Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 01 To January 07, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 21

NOMINAL INDEX

KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GIRDHAR INDUSTRIES AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1

VINOD KUMAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 2

CIT Versus RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 3

Neelam Azad v. State 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 4

Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 5

Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 6

SANJAY SINGHAL v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 7

HARE KRISHNA PATHAK v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 8

BHAVNEET SINGH v. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 9

X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 10

MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 11

AMAR SINGH BHATIA & ANR. v. SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 12

Hyatt International-Southwest Asia Ltd. Versus Additional Director Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 13

R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 14

POOJA SHARMA BAJAJ v. KUNAL BAJAJ & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 15

PUMA SE v. INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 16

RAHUL DILIP SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 17

RS Wires Industries Versus Sales Tax Officer Class 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 18

SUNIL KUMAR ALEDIA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 19

Harshdip Singh Dhillon Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 20

M/S Mittal Footcare Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 21

Goodwill Acquired After 'Terminus Ad Quem' Inconsequential: Delhi HC Declines Interim Relief To 'Khadi' In Trademark Infringement Suit

Title: KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GIRDHAR INDUSTRIES AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass interlocutory injunction order against two entities from using “Girdhar Khadi” and “BR Khadi” marks in a trademark suit filed by Khadi and Village Industries Commission.

Justice C Hari Shankar however directed the two manufacturers to maintain accounts of the manufacture, stock and sales of their products bearing the two marks and file accounts with the court every three months, pending disposal of the suit.

Accused Can't Be Denied Right To File SLP On Ground Of Unsatisfactory Jail Conduct: Delhi High Court Grants Parole

Title: VINOD KUMAR v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 2

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to effectively pursue legal remedy by filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which is the last hope for availing justice, cannot be denied to an accused on the ground of “unsatisfactory conduct.”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that such a right cannot be withheld or the remedy denied to an accused on the ground that free legal aid is available in the jail and SLP can be filed from there.

Actual Interest Expenditure Had To Be Adjusted Against Income Earned By Way Of Interest: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 3

The Delhi High Court has held that actual interest expenditure had to be adjusted against the income earned by way of interest.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the assessee has parked its surplus funds in fixed deposits of the bank from which it earned interest income. At the same time, the assessee has also paid interest to the bank. The interest earned has to be netted off with interest expenditure.

Parliament Security Breach: Delhi High Court Dismisses Accused Neelam Azad's Plea Seeking Release From Custody

Title: Neelam Azad v. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 4

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition moved by accused Neelam Azad, arrested over the security breach in the Parliament last month, seeking immediate release from police custody.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that the plea is not maintainable as Azad has already moved bail plea before the trial court.

“…the petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly,” the bench said.

Accused Can't Be Coerced To Reveal Passwords Of Digital Devices While Trial Is Ongoing: Delhi High Court Grants Bail

Title: Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 5

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that an accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the passwords or any other similar details of the digital devices or gadgets seized during investigation while the trial is ongoing, in view of the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that the investigating agency cannot expect an accused to "sing in a tune which is music to their ears", more so when such an accused enjoys the Constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Delhi High Court Closes Proceedings Against Anand Ranganathan In Criminal Contempt Case For Tweets Against Justice S Muralidhar

Title: Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 6

The Delhi High Court has closed the criminal contempt proceedings against author Anand Ranganathan in relation to a suo motu case initiated by the court regarding certain tweets made in 2018 against former Justice Muralidhar.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain noted that the original initiator of the “contemptuous allegations” against the judge, including editor of Tamil political weekly Thuglak and RSS Ideologue S Gurumurthy S Gurumurthy and filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri, have already been discharged in the matter.

Delhi High Court Orders Constitution Of Joint Task Force To Inspect Infra Of Coaching Centres In Mukherjee Nagar

Title: SANJAY SINGHAL v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 7

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Fire Services (DFS) to constitute a Joint Task Force which may examine and inspect all coaching and teaching centres situated in city's Mukherjee Nagar area.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja ordered that the Joint Task Force will draw up a comprehensive report indicating the “infractions and other non-conforming aspects” that may come to its notice on the issue.

[KVS Admissions] EWS Certificate Must Be Obtained From State Where Verification Possible, Not Where School Is Situated: Delhi High Court

Title: HARE KRISHNA PATHAK v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 8

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a candidate applying for admission in a Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) anywhere in the country under the EWS category need not furnish an income certificate issued from the State Government where the school is situated but such certificate is required to be furnished by an officer of the specified rank in the State where such verification is possible.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that KVS being an institution established and controlled by the Central Government, the “appropriate government” for notifying the annual income threshold to decide whether a child belongs to the EWS Category is the Central Government.

Persons With Disabilities Must Be Given Choice To Be Posted At Preferred Place, May Be Exempted From Rotational Transfers: Delhi High Court

Title: BHAVNEET SINGH v. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 9

The Delhi High Court has observed that the State must ensure that transfers and job postings of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) is done in a way that they shall be given the choice to be posted at their preferred place of posting, and may even be exempted from rotational transfers as mandated for other employees.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the State shall also ensure that PwDs are not subjected to unnecessary and relentless harassment by being transferred or posted at places where they are unable to get an environment which is conducive for their working.

Can Issue Anti-Suit Injunction If Matrimonial Proceedings In Foreign Courts Concerning Non-Resident Indians Oppressive: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 10

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Indian Courts can issue anti-suit injunction if matrimonial proceedings in a foreign court, concerning non-resident Indians are oppressive or vexatious.

While dealing with a case under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta flagged the growing trend of invoking jurisdiction of foreign courts by one of the parties, while the other party may prefer to invoke the jurisdiction of Indian courts.

Mahua Moitra Withdraws From Delhi High Court Plea Against Eviction From Govt Bungalow, Will Approach Directorate Of Estates

Title: MAHUA MOITRA v. DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 11

Trinamool Congress leader Mohua Moitra has withdrawn from the Delhi High Court her plea challenging the cancellation of her government accommodation following her expulsion from the Lok Sabha in connection with the 'cash-for-query' allegations.

Moitra's counsel told Justice Subramonium Prasad that the TMC leader will approach the Union Government's Directorate of Estates for considering her case in accordance with the relevant Rules and to permit her to continue occupation of the government accommodation.

As the plea was withdrawn, the court directed the Union Government to take steps to evict Moitra from the government accommodation “only in accordance with law.”

Delhi High Court Fixes Timelines For Interviews, Decision Making Process In Organ Transplant Cases

Title: AMAR SINGH BHATIA & ANR. v. SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 12

The Delhi High Court has fixed timelines to be followed by the Authorisation Committee under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, for conducting interviews and decision-making process in organ transplant cases.

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that a time-bound approach is crucial to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of organ transplantation protocols and would also be in furtherance of the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Use Of Trademark Incidental To Advertisement Or Publicity Is A Business Income, Not Royalty And FTS: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hyatt International-Southwest Asia Ltd. Versus Additional Director Of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 13

The Delhi High Court has held that the use of trademarks incidental to advertisement or publicity was held as neither royalty nor fees for technical services (FTS) but as business income.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that merely because the extensive services rendered by the assessee in terms of the Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) also included access to written knowledge, processes, and commercial information in furtherance of the services, this cannot lead to the conclusion that the fee received by the assessee was in the nature of royalty as defined under Article 12 of the DTAA.

'Right To Reproductive Choice Includes Right Not To Procreate': Delhi High Court Allows Woman To Terminate Pregnancy After Husband's Death

Title: R v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 14

Observing that the right to reproductive choice includes the right not to procreate, the Delhi High Court has allowed a woman to terminate her pregnancy of 29 weeks as she was suffering with extreme trauma after her husband's death.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the woman should be permitted to terminate her pregnancy because allowing her to continue with the same can impair her mental stability as she was showing suicidal tendencies.

Bigamy | Inability To Prove 'Saptapadi' Qua Partner's Second Marriage At Summoning Stage Can't Be Misused To Evade Legal Consequences: Delhi HC

Title: POOJA SHARMA BAJAJ v. KUNAL BAJAJ & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 15

The Delhi High Court has observed that the absence of law making adultery an offence cannot provide individuals a “blanket immunity” where they can marry others in secrecy during subsistence of their first marriage.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added that such individuals cannot later claim that the first partner must prove that the second marriage was solemnized after performing essential rites and ceremonies, even for summoning the individual as an accused for the offence of bigamy, since adultery is no longer an offence.

E-Commerce Platforms Must Protect Intellectual Property Rights Of Sellers, Can't Become Safe Haven For Infringers: Delhi High Court

Title: PUMA SE v. INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 16

The Delhi High Court has observed that an e-commerce platform cannot become haven for infringers and it must protect the intellectual property rights of others.

“E-commerce websites are commercial ventures, and are inherently profit oriented. There is, of course, nothing objectionable in this; but, while ensuring their highest returns, such websites have also to sedulously protect intellectual property rights of others,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Bureau Of Immigration Can't Delete LOC On Its Own Without Originator's Request: Delhi High Court

Title: RAHUL DILIP SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 17

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Bureau of Immigration has not been vested with the jurisdiction to delete a look out circular (LOC) on its own without there being any request from the Originator.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the Bureau of Immigration cannot sit as an Appellate Authority and see if there is sufficient material for opening the LOC, as the materials of such nature can only be questioned in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Order Cancelling GST Registration With Retrospective Effect Bereft Of Reasons, Liable To Be Quashed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RS Wires Industries Versus Sales Tax Officer Class

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 18

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling GST registration with retrospective effect, bereft of reasons.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed 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 during such a period.

Delhi High Court Orders Maximum Registration Of Construction Workers Under 1996 Law, Calls For Simpler Renewal Process

Title: SUNIL KUMAR ALEDIA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 19

The Delhi High Court has directed the Member Secretary of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board to take proactive steps to ensure that maximum number of construction workers in the national capital are registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that steps should be taken to ensure that renewal and registration process is made simple and all help is extended to illiterate workman in getting himself or herself registered.

Employee Accepted Salary After TDS Deduction, Employer Responsible For Non-Deposit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Harshdip Singh Dhillon Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 20

The Delhi High Court has held that the employee accepted salary after TDS deduction and the employer is responsible for non-deposit of TDS.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the petitioner/employee, having accepted the salary after the deduction of income tax at source, had no further control over it in the sense that thereafter it was the duty of his employer, acting as a tax collecting agent of the revenue, to pay the deducted tax amount to the Central Government in accordance with law.

GST ITC Refund Can't Be Rejected Merely On Ground Of Non-Supply Of Authenticated Document: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Mittal Footcare Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 21

The Delhi High Court has held that an input tax credit (ITC) refund cannot be rejected merely on the grounds of the non-supply of authenticated documents.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the petitioner had uploaded documents; however, the system did not register the documents that were uploaded by the petitioner. The appellate authority records that the petitioner had not submitted any documents, which were submitted along with the reply.