Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 13 To November 19

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141NOMINAL INDEXMadhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115 Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116 Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117 Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1118 Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119 Union of India & Anr. v. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1120 SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121 Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax LiveLaw (Del) 1122 Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123 RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124 DR ZAHEER AHMED v. PREETI SUDAN SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1125 PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126 ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127 Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128 MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129 ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1130 Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1131 AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132 MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1133 MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134 Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1135 Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136 Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137 INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138 ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1139 MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140 BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1141Continuing To Contest The Suit Does Not Waive The Right To Arbitration When A Section 8 Objection Was Raised In Written Submissions And Arguments: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe LtdCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot be deemed to have waived off its right to arbitration merely because it continued to contest the suit when it had specifically raised objection to the maintainability of the suit due to the presence of the arbitration agreement.The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that when a party takes a specific objection predicated on Section 8 in the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) seeking leave to defend the suit and that objection, thereafter, is reiterated in the written statement and arguments. It cannot be said that the party has waived the right to arbitration.Before Issuing Summons U/S 138 NI Act, Only Prima Facie View On Presence Of Basic Ingredients Of The Offence Necessary: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil ChaudharyCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently upheld summoning orders passed in a complaint case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that evidence need not be gone into by the MM while conducting inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of NI Act.“At the stage of issuance of summons, for the purpose of Section 202 of the CrPC read with section 145 of the NI Act, the learned MM is only required to examine whether the basic ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been prima facie made out by the complainant and supported by the pre-summoning evidence led on behalf of the complainant.”No Separate Application Under Section 8 Of The A&C Act Is Required When The Objection Is Duly Raised In The Written Submissions: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe LtdCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117The Delhi High Court has held that once a party has duly taken objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit due to the presence of the arbitration clause between the parties in its written statement, it would be sufficient compliance of Section 8 of the A&C Act and there is no need for a separate application.The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that once an arbitration clause has been extracted by a party in its written submission to object to the jurisdiction of the Court, the mere fact that the party did not separately request that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration, would be of little consequence. Interested Party Cannot Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally, Award Passed By An Ineligible...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 13 To November 19

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 13 To November 19

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers