Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 28 To September 03, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 757 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 784NOMINAL INDEXAseem Aggarwal v. Ashi Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 757ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUN PICTURES A DIVISION OF SUN TV NETWORK LTD.AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 758RS v. AS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 759Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 760VARUN BHATIA v. STATE AND ANOTHER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 761Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 762DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 763RAMADA INTERNATIONAL,INC v. LA-RAMADA WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 764GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. v. SHEETAL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 765Siddharth Mishra & Ors. v. UPSC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 766POOJA SINGH v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 767Spelndor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 768RAMESH v. SMT. MEENAKSHI LEKHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 769Rajeev Chhatwal Versus Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (East) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 770NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD v. RAM AVTAR GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 771J BALAJI v. THE HINDU NEW DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 772DIXITA GOLWALA vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 773ZAHIR ABDULLAH & ANR v. OMAR ABDULLAH and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 774PRAFUL BILLORE & ANR. v. BAEROJGAR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 775MS. N v. STATE & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 776SHRI ANIL KUMAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 777SILVERMAPLE HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS vs DR AJAY DUBEY & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 778A v. S 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 780Rekha Rani and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 781Liberty Footwear Company v. Liberty Shoes Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 782Amit Guglani v. L&T Housing Finance 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 783UNION OF INDIA v. VANSH SHARAD GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 784Courts Must Make Judicious Use Of Order VII Rule 11 For Expeditious Disposal Of Petition, Discard Frivolous Litigation : Delhi High CourtCase Title: Aseem Aggarwal v. Ashi KumarCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 757The Delhi High Court recently said that Courts must judiciously use the provision for rejection of plaint, Order VII Rule 11, to dispose of the pleas expeditiously and to discard frivolous litigation.The division bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed,“ Scrupulous adherence to provisions of CPC especially provisions like Order VII Rule 11 CPC can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation that could have been nipped in the initial stage itself, also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief, which is never to come their way. This not only leads to dejection amongst the litigants towards the system but also leads to prolonged acrimony between the parties which is not conducive to a robust judicial system and ultimately to a peaceful society.”Don't Exhibit 'RCB Jersey' In Jailer Movie: Delhi High Court To Filmmakers In Suit By IPL TeamCase Title: ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUN PICTURES A DIVISION OF SUN TV NETWORK LTD.AND ANR.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 758The Delhi High Court has directed the filmmakers of Rajnikanth starrer Jailer movie to ensure that from September 01 onwards, none of the theatres exhibit the jersey of IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore, as worn by a contract killer in one of the scenes in the film.Regarding the movie’s release on television, satellite or any OTT platform, Justice Prathiba M Singh said that an altered version of the film shall be broadcasted or telecasted prior to such release.Husband Has No Right To Torture Wife And Beat Her Merely Because They Are Married: Delhi High CourtCase Title: RS v. ASCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 759While dissolving a decade old marriage of a couple, the Delhi High Court has observed that no law has given husband the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture merely because they got married.“ Merely because the parties got married and the respondent was her husband, no law gave him the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.Section 34 Petition Filed Without Impugned Award And Statement Of Truth Is Non-Est: Delhi High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTDCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 760The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a Section 34 petition filed unaccompanied by the impugned award and without the statement of truth would not constitute a valid filing. The Court observed that the petition as originally filed was without the impugned award and statement of truth and constituted of only 46 pages, however, the refiled version ran into 1785 pages which included the impugned award, therefore, the original filing would be non-est.The bench of Justice Mini...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 28 To September 03, 2023

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags