Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 418 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 450NOMINAL INDEXHarish Chandra T & Ors v. ICAI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 418Canara Bank Versus Assistant Commissioner, DGST 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 419Agra Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 420DILIP RAY v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 421M/S. P.M. DIESELS P. LTD v. M/S....
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 418 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 450
NOMINAL INDEX
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
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.