Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 05 To June 11

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 490 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 507

NOMINAL INDEX

NHAI v. Suresh Chandra 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 490

NUOVOPIGNONE INTERNATIONAL SRL v. CARGO MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 491

Unique Décor (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Synchronized Supply Systems Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 492

MINOR K THROUGH BROTHER D v. STATE & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 493

Manish Sisodia v. ED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 494

SANJAY JAIN (IN JC) v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 495

MARICO LIMITED v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 496

B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd v. MIST Avenue Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 497

GA vs TA & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 498

SHRI PAN SINGH RAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 499

Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. M/s Goel & Goel, OMP(COMM) 299 of 2021 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 500

Atishi Marlena v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 501

Man Industries (India) Limited vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 502

AL TAWAF HAJJ AND UMRAH TRAVEL AND TOURISM v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 503

SHARAFAT KHAN & ANOTHER v. NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANOTHER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 504

Shivam Chaudhary & Ors. vs All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 505

Travelport International Operations Limited United Kingdom Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 3 N.Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 506

EUREKA FORBES LIMITED (FORMERLY FORBES ENVIRO SOLU v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 507

ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS 

‘Partial Reduction In Traffic’ Due To Remote Event Of Flood Is Not A Force Majeure Event, Delhi High Court Sets Aside The Award Against NHAI

Case Title: NHAI v. Suresh Chandra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 490

The Delhi High Court has held that ‘partial reduction in traffic’ due to a remote event of flood is not a force majeure event.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that force majeure event contemplates a complete blockade of the road due to the floods and not mere reduction of the traffic on a particular road.

The Court set aside an arbitration award passed against NHAI on the ground that the interpretation adopted by the Arbitral Tribunal was contrary to the intent of the parties, therefore, the award would be vulnerable to challenge for being contrary to contractual provisions and would fall within the scope of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.

A Consent Foreign Award Is Enforceable Under The New York Convention: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NUOVOPIGNONE INTERNATIONAL SRL v. CARGO MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 491

The Delhi High Court has held that a consent foreign award is enforceable under the New York Convention/Part II of the A&C Act, 1996.

Justice Yashwant Varma held rejected the argument that consent arbitration award do not fall within the rubric of New York Convention. The Court rejected the argument that an award to be recognized under the Convention must be one based on adjudication as arbitration presupposes adjudication by the tribunal and any award incorporating the settlement agreement entered into by the parties during the pendency of the proceedings would not amount to an award.

Extension Of Period Of Agreement By Written Communications, No Novation, The Arbitration Clause Continues To Be Operative: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Unique Décor (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Synchronized Supply Systems Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 492

The Delhi High Court has held that if the parties have, by written communications, extended the period of agreement, the arbitration clause that was a part of the agreement continues to be operative.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan has distinguished between the situations wherein an arbitration clause expires with the novation of the main agreement and when the arbitration clause continues to be operative when the original agreement is not superseded by any other agreement but extended by the parties through written communications.

Delhi High Court Orders Shifting Of 14-Yr-Old To Children's Home For Safe Delivery After Refusal To Undergo Medical Termination Of Pregnancy

Title: MINOR K THROUGH BROTHER D v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 493

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered shifting of a 14-year-old pregnant minor to a children's home for girls for safe delivery of the child after she and her guardian brother refused to agree to medical termination of her pregnancy.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing a plea moved by the minor through her 22-year-old brother seeking medical termination of her 28 weeks old pregnancy.

The minor got pregnant as a result of physical relations between her and the accused in the FIR registered under sections 366A and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Denies Interim Bail To Manish Sisodia In Money Laundering Case

Title: Manish Sisodia v. ED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 494

The Delhi High Court has denied interim bail to Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the money laundering case related to the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.

Sisodia had sought interim bail for a period of six weeks in view of the poor health condition of his wife.

The court observed that the allegations against Sisodia are extremely serious in nature and that it cannot forget the positions held by him. 

Power To Grant Bail On Medical Grounds Under PMLA Discretionary, Must Be Exercised In Judicious Manner: Delhi High Court

Title: SANJAY JAIN (IN JC) v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 495

The Delhi High Court has observed that the power to grant bail on medical grounds under PMLA is discretionary in nature and must be exercised in a judicious manner after recording satisfaction that necessary circumstances exist warranting exercise of such a discretion.

“The liberty of a person who is accused or convicted of an offence can be curtailed according to procedure established by law. However, right to health is also recognized as an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Merely because a person is an under trial or for that matter even a convict, lodged in jail, this facet of right to life cannot be curtailed. It remains an obligation of the state to provide adequate and effective medical treatment to every person lodged in jail, whether under trial or a convict,” Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.

Delhi High Court Restrains Dabur From Circulating WhatsApp Advertisement On ‘Amla Hair Oil’, Refuses Interim Injunction Against Print Ad

Title: MARICO LIMITED v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 496

The Delhi High Court has recently restrained Indian multinational consumer goods company Dabur from circulating its WhatsApp advertisement on “Dabur Amla Hair Oil” featuring bollywood actor Deepika Padukone.

Justice Navin Chawla passed the order in a suit filed by Marico Limited alleging disparagement of the goodwill and reputation of its product “Nihar Natural Shanti Badam Amla Hair Oil” and registered “Nihar” trade marks.

Arbitration Clause In A Contract Perishes With Its Novation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd v. MIST Avenue Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 497

The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration clause contained in an agreement would perish with its novation if the novated agreement does not contain any arbitration clause.

Justice Prateek Jalan held that the view taken by the arbitral tribunal regarding the non-arbitrability of the dispute due to the novation of the agreement that contained the arbitration clause is a plausible view based on the contractual interpretation of the terms of the agreement, therefore, does not call for any interference under Section 34 of the Act.

Whether Suit For Possession Filed By In-Laws Against Daughter-In-Law Will Be Exclusively Tried By Family Court? Delhi HC's Larger Bench To Decide

Case Title: GA vs TA & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 498

The Delhi High Court has referred the issue of whether a suit for possession or injunction filed by the in-laws against the daughter-in-law concerning the suit property of which they are the exclusive owners, is required to be exclusively tried by the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, 1984, to a larger bench.

The single bench of Justice Navin Chawla made the larger bench reference while hearing a suit for Permanent Injunction filed by the plaintiff against her daughter-in-law, seeking to restrain the later from visiting or entering the suit property.

EPF Pension: Delhi High Court Restrains EPFO From Taking Coercive Steps On Basis Of Recovery Notices For Higher Pension

Title: SHRI PAN SINGH RAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 499

The Delhi High Court recently restrained the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) from taking any coercive steps with respect to the notices issued to various pensioners by it for making recoveries of the differential amount on higher pension received by them from many years.

Justice Rekha Palli passed the interim order in the pleas moved by four pensioners who, after their superannuation from different organizations, were drawing higher pension beyond the ceiling limit based on the options sought by EPFO in 2018/19.

IRCTC Being A State Under A. 12 Is Bound By Its Affidavit Before Any Court Of Law, Cannot File A Contrary Affidavit To Defeat A Claim In Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. M/s Goel & Goel, OMP(COMM) 299 of 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 500

The Delhi High Court has held that IRCTC is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is bound by its affidavit before any court of law and it cannot file contrary affidavit before the arbitral tribunal to defeat a claim of the other party in arbitration.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also held that an arbitration award cannot be challenged on the grounds of lack of evidence for award of damages when the parties agreed to not lead any evidence at all at the beginning of the arbitration.

Moreover, it reiterated that a plea of fact or law not taken before the tribunal cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Court under Section 34 of the Act.

Political Clearance Granted To Atishi Marlena For Official Visit To UK: Union Govt To Delhi High Court

Case Title: Atishi Marlena v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 501

The Union Government informed the Delhi High Court that political clearance has been granted to Delhi’s Education Minister Atishi Marlena for her official visit to the United Kingdom.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh disposed of Marlena’s plea seeking direction on the Union of India to process all requisite clearances. She has been invited in her official capacity by Cambridge University to speak at a conference on “India at 100: Towards Becoming a Global Leader” to be held on June 15.

Plea That The Arbitrator Is De Jure Ineligible Can Be Raised As An Additional Ground To Challenge Award, Even Without Amendment Of S. 34 Petition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Man Industries (India) Limited vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 502

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that the Arbitrator is de jure ineligible to act as an Arbitrator is a plea of lack of jurisdiction. This plea can be allowed to be raised as an additional ground in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), by way of an amendment and even without the same, the court has held.

Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while allowing the amendment application seeking to add an additional ground to challenge the arbitral award, even though the said application was filed much beyond the limitation period prescribed in Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. In its amendment application, the petitioner sought to raise the additional ground that the Arbitrator was de jure ineligible to act as such in view of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.

Haj Pilgrimage Falls Within Ambit Of Religious Practice, Protected Under Article 25: Delhi High Court

Title: AL TAWAF HAJJ AND UMRAH TRAVEL AND TOURISM v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 503

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Haj pilgrimage falls within the ambit of religious practice and is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

“Haj Pilgrimage and the ceremonies involved therein fall within the ambit of a religious practice, which is protected by the Constitution of India. Religious freedoms are one of the most cherished rights guaranteed and enshrined under the Constitution in line with the vision of the founding fathers of the Modern Indian Republic. The religious freedom of the person is guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 25,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.

Delhi High Court Directs Northern Railway, Contractor To Pay Over ₹23 Lakh To Parents Of 12-Yr-Old Boy Who Died After Falling In Unprotected Pit

Title: SHARAFAT KHAN & ANOTHER v. NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 504

The Delhi High Court has directed the Northern Railway and a contractor, who was engaged for construction work of a rainy well, to pay over Rs. 23 lakhs compensation to parents of a 12 years old boy who died after falling and drowning in the pit in 2013.

A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain directed that the compensation be paid along with simple interest @ 6% from date of filing of the petition which was moved by the parents in 2019, till realization of compensation within three months.

AICTE Regulations 2007 Can’t Be Forced On Universities To Compulsorily Provide For Admissions Through Lateral Entry: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shivam Chaudhary & Ors. vs All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 505

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Lateral Entry Regulations, 2007 cannot be construed to be mandatory in nature to mean that all institutions must grant admission through lateral entry.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the observation in the judgment on a writ petition seeking a direction to Public Universities to provide admission through the lateral entry process to second year B.Tech. programme to diploma holders in engineering and technology, as per the 2007 Lateral Entry Regulations laid down by AICTE.

Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Reconsider Travelport UK’s Refund Adjustment

Case Title: Travelport International Operations Limited United Kingdom Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 3 N.Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 506

The Delhi High Court has directed the department to reconsider Travelport UK’s refund adjustment on the basis of the contents of the writ petition.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has set aside the department’s action in adjusting a sum of Rs. 6,27,20,736 under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act and remanded the matter to the concerned authority to decide afresh, within a period of four weeks.

Delhi HC Restrains Various Entities From Selling Goods Bearing The Trade Marks “Aquaguard” Of Eureka Forbes Limited

Title: EUREKA FORBES LIMITED (FORMERLY FORBES ENVIRO SOLU v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 507

Grating relief to Eureka Forbes Limited, the Delhi High Court recently restrained several entities from selling counterfeit goods such as filters, spares and consumables bearing the trade marks “Aquaguard”, “Aquasfilter”, and “Active Copper Maxx” of Eureka Forbes Limited (EFL).

Justice Amit Bansal was of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the EFL, and the balance of convenience is in their favour. 

Justice Bansal further opined that irreparable harm would be caused not only to EFL, but also to the public at large if an ex-parte ad interim injunction is not granted in favour of EFL.