Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part III [Citations 801 - 1200]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 801 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1200High Court Asks Delhi Govt To Implement Hybrid Courts Project On Priority Basis, Says No Cabinet Approval RequiredCase Title: ANIL KUMAR HAJELAY & ORS. v. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHICitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 801The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Delhi Government to expedite grant of financial sanction of Rs. 387 crores and to implement on priority basis the project for having hybrid hearing in the 691 Courts in the national capital.'High Time To Think What DDA Has Done To Delhi': High Court Expresses Displeasure Over Failure To Beautify District ParkTitle: SAHIL VIKLANG SAHAYTARTHA SAMITI & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 802The Delhi High Court has castigated the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for failing to take any time-bound beneficial measures for beautification of a District Park in the national capital, observing there is no proper concrete walking track or multi game courts there.“Unhesitatingly, it is manifest that the respondent/DDA does not know what to do with this site in question. Is it not high time that the respondent/DDA must ponder over what they have done to this city in terms of providing recreational activities open to all? How they intend to make Delhi a "smart city"?,” Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.Interim Measures U/s 17 Of Arbitration Act Affecting Third-Party Rights Is Appealable: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprise Limited Vs Domus Greens Private Limited & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 803The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that a third party, whose rights for a registered charge are affected by an arbitral award, can challenge such award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Delhi High Court Declines PIL Against YouTube Vloggers Uploading Videos Of Women, Minor Girls Without ConsentTitle: AMITA SACHDEVA & ORS. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN & ORSCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 804The Delhi High Court has recently refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking removal of videos of women and minor girls uploaded on YouTube without their consent.The PIL was withdrawn as the division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan expressed disinclination to entertain the plea.Section 11(6) Petition Not Maintainable Without Prior Section 21 Notice In Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High CourtCase Title: M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd Vs Manav Sethi & Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 805The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that a Section 11(6) petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable unless it is preceded in the first instance by a Section 21 notice.Delhi High Court Upholds Demolition Of Shiv Temple Near Yamuna Flood Plains, Says Eco-Sensitive Zone Must Be Protected From EncroachmentCase Title: Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti vs. Delhi Development Authority & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 806The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge Bench concerning the demolition order issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a Shiv Temple located near Yamuna Flood Plains. The court asserted that as the Yamuna River Floodplain is an eco-sensitive zone, it needs to be protected from encroachments and illegal constructions.Intention To Arbitrate Must Be Assessed Holistically In Transactions Involving Interlinked Agreements, Even If Some Agreements Lack Explicit Arbitration Clauses: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Nishesh Ranjan and Anr. vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 807The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that in a composite transaction involving multiple interlinked agreements, courts should assess the intention to arbitrate holistically and refer disputes to arbitration even if some agreements lack explicit arbitration clauses.Decree Holder Not Entitled To Interest For Period Between Deposit of amount and its Release : Delhi High CourtCase Title: M/S Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 808The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the Decree Holder is not entitled to interest on the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor for the period between the date of deposit and the date of release permitted by the court.'Subsequent Shareholders' Do Not Qualify As 'Association Or Body of Individuals' Under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High CourtCase Title: M/S Ktc India Pvt. Ltd Vs Randhir Brar & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 809The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that “subsequent shareholders,” each holding a specific number of shares and having the right to exit the company under defined conditions while undertaking individual rights and obligations, do not qualify as an "association or body of individuals" under Section...

Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part III [Citations 801 - 1200]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags