Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 523NOMINAL INDEXSURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 386Shri Nomil Rana v. The Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 387BEJON KUMAR MISRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 388Good Life Zip India Versus Commissioner Of...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 523
NOMINAL INDEX
SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385
Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 386
Shri Nomil Rana v. The Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 387
BEJON KUMAR MISRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 388
Good Life Zip India Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 389
Hfcl Limited Vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 390
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 391
STATE v. AFROZ @ SHARIB & ANR. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 392
GOOGLE LLC v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 393
HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LTD v. BERACHAH SALES CORPORATION & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 394
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 395
Mr. Dushyant Chikara v. Fauzia Sultana 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 396
Valley Iron & Steel Co.Ltd Versus PCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 397
Sharad Gupta & Ors Vs Shri Vinayak Infraland Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 398
Union Of India vs M/s Gitwako Farms Private Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 399
Startupwala Pvt. Ltd v. Google India Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 400
BBNL v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 402
SH. ANUJ MALHOTRA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 403
VISHNU GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 404
Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 405
LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 406
PCIT Versus Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 407
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 408
Balbir Chand v Jawahar Lal Nehru University 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 409
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 410
RAZORPAY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JOHN DOE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 411
ASHOK KUMAR versus The State N.C.T Of Delhi 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 412
I S v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 413
Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 414
Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 415
Blackberry India Pvt Ltd -Earlier Known As Research In Motion India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner CGST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 416
Harish Chandra T & Ors v. ICAI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 418
Canara Bank Versus Assistant Commissioner, DGST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 419
Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 420
DILIP RAY v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 421
M/S. P.M. DIESELS P. LTD v. M/S. THUKRAL MECHANICAL WORKS & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 422
MyPreferred Transformation & Hospitality v. Faridabad Implements Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 423
ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 424
M/S. Giesecke And Devrient India Pvt. Ltd.Versus DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 425
Prince Chadha v. Amardeep Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 426
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 427
STCI Finance Ltd v. Sukhmani Technologies Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 428
KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & ANR. v. D N BAHRI TRADING AS THE VELDON CHEMICAL AND FOOD PRODUCT & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 429
ANKITA SINGH v. VICE CHANCELLOR OF JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 430
G4S Secure Solutions v. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 431
NHAI v. M/s IRB Ahmedabad Vadodra Super Express Tollways 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 432
Sandeep Kumar v. Arvind Kejriwal and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 433
ASHA RANI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 434
PUMA SE v. ASHOK KUMAR TRADING AS R.K. INDUSTRIES 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 435
Saksham Commodities Limited Versus Income Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 436
GULSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. NIDHI KASHYAP 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 437
LOKESH KUMAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 438
Anju Jain v. M/s WTC Noida Development Company Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 439
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. MANDEEP MITTAL 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 440
TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S TATA RESTART & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 441
Court on its own motion v. Union of India and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 442
T.V. Today Network Ltd Vs Home And Soul Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 443
PCIT Versus Pankaj Buildwell Ltd. & Group 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 444
EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUI v. CPIO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 445
Fresenius Medical Care India Private Limited Versus UOI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 446
Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 447
Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi v. ECI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 448
DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR v. MS DOMINO PIZZA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 449
North East Centre of Technology Application & Reach v. Divine Bamboo Mat Manufacturing 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 450
PRAGATI SHRIVASTAVA v. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 451
Rajiv Channa Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 452
Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigal Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 453
Lease Plan India Pvt Ltd v. Rudrakash Pharma Distributor 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 454
VEERPAL @ TITU v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 455
Akhil Gupta v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 456
M/s Advance Stimul v. GAIL India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 457
DRSYEDA SAIYIDAIN HAMEDA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 458
GAURAV BHATIA v. NAVEEN KUMAR & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 459
ROUSE AVENUE BAR ASSOCIATION v. THE BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 460
AARUSHI GUPTA v. STATE GNCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 461
Magnum Steels Ltd v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 462
NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 463
NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 464
SIKANDER SINGH THAKUR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 465
M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 466
Sunshine Capital Limited Versus DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 467
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 468
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 469
Videshi Kumar v State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 470
Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd v. Shivaa Trading 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 471
M/S Jain Cement Udyog (Through Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) Versus CBIC 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 472
THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST INDIA v. WWW.FRIENDWITHBOOKS.CO 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 473
We, the People of India v. Union of India and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 474
Paisalo Digital Limited v. Sat Priya Mehmia Memorial Educational Trust 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 475
Paisalo Digital Limited v. Sat Priya Mehmia Memorial Educational Trust 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 476
Pankaj Singh V. Bashir Ahmed Haroon 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 477
Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 479
ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 480
Samrata Constructions Company v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 481
Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 482
PT PRASADI LAL KAKAJI TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 483
SALIM MALIK @ MUNNA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 484
DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY v. ANNWESHA DEB 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 485
KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 486
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 487
JIWESH KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 488
VIKAS BOHAT v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 489
MANMOHAN SINGH & ANR v. SHITAL SINGH & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 490
VAIBHAV v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 491
JAMSHEED ZAHOOR PAUL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 492
JAI ANANT DEHADRAI v. MAHUA MOITRA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 493
SETARA BIBI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 494
GAUTAM KUMAR LAHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 495
AL ISLAM TOUR CORPORATION v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 496
X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 498
Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Inc v. Government of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 497
Vijay Kumar v Union of India & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 499
Kush Kalra v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 500
Accipiter Investments Aircraft 2 Limited v. Union of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 501
SANGHMITRA v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 502
Heifer Project International v. Heifer Project India Trust 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 503
RAHUL DEV v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 504
M/S Sunshine Caterers Private Limited Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 505
Director General, Delhi Doordarshan Kendra vs Mohd. Shahbaz Khan and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 506
Mukesh Kumar Singh Versus Commissioner Of Delhi GST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 507
M/s Oasis Projects Ltd v. National Highway & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 508
Larsen & Turbo Ltd v. IREO Victory Valley Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 509
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 510
Anand S Jondhale v. Shri Rajiv Kumar Chief Election Commissioner of India & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 511
Case Title: Appolo Handloom Manufacturing Co-Op Society Ltd v. All India Handloom Fabrics Society 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 512
Social Jurist v. Gnctd & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 513
M/s Oravel Stays Pvt Ltd v. Nikhil Bhalla 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 514
Sun & Sand Industries Africa Pvt. Ltd Versus Sales Tax Officer Class-Ii/Avato Department Of Trade And Taxes 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 515
SATPAL SINGH SARNA & ORS v. SATYA PRAKASH BANSAL 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 516
MUBEEN KADAR SHAIKH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 517
Rumit Kumar Vs Transport Department GNCTD And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 518
BHAVIK KOLADIYA v. ASHNEER GROVER & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 519
RAJAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 520
Ayesha Sankhla (Through Guardian Kapil Kumar Sankhala) Vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 521
KASHMIR HARVARD EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 522
SOUKIN v. THE NCT STATE NEW DELHI and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 523
Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation to prevent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from issuing directions or orders while in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following his arrest in the liquor policy case.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked the central probe agency to bring the issue to the attention of District judge dealing with Kejriwal's case.
Onus To Establish Employee-Employer Relationship Rests On the Claimant: Delhi High Court
Case: Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 386
A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a writ petition in the case of Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors. has reiterated that the onus to establish the relationship of employee-employer between the management and the workman is on the claimant, i.e., the person who sets up a plea of existence of such relationship between the parties.
Case: Shri Nomil Rana v. The Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 387
A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while deciding a writ petition in the case of Shri Nomil Rana v. Union of India and Ors. has held that suppression of the material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by a person seeking appointment to a police post wherein he is required to maintain public order has bearing on his suitability to hold the post in question.
Title: BEJON KUMAR MISRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 388
The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a PIL seeking constitution of a High Powered Committee for looking into the complete affairs of all the co-operative banks.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that such a prayer falls in the domain of policy making by the Executive and Legislature.
Case Title: Good Life Zip India Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court has held that simply because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer's registration is required to be cancelled with a retrospective date.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically.
Case Title: Hfcl Limited Vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh appointed Justice Mukta Gupta (Retd.) as an arbitrator for a dispute where a Petitioner invoked arbitration by referring to the work orders signed by the parties. The High Court observed the identical nature of the arbitration clauses in the tender and the work orders and held that there was no ambiguity even if the tender prevailed over the work orders in case of any conflict or ambiguity.
Delhi High Court Grants Divorce To Indian Chef On Grounds Of Cruelty By Wife
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has granted divorce to an Indian Chef from his wife on the grounds of cruelty by her.
A division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the conduct of the wife towards him has been such that it is devoid of dignity and empathy towards him.
Delhi High Court Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Two Acid Attack Victims, Employment In Any Government Department
Title: STATE v. AFROZ @ SHARIB & ANR. and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to grant Rs. 5 lakh compensation each to two acid attack victims and bring forward proposal or prospects for their employment in any Department of the Delhi Government to ensure their rehabilitation.
A division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further directed DSLSA to get a fresh medical check up of the victims, who suffered the attack in 2009, at All India Institute of Medical Sciences within two weeks.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Google's Appeal Against Rejection Of Patent, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs
Title: GOOGLE LLC v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 393
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on Google LLC while dismissing its appeal against the refusal of the grant of a patent by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in 2019.
Justice Prathiba M Singh ordered that 50% of the costs shall be deposited by Google with the office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPTDM) and remaining to be paid to the Union Government's standing counsel.
Title: HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LTD v. BERACHAH SALES CORPORATION & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 394
The Delhi High Court has declared “Haldiram” as a well-known trademark, observing that the origins of the multinational sweets, snacks and restaurant company is deeply rooted in India's rich culinary tradition.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that Haldiram has not only established a presence within the national market but has also extended its influence globally, transcending geographical, cultural, and national boundaries.
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 395
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday disposed of a PIL seeking direction on the Union Government to take steps to ensure that foreign travel companies do not share with anyone the confidential and personal data of consumers like name, Aadhar number, passport details etc during ticket booking.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora disposed of the plea moved by lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and asked him to approach the Union Government by way of a representation.
Case Title: Mr. Dushyant Chikara v. Fauzia Sultana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 396
The Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of Delhi High Court has held that merely because a criminal case of forgery/fabrication has been registered in relation to an agreement, any civil/commercial dispute arising out of such agreement would not become non-arbitrable.
Case Title: Valley Iron & Steel Co.Ltd Versus PCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 397
The Delhi High Court has held that income tax additions made towards unsubstantiated share capital are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Sharad Gupta & Ors Vs Shri Vinayak Infraland Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 398
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is no provision for splitting of parties and referring part of the subject matter to arbitration. It held that where a suit encompasses matters outside the arbitration agreement and involves parties not party to the said agreement, Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply.
Case Title: Union Of India vs M/s Gitwako Farms Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay and termed it unreasonable that it took the Appellant nearly two months to collate documents that should have been readily available, considering they would have been submitted with the initial application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Startupwala Pvt. Ltd v. Google India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 400
The High Court of Delhi has directed Google India to maintain status quo in respect of advertisement displayed on its platforms by observing that the main revenue for a party in an advertisement agreement comes from the ad revenue and en masse blocking of ads would result in irreparable loss to that party.
Case Title: BBNL v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has referred the question 'Whether non-filing of statement of truth with a Challenge Petition would make the filing non-est' to a larger bench in view of conflicting views taken by two Division Benches.
Delhi High Court Asks Its Judges To Prioritize Criminal Cases, Appeals Against MPs, MLAs
Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 402
The Delhi High Court has asked its judges to prioritise the criminal cases, appeals or revisions pending against MPs and MLAs.
“…we direct the Registry of this Court to circulate this order to brother and sister Judges assigned with such cases so that priority is given to all criminal cases/appeals/revisions pending before them against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, as it is essential for expeditious and effective disposal of such cases,” a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Ban Cross Gender Massages In Spas
Title: SH. ANUJ MALHOTRA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 403
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction on the Delhi Government to ban cross-gender massages in spas or massage centres in the national capital.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Singh Arora said that a single judge is already seized of the controversy and thus the PIL cannot be entertained.
Title: VISHNU GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 404
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case, from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi.
“At times, personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest. But that is his (Kejriwal's) personal opinion. If he does not want to do that it's upto him. We are a court of law…Do you have any precedent that president's rule or governor's rule has been imposed by the court?” a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan remarked.
Case Name: Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 405
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors has held that a retired officer appointed as Inquiry Officer does not fulfil the criteria of “public servant” under Rule 11(2) of the Export Inspection Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1978 (EIA Rules).
Title: LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 406
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 244 crores damages to Ericsson in a suit filed by it against Lava International Limited over infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
Justice Amit Bansal acknowledged the transformative impact of the evolution of mobile telecommunications in India, which has opened up access to information and digital services, leading to a more connected and digitally empowered society.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 407
The Delhi High Court has quashed the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, which was falling beyond the maximum 10-year block period.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 408
The Delhi High Court has said that the wife leaving the matrimonial home from time to time without any fault of the husband is an act of mental cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife under Section 13 (1) (i- a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Title: Balbir Chand v Jawahar Lal Nehru University
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 409
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has overturned Jawaharlal Nehru University's (JNU) expulsion of a student dating back to 2011, highlighting serious procedural irregularities and a lack of adherence to principles of natural justice.
Justice C Hari Shankar, presiding over the case, criticized JNU for its "predetermined intent" against the student and emphasized the importance of upholding fairness in disciplinary proceedings. The court directed the university to allow the student to complete his Master of Computer Application (MCA) course if he so desires.
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 410
The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of Ayush to treat as representation a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy in Union Government's public health insurance scheme Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY).
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the Ministry to decide the representation by way of a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible.
Title: RAZORPAY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JOHN DOE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 411
The Delhi High Court has restrained various unknown entities from using the “Razorpay” trademark after the payment getaway service provider filed a suit accusing them of using the mark unauthorizedly by perpetuating fraud on the general public by running a financial scam on the pretext of providing jobs.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed that the WhatsApp and Telegram channels or accounts operated by the perpetrators be blocked, observing that a prima facie case was made out in favour of Razorpay for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR versus The State N.C.T Of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 412
The Delhi High Court has rejected a bail plea from a man accused of an acid attack seeking medical treatment at a private hospital instead of a mandated government facility. It emphasized that Government hospitals like DDU Hospital are obligated to offer comprehensive medical care, including specialized services, to all patients, including those in custody.
The Court noted that such facilities possess the requisite infrastructure, medical equipment, and expertise to effectively address a broad spectrum of health concerns.
Title: I S v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court has observed that whenever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations, the consent cannot be said to based on misconception of fact unless there is clear evidence that a false promise was given.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the promise must be of immediate relevance and bear a direct nexus to a decision by the woman to engage in a sexual act.
Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 414
The Delhi High Court has appointed its former judge, Justice Najmi Waziri, as the Chairman of the Internal Departmental Committee constituted for protection and management of deemed forests in the national capital.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela requested the Delhi Government to ensure that all facilities and secretarial assistance, as required by Justice Waziri, is provided to him at the earliest.
Delhi High Court Interpretes Rule 11UA For Determination FMV Of Shares U/S 56(2)(viib)
Case Title: Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 415
The Delhi High Court has held that it has interpreted Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for determining the fair market value (FMV) of shares under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Blackberry India Pvt Ltd -Earlier Known As Research In Motion India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner CGST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has held that the department cannot, after being unsuccessful before this Court on its own, declare the refund of the CENVAT credit as well as interest on delayed payments to be an erroneous refund.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone CA Inter, Final Exams Amid Lok Sabha Polls
Title: Harish Chandra T & Ors v. ICAI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 418
The Delhi High Court has refused to postpone the Chartered Accountants (CA) inter and final exams 2024 which are scheduled to be held in May.
Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the plea moved by 27 candidates seeking postponement of exams from May to June in view of the Lok Sabha elections.
Proper Officer Has To Consider Reply On Merits And Then Form An Opinion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Canara Bank Versus Assistant Commissioner, DGST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 419
The Delhi High Court has held that the proper officer has to consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the proper officer merely held that the reply is incomplete, not clear, and unsatisfactory, which ex-facie shows that the proper officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Interprets Rule 11UA For Determination FMV Of Shares U/S 56(2)(viib)
Case Title: Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 420
The Delhi High Court has held that it has interpreted Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for determining the fair market value (FMV) of shares under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that Section 56(2)(viib) postulates that the FMV of shares shall be the value determined in accordance with the methods as may be prescribed or as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the AO, whichever is higher.
Title: DILIP RAY v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 421
The Delhi High Court has stayed the conviction of former Union Minister Dilip Ray in connection with a coal scam case relating to irregularities in the allocation of a Jharkhand block in 1999, to enable him to contest the upcoming Odisha legislative assembly polls.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that the relief does not amount to an acquittal but is merely a suspension of conviction in peculiar circumstances of the case.
Delhi High Court Disposes 40 Yrs Old Dispute Concerning Infringement Of 'FIELD MARSHAL' Trademark
Title: M/S. P.M. DIESELS P. LTD v. M/S. THUKRAL MECHANICAL WORKS & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 422
The Delhi High Court has recently disposed of a 40 year old dispute concerning the infringement of “Field Marshal” trademark.
Justice Prathiba M Singh decreed a suit filed by an entity, PM Diesels Private Limited in 1985 seeking to injunct another entity, Thukral Mechanical Works from using 'Fieldmarshal' or any other mark deceptively similar to its mark.
Case Title: MyPreferred Transformation & Hospitality v. Faridabad Implements Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 423
The High Court of Delhi has held that a Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot be entertained by the Court even if the 30 days condonable grace period given under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act expired during the Court breaks and the petition was filed on the date on which the Court reopened.
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's ED Arrest In Liquor Policy Case Valid: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 424
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld his arrest and subsequent remand holding that ED was able to place enough material, statements of approvers and AAP's own candidate stating that Kejriwal was given money for Goa elections.
AO Is Not Clothed With Powers To Ascertain ALP Of Any International Transaction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Giesecke And Devrient India Pvt. Ltd.Versus DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 425
The Delhi High Court has held that AO is not clothed with the powers to ascertain the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of any international transaction.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the AO is not clothed with the powers to ascertain the ALP of any international transaction that is selected based on the transfer pricing risk parameters. Furthermore, Section 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act evidently mandates that the AO cannot deviate itself from the TPO order while computing the total income of the assessee.
Final Determination On Question Of Arbitrability Should Be Made By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Prince Chadha v. Amardeep Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 426
The High Court of Delhi has held that final determination on the issue of arbitrability of the dispute and the subject matter should be made by the arbitrator. It held that the scope of Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the agreement.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 427
The Delhi High Court has recently issued slew of directions on the management of drainage system in the national capital, rejuvenation of water bodies, Yamuna river including its flood plains and rain water harvesting.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that Delhi has been facing the fury of river Yamuna in spate year after year with last year being particularly bad.
Case Title: STCI Finance Ltd v. Sukhmani Technologies Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 428
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere registration of shares in favor of the pledgee as the "beneficial owner" does not amount to a sale of shares, and the pledgee is not required to account for any sale proceeds until the shares are actually sold to a third party.
Title: KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & ANR. v. D N BAHRI TRADING AS THE VELDON CHEMICAL AND FOOD PRODUCT & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 429
The Delhi High Court has observed that the trademark 'AMUL' has gained a wide, expansive, comprehensive and nation-wide reputation and its products have gone far beyond milk which are now available not only in shops and retail stores, but also in shops which are operated or franchised by it.
“The mark 'AMUL' has therefore acquired huge, undiluted, enduring significance and is relatable to source of goods of petitioners. Also its protection would transcend all classes having been declared a well-known mark,” Justice Anish Dayal said.
Title: ANKITA SINGH v. VICE CHANCELLOR OF JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 430
While dealing with a PhD scholar's plea against her rustication, the Delhi High Court has said that the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is taking coercive action by rusticating students in complete derogation of its own Rules and in total disregard of principles of natural justice and fair play.
Justice C Hari Shankar stayed an office order issued by the Office of Chief Proctor of the varsity on May 08 last year rusticating one Ankita Singh on the ground that she vandalized the Chairperson's office and misbehaved with students and faculty members.
Case Title: G4S Secure Solutions v. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 431
The High Court of Delhi has held that the balance days of limitation which were available to a party on 15.03.2020 would become available with effect from 01.03.2022, which is the day on which the benefit of the Suo Moto Extension by the Supreme Court expired.
Case Title: NHAI v. M/s IRB Ahmedabad Vadodra Super Express Tollways
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 432
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that a decision of the arbitral tribunal to refuse to implead a party to the arbitral proceedings does not constitute an 'Interim Award' which can be directly challenged under Section 34 of the Act pending arbitral proceedings.
Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Arvind Kejriwal and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 433
The Delhi High Court came down heavily on former Aam Aadmi Party MLA Sandeep Kumar for filing a petition seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi. This is the third petition seeking such a relief. Earlier two pleas have been rejected.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora imposed Rs. 50,000 costs on Kumar.
Title: ASHA RANI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 434
The Delhi High Court has observed that the mere mention of an individual's name in a suicide note cannot be the sole basis for prosecuting him or her to face trial or conviction for the offence of abetment of suicide.
Delhi High Court Awards ₹3.5 Lakh Costs To Puma In Trademark Infringement Suit
Title: PUMA SE v. ASHOK KUMAR TRADING AS R.K. INDUSTRIES
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 435
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 3.5 lakh costs to German multinational corporation, Puma, in a trademark infringement suit against an entity manufacturing various products using the former's trademark “Puma.”
Justice Anish Dayal decreed the suit in favour of Puma and permanently restrained the defendant manufacturer, Ashok Kumar who was trading as RK Industries, from manufacturing products using the “Puma” mark.
Case Title: Saksham Commodities Limited Versus Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 436
The Delhi High Court has held that a reopening or abatement would be triggered only upon the discovery of material that is likely to “have a bearing on the determination of the total income” and would have to be examined bearing in mind the AYs' that are likely to be impacted.
Title: GULSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. NIDHI KASHYAP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 437
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman, irrespective of religious affiliation or social background.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the statute was enacted to safeguard the rights of the victims of 'domestic violence' in 'domestic relationship'.
Title: LOKESH KUMAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 438
The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no bar under Article 243ZA or 243R of the Constitution of India on political parties, recognized by the State Election Commission (SEC), from contesting municipal elections.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that the adoption of Election Symbols of the political parties by the SEC in municipal elections, under the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 2012, is reasonable and not arbitrary.
Use Of The Word 'Seat' Is Not Compulsory In An Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Anju Jain v. M/s WTC Noida Development Company Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 439
The High Court of Delhi has held that the use of word 'seat' in an arbitration clause is not compulsory to determine the jurisdiction of the Court(s) which would have jurisdiction over the proceedings arising out of the arbitration agreement.
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. MANDEEP MITTAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 440
The Delhi High Court has held a man, a private builder, guilty of contempt for obtaining permission to cut a tree in national capital's Lajpat Nagar area on the basis of “forged and fabricated documents” from the forest department.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the man obtained the permission despite a judicial order passed in July 2021 directing the Tree Officer and the Deputy Conservator of Forest to ensure that the tree in question is not fell or harmed in any manner.
Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S TATA RESTART & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 441
The Delhi High Court has ordered the taking down of a “fraudulent website” impersonating Tata Sons Private Limited and luring customers to invest in their ponzi investment scheme.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed restrained Tata Restart, the entity running the website, from, using Tata or Tata Restart mark or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered marks of Tata Sons.
Title: Court on its own motion v. Union of India and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 442
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Delhi Government to release a basic tax assignment instalment of Rs. 738 crores to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to enable payment of outstanding dues by the civic body to its former and serving employees.
In an order passed on April 08, a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora directed the Delhi Government to release the amount within 10 working days.
Case Title: T.V. Today Network Ltd Vs Home And Soul Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 443
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that court at the Section 11(6) stage should refrain from delving into hyper-technical aspects or intricacies of the arbitration agreement. Instead, the bench held that if an agreement visibly contains an arbitration clause and involves a dispute suitable for arbitration, it must be referred to the arbitrator as a matter of course.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Pankaj Buildwell Ltd. & Group
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 444
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) is entrusted with the power to grant immunity from penalty and prosecution only in cases of full and true disclosure.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that once it is seen that the disclosure was not full and truthful, the ITSC loses its jurisdiction to entertain such an application as well as to provide any immunity to the applicant from prosecution and penalties.
Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUI v. CPIO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 445
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that travel information of an individual is “personal information” which cannot be disclosed to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless it is in larger public interest.
“Travel information of any person is personal information and such details cannot be divulged to a third party unless the same is in larger publicinterest which justifies the disclosure of the said information,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief Of As Low As 5% IGST On Import Of Dialysis Machines By FMC India
Case Title: Fresenius Medical Care India Private Limited Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 446
The Delhi High Court has granted relief of as low as 5% Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on the import of dialysis machines by Fresenius Medical Care India Private Limited (FMC India).
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that dialysis machines covered under HSN Code 9018 and 9031 are liable to be taxed at 5%, essentially awarding a significant rebate of 7% on the import of dialysis machines.
Case Title: Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 447
The Delhi High Court has held that the rationale to deny input tax credit (ITC) to service providers who are not liable to pay tax on output services is obvious.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the service providers rendering services on which tax is payable on a reverse charge basis would constitute a class of their own, and a challenge to the same founded on Article 14 of the Constitution of India would necessarily fail.
Case Title: Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi v. ECI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 448
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party for the allotment of "pot" symbol to contest the 2024 general elections.
Justice Sachin Datta finding no merit in the petition, declined to interfere with the ECI's decision. Justice Datta observed, “It is also rightly contended by learned counsel for the Respondent that since the election process for the upcoming election for the year 2024 has already been set in motion, it is too late in the day to interfere with the same and the remedy of the petitioner lies under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”
Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR v. MS DOMINO PIZZA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 449
The Delhi High Court has restrained eight food outlets in the national capital from using Domino, Domino's, Dominon, Domino's, Dominoz, Domino's and Domain's marks after famous multinational pizza restaurant chain Domino's Pizza sued them over trademark infringement.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed food delivery platforms, Zomato and Swiggy, to delist, takedown and suspend the outlets from their mobile applications and websites.
Case Title: North East Centre of Technology Application & Reach v. Divine Bamboo Mat Manufacturing
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 450
The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 14 of the A&C Act seeking substitution of the arbitrator is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues.
The Court also held that an arbitrator would be deemed to have abandoned the arbitration if no proceedings take place for a substantial period of time.
Right To Be Identified By One's Name Fundamental To Individual's Identity: Delhi High Court
Title: PRAGATI SHRIVASTAVA v. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 451
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that name of an individual is an identity marker and the right to be identified by one's name is fundamental to one's very identity.
“It partakes, therefore, of a primordial necessity, and the Court has, when petitioned in that regard, to ensure that the request, if genuine, is acceded to,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Case Title: Rajiv Channa Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 452
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that if the elementary foundation i.e., the scheduled offence is itself removed, consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shall also fall.
The division bench comprising Justices Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav And Yashwant Varma observed, “the appellant-Jeevan Kumar had already been acquitted of the scheduled offence, there can be no action for money-laundering against the other appellants in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. An inference can plausibly be drawn from the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus which means that upon removal of the foundation, the work collapses.”
Case Title: Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigal Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 453
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitrator is empowered to award compensation to an aggrieved party that has suffered losses on the basis of 'rough and ready method' or 'guesswork' when the loss is difficult to prove.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal held that as long as there is material available with the arbitrator that damages have been suffered, but it does not give him an insight into the granular details, he is permitted the leeway to employ honest guesswork and/or a rough and ready method for quantifying damages.
Case Title: Lease Plan India Pvt Ltd v. Rudrakash Pharma Distributor
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 454
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that service of the petition on the WhatsApp number and the Email address mentioned in the agreement between the parties constitutes a valid service.
Title: VEERPAL @ TITU v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 455
While acquitting a man in a POCSO FIR as there were “serious flaws and gaps” in the prosecution case, the Delhi High Court has observed that a false case of an alleged child abuser suffers a blot to social stigma which is more painful than the rigours of trial and imprisonment.
“A child abuser in the eventuality of false implication even continues to suffer a blot of social stigma which is much more painful than the rigours of a trial and imprisonment,” Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.
Case Title: Akhil Gupta v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 456
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh of Delhi High Court has held that pre-arbitral steps providing for resolution of disputes through mutual talks or through Ombudsman would lose its relevance when a party fails to give reply to notices issued by the other party seeking amicable settlement.
Case Title: M/s Advance Stimul v. GAIL India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 457
The High Court of Delhi has held that a notice given by a party invoking jurisdiction of MSEF Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act can be considered to be a notice of arbitration required under Section 21 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation and M/S Silpi Industries, the position of law with respect to an entity not registered under the MSMED Act at the time of contract was not clear, therefore, the party wrongly invoking jurisdiction of MSEF Council cannot be faulted if it was due to uncertainty in law.
Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Dissolution Of Maulana Azad Education Foundation
Title: DRSYEDA SAIYIDAIN HAMEDA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 458
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the Union Government's decision to dissolve the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF) which was set up in 1989 for promoting education among educationally backward minorities.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna rejected the public interest litigation (PIL) moved by Dr. Syeda Saiyidain Hameed, John Dayal and Daya Singh.
Title: GAURAV BHATIA v. NAVEEN KUMAR & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 459
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed an ad-interim injunction order in favour of Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia in his defamation suit against various YouTube channels and X users for posting allegedly “defamatory content” against him over an assault on him last month during a lawyer's strike at the Gautam Budh Nagar District & Sessions Court.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna disposed of Bhatia's application seeking interim relief in his defamation suit against the YouTube channels and X users.
Title: ROUSE AVENUE BAR ASSOCIATION v. THE BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 460
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central Delhi Court Bar Association shall be the recognized as the Court annexed Bar Association for the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex in the national capital.
“This, we hold is dehors the power of the Bar Council of Delhi to constitute a Bar Association under the Bar Association (Constitution, Recognition & Conduct of Election) Rules, 2019,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said.
Title: AARUSHI GUPTA v. STATE GNCT OF DELHI and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 461
The Delhi High Court has observed that where a lover commits suicide due to love failure, the lady cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide of the man.
Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that for the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.
Case Title: Magnum Steels Ltd v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 462
The High Court of Delhi has held that proceedings under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act are complimentary to each other and both the proceedings can continue parallelly.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that since both the proceedings are complimentary, there would be no application of principle of election of remedies and the secured creditor can avail both the remedies together.
Case Title: NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 463
The High Court of Delhi has held that non-adjudication, by the arbitral tribunal, upon an issue that goes to the root of the matter would make the arbitral award opposed to public policy. It held that such an award would be set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: NHAI v. M/s Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 464
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration award, in which the tribunal rendered findings contrary to its own observations, falls within the rubric 'Public Policy' under Section 34 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Quashes Centre's Circular Banning Sale And Breeding Of 'Dangerous & Ferocious Dogs'
Title: SIKANDER SINGH THAKUR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 465
The Delhi High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying prohibiting the import, breeding and selling of several “dangerous and ferocious” dog breeds.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora quashed the circular issued on March 12 after the Union Government's counsel said that there was no objection if the same is set aside with a direction to issue a fresh circular after giving an opportunity to all the stakeholders to raise their objections.
Case Title: M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 466
The Delhi High Court has held that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) cannot sustain invocation of penalty proceedings based on their own failure to lodge a claim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) within time.
Case Title: Sunshine Capital Limited Versus DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 467
The Delhi High Court has held that the Department has failed to comply with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT's) Order in passing a fresh assessment order within the stipulated time.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 468
The Delhi High Court has directed the Secretary and Principal Health Secretary of the Delhi Government to implement immediate measures for optimization of existing resources in various government hospitals in the national capital within 30 days as recommended by a six-member expert committee.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora directed the two officials to indicate a road map as to how they intend to implement the intermediate and long term measures within the timeline stipulated by the court appointed Expert Committee.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 469
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that making derogatory complaints to the employer of the spouse to harm professional reputation and financial well-being amounts to cruelty.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that making such complaints demonstrates a lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is crucial for a healthy marriage.
Case Title: Videshi Kumar v State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 470
While overturning the conviction and life sentence of two individuals accused of a murder over 26 years ago, the Delhi High Court has acquitted them of all charges, while ruling that being "last seen together" with the victim is insufficient grounds for guilt.
In their ruling on the appeals against the trial court's October 2001 decision, Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain stated that the fact that the accused and victim worked together meant their being together wasn't necessarily unusual. They also expressed doubts about the reliability of the witnesses' testimonies.
Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd v. Shivaa Trading
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 471
The High Court of Delhi has held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator can be challenged on ground of invalidity of such appointment and consequent lack of jurisdiction even by the party who made such an appointment.
Case Title: M/S Jain Cement Udyog (Through Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) Versus CBIC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 472
The Delhi High Court has held that GST registration cancellation passed solely for non-filing of reply is unsustainable.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the matter was liable to be remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication.
Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust In ISKCON Copyright Infringement Case
Title: THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST INDIA v. WWW.FRIENDWITHBOOKS.CO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 473
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, which reproduces the writings and speeches of ISKCON founder Srila Prabhupada, in its suit against a website over copyright infringement.
Justice Anish Dayal decreed the suit against the website www.friendwithbooks.co, which was carrying copies of the books in which copyright vests with the Trust, without any authorization.
Title: We, the People of India v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 474
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking release of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on “extra ordinary interim bail” in all the criminal cases registered by against him, including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which are pending for inquiry or trial, till completion of his tenure.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said the petition is not maintainable as Kejriwal is in judicial custody and has the means to approach court and file appropriate proceedings.
Case Title: Paisalo Digital Limited v. Sat Priya Mehmia Memorial Educational Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 475
The Delhi High Court has held that assurance given by a party to repay the debts in letter issued to the other party would amount to an acknowledgement of the debt within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
The bench of Justic Prathiba M. Singh held that such an acknowledgement would give rise to a fresh cause of action and the period of limitation would run afresh from the date of such acknowledgement as provided under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: Paisalo Digital Limited v. Sat Priya Mehmia Memorial Educational Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 476
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on a party that failed to disclose an unfavourable order under SARFAESI Act while seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that pendency of proceedings under SARFASI Act is not a bar on initiation of proceedings under A&C Act, however, a party must disclose a fact essential for fair adjudication on the dispute.
Case Title: Pankaj Singh V. Bashir Ahmed Haroon
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 477
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while the court's jurisdiction is limited at the time of making a reference, it is not expected to mechanically refer the dispute to arbitration.
The Court also held that once a party has chosen to file a civil suit to get the disputes resolved, it cannot be permitted to invoke arbitration when the suit fails. The Court also held that arbitration clause in an earlier agreement cannot be invoked if the subsequent agreement does not refer to the previous agreement.
Case Title: Roshan Real Estates Pvt Ltd v. Public Work Development Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 478
The High Court of Delhi has held that the appointment of the arbitrator cannot be called unilateral when the tribunal was constituted pursuant to the consent by the respondent to the appointment from a panel of 5 names.
The Bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh held that appointment of arbitrator from a panel of 5 names consisting of retired govt. officials would be valid in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railways which continues to hold the field despite pending before a larger bench in absence of a stay on the judgment.
Case Title: Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 479
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that mandate of the arbitrator cannot be terminated when the delay in proceedings was on account of pendency of appeal against the decision of the arbitral tribunal.
The Court held that time consumed in the appeal and the consequent SLP and clarificatory applications cannot be attributed to the arbitral tribunal as a delay in the conduct of arbitral proceedings.
Title: ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 480
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University (DU) to ensure that henceforth, the allocation or allotment of PG seats in St Stephen's College is not disproportionate.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that while ensuring the allocation, DU may consider the infrastructure available with the concerned College and the number of UG students in that course of study admitted.
Case Title: Samrata Constructions Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 481
The High Court of Delhi has held that when the arbitral tribunal fails to deal with submissions of a party on a contentious issue, the resultant award would not fulfil the requirements of a reasoned award as required under Section 31 of the A&C Act. It held that the tribunal cannot simply accept unquantified claims without assigning reasons and without dealing with the objections to those claims.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that once it is found that the agreement has been validly terminated in accordance with the terms of the Contract, it follows that the earnest money is not liable to be refunded.
Case Title: Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 482
The High Court of Delhi has held that a Court exercising powers under Sections 14 & 15 of the A&C Act can extend the mandate of the arbitrator if no ground for its substitution is made out in the application.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that once the Court is satisfied that there is no ground for substitution of the arbitrator, the Court can extend the mandate even without an application under Section 29A(4) of the Act.
Title: PT PRASADI LAL KAKAJI TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 483
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is a “State” for the purposes of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.
Justice C Hari Shankar held that an executive decision taken by the NCTE would also, therefore, constitute “law” for the purposes of Article 19(6).
Title: SALIM MALIK @ MUNNA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 484
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Salim Malik alias Munna in the case registered under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, alleging a larger conspiracy in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that there was enough material on record which clearly indicated that Malik was a co-conspirator and committed the offence for which he was chargesheeted.
Title: DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY v. ANNWESHA DEB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 485
The Delhi High Court has held that the appointment of candidates with Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) as a panel lawyer is only professional and not as an employee, and they are not entitled to benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
A division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee set aside a single-judge order granting maternity benefits to a pregnant woman, who was engaged in contractual employment with Delhi State Legal Services Authority as a panel lawyer.
Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 486
The Delhi High Court has observed that the situation in the record rooms of the District Courts in the national capital is grim and the process of weeding out of the record needs to be carried out expeditiously.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that the process of weeding out needs to be monitored on a regular basis.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 487
The Delhi Police has framed a standard operating procedure (SOP) to be followed by Universities and Colleges while organizing events or festivals for ensuring safety and security of students in general, and female students in particular.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora closed a suo motu PIL initiated last year on the issue of “security breaches” particularly in respect of female attendees at various fests organized by colleges or universities in the Delhi-NCR region.
Title: JIWESH KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 488
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the right to obtain a licence as a registered Ayurvedic or Unani medical practitioner vests only in a student who holds a BAMS or BUMS degree.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that prior to obtaining such a degree, the student has no right to practice as a registered medical practitioner.
S.354 IPC: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Man, Asks Him To Assist Traffic Police For A Month
Title: VIKAS BOHAT v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 489
Quashing an FIR against a man for outraging modesty of a woman, the Delhi High Court has asked him to assist the Traffic Police at a traffic signal for 30 days.
Justice Navin Chawla quashed the FIR registered for the offences under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intending to insult modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Title: MANMOHAN SINGH & ANR v. SHITAL SINGH & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 490
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Hindu woman without having her own income has complete rights to enjoy, throughout her lifetime, the property received by her from the deceased husband but cannot have “absolute rights” over it.
“In the case of Hindu women, who may not have their own income, receiving a life estate given to them by their husbands—who may predecease them—is an essential safeguard for their financial security during their lifetime,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: VAIBHAV v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 491
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the decision of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) to give 80% quota in the First Year of 3-year B.A. (Hons.) programme in Foreign Languages for the students who passed their class XII examination in the year of seeking admission or the previous year.
The remaining 20% of the seats are given to all other candidates.
Title: JAMSHEED ZAHOOR PAUL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 492
The Delhi High Court has denied regular bail to a 25 year old Kashmiri man booked under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, observing that he being a supporter of ideology of banned terrorist organization ISIS, arranged illegal weapons and was involved in providing other logistic support to its cadres.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed the bail plea of Jamsheed Zahoor Paul who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2018.
Title: JAI ANANT DEHADRAI v. MAHUA MOITRA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 493
Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai has withdrawn from the Delhi High Court his defamation suit against Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra.
Dehadrai had sued Moitra for allegedly making defamatory statements against him on social media as well as print and electronic media.
Title: SETARA BIBI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 494
The Delhi High Court has ordered expeditious conclusion of the magisterial enquiry into the death of a 32 year old man allegedly in the custody of police officials of Subhash Place police station.
Sheikh Sahadat died on July 23 last year. His wife moved a plea seeking registration of FIR against the erring cops as well as to constitute Special Investigation Team for impartial investigation into the FIR.
Title: GAUTAM KUMAR LAHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 495
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking issuance of guidelines for release of undertrial prisoners on bail under check of a judicial officer.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected the PIL moved by Gautam Kumar Laha, observing that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court and is being supervised there.
Haj Pilgrims Should Only Be Handled By Persons Not Accused Of 'Deceiving' Others: Delhi High Court
Title: AL ISLAM TOUR CORPORATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 496
The Delhi High Court has observed that Hajis being very pious pilgrims should be handled only by persons who do not have allegations of swindling or deceiving people on them.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Haj Policy states that the Central Government has the right to debar the Haj Group Organizers (HGOs) against whom complaints have been received and who are involved with the pilgrims.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 498
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that falsely accusing a spouse of being in an extra marital relationship and denying parentage of the children constitutes mental cruelty.
A division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that repudiation of the matrimonial bond and refusal to accept the children, who are innocent victims in the vile allegations made by the spouse, is nothing but the act of mental cruelty of the gravest kind.
Case Title: Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Inc v. Government of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 497
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on Central government for seeking repeated adjournments in a petition for enforcement of an arbitral award, allegedly having a monetary value of over Rs.1100 crores.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan noted that the Union had sought another adjournment despite the objections of party seeking enforcement and the assurance given by the Union on last hearing that no further adjournments shall be sought.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar v Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 499
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a PIL challenging the alleged illegal deputation and subsequent extensions of Uttar Pradesh IAS officer Aunjaneya Kumar Singh.
Singh came to limelight for lodging over 60 FIRs against Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan and his son Abdullah Khan.
Title: Kush Kalra v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 500
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Defence to decide a plea seeking the inclusion of women candidates for recruitment in the Indian Military Academy, Indian Naval Academy and Air Force Academy through the Combined Defence Services (CDS) Examination.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora directed the Union Government to decide the representation filed by Kush Kalra, in accordance with the law within eight weeks.
Go First Case: Delhi High Court Directs DGCA To Process De-Registration Of Leased Aircrafts
Title: Accipiter Investments Aircraft 2 Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 501
The Delhi High Court has passed a slew of directions to de-register 54 aircrafts of various lessors on lease with the crisis-hit airline Go First.
While disposing of a batch of pleas moved by the lessors, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju set aside the communication letters issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) declining to process new registration applications of the lessors.
Title: SANGHMITRA v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 502
The Delhi High Court has said that issues such as gender equality and cultural diversity must be made part of the curriculum of the Delhi Judicial Academy, observing that hidden biases are enemies of impartial and equitable judgments.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that judicial education and training, focused not only on legal principles but also on understanding the diverse backgrounds and lived realities of those who come before the court, will go a long way in changing society's stereotypical thinking as it will result in better drafted judgments.
Case Title: Heifer Project International v. Heifer Project India Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 503
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favor of Heifer Project International in a trademark infringement dispute against Heifer Project India Trust.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, highlighted that it was a clear instance of 'triple identity'.
Tile: RAHUL DEV v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 504
The Delhi High Court has granted two weeks parole to a man, convicted in a murder case and sentenced to life, for attending his engagement ceremony and marriage.
Justice Amit Sharma allowed the plea moved by convict Rahul Dev who was convicted in 2014 for the offences under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: M/S Sunshine Caterers Private Limited Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 505
The Delhi High Court has upheld the disqualification as the CA Certificate did not match details on the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) portal as per the Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN).
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the discrepancy has arisen on account of the non-mention of the certified information by the petitioner's Chartered Accountant in the corresponding UDIN certificate in the field under the heading 'Figures/Particulars'.
Case Title: Director General, Delhi Doordarshan Kendra vs Mohd. Shahbaz Khan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 506
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain held that the scope of intervention of the High Court is very limited in matters of factual findings made by Industrial Tribunals unless they were found to be perverse or based on no evidence.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Singh Versus Commissioner Of Delhi GST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The Delhi High Court has held that one of the consequences of cancelling a taxpayer's registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer's customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer.
Case Title: M/s Oasis Projects Ltd v. National Highway & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 508
The High Court of Delhi has held that a contract cannot be debarred or blacklisted without a prior notice or opportunity of hearing even in cases where there is a provision in the contract for deemed debarment in case of termination of the contract.
Case Title: Larsen & Turbo Ltd v. IREO Victory Valley Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 509
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in the original agreement would fall if the agreement is superseded by a settlement agreement without an arbitration clause.
The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that if a mutual settlement supersedes the original contract, the original arbitration clause would not survive and if there is unilateral repudiation, then the arbitration clause may survive depending on the facts.
Title: ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 510
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking “authoritative interpretation” of Section 66 of PMLA, alleging that ED is pressurizing the police and CBI to file FIRs under predicate offence on the basis of the information shared by it with the agencies.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted liberty to the petitioners, Ashok Kumar Singh and another individual, to raise the issue of interpretation before appropriate courts in appropriate proceedings.
Title: Anand S Jondhale v. Shri Rajiv Kumar Chief Election Commissioner of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 511
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to disqualify Prime Minister Narendra Modi for six years for allegedly seeking votes for the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) in the name of Hindu as well as Sikh deities and place of worships.
The plea was moved by Anand S Jondhale, a lawyer by profession.
Case Title: Appolo Handloom Manufacturing Co-Op Society Ltd v. All India Handloom Fabrics Society
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 512
The High Court of Delhi has held that a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act can be entertained by the High Court to direct the 'Central Registrar' of Co-operative Societies to appoint an arbitrator under Section 84 of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 after it fails to act on the request of the party.
Title: Social Jurist v. Gnctd & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 513
The Delhi High Court has said that the decision of Arvind Kejriwal to continue to hold the position of Chief Minister despite his arrest is his “personal decision” but his non-availability cannot come in the way of young children studying in MCD schools from receiving their free text books, writing material and uniform forthwith.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora observed that national interest and public interest demands that no person who holds the post of Chief Minister is incommunicado or absent for a long stretch of time or for an uncertain period time.
Case Title: M/s Oravel Stays Pvt Ltd v. Nikhil Bhalla
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 514
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in the terms and conditions available on the website of a company would get incorporated in the agreement between the parties if the agreement makes an express reference and provide a hyperlink to T&Cs.
Case Title: Sun & Sand Industries Africa Pvt. Ltd Versus Sales Tax Officer Class-Ii/Avato Department Of Trade And Taxes
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 515
The Delhi High Court has held that, as per Section 75(5) of the GST Act, if sufficient cause is shown, the proper officer shall adjourn the hearing; however, not more than three adjournments may be granted.
Unfortunate That Tenancy Litigation In India Takes More Than A Decade To Fructify: Delhi High Court
Title: SATPAL SINGH SARNA & ORS v. SATYA PRAKASH BANSAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 516
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is unfortunate that the litigation in India, especially the tenancy litigation under the rent control legislation, takes more than a decade to fructify.
Title: MUBEEN KADAR SHAIKH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 517
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to three accused persons in the UAPA case concerning the 2008 serial blasts in the national capital that claimed 26 lives.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed the appeals moved by Mubeen Kadar Shaikh and Saquib Nisar.
Accused Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy was denied bail by the division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain.
Case Title: Rumit Kumar Vs Transport Department GNCTD And Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 518
The Delhi High Court has held that though Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act (which talks about alteration in motor vehicle) does not explicitly permit bullet-proofing of vehicles, nonetheless the registration of a vehicle cannot be suspended for bullet proofing in absence of a specific finding that such modification causes danger to the public as stipulated under Section 53 of the Act.
Title: BHAVIK KOLADIYA v. ASHNEER GROVER & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 519
The Delhi High Court has restrained BharatPe's Former Managing Director Ashneer Grover from making any third party rights or interest in the 16,110 shares transferred to him by fintech company's co-founder Bhavik Koladiya.
Justice Prateek Jalan passed the order on the interim application filed by Koladiya in his suit against Grover.
Title: RAJAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 520
The Delhi High Court has granted police protection to a transgender person for filling up the nomination form in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections as a candidate from South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures equal protection of laws in all spheres of State activity, including participation in the election process.
Case Title: Ayesha Sankhla (Through Guardian Kapil Kumar Sankhala) Vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 521
In a recent legal ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking admission for a student from the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in a private school for the academic year 2024-2025.
The petitioner, Ayesha Sankhla, had applied for admission to Nursery/Pre-School grade in the academic year 2022-2023. Notably, under the regime of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the RTE Act), she belongs to the Disadvantaged Group (DG), who is entitled to admission to entry level classes under Section 121 of the said Act on preferential basis.
Title: KASHMIR HARVARD EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 522
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which upheld an arbitral award directing transfer of a domain name registered by Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute based in Srinagar to the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the United States of America.
A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected the appeal moved by the Institute with costs of Rs. 50,000.
'Sextortion' Is A Social Menace, Represents Profound Violation Of Privacy: Delhi High Court
Title: SOUKIN v. THE NCT STATE NEW DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 523
The Delhi High Court has observed that 'sextortion' is a significant social menace which represents a profound violation of privacy.
Justice Amit Mahajan said that sextortion not only undermines individual dignity but also poses serious challenges to law enforcement due to its “clandestine and cross-jurisdictional nature.”