Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 30 To November 5, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1040 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

NOMINAL INDEX

Ajay Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

PCIT Versus Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

CIT Versus Indus Towers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. A B SUGARS LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

SUSHANT KUMAR v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATEL TRADING AS RAKESH PHARMACEUTICALS v. SSS PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. Dabico Airport Solutions Private Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

SATPAL SINGH v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

Vasudev Garg v. Embassay Commercial Project 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

Unison Hotel v. Value Line Interiors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

PCIT Versus M/S Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

AJEET SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

ASHOK AGARWAL v. UOI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

UTTIM LAL SINGH UOI & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

POOJA V . SHAH v. BANK OF INDIA & Other Connected Matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

MOHD NASIM v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

Seema v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

New Balance Athletics Inc. v. New Balance Immigration Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

S.427 CrPC | Delhi High Court Directs Sentence Of Man Convicted For Rape And Abetment Of Suicide To Run Concurrently, Not Consecutively

Case Title: Ajay Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. to a man convicted of rape (S. 376 IPC) and abetment of suicide (S. 306 IPC), holding that the causal facts giving rise to the two offences were intrinsically intertwined and could not be segregated into two distinct sets.

The judgment came to be passed in response to an oral application made by the appellant-accused to the effect that his two sentences (RI for 10 years u/s 376 IPC and RI for 7 years u/s 306 IPC) be directed to run ‘concurrently’ instead of ‘consecutively’.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Recruitment: Delhi High Court Directs KVS To Provide 4% Reservation To Disabled Persons Including 1% To Hearing Impaired

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

The Delhi High Court has directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to provide 4% reservation to the disabled persons in respect of the total vacancies, including 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons.

“The exercise of appointing disabled persons, including deaf and hard of hearing persons be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said. 

Transfer Pricing | Delhi High Court Excludes Comparables On The Basis Of Functional Dissimilarity

Case Title: PCIT Versus Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

The Delhi High Court has excluded the comparables on the basis of functional dissimilarity in the transfer pricing case.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia excluded three comparables, namely Infobeans Technologies Ltd., Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd., citing clear reasons for their exclusion.

Delhi High Court Allows Income Tax Deduction On Upfront Loan Processing Fee To Indus Towers

Case Title: PCIT Versus Indus Towers Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

The Delhi High Court has allowed income tax deduction on the upfront loan processing fee to the assessee, Indus Towers.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that merely because the loan processing charges were paid upfront but amortized over a period of five years, solely to be in consonance with the mercantile system of accounting, the deduction of the entire charges in a lump sum in the year in which they were paid could not be denied to the respondent or assessee.

'Indian Stag' Liquor Deceptively Similar To ‘Royal Stag’ But No Case Of Passing Off Since Former Only Exported: Delhi High Court

Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. A B SUGARS LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

The Delhi High Court has confirmed an interim order passed in 2019 restraining two manufacturers/sellers from dealing in liquor and alcoholic beverages under the mark “Indian Stag” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Indian whiskey brand “Royal Stag”.

Justice C. Hari Shankar said that the interim order passed by a co-ordinate bench on July 25, 2019 shall remain confirmed pending the disposal of the trademark infringement suit.

Failed Relationship No Ground For Lodging Rape FIR: Delhi High Court

Title: SUSHANT KUMAR v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

The Delhi High Court has observed that if a romantic relationship does not work out, it cannot be a ground of lodging a rape case.

“It is a settled law that if a relationship does not work out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed.

The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a government employee accusing of making physical relations with a woman on the false pretext of marrying her.

Competent Court Can Examine Valuation Of IPR Suit Below ₹3 Lakhs, Transfer To Commercial Courts Not Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATEL TRADING AS RAKESH PHARMACEUTICALS v. SSS PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that it would be open for the competent court to examine the “declared specified value” and the value ascribed to the reliefs claimed in an IPR suit if it is pegged below Rs. 3 lakhs, adding that its undervaluation would have to be evaluated based on the facts of each case.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that the exercise can be legally undertaken by the competent court itself and that such matters need not be transferred to commercial courts for the purpose of value evaluation.

Appointment Of Local Commissioner Cannot Be Sought By One Party To Marshal Better Evidence Against Another: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. Dabico Airport Solutions Private Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

In an application seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner (LC), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that such appointments cannot be sought by parties to equip themselves with ‘best evidence’ in their case against others.

Speaking of Order 26 Rule 10A CPC which empowers a court to issue commissions, Justice C. Hari Shankar said that the provision was invocable only where the court believed that (i) determination of issue(s) in the suit involved scientific investigation, (ii) such scientific investigation could not be conveniently conducted before the court and, (iii) it was necessary or expedient in the interests of justice to issue the commission to conduct the scientific investigation.

Can’t Let Economic Circumstances Of Parents Become ‘Death Warrants’ For Their Daughters In Matrimonial Homes: Delhi High Court On Dowry Death

Title: SATPAL SINGH v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

The judicial system cannot stand by and allow the economic circumstances of a girl's parents to become death warrants and sentences for their daughters in their matrimonial homes, the Delhi High Court has observed while dealing with a dowry death case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that to subject a woman to a life akin to a slave merely because of her marital status is an egregious injustice.

Designation Of Venue Of Arbitration Tantamount To Seat Of Arbitration In Absence Of A Significant Contrary Indicia: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Vasudev Garg v. Embassay Commercial Project

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

The Delhi High Court has held that the venue of arbitration would actually be the seat of arbitration when the agreement does not contain any contrary indicia. It held that clause proving for venue of arbitration would have a superseding effect over a clause providing for exclusive jurisdiction on any other Court if the parties have expressly made the latter subject to the former.

Decide Hindu Sena President’s Representation On ‘Wrong Historical Facts’ About Taj Mahal: Delhi High Court To ASI

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

The Delhi High Court has asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to decide a representation submitted by the President of NGO Hindu Sena alleging that there are “wrong historical facts” in public domain regarding construction of Taj Mahal by Shahajahan.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL filed by President Surjit Singh Yadav seeking removal of allegedly “wrong historical facts” on the monument’s construction by Shahjahan from the history books in schools and colleges.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Award Passed In Defiance Of Supreme Court Order

Case Title: Unison Hotel v. Value Line Interiors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award for having been passed in defiance of the order of the Supreme Court. It held that such an award would be against the public policy and that if the arbitral tribunal is allowed to defy the order of the Supreme Court, it would violate principle of Judicial discipline.

Delhi High Court Upholds ITAT’s Decision On Selection Of Comparables For Determination Of Arm’s Length Price Of An International Transaction

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

The Delhi High Court had upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the selection of comparables for the determination of the arm’s length price of an international transaction.

The Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the Tribunal not only followed the previous orders mentioned above to maintain consistency but also examined the entire material on record to ascertain the comparability of each of the comparables with the case of the respondent or assessee pertaining to AY 2007–08.

Child Sexual Abuse Serious Issue, Perpetrators Should Be Adequately Punished Irrespective Of Background, Domestic Responsibilities: Delhi High Court

Title: AJEET SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

The Delhi High Court has observed that the child sexual abuse is a serious issue, being “pervasive and disturbing”, which deserves adequate attention of every stakeholder directly or indirectly connected with administration of justice and judicial process.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that the issue requires to be addressed with lot of sensitivity and sensibility, adding that it is the solemn duty of the court to award adequate punishment to the accused, irrespective of his social, economic background or other domestic responsibilities.

High Court Directs Delhi Govt, MCD To Strictly Comply With Recent Supreme Court Ruling On Manual Scavenging

Title: ASHOK AGARWAL v. UOI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other civic authorities in the national capital to strictly comply with a recent Supreme Court ruling which called for a complete eradication of the practice of manual scavenging.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the authorities to comply with a last month judgment in Balram Singh v. Union of India and Others wherein the Apex Court directed that the compensation in cases of sewer deaths must be increased to Rs.30 lakhs.

Delhi HC Expresses Displeasure With Police, Hospitals For Not Ensuring Prompt Medical Examination Of Rape Victim Seeking To Terminate Pregnancy

Title: MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

The Delhi High Court has expressed strong displeasure over non-compliance of its directions regarding medical termination of pregnancy of rape victims by the Delhi Police and hospitals in the national capital, observing that it is being complied with only on paper but not in spirit.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the directions were passed in January keeping in mind that every day, every hour, every minute of pregnancy which is a result of sexual assault, is not only traumatic and affects the psychological health of a victim and her family, but also is critical for her physical health and welfare, in case its termination is to take place.

Delhi High Court Refuses To "Throttle" ED Probe At Summons Stage Against Man Who Transacted With Lalu Yadav's Family

Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

While denying relief to a man seeking copy of ECIR in a money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has said that it cannot throttle the investigative process of the Enforcement Directorate at the stage of issuance of summons under PMLA.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea moved by one Amit Katyal, who was not named as an accused in the land for job scam case, seeking quashing of ECIR and a summon issued by ED.

‘Lackadaisical Approach’: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20K Cost On Centre For Failing To Pay Pension To 96 -Yr-Old Freedom Fighter

Title: UTTIM LAL SINGH UOI & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 20,000 cost on the Union Government for its lackadaisical approach and failure to pay “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension” to a 96 years old freedom fighter, who participated in Quit India Movement and other movements associated with the country’s independence.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the inaction of the Central Government is an insult to the freedom fighter Uttim Lal Singh, who was declared as a proclaimed offender, and that his entire land would have been attached in the proceedings initiated by the British Government.

RTI Act | Penalty Imposed On Public Information Officers For Delay In Reply Depends On 'Malice': Delhi High Court

Title: POOJA V . SHAH v. BANK OF INDIA & Other Connected Matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Right to Information Act, 2005, only specifies the maximum limit of penalty to be imposed on Public Information Officers and the said amount may vary depending on malice and degree of inaction on the officials’ part in not providing the information.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though Section 20 of the RTI Act stipulates a maximum penalty of Rs.250 per day to be imposed on the Public Information Officer, however, it does not mean that the maximum penalty has to be imposed on the official.

Road Accident Being 'Unforeseen' No Ground To Let Off Offender For Rash And Negligent Driving: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD NASIM v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

The Delhi High Court has observed that happening of a road accident is an unforeseen incident but it cannot be a ground to let off the offender.

“The happening of an accident is an unforeseen incident but it cannot be a ground to let off the offender. The accident may render the entire family of the deceased in state of destitution,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said.

Commence Procurement Of Medicines For Children With Rare Diseases For Whom Evaluations Are Completed: Delhi High Court To AIIMS

Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

The Delhi High Court has directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to commence the process of procurement of medicines for children with rare diseases, for whom evaluations have been completed and who are amenable to treatment, as per the fund of Rs. 50 lakhs allocated per patient in terms of the Rare Diseases Policy.

Justice Prathiba M Singh took note of a report submitted by AIIMS stating that out of the total 32 patients, 14 patients were amenable to treatment, 17 patients were not amenable to treatment and one 1 was under evaluation.

Delhi High Court Allows Daughter Longing To See 90-Yrs-Old Mother To Meet For 10 Minutes

Case Title: Seema v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur on Thursday took a sympathetic view in a daughter’s habeas corpus plea in respect of her mother.

The petitioner-daughter had filed the petition stating that her mother was initially residing with her. However, sometime back, her brother had taken their mother to reside with him.

Delhi High Court Declares “New Balance” And “NB” Trademarks Of US-Footwear Apparel Brand As 'Well-Known'

Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. New Balance Immigration Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court recently declared footwear and apparel brand New Balance’s marks as well-known. It was clarified, however, that there shall be no monopoly in the words “New” and “Balance” if used separately in respect of any other goods or services.

“…the mark “NEW BALANCE” is a unique combination of two distinctive words i.e. “New” and “Balance” which have no connection, allusion or description of the products of the services offered by the Plaintiff. The logo [NB] is also quite distinctive and has been repeatedly enforced by the Court orders against misuse. The global reputation of the Plaintiff’s marks have been proved on record”, the court said.