Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 25 To March 31, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384

NOMINAL INDEX

Techno Compact Builders v. Railtel Corporation of India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360

Rani Construction v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 361a

Dharamvir & Company v. DDA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 362

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del)

MANJU PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS WAZIRPUR & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 364

WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW PUNJABI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 365

PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD v. SANJAY JAIN & ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 366

KIRTI v. RENU ANAND & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 367

ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 368

GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 369

AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 370

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 371

ARPIT BHARGAVA v. GNCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 372

SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 373

PCIT Versus Rashmi Rajiv Mehta 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 374

JIYA THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MS. SUSHMA v. MAHARAJA AGRASEN MODEL SCHOOL & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 375

Department Of Transport Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs Green City Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 376

Psa Protech And Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Food Corporation Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 377

Vijay Kumar Mishra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Vijay Kumar Mishra vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 378

Nbcc India Ltd Vs Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 379

Oriel Financial Solutions v. Bestech Advisors Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 380

Fusionnet Web Services v. Yash Fiber Network 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 381

M/S Delhi Msw Solutions Limited vs Amity Software Systems Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 382

Manju Gupta & Ors. Vs Shri Vilas Gupta & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 383

Jetibai Grandsons Services India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384

Panel Consisting Of 23 Names Cannot Be Considered Broad-Based If It Lacks Arbitrators From Different Backgrounds: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Techno Compact Builders v. Railtel Corporation of India Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360

The High Cout of Delhi has held that a panel consisting of 23 names cannot be considered broad-based if lacks arbitrators from different backgrounds.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that a panel must not only be broad in terms of numbers but should also reflect diversity by having arbitrators from diverse backgrounds.

Membership Of An Arbitral Institution Cannot Be Insisted Upon As A Pre-Requisite For Invoking Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rani Construction v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 361

The High Court of Delhi has held the membership of an arbitral institution cannot be insisted upon as a pre-requisite for invoking arbitration.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that when parties agree to resolve their dispute through an arbitral institution, such an agreement cannot be construed to mean that they have agreed to take its membership.

Mere Delay By Employer Would Not Entitle The Contractor To Damages Unless The Loss Is Pleaded And Proved: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Dharamvir & Company v. DDA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 362

The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the delay in the execution of the work is attributable to the employer, the same would not entitle the contractor to claim damages unless it pleads and proves that such delay resulted in loss to it.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a procedural order passed by the earlier arbitrator, not being a final decision on the merits, does not preclude the substitute arbitrator from deciding the claims on their merits. It held that an order cannot be treated as an interim award when the issue was left to be decided on the merits at a later stage.

Delhi High Court Passes Dynamic+ Injunction, Restrains Rogue Websites From Illegally Streaming IPL Events

Title: VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 363

The Delhi High Court has passed a dynamic+ injunction order and restrained various rogue websites from illegally streaming Indian Premier League (IPL) events without authorisation of Viacom 18.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the legal remedies must remain robust and effective in curtailing copyright infringement, particularly in the fast-paced environment of the internet.

High Court Directs Delhi Police To Ensure Complainants' Personal Information Is Not Put In Pubic Domain On ZIPNET To Avoid Cyber Crimes

Title: MANJU PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS WAZIRPUR & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 364

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to ensure that vital personal information of the complainants in missing cases is not put in the public domain on ZIPNET (Zonal Integrated Police Network) to eliminate the possibility of extortion calls by cybercriminals.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to issue necessary directions to the said effect.

Delhi High Court Restrains Food Outlet From Using 'WOW PUNJABI' Trademark In Infringement Suit By 'WOW! MOMO'

Title: WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW PUNJABI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 365

The Delhi High Court has restrained a food outlet from using the “WOW PUNJABI” mark after the famous eatery WOW! MOMO sued it over trademark infringement.

Justice Anish Dayal said WOW! MOMO made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction in its favour and that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the relief is not granted.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel Registration Of 'Kwikheal' Trademark In Plea By 'Fevikwick'

Title: PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD v. SANJAY JAIN & ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 366

The Delhi High Court has refused to cancel the registration of the “Kwikheal” trademark and dismissed a plea filed by Pidilite Industries Limited, an Indian adhesives manufacturing company based in Mumbai.

Justice Anish Dayal observed that even though Pidilite has a statutory right in its registered mark “Fevikwik”, it does not confer an exclusive right over part of the mark in “Kwik.”

Orders Passed By Tribunals Under Senior Citizens Act Also Amenable To Challenge Under Article 227: Delhi High Court

Title: KIRTI v. RENU ANAND & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 367

The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders passed by the tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora relied upon various judgments on the issue and observed that the orders passed by the tribunals as well as the judicial acts by administrative bodies or authorities or persons exercising quasi-judicial functions are all amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

No Interim Relief To Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi High Court Issues Notice To ED On Plea Challenging Arrest And Remand

Case Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 368

The Delhi High Court today issued notice on a plea moved by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and six days of remand in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma however declined the sitting CM any relief for now and issued notice on his interim application seeking immediate release.

Delhi High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Allotment Of Properties Based On 'Forged Documents', Says L&BD And DDA Eroded Public Trust

Title: GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 369

The Delhi High Court has referred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the probe into allotment of various properties on prime locations in the national capital based on “forged recommendation letters” by Land and Building Department (L&BD) and subsequent unauthorised property allocations by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the probe agency to conduct a thorough investigation in respect of all the allotments made on forged documents and take action in accordance with law.

Notify Guidelines To Make Cinema More Accessible For Visually, Hearing Impaired Persons Before July 15: Delhi High Court To MIB

Case Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 370

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to finalize and notify on or before July 15 the guidelines for making cinema more accessible for visually and hearing impaired individuals.

Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the guidelines shall make the provision of accessibility features mandatory in feature films and provide a reasonable period for compliance by all stakeholders, in an expeditious manner.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Another Plea By Congress Party Against Tax Re-Assessment Of Four Years

Title: INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and other connected matters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 371

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by the Indian National Congress against the initiation of income tax re-assessment proceedings against it for four years (2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21) by the tax authorities.

A division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav rejected four pleas filed by the Indian National Congress on similar terms as its earlier judgment whereby identical pleas of the political party were dismissed regarding the reassessment proceedings for three years (2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17).

Decide Plea Seeking Wi-Fi Access For All Stakeholders In District Courts Within 8 Weeks: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: ARPIT BHARGAVA v. GNCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 372

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Delhi Government to treat as representation a PIL seeking seamless Wi-Fi access in all district courts in the national capital for the benefit of all stakeholders, including judges, lawyers, media persons and litigants.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the Delhi Government to decide the representation within eight weeks by way of a speaking order, in accordance with law.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL For Removal Of Arvind Kejriwal From Post Of Chief Minister

Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 373

The Delhi High Court has rejected a PIL seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case, from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said the petitioner failed to show any bar in the law which prohibits the arrested CM from holding office. "Show us, where is the prohibition. Show us any legal bar which you're canvassing," the CJ orally said.

Addition Solely Based On Photocopy Of Sale Agreement Is Completely Unjustifiable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Rashmi Rajiv Mehta

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 374

The Delhi High Court has held that an addition solely based on a photocopy of the sale agreement is completely unwarranted and unjustifiable.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the entire foundation of the addition was laid down on the basis of the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell. The original copy of the document has not seen the light of day. There is no other evidence to support the veracity of the recitals made in the alleged agreement. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a sustainable basis for adding to the income of the assessee.

Article 21A Does Not Confer Constitutional Right On Any Child To Be Educated In Particular School Of Choice: Delhi High Court

Title: JIYA THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MS. SUSHMA v. MAHARAJA AGRASEN MODEL SCHOOL & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 375

The Delhi High Court has observed that Article 21A of the Constitution of India is only for free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen and does not confer on any child a constitutional right to be educated in a particular school of his or her choice.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that such a right would arise only if the child applies to the Directorate of Education (DoE) as an EWS (economically weaker section) student for admission in the entry level class for that year and is shortlisted in the computerized draw of lots.

Condonation Of Delay Re- Filing S. 34, A&C Act Application Must Be Allowed If Delay Is Procedural And Curable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Department Of Transport Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs Green City Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 376

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that not every defect leads to the dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and took a liberal approach for condonation of delay. It held that defects were not fundamental in nature and could be termed as curable or procedural.

Application Under Section 29A A&C Can Be Allowed Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Psa Protech And Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Food Corporation Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 377

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be allowed even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

Section 29A deals with the time limit for arbitral award. It specifies that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference. However, parties may extend this period by mutual consent for up to six months.

Sec. 11, A&C Act Petition Must Be Filed In High Court Where Cause Of Action Arose, Not Necessarily At Principle Place Of Business: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Mishra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Vijay Kumar Mishra vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 378

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that such a petition should be filed at the place of the subordinate office of the corporation.

“In the present case as well, the subordinate office of the respondent is situated at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and for the said reason, the State of Madhya Pradesh will have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

MSMED Act | Service Supplier Registered During Ongoing Contract Can Avail Benefits For Services Provided After Registration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nbcc India Ltd Vs Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 379

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a service supplier, upon registering during an ongoing contract, is eligible to avail benefits under the MSMED Act for services provided after registration. It held that it is always open to the arbitrator to decide this issue even as a preliminary issue.

No Writ Against Order Of Tribunal Rejecting Application U/S 16 Of The A&C Act Unless It Shocks The Conscience Of The Court: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Oriel Financial Solutions v. Bestech Advisors Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 380

The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal rejecting an application challenging its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the A&C Act cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless the order is so perverse that it shocks the conscience of the Court.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad reiterated that to protect the sanctity of the arbitral process, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with an order of the arbitral tribunal in exercise of their writ jurisdiction.

Telecom Services - Franchisee Agreement, Not Subject To TDSAT Jurisdiction, Delhi High Court Refers Dispute To Arbitration

Case Title: Fusionnet Web Services v. Yash Fiber Network

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 381

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a mere franchisee responsible for promotion of services provided by the petitioner, ergo, it does not fall under the definitions of licensee, licensor, service provider, or group of consumers as per the TRAI Act. It held that bar under Section 14 only applies in relation to telecommunication services and not to every agreement involving a service provider.

Section 37 A&C | Explanation For Delay Of 191 Days Is Sketchy And Doesn't Corelate Any Event To Specific Dates: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Delhi Msw Solutions Limited vs Amity Software Systems Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 382

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay of 191 days for petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that explanation provided for the delay was sketchy and did not corelate any event to specific dates or time period.

Delhi High Court Directs Arbitrator To Refund 6 Lakh Of 14.5 Lakh Fee Paid By Parties

Case Title: Smt. Manju Gupta & Ors. Vs Shri Vilas Gupta & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 383

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed the arbitrator to refund Rs.6,00,000- of the fees of Rs.14,50,000/- paid by the parties to the arbitrator noting the arbitrator had conducted a total of twelve hearings, of which only three resulted in substantive orders. Moreover, the bench noted that the issues in the arbitral proceedings had not yet been framed, and the arbitral proceedings had been on hold for over a year.

Second Petition Can't Be Filed If First Petition Challenging ITC Reversal Is Unconditionally Withdrawn: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jetibai Grandsons Services India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384

The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner, having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, is precluded from filing the fresh petition seeking the same relief that was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner.