage was broken and she was eager to get married, he lured her stating that he would get the evil spirit out of her soul, get her married to a boy and called her on 21st July, 2021."
Case Title: M/S. LG Electronics India Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 170
A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, directed the Central Processing Center to determine and process the refund due to LG Electronics in accordance with the law after the later filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
LG had opted to be taxed under Section 115BAA of the Act, attracting a tax rate of 22%, yet the revenue authorities applied a tax rate of 25% under Section 115BA of the Act. LG filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act as well as seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to dispose of its rectification application under Section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the impugned intimation.
Case Title: Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v. UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 171
The Delhi High Court has observed that since the right of a person under Article 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India is impacted by what is offered on a platter, it is fundamental that a full and complete disclosure of a food article being vegetarian or non-vegetarian is made a part of consumer awareness.
A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea seeking guidelines for strict implementation of the existing Rules mandating food manufacturers to label their products according to the nature of the ingredients used therein.
The Court added that the failure of the authorities to ensure such full and complete disclosure of food article as to whether the same was vegetarian or non vegetarian defeats the objective of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
It therefore directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to issue a fresh communication to the authorities concerned to state the obligation for making a clear disclosure of food article as to whether it was vegetarian or non-vegetarian.
Case Title: Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 172
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea filed by Former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay, challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which had transferred his petition filed before the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh while pronouncing the order today observed that it sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the disciplinary proceedings including competence of the Central Government to issue charge sheet.
Case Title: Mujeeb Ur Rehman v. Registrar General, Delhi HC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking to adopt virtual court hearings as a norm across all the Courts in the national capital.
The petitioner, Mujeeb Ur Rehman, stated that virtual court hearings are extremely convenient and time saving, hence, the Court should consider adopting it as a norm in all district courts as well as the High Court.
However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that the issue is being considered at the administrative side and thus, it sees no reason to entertain the PIL at this stage
Case Title: Kurz India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that the reason to believe was invalid, had no rational nexus to the belief for escapement of income and there was no fresh material on record to initiate reassessment proceedings.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has opined that the reasoning "the contingent liability has been claimed as revenue expense" is contrary to the concept of contingent liability which is only required to be disclosed by way of a note in accordance with the requirement of applicable Accounting Standards.
Case Title : Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175
A Bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, has ruled that an application seeking compounding of the offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be rejected on the ground that the Assessee had not been acquitted of the criminal charges, if his conviction with respect to the given offence has been set aside by the Special Judge, CBI.
The Assessee had filed an application before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CCIT(A)) seeking compounding of offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said application was rejected by the CCIT (A) on the ground of expiry of limitation period and the conviction of the Assessee by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi.
Thereafter, the Assessee had filed an appeal against the order of the ACMM before the Special Judge, CBI who had set aside the conviction order and had directed the ACMM to consider the fresh documents filed by the Assessee and pass a fresh order. Simultaneously, the Assessee had filed an application before the CCIT (A) seeking review of the order rejecting the application for compounding of offence, which was rejected by the CCIT (A) on the ground that the conviction of the Assessee was still open for adjudication and that he had not been acquitted of the criminal charges.
The Assessee had filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against the impugned order of the CCIT (A) rejecting the review application.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi Versus Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in an appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 there can be no interference with the finding of fact if it involves re-appreciation of the evidence.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, held that if a particular receipt has been disclosed in the income and expenditure account, the same cannot be considered as unaccounted income in the hands of the Assessee and be subject to proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.
Case Title: Kailash Gahlot Vs. Vijender Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 177
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot, who sued BJP MLA Vijender Gupta for allegedly making defamatory remarks about him over procurement of 1,000 low-floor buses.
Gupta had alleged that Gahlot had committed corruption in awarding the tender for maintenance of DTC buses to Tata Motors and JBM Auto Ltd and was aware of the entire terms and conditions of the tender, however, he chose to object to the said tender only after it was awarded.
Following this, Gahlot moved the High Court seeking damages of Rs. 5 crores for defaming him and causing loss to his reputation. Apart from this, mandatory injunction was also sought to immediately delete all the defamatory posts made against him on Twitter and Facebook.
178. Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Govt Order Prohibiting Discounts On Liqour MRP
Case Title: BHAGWATI TRANSFORMER CORP. AND ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 178
The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the order passed by Excise Department of the Delhi Government, prohibiting discounts on MRP of liquor by retail licensees in the national capital.
Justice V Kameswar Rao pronounced the order on interim applications filed by L7Z liqour licensees in the city.
The Single Judge heard at length Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sajan Poovayya for the Petitioners. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rahul Mehra appeared for the Delhi government on advance notice.
The petition is filed in the backdrop of the new Delhi Excise Policy approved in June last year by the Delhi government for the year 2021-2022. This policy sets out the framework for various aspects pertaining to the liquor business.
Case Title: SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY v. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 179
Dealing with a batch of 88 petitions, the Delhi High Court has set aside the imposition of a moratorium issued by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) on opening of new pharmacy colleges for a period of five years with effect from the academic year 2020-21.
A single judge bench of Justice Prateek Jalan was dealing with the petitions challenging communications dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 addressed by the PCI to State Governments and Union Territory Administrations.
Vide impugned letter dated 17.07.2019, the decision of imposition of moratorium was communicated by PCI taken at its meeting held on 09.04.2019. The said letter dated 09.09.2019 conveyed the resolution providing certain exemptions to the aforesaid moratorium.
Case Title: DEVINA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Delhi High Court has ordered for postponement of the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2022, as also the date of receiving of applications, while dealing with a plea challenging the upper age limit (of 32 years) for appearing in the exam.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a petition filed by a practicing advocate namely Devina Sharma, intending to appear in the examination.
Sharma sought relaxation in the upper age limit for the exam. While the last date of submission of application was March 20, the preliminary exam was scheduled for March 27.
Case Title: PURAN CHAND GUPTA & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 181
The Delhi High Court has observed that unless the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are enforced in their true letter and spirit and the legislative intent underlying the Act is manifested, the vision of a society free of caste-based discrimination will only remain a distant dream.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed praying for quashing of an FIR bearing registered under sections 3(1)(r) and (3)(1)(s) of the Act.
Touching upon the legislative intent behind the SC ST Act, the Court said the object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied their civil rights.
"Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out whenever a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations, and harassment," the Court said.
Case Title: SHRI ASHOK PANWAR & ANR v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 182
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere pendency of a Title Suit would not be a ground to disentitle a person from obtaining an electricity connection in their name, particularly, in view of the fact that such person is in possession of the subject property.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a plea seeking a direction to BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to grant a fresh electricity connection in the name of either of the two petitioners at a shop in property in question.
Case Title: AMARJEET SINGH DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 183
Emphasising that an employee in a transferable job has no vested right to remain posted at one place, the Delhi High Court has said that Courts should not readily interfere with the transfer order which is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla added that if the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government or its subordinate Authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to the public interest.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking to set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Versus Gracemac Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an amount received under a distribution agreement with respect to a computer software did not amount to 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the agreement does not create a right to transfer the copyright with respect to it.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, had observed that in view of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited versus the Commissioner of Income Tax (2021), the said issue was no longer res integra.
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 185
Granting interim relief to Dabur India Limited, the Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of certain websites (John Doe) illegally using 'DABUR' domain name. "The attempt is to not merely infringe and pass off, but to indulge in complete impersonation," it observed.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that DABUR India Limited made out a prima facie case for the grant of ex-parte injunction and the balance of convenience was also in it's favour.
"Irreparable loss would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ex-parte injunction is not passed in favour of the Plaintiff. The loss to the public is also incalculable," the Court said.
The order is John Doe since the owner name of the impugned domain names is hidden.
Case Title: CAPT SIMRANJIT SINGH SAMBHI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 186
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered by a woman alleging rape by a man at multiple occasions after noting that the prosecutrix was in a long term relationship of four years with him and that the FIR was only filed after the said relationship ended on hostile terms.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Section 376(2) (n), 354, 354A of Indian Penal Code.
In the complaint, the woman stated that she was in a relationship with the Petitioner for three years and when she was told by the Petitioner that he was a divorcee, she was shocked. It was stated that the Petitioner had promised to marry her while he was in a relationship with someone else and that he went to her house, abused and assaulted her.
Case Title: DIGAMBER JAIN MAHILA ASHRAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 187
The Delhi High Court has observed that the amendments to pleadings must be sought by the party concerned within a reasonable time and should not sought to be introduced so as to stall the trial itself.
Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a plea challenging the order dated 13 February 2019 in terms of which the Estate Officer had rejected the applications made by the petitioners for amendment and for the issuance of interrogatories.
The Estate Officer was ceased of proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 19711. The proceedings started after the cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents on 11 January 2001.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 Versus M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 188
The Delhi High Court bench consisting of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh has dismissed the appeal against the deletion of income tax addition for share or bogus purchases or cash deposits and held that appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act cannot be entertained by High Court except on the grounds of perversity or for the complete lack of evidence.
The appellant/department challenged the order of ITAT on the grounds that ITAT has failed to take into account the true import and effect of the statement made by an accommodation entry provider who had denied having made any investment in the assessee. The statement pointed in the direction that the money which had ostensibly been invested in the assessee in the form of share capital or share premium were unaccounted funds of the assessee routed through accommodation entry providers.
Case Title: ROSHAN LATA ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 189
A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court to immediately constitute a panel of doctors from the AIIMS hospital for conducting a Post Mortem and Autopsy on IFS Mukul Arya, India's representative to Palestine who was found dead in his office premises in Ramallah last week.
Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for the Central Government, on instructions, informed the Court that the Ministry of External Affairs will faciliate the autopsy to be conducted at AIIMS as prayed for by the family.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the prayer to conduct autopsy of the deceased's body and ordered that the autopsy be videographed.
The plea was thus disposed off with liberty to the petitioner approach the court again in case of any grievance.
Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 190
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to pay the decreetal amount to Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) in latter's plea seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017 in two installments by May 31, 2022.
The Court directed that part-payment must be paid within two weeks.
DAMEPL submitted that the the gross decreetal sum along with interest up to 14.02.2022 computed in accordance with the arbitral award is Rs. 8009.38 crores. Out of the said amount, only a sum of Rs. 1678.42 crores has been paid so far by DMRC. Thereby, as on 14.02.2022, the remaining decreetal amount payable with interest is Rs.6330.96 crores [Rs.8009.38 crores - Rs. 1,678.42 crores].
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 191
The Delhi High Court has observed that wherein a land is being used for public purposes, if occupants of jhuggis or slums are evicted, it is the State's objective to provide them alternative accommodation after conduct of requisite surveys and collection of data.
Justice Pratibha M Singh reiterated the said observation while dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple.
While the Court had earlier clarified that none of the occupants who are in illegal occupation of the temple premises can remain in possession, it noted that there were some jhuggi dwellers and Dharamshala occupants who had not vacated the said premises.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 192
The Delhi High Court has dissolved marriage between a couple living separately for 12 years taking note of the fact that the wife had filed an unsubstantiated criminal complaint against the husband and his family members which caused them immense mental cruelty and agony.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Bench was of the view that there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties and that the marriage was irretrievably broken down. It also noted that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the matrimonial bond and the insistence to continue the relationship would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties.
193. Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Middleman Christian Michel In AgustaWestland Case
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 193
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail applications filed by Christian James Michel, facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with Augusta Westland case. The bail pleas were moved in July last year.
Justice Manoj Ohri pronounced the order today after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph for Michel, Advocate DP Singh for CBI and ASG SV Raju for the ED. Detailed order is yet to be uploaded.
The CBI has opposed Michel's bail saying that he is a British national not having roots in India, and is at flight risk. It was also stated that he acted as a middleman, received money pursuant to certain contracts concerning the scam, and is not cooperating in the investigation.
Case Title: Amit Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking premature release of old aged and infirm prisoners in terms of recommendations made by Mulla Committee (1980-83) and the Model Prison Manual (2003).
While expressing disinclination to even issue notice in the matter, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna remarked,
" This is a policy decision. People sometimes commit offences at an advance age, what about them? They have to remain in prisons."
The plea was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, stating that the aforesaid recommendations were made in larger perspective of the prisoners' welfare, keeping in view the overall objective of protecting the society and rehabilitating the offenders. They make provision for specialized treatment of women, old aged and infirm prisoners compatible with dignity of life. However, such recommendations are not implemented by Delhi Jails.
Case Title: : La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195
The Delhi High Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to allow rectification of bonafide errors in the tax period of the challan.
The petitioner submitted that in respect of the second quarter of 2015-2016, i.e., from 1.07.2015 to 30.09.2015, the petitioner filed its returns on 31.03.2017. The VAT liability for the period was Rs. 7,87,038/-whereas the liability under the CST Act was Rs. 37,381/-. The petitioner deposited Rs. 10,44,118 towards DVAT and Rs. 37,381 towards CST through challans, and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 2,58,912 was deposited in excess for the second quarter of 2015-2016.
Case Title: ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 196
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea by All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife seeking quashing of summons issued to them by Enforcement Directorate in connection with West Bengal coal scam case.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar also dismissed the plea by Banerjee's wife Rujira Banerjee assailing the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate against her in the money laundering case and the Trial Court order taking cognizance of the said complaint. The plea also assailed the subsequent issuance of summons against her for physical appearance.
The CBI had registered an FIR in respect to alleged offences of illegal mining and theft of coal from the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Ltd committed in the state of West Bengal by certain individuals. Pursuant to this, ED has registered an ECIR in the Head Investigative Unit located in New Delhi.
Case Title: AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. v. LAMINA SUSPENSION PRODUCTS LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 197
Granting interim relief to owners of registered trademarks 'VOLVO' and 'FMX', the Delhi High Court has restrained Lamina Suspension Products Limited from using the the said trademarks or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar to it, in relation to leaf springs and other parts used in the heavy vehicles or other goods or services, including on its websites, social media accounts and other third party websites.
Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction to the plaintiffs who offered a wide spectrum of transportation related products and services with a strong foothold in luxury buses and related services.
Case Title: MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 198
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a 2008 agreement between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) alleging siphoning off public money.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain was dealing with a plea filed by Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma seeking a direction to CBI to register an FIR under Sections 409, 420, 120B of IPC read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to investigate and prosecute the accused persons for allegedly siphoning off the public money under the garb of illegal and void ab initio agreement dated 25th August, 2008.
Case Title: ANJANI GUPTA v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court has observed that while issuing summons, a prima facie appreciation of evidence coupled with application of judicial mind needs to be carried out for a summoning order to be just and legal.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC against the impugned order dated 17th March, 2018 passed in a Revision Petition arising out of Summoning Order dated 20th June, 2015 passed in a case registered under Section 380 of IPC.
The marriage between the Petitioner and the son of the Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30th January, 1990 and the relationship between the couple was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time.
Case Title: DHRITIMAN RAY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 200
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University to put in place a mechanism so that in case of any urgency, a student can write an email to the concerned Dean of Examinations who shall then consider the said request and issue the attested marksheet or transcript manually within a period of 5 working days.
Justice Pratibha M Singh issued a slew of other directions in a bunch of pleas filed by students of the University of Delhi studying various courses who graduated in the year 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.
The petitions were filed in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic with a grievance that the petitioners were unable to get original degree certificates and transcripts issued from the University. The Petitioners had approached the Court as there was an unreasonable delay in the issuance of the transcripts and the degree certificates.
Case Title: DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. DR. KRATI MEHROTRA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court has observed that as long as conception occurs before the tenure of the contract executed between a woman-employee and her employer expires, she should be entitled to maternity benefits as provided under Maternity Benefits 1961 Act.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh observed that the Act seeks to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for given periods before and after child-birth, and, in particular, endeavours to provide for maternity benefit.
"Clearly, the provisions of the 1961 Act seek to invest a woman with a statutory right to take maternity leave and seek payment for the period that she is absent from duty on account of her pregnancy, albeit in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 Act," the Bench said.
Case Title: JIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court has observed that the term "sum in dispute" provided in the 4th Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has to be interpreted so as to include the aggregate value of the claims as well as counter claims.
The High Court disagreed with the Arbitrator's view that the claims and counter-claims have to be assessed separately for calculation of fee as per the fee scale provided under the 4th Schedule.
"The term "sum in dispute", would take in its ambit claims as well as counter claims. The said expression "sum in dispute" used in the 4th Schedule to the Act has to be given its ordinary meaning, to include the total amount of claim made by the claimant, and the total amount of counter claim made by the respondent", a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Case Title: Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court has upheld the penalty issued under the Income Tax ActIncome Tax Act, 1961 upon an assessee who had failed to fill the consent-cum-waiver form to enable the tax authorities to obtain information about the alleged Swiss Bank accounts held by it.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, has held that even if the Assessee had no connection with the alleged Swiss Bank accounts, no prejudice would have been caused to her if she had complied with the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act and had filled the consent form.
The Delhi High Court observed that in the case of Sanjay Dalmia versus PCIT (2018), the Delhi High Court had upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act which had arisen from the same search and bank account under consideration in the present case and for the same reason of not having filled the consent form. Also, the High Court observed that a Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The High Court also observed that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Selvi & Ors had no application to the facts of the present case as the same had only upheld the principle of 'right of silence' in the context of criminal proceedings.
Case Title: SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that it will take appropriate steps to institute an appeal before the next appellate forum challenging the death penalty awarded to Nimisha Priya, an Indian woman who was convicted by a Yemen court for killing a local in 2017.
Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for the Centre, on instructions, apprised Justice Yashwant Varma that the Government of India shall take all proactive steps to institute an appeal before next appellate forum in accordance with prevalent law in Yemen.
He also apprised the Court that the Councillor present in Yemen shall extend cooperation and facilitate the travel of persons wanting to negotiate with victim's family in order to pursue their purported aim to settle the dispute.
The Centre also informed the Court that it is providing miscellaneous amounts to Priya for her daily expenses inside prison.
Accordingly, the Court requested the concerned Ministry to duly pursue the remedy of further appeal against order of conviction and the plea was disposed of.
Case Title: STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 8 rogue websites alleged to be illegally streaming cricket matches of TATA Indian Premier League (IPL) 2022.
Considering the fact that the match is starting from 26th March, 2022, Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that there was an imminent need to protect the investment of the plaintiffs, Star India Private Limited, as also to ensure that such Rogue Websites do not illegally stream the said cricket matches.
"The Court has perused the plaint as also the documents. The documentary evidence and the screenshots placed on record prima facie show that the following websites have previously streamed pirated content of the cricket matches for which the Plaintiffs hold Exclusive Rights," the Court noted.
Case Title: SANTOSH TRUST & ANR. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has directed increase in the number of seats in various post graduate and under graduate courses in a medical educational institute being run and managed by Santosh Trust, formerly known as the Maharaji Educational Trust in the city.
Taking note of the recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Justice Rekha Palli said that several thousand rescued Indian medical students, who had gone to pursue their medical education in Ukraine, have also lost their seats in medical colleges.
Accordingly, the Court directed the National Medical Commission and other respondent authorities to grant permission to the institute on the basis of the an inspection report and to increase the seats from 4 to 7 in MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), from 3 to 7 in MS (Orthopaedics), and from 100 to 150 in the MBBS course.
Case Title: WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has held that while the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 excludes the administrative supervision of the High Court under Article 227(4) of the Constitution but, it does not exclude the judicial superintendence and jurisdiction under Article 226.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a bunch of pleas raising the issue as to whether the power of Judicial Review conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 has been taken away in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Maj. Gen. Shri Kant Sharma and Anr. thereby denying litigants the right to approach High Court in writ jurisdiction against the judgment and orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal.
208. Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction In Favour Of 'ADOBE' In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 208
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte injunction in favour of ADOBE in a trademark infringement suit against one Namase Patel, who had registered the domain names www.addobe.com and www.adobee.com in respect of computer software and other IT related services.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant concerned had registered the Infringing Domains thereby engaging in completely illegal conduct for the last several years.
Justice Pratibha M Singh perused the list of domain names of the Defendant and various orders passed by the US National Arbitration Forum and other arbitral institutions and was of the view that the same clearly showed that the Defendant seemed to be a habitual cyber squatter engaged in registering various domain names.
Case Title: KINGS FURNISHING AND SAFE CO v. THE COMMISSIONER & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 209
Emphasizing that the State authorities remain duty bound to remove all unauthorised constructions on public land, the Delhi High Court has said that the mere fact that such encroachments represent religious structures, a place of worship or are given colour of a religious structure cannot detract or dilute the authorities from that obligation.
Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a petition concerning the encroachments made on a public pathway in city's Rani Jhansi Road.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Government apprised the Court that the Religious Committee, constituted in terms of a Government Circular dated 05 May 2014, had addressed a communication dated 07 December 2021 to the concerned Corporation. It was submitted that further information and inputs in order to assess the steps liable to be taken were awaited.
210. Delhi High Court Allows Reopening Of Four Floors Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz On Shab-e-Barat
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Delhi High Court allowed reopening of four floors, including Ground floor as well as three floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz for offering of prayers on the festival of Shab e-Barat.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri however removed the Delhi Police's restriction of only permitting 100 people inside Masjid to offer namaz by ordering that the management will ensure that while allowing the devotees on a particular floor, the COVID protocols and social distancing norms will be followed.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020.
Case Title: Jagdish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 211
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking a High Level Inquiry against the allegations of links between banned Khalistani organisation 'Sikhs for Justice' and Arvind Kejriwal led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
The plea also sought to bar the party from contesting elections until the enquiry is completed and to temporarily suspend its membership from the election commission.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla rejected the plea filed by one Jagdish Sharma, stating that it is "completely frivolous'.
The plea referred to a letter addressed by former Chief Minister of Punjab, Charanjeet Singh Channi, to Home Minister Amit Shah, alleging that the Aam Aadmi Party which is currently leading the Delhi government is taking financial support from the banned khalistani organization.
Case Title: LALIT RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court has observed that a writ to compel police to conduct an investigation can be denied for not exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Chadra Dhari Singh however added that such writ may be denied unless the exceptions enumerated in the decision of Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh are satisfied.
The Supreme Court in the said judgment had said that the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right or when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or in cases where order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or when vires of a legislation is challenged.
With the said observation, the Court dismissed a plea filed under Article 226 & 227 seeking immediate arrest of accused persons and taking appropriate action against the investigation officer for delay in lodging FIR and helping accused persons.
Title: MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court has observed that the FIR and chargesheet can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or complaint or the evidence collected, though remaining uncontroverted, do not disclose the commission of an offence.
Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the the decision of the Court to exercise or not to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be predicated on the facts of each case, however, while considering the facts, the court cannot embark on an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 4th December, 2021 emanating from an FIR registered with the Crime Branch, Rohini on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 by way of an email addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
Case Title: ANUPAM & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 214
The University of Delhi has told the Delhi High Court that the entire data related to the personal information of students has been well protected and kept with University developed Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software and that the University has a privacy policy in respect of the data received.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea filed by final year students of the University in July, 2020 being aggrieved over the conduct of the online Open Book Examinations by the University.
The Petitioners sought quashing and withdrawal of the notifications dated 14th May, 2020, 30th May, 2020 and 27th June, 2020 in respect of undergraduate and postgraduate students, including students of the School of Open Learning and Non-Collegiate Women Education Board. It was pointed out that there were several glitches in the online portal of DU.
Vide order dated 5th February, 2021, on the aspect of data privacy, the Court had directed the University to file an affidavit as to whether it has a privacy policy, in respect of the entire data related to the personal information of students which has been collected, and kept with the ERP software.
The Court was therefore informed and assured that the data relating to the personal information of students is well protected with an ERP software, and that the access to the same is restricted to the designated officers of the Examination Unit, the Admissions Unit and other Administrative Unit of the University.
Case Title: ANKUR MUTREJA v. AVIATION EMPLOYEES BUILDING SOCIETY LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215
Calling it an extreme example of abuse of process, the Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on a litigant who had accused a Trial Court judge of being biased against him. The High Court opined that the allegations were levelled without any material.
Justice C Hari Shankar was of the view that though the standard of bias is one of apprehension rather than of proof, the apprehension has to be real and not merely chimerical or fanciful or a method to somehow try one's luck before another Court.
Furthermore, the Court said that every judicial officer is expected to act without fear or favour, affection or ill will and that it is the solemn oath which every judicial officer subscribes to, at the time of entering into his office.
Case Title: Om Sehgal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking recovery of ₹1 trillion debt allegedly owed by Pakistan to India. Stating that the plea involves issues pertaining to government policy, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla refused to interfere in the matter.
Om Sehgal, party in person, produced several documents to argue that India has loaned approximately ₹300 crore to Pakistan, popularly known as 'Pre-partition Debt'. He claimed that the sum to be repaid with interest now amounts to over 1 trillion rupees. However, it is averred that Pakistan has not paid even a single installment of debt or interest for any single year during past 75 years. Nevertheless, India has still not declared the debt as NPA.
He therefore sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Finance to take immediate steps for recovery of the sum, allegedly being used to "attack India".
Title: M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT v. M.J. PRASAD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 217
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Regional Labour Commissioner has limited powers in proceedings under sec. 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and cannot exercise adjudicatory powers to ascertain whether the benefits claimed were due in the first place or not.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a petition challenging the orders dated 30th October, 2019, 27th July, 2020, and 20th August, 2020 by which notice for recovery for a sum of Rs.1,95,980 and for attachment of property under Sections 136 and 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, were issued to the Petitioner Management by the SDM, Delhi Cantt. and by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Delhi.
It was the case of the Workman that the recovery of the said sum constitutes the amounts payable to him, towards Modified Assured Career Progression/ Assured Career Progression (MACP/ACP) on the ground that his reinstatement had been ordered and therefore, he ought to be deemed to have been in service as the termination was held void ab initio.
The claim of MACP/ACP benefits was allowed by the Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequential orders were then passed for attachment and for recovery of the said amounts vide the impugned orders.
218. "Heinous Crime": Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Woman Accused Of Trafficking Minor
Case Title: POONAM v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 218
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a woman accused of trafficking a minor tribal girl aged 14 years, noting that it was unfortunate that an innocent girl of tender age was subjected to heinous crimes and was severely abused, exploited and tortured by several people.
"The offences under Sections 370 and 376 of the I.P.C are grave and serious in nature and have adverse social implications. The petitioner has been charged for trafficking a minor girl which is in itself a heinous offence," Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.
The FIR was registered under Section 370 (Buying or disposing of any person as a slave), 376D (Intercourse by any member of the management or staff of a hospital with any woman in that hospital), 376(2)(n) (Rape), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 120B (Criminal conspiracy) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 219
The Delhi High Court has granted interim injunction in favour of Khadi & Village Industries Commission in a trademark infringement suit observing that the use of the word 'KHADI' as mark, trading style and corporate name by the defendants was illegal and unlawful.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Commission, registered proprietor of various word marks and device marks bearing word 'KHADI' in Hindi and English, both in artistic form as also in logo form along with the 'Charkha Logos'.
The Defendants were a partnership firm namely 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. It was the case of the plaintiff that the Defendants were using the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE', the corporate name KHADI BY HERITAGE as also the mark 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' and the 'Charkha Logo' in various forms.
Title: SETTU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 220
The Delhi High Court has observed that at the stage of framing of a charge, the probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into and that such material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that it is not obligatory for the judge at the stage of framing of charges to consider in detail and weigh in a sensitive balance as to whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not.
"The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or under Section 228 of the Code. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused," the Court said.
Case Title: Radha Bisht v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 221
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking regulation of activities of private detectives and their agencies.
While refusing to issue guidelines in the subject matter, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed, "It is not for the court to direct framing of law. No mandamus in this regard can be issued."
It however directed the Central Government to consider the plea as a representation and examine the aspect whether it is considered feasible to frame a law for regulation of activity of private detection.
Filed through Advocate Preeti Singh, the plea highlighted that the work of the private detectives, investigators, and their agencies remains outside the purview of any existing statutory framework.
Case Title: Ericsson India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 222
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh has directed the department to release the refund as the transaction was revenue neutral, and did not affect the interest of revenue.
The petitioner/assessee filed three writ petitions in which the court granted six weeks to the respondents/department to pass a fresh order. The court directed the department to bear in mind probable additions that may have to be made in the scrutiny assessment proceeding, based on a prima facie estimation along with the reasons. The court has further directed the department to be mindful of the quantum of additions and disallowances, if any, on the basis of estimations and their likely tax impact; and the financial wherewithal of the assessee and its ability to meet and service any demand for tax that may be raised against it.
After the judgement was rendered by the court, the department refunded Rs. 561.72 crores (including interest) to the petitioner-assessee in respect of Assessment Year 2017-2018.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR @ NILLU v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 223
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man incarcerated for almost 8 years in connection with a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on account of inordinate delay in his trial and prolonged judicial custody.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there was an "egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial" as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated.
Emphasing that fair, just and reasonable procedure is implicit in Article 21 and it creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily, the Court observed:
"This Court has consistently observed that while Courts must remain cognizant of the deleterious impact of drugs on society, it is also important to keep in mind that deprivation of personal liberty without the assurance of speedy trial contravenes the principles enshrined in our Constitution. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been incarcerated for almost eight years now, i.e. since 27.03.2014, for an offence that is punishable with a minimum imprisonment of ten years."
"This is an egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated."
Case Title: OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR v. ANJANI GUPTA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 224
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2008 is exclusive to and isolated from any right that may arise under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which pertains to restitution of conjugal rights.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a plea filed by a couple, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge confirming the residence Orders in favour of their son's wife, Respondent No.1.
The relationship between the Respondent wife and her in-laws was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time. The Respondent left her matrimonial home on 16th September, 2011. Consequently, more than 60 cases, both civil and criminal, were filed by the parties against each other. One of these cases were initiated by the Respondent-wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and during the proceedings the Respondent claimed right to residence in the property in question.
Case Title: Mayur Batra Versus ACIT And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 225
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a penalty order passed by the income tax authority under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without granting a hearing to the assessee is violative of the principles of natural justice.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, quashed the penalty order and remanded the matter back to the income tax authority for fresh adjudication.
The Petitioner/Assessee Mayur Batra filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the penalty levied on him under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessee contended before the High Court that the income tax authority had not considered the replies filed by the Assessee nor was a personal hearing granted to the Assessee before passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the income tax authority to impose penalty on any person if it is satisfied that the person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.
Case Title: ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC v. MR. SURJEET LAL & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 226
The Delhi High Court has restrained the owner of trademark 'BLACK FORT' and 'POWER COOL' from manufacturing or selling under the trademark 'BUDWEISER' in recycled bottles, or in any other manner, in respect of beer manufactured and sold by it.
Ruling in favour of Anheuser-Busch LLC, owner of trademark 'BUDWEISER', Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the use of recycled 'BUDWEISER' beer bottles for the products being sold under the mark 'BLACK FORT' and 'POWER COOL' by the Defendant Company would clearly constitute `use in the course of trade'.
It added that the fact that the same were recycled bottles would not make a difference insofar as the question of infringement or passing off was concerned.
Case Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 227
Upholding a Family Court order granting decree of divorce in favour of the husband, the Delhi High Court has dismissed wife's appeal noting that accusations of unchastity or extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character as well as health of the spouse against whom such allegations are made.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also added that while such allegations of extra marital affairs causes mental pain, agony suffering and tantamount to cruelty, the tendency of making false allegations must be deprecated by the Courts.
The Court was of the view that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and had rightly found that the appellant wife, by making unfounded allegations amounting to character assassination against the respondent husband and his father, had inflicted mental cruelty upon the the husband.
Title: ALOK KUMAR TIWARI v. MAMTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 228
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the subordinate court can only make a reference to the High Court and that it cannot initiate contempt proceedings by itself.
Justice Anu Malhotra placed reliance on the judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court in Nusrat Ali v. State & Anr., Rajeev Mittal v. Sanjay Goel and Neville A Mehta v. Sanjay Goel as well as the provisions of sec. 10, 11 and 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The petitioner had sought the quashing of a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and a notice dated April 6, 2021 issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the effect that the Trial Court could not have proceeded in view of the sec. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act.
The Court noted that the reply filed by the respondent to the plea made it apparent that the respondent did not challenge the aspect of contempt proceedings being required to be initiated by the High Court court or the superior court and not by the subordinate courts.
Case Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 229
Passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the Delhi High Court has waived off the six months cooling off period as stipulated under Hindu Marriage Act after observing that keeping the couple tied to a legal bond would only mean snatching away from them the opportunity to lead a fulfilling life.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma set aside an order passed by the Family Court wherein the second motion petition moved by the parties jointly under sec. 13B (2) of the Act was rejected on the ground that the statutory period of six months from the date when the first motion was moved, and period of 18 months from the date of separation, had not expired.
The High Court took note of the fact that both the parties were well educated and independent individuals who had mutually decided the fate of their marriage.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Dhar v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 230
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Single Judge, denying relief to a Kashmiri migrant who had retired from government service and sought permission to retain the government accommodation allotted to him for a period three years.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed,
" We are not inclined. It is not that they (government authorities) are discriminating against you (appellant). If we permit this, what happens to other people waiting in queue for govt accommodation? Govt doesn't have unlimited accommodation."
The Bench was hearing an intra-court appeal, preferred against order dated February 16, passed by Justice V Kameswar Rao, dismissing a batch of petitions filed by government servants who are retired Kashmiri Migrants, challenging their eviction from the government quarters in Delhi.
231. GST Provisional Attachment Order Not Valid After Expiry Of 1 Year: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that every provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date the order was passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the letter issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 by which the respondent/department had directed the bankers of the petitioner to provisionally attach immovable property in the name of the petitioner.
The petitioner had prayed for the directions to release/de-freeze the immovable property of the petitioner that was provisionally attached.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that after December 1, 2020, no fresh attachment order was issued. He further clarified that no show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act has been issued to the petitioner till date.
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 232
In a matter concerning the redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to proceed with the eviction of unauthorized occupants of jhuggis and dharamshalas present in the temple premises.
Justice Pratibha M Singh took into consideration the stand taken by such unauthorised occupants that they will neither vacate nor opt for the flats on rent or rain basera.
The Court said that the eviction of the said occupants had a sense of urgency in view of the upcoming Navratra festival commencing from 2nd April, 2022 and the fact that proper arrangements will have to be made for the entry and exit of the lakhs of devotees who visit the temple during the said period.
However, on March 25, the Supreme Court refused to interfere the plea challenging the eviction order.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant, while refusing to interfere with the order, granted petitioner the liberty to approach the Administrator appointed by the High Court for redressal of grievances.
Case Title: KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 233
The Delhi High Court recently quashed a FIR registered under the Arms Act against a NRI, who was travelling from Delhi to Dubai in February this year, when two live ammunitions were detected in his flight check-in baggage.
While allowing the plea filed by the petitioner-accused under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC, Justice Asha Menon observed,
" There is no prima facie evidence that he had any mala fide intent in keeping the ammunition. The safety of passengers was not threatened. The possession was not conscious. "
As per the prosecution, the petitioner was unable to prove that he was not in the conscious possession of the cartridges.
Case Title: KENT RO SYSTEM LTD. & ANR. v. GATTUBHAI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 234
The Delhi High Court has vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in favour of Kent RO System Limited on the grounds of gross suppression and concealment of material facts.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed by Kent RO System Limited claiming that the trademark KENT was adopted by it in the year 1988 in respect of products relating to petroleum conservation. In 1999, the plaintiffs started using the mark KENT in respect of its water purifier systems.
The defendant no 1 claimed to own and control an enterprise, Kent Appliances. The defendants no.2 and 3 carried on business under the name and style of Shilpa Electricals in respect of sale of electrical and home appliances.
It was the plaintiff's case that besides holding the trade mark registration for the mark KENT, it also held the copyright registration in respect of its logo. In and around March, 2019, the plaintiffs came to know of the defendants selling products such as thermo flasks and other home appliances under the identical mark of KENT.
Case Title: IMAGINE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S GREEN ACCESSORIES THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235
The Delhi High Court has ordered a total of Rs. 15 lakhs monetary damages to be paid the owner of trademark 'BOAT' over seizure of various counterfeit products based on inspection made by Court appointed Local Commissioners.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the Defendants had blatantly infringed the trademark and logos as also the packaging of the Plaintiff's products.
Therefore, considering the quantum of counterfeit products which were seized, the Court decreed the suit against the two defendants no. 1 and 6. While the suit was decreed against the Defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, the same was done against the Defendant No. 6 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.
The Court directed the said defendants to make payment of the said amount to the Plaintiff within a period of two weeks. It however said that since no products were found in the premises of Defendant No.3, no monetary damages were being imposed on it.
236. Delhi High Court Upholds Right Of Putative Father To Visit Minor Child
Case Title: KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 236
The Delhi High Court has observed that a putative father is entitled to visitation rights and that a minor child must not be insulated from parental touch and influence of other parent for his personal growth and development.
"It cannot be disputed that the respondent, being a putative father shall be entitled to visitation rights. While determining and granting such rights, more so when the child is of less than three years of age, surely his well-being / welfare is of paramount importance. At the same time, the minor must not be insulated from parental touch [Ref: Ruchi Majoo (supra)] and influence of the other parent for healthy growth of child and development of his personality," the Court said.
Noting that the tender age of the minor child, who was less than three years old, Justice V Kameswar Rao modified the impugned order dated October 28, 2021 passed by the Family Court which had granted visitation rights of the minor child to the putative father for two hours every day.
The Court modified the order and directed that instead of daily, the respondent putative father shall have visitation rights on alternate weekdays being three days in a week.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSION & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 237
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate being an intelligence and security organization as specified in Second Schedule of Right to Information Act is exempted from the purview of the Act except when the information pertains to allegation of corruption and human rights violation.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain was dealing with a plea concerning an RTI application filed by a Superintendent (respondent in the matter) working in the Administration with of Enforcement Directorate.
The said application sought copies of all the seniority list in respect of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) for the period of 1991 till date as also the copies of proposal for promotion of LDCs placed before the DPC together with copies of the Minutes of the Meetings and copies of the promotion orders issued on the recommendations of the DPC from time to time.
The CIC had directed the said information to be provided to the respondent. However, the said order was challenged by the Union of India before a Single Judge which had dismissed the said plea vide order dated 7th December 2018.
Case Title: GURJIT SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 238
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against a Canadian citizen whose flight check-in baggage was found with 50 live cartridges. The Court observed that prima facie, there was commission of offence under the Arms Act, 1959.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered under sec. 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner being a Canadian citizen, held an Overseas Citizen of India card.
According to the facts of the case, the petitioner had arrived in Delhi from Canada in February last year and was supposed to catch a connecting flight from New Delhi to Amritsar on February 10, 2021.
Title: FOOMILL PVT. LTD. v. AFFLE (INDIA) LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 239
The Delhi High Court has observed that the mere use of word 'Arbitration' in the heading in the Clause of Agreement would not lead to the inference that there exists an agreement between such parties seeking resolution of disputes through arbitration.
Justice Mukta Gupta referred to a 2014 decision of the Delhi High Court in Avant Garde Clean Room & Engg. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ind Swift Limited wherein the Court had dealt with the issue as to whether the use of word 'Arbitration' in the heading of an Agreement would entail existence of an arbitration agreement.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes in relation to the software development arising out of the agreement dated 29th July 2021 between the parties and costs.
Title: SANJAY GUPTA v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 240
Emphasising that once a person issues a cheque it must be honoured, the Delhi High Court has observed that such a person is bound to face criminal trial and consequences in case the cheque amount is not paid despite issuance of notice and opportunity to pay the said amount.
Noting that the Negotiable Instruments Act provides sufficient opportunity to a person who issues the cheque, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said thus:
"Once a cheque is issued by a person, it must be honored and if it is not honored, the person is given an opportunity to pay the cheque amount by issuance of a notice and if he still does not pay, he is bound to face the criminal trial and consequences."
The Court was of the view that once issuance of a cheque and signature are admitted, the presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises.
Case Title: UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. SH D.C. CHATURVEDI & ANR. and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241
The Delhi High Court has observed that any employer can forfeit the gratuity of an employee if the employee is terminated for any act or omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to the property belonging to the employer.
Justice Pratibha M Singh however added that such forfeiture can only be to the extent of the damage or loss caused, and not beyond that.
The Court was dealing with two petitions pertaining to disputes between employee and Union Bank of India. In one of the petitions, a chargesheet was issued against the employee alleging that loans were issued by him accommodating certain parties which caused losses to the Bank.
In another matter, chargesheet was issued against the employee alleging that he was involved in lending loans in blatant violation of lending norms without completing the requisite formalities, sanctioning higher amounts of loans to borrowers whose earlier loans were either NPA or overdue, which allegedly caused losses to the Bank.
Thus, the two aspects to be considered in the cases by Court was, First, whether forfeiture of gratuity is permissible and, if so, in what manner is it to be effected and Secondly, whether long delay in approaching to Controlling Authority can result in rejection of the claim for gratuity.
Case Title: MOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242
The Delhi High Court has adjudicated an issue as to whether a petitioner who has filed a civil suit claiming certain private rights is disentitled to file a writ petition seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to carry out its duty.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has observed that the power exercised by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for ensuring that the administrative authorities perform their duties and that the same is clearly distinct from a civil right that a private party may exercise against another private party.
The Court further observed that merely because the petitioner had filed a civil suit for partition claiming the relief for injunction and no interim order was granted, does not condone the illegal action of a private entity of carrying out illegal unauthorised construction contrary to municipal bye-laws and the Master Plan or preclude a High Court from exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure compliance of the municipal bye-laws as well as the Master Plan.
Case Title: PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243
Observing that refusal of a trademark without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of natural justice, the Delhi High Court has asked the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to devise a proper mechanism for holding show cause hearings.
Further noting that the Trademark Registry deals with lakhs of applications every year, Justice Pratibha M Singh opined that the utilization of a platform for virtual conference hearing wherein only three individuals are permitted to join at a time, would be grossly insufficient and an outdated mode of holding hearings.
Case Title: HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no requirement to compulsorily register family settlements and to pay stamp duty for the same when such settlement is initially arrived at as an oral partition, however, later is put into writing for the purpose of information.
" The partition had been agreed upon between the parties by way of oral agreement with the intervention of their counsels. The memorandum of settlement does not itself partition the properties, but only records the same as an aid of memory ," Justice Pratibha M Singh observed.
The Court was dealing with an application in a partition suit seeking waiver of payment of stamp duty in respect of the assets inherited by the various parties from the estate in question.
Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 245
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against 'Club Factory', a China based portal which was banned by the Indian Government amid pandemic, in the trademark infringement suit filed by luxury brand 'Louis Vuitton'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh permanently restrained owners of website "www.clubfactory.com from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale directly or indirectly any goods including face masks etc., bearing the registered marks of Louis Vuitton on its portal or any other portal run by them.
The Court also directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology (MeiTY) to issue instructions to all internet service providers to block the website www.clubfactory.com so that the same is also not accessible through VPN or other platforms.
Case Title: Anand Kumar Pandey v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 246
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Delhi government's decision to resume physical classes for school-going children, from nursery to class 12th from April 1, 2022.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla orally remarked,
"There has to be a balance. Children are losing much more by missing school...There are reports highlighting the psychological aspects on growth of children. They are not able to develop social, oral and inter-personal skills."
Schools in Delhi will resume functioning in offline mode at 100% capacity for all classes from April 1, 2022. As per the DDMA guidelines, schools will run only physical classes and no online classes will be held.
Case Title: BHAGWAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 247
The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court cannot interfere with an order in second appeal under sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, solely on the ground of sympathy in the absence of any substantial question of law.
Sec. 100 of the CPC gives a procedural right of second appeal to either of the parties to a civil suit who had been adversely affected by the decree passed by a civil court. The second appeal lies to the High Court only if the court is satisfied that it involves a substantial question of law.
"Section 100 of the CPC permits the Court to interfere only if there is a substantial question of law, which arises from the orders of the courts below. Absence the existence of any SQL, the Section 100 Court cannot interfere with the order under challenge solely on the ground of sympathy," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
Title: MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ HUSSAIN v. NIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 248
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking probe into several foreign organizations that collected crowd funds under the garb of helping India amid the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic in April 2021 and allegedly siphoned off the same for funding terrorist activities.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that the government is cognizant of the issue and thus, no case is made out for judicial interference in the matter. It observed,
" Learned counsel the petitioner has herself tendered in Court communication received from Enforcement Directorate on 7 March 2022, requiring the petitioner to provide the relevant documents on the basis of which the petitioner has made the aforesaid claims. Counsel submits that the details have been provided to the ED. There is no reason for this court to assume that the Central government and its agencies are not alive to this problem, particularly when ED has sought the Petitioner's response."
Case Title: ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. VINAY G DAVID & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 249
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against 'ANINEWSINDIA' in a trademark infringement suit filed by news agency 'ANI'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh permanently injuncted the owners of ANINEWSINDIA from using the trademark 'ANI' or any other derivatives including the logo form, either with or without the word 'news' and 'India' as 'aninewsindia', 'aninews' or in any other manner on the internet or social media platform including Instagram and Facebook.
The suit was filed by ANI seeking protection of the registered trademark 'ANI' which was adopted by it in the year 1971.
250. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Details Of SC Collegium's December 2018 Meeting
Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 250
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging an order of Central Information Commission (CIC) denying information sought regarding the decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium in a meeting held on December 12, 2018.
Justice Yashwant Varma passed the order after reserving it earlier this week. The Court heard Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner, activist Anjali Bhardwaj.
The Court noted 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.
The Court was thus of the view that there was no ground to doubt the disclosure made that no resolution was drawn and that no cogent material was placed on the record which convinced the Court to take a contrary view.
Title: PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case where the Court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant.
Adding that what is required to be looked into is the averments and documents filed alongwith the plaint, Justice Asha Menon observed thus:
"When the court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is required to look at the averments in the plaint and plaint alone. The documents filed alongwith the plaint can also be considered. However, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant."
Case Title: VANDANA VERMA v. ROOP SINGH & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 252
The Delhi High Court has observed that the power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised by High Court mechanically or merely for the asking of plaintiff to the suit.
Justice Amit Bansal observed,
" provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC have to be used sparingly and that the plaintiff has to satisfy the Court that the defendant is seeking to remove or dispose of whole or part of his property with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree that may be passed against him. "
The Bench took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. Vs. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302, where it was held that purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilise the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged.
Case Title: RUIA EXPORTS & ANR. v. MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 253
Expressing a prima facie opinion, the Delhi High Court has observed that the participation of any party is not sufficient to infuse life to arbitral proceedings if the award is void ab initio on the ground of ineligibility of an arbitrator.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru made the said observation while staying the enforcement of an arbitral award in the case of Ruia Exports & Another v. Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited & Others.
"Prima facie, if the award is void ab initio on the ground of ineligibility of an arbitrator, the participation of any party in the arbitral proceedings may not be sufficient to infuse life to the arbitral proceedings," the Court said.
Title: BURBERRY LTD v. ADITYA VERMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 254
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case of infringement of registered Trade Marks or passing off, similarity of the marks used is to be considered and that there is no call to have an expert witness to testify to the use of an identical or similar Trade Mark.
Justice Asha Menon added that the emphasis is on the branding and not on the manufacture of the goods in question. It is the false branding that results in the product being counterfeit, the Court added.
The Court was dealing with a Regular First Appeal filed under sec. 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 CPC and Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 7th November, 2019 wherein the suit was dismissed.
255. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Eviction Of Chirag Paswan From Govt Bungalow
Case Title: REENA PASWAN & ANR v. UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 255
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the eviction of Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) MP Chirag Paswan from a government Bungalow situated in city's Janpath area which was originally allotted to his later father, Former Union Minister Ram Vilas Paswan.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a petition filed by Reena Paswan, Chirag Paswan's mother.
"This is not your party headquarters," the Judge orally remarked at the outset.
The Directorate of Estates (DoE) had issued an eviction order last year. In August last year, the Central Government had issued an eviction notice to Chirag Paswan and other occupants of the government bungalow in question regarding vacation of the same.
Case Title: Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 256
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the single judge excusing an Iranian woman from producing her estranged Indian husband before the authorities for processing her OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) card application.
The single judge had held that presence of both spouses for the purpose of processing an OCI card application is not mandatory
Upholding this view, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed,
" Normally, the spouse would also appear for their interaction before the authorities. However, that may not be possible to secure in all cases, such as, where a matrimonial dispute has erupted between the parties. There could also be cases where the Indian spouse may die, or go missing. In such situations, it may not be possible for the applicant to produce their Indian spouse. "
Case Title: SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA (HQ) PTE LTD v. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the action of income tax authorities denying the benefit of immunity from penalty under Section 270AA of Income Tax Act to the assessee on the ground that penalty was initiated under Section 270A for misreporting of income is arbitrary since the penalty notice issued by the authorities failed to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that since the authorities had failed to specify whether action was taken against the assessee for "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income under Section 270A of the Act, the order of the income tax authorities denying immunity from imposition of penalty was erroneous and arbitrary.
Case Title: MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. TATA MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 258
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an ad interim injunction against Tata Medical and Diagnostics Limited, manufacturer of 'OMISURE', an RTPCR kit used for detecting COVID-19 Omicron variant.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringement of trademark. The Plaintiff claimed to be the 5th largest pharmaceutical company in India with a large range of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Plaintiff therefore sought protection of its registered trademark 'OMIPURE' which was adopted by the Plaintiff in the year 2007.
Case Title: Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259
The Delhi High Court has ruled that requirement of payment of twenty percent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite in all cases for putting recovery of demand in abeyance during the pendency of the first appeal.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that the order of the income tax authority disposing of assessee's application for stay against recovery of disputed tax demand without considering the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury to the assessee was a non-reasoned order.
Case Title: RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED v. SARAO DISTILLERY (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 260
The Delhi High Court has granted ad interim injunction in favour of manufacturer of "MAGIC MOMENTS" liquor in a trademark infringement suit over use of the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' as being deceptively similar to it's registered trademark for alcoholic beverages.
The suit was filed by Radico Khaitan Limited, one of the largest manufacturers and sellers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in India, having MAGIC MOMENTS as one of its leading products. The grievance in the present suit was that the Defendant No.1 was using the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' for whisky manufactured by it. The Defendant No.2 was the proprietor of the impugned trademark 'EVENING MOMENT'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh restrained Defendants from using the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' or any other mark consisting of the word 'MOMENT/MOMENTS' in respect of any alcoholic beverages manufactured, sold or offered by sale by them.
261. Delhi High Court Allows Reopening Of Five Floors Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz During Ramzan
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 261
The Delhi High Court has allowed reopening of five floors, including Ground floor as well as four floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz for offering of prayers during Ramzan month.
Justice Jasmeet Singh also directed that the CCTV cameras be made functional at entry, exit and staircase area of each floor.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020. This comes in a plea filed by Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020.
The Court further directed that while namaaz and religious prayers shall be permitted in the Masjid during Ramzan, it clarified that no clarified that no Tablighi activities and lectures can take place.
Case Title: Radhika Ashar v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 262
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed an appeal seeking to extend the cut-off date for completion of Internship towards determination of eligibility for All India Ayush Post-graduate Entrance Test, 2021.
"Appear next year. This is not the end of life," the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla orally remarked while dismissing the appeal.
The prescribed cut-off date by which a candidate must have completed his/her compulsory one year rotational internship to appear in the examination is December 31, 2021. The Appellants herein claim to have completed their internships in January 2022.
Case Title: Ankur Gupta v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 263
The Delhi High court recently imposed Rs. 1 lakh as cost on a litigant for filing a frivolous PIL with the objective of obstructing the sale of a property that was mortgaged by the borrowers (two private developers) with a financial institution to secure their loan.
The Petitioner had sought action against the financial institution for allegedly sourcing huge amount of money to the illegal group of companies as financial favour. However, during the hearing, the Court noted that the petitioner questioned the manner in which the mortgaged asset was sold by the Financial Institution to recover the loan.
A similar challenge to the auction sale of the mortgaged asset at the behest of the borrowers had already failed, it was informed.
264. Delhi High Court Passes Injunction Order Against Sithara Entertainment &Ors.
Title: JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sithara Entertainment & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 264
Commercial Suit was instituted before the Delhi High Court by JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, against M/s. Sithara Entertainment and others. It was argued before the Court that in light of the Assignment of Hindi remake right in favour of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, by the original Malayalam film's producer the exclusivity to exploit the same would vest with JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, alone and any attempt by M/s. Sithara Entertainment would infringe upon the copyright and commercial rights of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd. The court was further informed that the nature of rights granted by Gold Coin Motion Picture Company in favor of M/s. Sithara Entertainment was only restricted to remake and dubbing of the original Malayalam film in Telugu language alone, hence, copyright vested in favour of M/s. Sithara Entertainment would be restricted in Telugu language. This contention was supported with the Madras High Court Division Bench case of Thiagarajan Kumararaja v.Capital Film Works (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In view of the above facts and arguments, Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendants till next date of the hearing for the Hindi dubbed version of the Telugu film titled "Bheemla Nayak" in the matter from releasing the same theatrically and/or on any platform or from distributing the same in any capacity. The matter is scheduled to be listed on 11th July 2022 before the Registrar and on 1st August 2022 before the Delhi High Court.
Case Title: Rakesh v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265
The Delhi High Court has refused to hear a PIL seeking to award 'Bharat Ratna' to industrialist Ratan Tata. The plea sought the award citing Tata's invaluable service to the country and for leading an "unblemished life".
At the outset, the Division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla made it clear that it is not for the Courts to decide as to who should be conferred the award.
"What kind of matter is this? Are we supposed to decide all this? You approach the government if you want. We can't interfere," the Bench orally said.
The PIL was filed by one Rakesh, claiming to be a social activist. He stated that Ratan Tata dedicated his whole life for the welfare of the country. In this regard, he highlighted how Tata has been a "great businessman" while also encouraging and investing with young entrepreneurs. The plea also highlighted his contributions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
