Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 17 To April 23

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 318 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 337

NOMINAL INDEX

MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 318

JYOTI SINGH v. NAND KISHORE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 319

Yashovardhan Birla vs Cecil Webber Engineering Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 320

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 321

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. SANTOSH & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 322

AYAN JORWAL (MINOR) THROUGH FATHER DINESH KUMAR MEENA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 323

STATE OF NCT DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 324

SALEEM v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 325

Gaurav Dhanuka & Anr vs Surya Maintenance Agency Pvt Ltd & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 326

S GURBACHAN SINGH & ORS v. GEETA ISSAR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 327

MS. AARADHYA BACHCHAN AND ANR. v. BOLLYWOOD TIME & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 329

AS vs State and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 330

SD v. RK 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 331

Nanu Ram Goyal Versus Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 332

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. ARVIND KUMAR TRADING AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 333

AK & Ors. v. State & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 334

ANTONY RAOD TRANSPORT SOULUTION PVT LTD v. VARSHA JOSHI & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 335

EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO (IS-I) (IS-IV DESK) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 336

REFRIGERATED WATER LICENSEES ASSOCIATION (REGD) AND ANR v. COMMISSIONER SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 337

Member Of Rifle Club Or Association Can Possess Third Firearm Only For Target Practice, Participation In Competition: Delhi High Court

Title: MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 318

The Delhi High Court has said that a member of a rifle club or rifle association cannot possess a third firearm other than for the limited period of using it for target practice or participation in a competition.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the order of a single judge which held that such a member cannot hold more than two firearms by claiming exemption under section 3(2) of the Arms Act 1959.

The bench dismissed the appeal moved by Meet Malhotra, a lawyer and life member of National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) who had three firearms duly endorsed on his license, challenging the order of the single judge.

Delhi High Court Awards Over ₹65 Lakh Enhanced Compensation To Road Accident Victim With 100% Functional Disability; Total ₹1.12 Crore

Case Title: JYOTI SINGH v. NAND KISHORE & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 319

The Delhi High Court has awarded over Rs. 65 lakh enhanced compensation to a woman who met with a motor-vehicular accident in 2011 when she was an 11-year-old school going girl. The accident has left her wheelchair bound for the rest of her life. Jyoti Singh was earlier awarded over Rs. 47 lakhs by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).

Observing that she would suffer “social and personal embarrassment” because of her “uncontrolled bowel movement”, Justice Najmi Waziri said that a just and fair compensation is to be awarded so that she is put in a position as close as to what she could have been without the injury.

Holding Chairpersons Of Large Companies Liable For Dishonour Of Cheques Would Unfairly Expand ‘Vicarious Liability’ Under NI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Yashovardhan Birla vs Cecil Webber Engineering Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 320

The Delhi High Court has said that holding Chairpersons of large conglomerates or companies liable for cheques issued in day-to-day affairs of the business of a company, would unfairly and unnecessarily expand the provisions of vicarious liability under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Justice Anish Dayal made the observation while quashing the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against businessman Yashovardhan Birla, who was a Non-Executive Co-Chairman/ Non-Executive Director of Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking ‘Uniform Judicial Code’ For Judicial Terms, Case Registration Process Across HCs

Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 321

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea moved by Lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking directions for the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report on “Uniform Judicial Code” to make judicial terms, abbreviations, case records and the process of case registration uniform across high courts.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma asked Upadhyay to seek clarification in respect of an order passed by the Supreme Court which had dismissed a similar plea moved by him as withdrawn.

Delhi High Court Imposes Over ₹9.5 Lakh Cost On Three Manufacturers For ‘Blatantly’ Infringing Louis Vuitton Trademarks

Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. SANTOSH & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 322

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of over Rs. 9.5 lakhs on three individuals for blatantly infringing the trademarks of Louis Vuitton and failing to appear before the court in the trademark infringement suit filed by the French luxury company.

Justice Amit Bansal said that this is a fit case for award of actual costs to Louis Vuitton and awarded Rs.9,59,413 as costs to be paid by the individuals.

The court was hearing a suit filed by Louis Vuitton Malletier alleging infringement of its registered and well-known trademarks by three individuals who were manufacturing and selling goods bearing “Louis Vuitton” trademarks.

Right Of Private Schools To Admit Students Of Their Choice Must Be Based On Reasonable And Transparent Criteria: Delhi High Court

Title: AYAN JORWAL (MINOR) THROUGH FATHER DINESH KUMAR MEENA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 323

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of private schools to admit students of their choice has to be on the basis of a criteria which is “transparent, identifiable and reasonable.”

Justice Mini Pushkarna said a school has the autonomy in matters of admission under the general quota and can devise its own criteria for admission. However, the court added that any admission criteria devised by the school has to be “reasonable, rational and non- discriminatory.”

Shraddha Walkar Murder Case: Delhi High Court Restrains News Channels From Broadcasting Contents Of Chargesheet

Title: STATE OF NCT DELHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 324

The Delhi High Court has restrained all media channels from showing or displaying material of the chargesheet in relation to the Shraddha Walkar murder case.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar issued notice on the plea moved by Delhi Police seeking to restrain the media channels from displaying the contents of the chargesheet collected by it till date.

The court also directed the Union of India to pass appropriate orders to the media agencies from publishing, printing and disseminating “confidential information” contained in the chargesheet and other material collected in the case and to ensure that the guidelines are complied with.

Victim Of Sexual Offences Has Right To Be Heard At Every Stage But No Requirement In Law To Implead Her As Party Respondent: Delhi High Court

Title: SALEEM v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 325

The Delhi High Court has held that there is no requirement in law to implead the victim of sexual offences as a party to any criminal proceedings instituted by the State or the accused.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. and said that a victim now has an “unbridled participatory rights” in all criminal proceedings but that, in itself, is no reason to implead the victim as a party in the matter, unless otherwise specifically provided in Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court noted that section 439(1A) Cr.P.C. mandates that a victim be heard in proceedings relating to bail, without requiring that the victim be impleaded as a party to bail petitions.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Directs Registry To Ensure Confidentiality Of Victims Of Sexual Offences

Delhi High Court Invokes “Direct Benefits” And “Intertwined” Estoppel Theory To Refer Non-Signatory To Arbitration

Case Title: Gaurav Dhanuka & Anr vs Surya Maintenance Agency Pvt Ltd & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 326

The Delhi High Court has invoked the “direct benefits” estoppel theory and the “intertwined estoppel theory” to refer a non-signatory to arbitration.

While referring the builder/developer (non-signatory) of a building to arbitration in a dispute between the owner of the flat and the maintenance agency under the ‘maintenance agreement’, the court observed that its impleadment was mandated not on account of the “group of companies” doctrine but on the ground that the maintenance agency’s authority was directly derived from the developer under the ‘service agreement’ executed between them.

The court said that the developer was deriving direct benefit from the service agreement with the maintenance agency. Further, the said service agreement was inextricably linked to the maintenance agreements containing the arbitration clause.

Court Can't Direct Party To Cross-Examine Witness On Basis Of Photocopies, Speculative Documents: Delhi High Court

Title: S GURBACHAN SINGH & ORS v. GEETA ISSAR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 327

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the trial court which directed a party to a civil suit to cross-examine a witness of the opposite party on the basis of photocopied documents.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the procedure directed by the trial court is “alien to law” and the order “cannot withstand a judicial scrutiny.”

“This possibly cannot be the intent of the legislature while granting the right to cross-examine a witness to conduct cross-examination on speculative documents, which are yet to be determined as to whether they are admissible or inadmissible in law,” the court said.

‘Every Child Entitled To Honour And Respect’: Delhi High Court Restrains YouTube Channels From Publishing Fake Content On Aaradhya Bachchan’s Health

Title: MS. AARADHYA BACHCHAN AND ANR. v. BOLLYWOOD TIME & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court has restrained various YouTube channels from disseminating, publishing or sharing videos or any fake content relating to the mental and physical health of Aaradhya Bachchan, daughter of Bollywood actors Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that dissemination of misleading information relating to a child, especially as regards the physical and mental health, is completely intolerable in law.

The court also added that it has “zero tolerance” in matters where misleading content is published on such platforms relating to physical well being of a child.

“Every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect, be it child of celebrity or of a commoner,” the court said, adding that no technicality can come in its way in such matters.

Assessment Order Issued Without DIN, Invalid; S. 292B Of ITA Not Applicable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 329

The Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) where it had set aside the assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department without quoting the Document Identification Number (DIN).

The court remarked that in view of the CBDT Circular no. 19/2019, dated 14.08.2019, all assessments, appeals, orders, which find mention in paragraph 2 of the 2019 Circular, issued without a DIN, can have no standing in law.

Probe Can't Be Transferred To CBI Merely Because Litigant Feels She Is Being Unfairly Prejudiced: Delhi High Court In Sexual Harassment Case

Case Title: AS vs State and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 330

The Delhi High Court has observed that an order for transfer of investigation is a serious affair, and that investigation cannot be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) merely because the litigant feels she is being unfairly prejudiced.

While dismissing the plea seeking transfer of further investigation in a sexual harassment case from the State Police to the CBI, the court said nothing was placed on record to show to shake the its conscience with respect to the investigation conducted by the police. It added that there had been no dereliction of duties by the police officials.

Either Party To Marriage Can Marry Again If No Appeal Filed Against Ex-Parte Divorce Decree Within Limitation Period: Delhi High Court

Title: SD v. RKB

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 331

The Delhi High Court has held that either party to a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can marry again if no appeal is filed against an ex-parte decree of divorce within the period of limitation.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act enables the parties to marry again only after the decree of divorce has become final.

“Therefore, in case of an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation,” the court said.

No Justification For Not Adjudicating The Notice For More Than 13 Years After Its Issuance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nanu Ram Goyal Versus Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 332

The Delhi High Court has held that there is no justification for not adjudicating the notice for more than thirteen years after its issuance.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the larger public interest requires that the Revenue Department and its officials adjudicate the show cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable time.

The petitioner/assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of executing civil construction works. The petitioner claimed that it executes contracts for civil works awarded by authorities, institutions, and other entities, including the Central Government and the State Governments. The petitioner was awarded the contract for the construction of residential flats by the Housing Board of Haryana, Gurugram.

Deceptively Similar To Mankind's Mark: Delhi High Court Directs Removal Of ‘Nikind’ Mark From Trademarks Register

Case Title: MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. ARVIND KUMAR TRADING AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 333

The Delhi High Court has directed removal of a registered “Nikind” mark from the register of trademarks observing that it was identical and deceptively similar to “Nimekind” mark owned by Indian pharmaceutical and healthcare products company Mankind Pharma Limited.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that the adoption and use of the trademark “Nikind” by a trading entity is very similar to the trademark “Nimekind” and is likely to create confusion in the market.

Pressing Rape Charges In Matrimonial Cases Against Husband, His Family Members Which Are Later Settled Needs To Be Curbed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: AK & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 334

The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of pressing rape charges in matrimonial cases by the complainant against the husband and his family members which are later settled needs to be curbed.

Justice Yogesh Khanna noted that serious offence of rape under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is being pressed during investigation of cases by complainants in a matrimonial lis against the husband and even his family members “putting the entire family to malign.”

The court added that subsequently, the rape charges are being with the settlement of matrimonial disputes between the parties.

High Court Finds Delhi Govt’s Chief And Labour Secretaries Guilty Of Contempt Of Court Over Failure To Enhance Minimum Wages Of Bus Staffers

Case Title: ANTONY RAOD TRANSPORT SOULUTION PVT LTD v. VARSHA JOSHI & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 335

The Delhi High Court has found the Delhi Government’s Chief Secretary, Secretary of Labour and Special Commissioner of Transport guilty of contempt of court for wilfully disobeying a judicial order passed in 2017 directing them to enhance the minimum wages of staff for the operation and maintenance of buses plying in the national capital.

Justice Rekha Palli said that the officials were “deliberately attempting to circumvent and undermine the unambiguous directions” issued by a division bench Bench on December 06, 2017, directing them to enhance the minimum wages by amending the formula envisaged in the Concessionaire Agreement entered into by the Delhi Government with various private stage carriage services providers.

Delhi High Court Upholds CIC Order Denying Information To 2006 Mumbai Train Blast Convict On Documents Related To UAPA Ban On ‘Indian Mujahideen’

Case Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO (IS-I) (IS-IV DESK) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 336

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Central Information Commission denying information under Right to Information Act to a death row convict seeking documents related to the ban on Indian Mujahideen under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed the plea of Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, a death row convict in Mumbai Train Blast case (7/11 Bomb Blast case), challenging the CIC order denying him the information.

The court said that the information consisting of background notes and reports on the ban would have to be viewed not merely from the view of Ehtesham’s right to information but also from the larger issue of country’s safety and security under section 8 of RTI Act.

Continue Initiating Prosecution, Carrying Out Regular Raids Against Those Selling Contaminated Water Or Beverages: Delhi High Court To MCD

Title: REFRIGERATED WATER LICENSEES ASSOCIATION (REGD) AND ANR v. COMMISSIONER SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 337

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to continue initiating prosecution and carrying out regular raids against individuals who are selling contaminated water or beverages like shikanji and soda water on the roadside.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the civic body to ensure that the hawkers are prohibited from selling such contaminated water or beverages.