Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 23 To September 29, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1078NOMINAL INDEXMr. Sujit Kumar Vs. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And And 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044 Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1045 SUDARSHAN v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1046 MANISH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1047 MODERN MOLD PLAST PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. FLIPKART INTERNET PT. LTD. & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1048 Singhal Singh Rawat versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax (CGST) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1049 SHAHI IDGAH MANAGING COMMITTEE v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1050 MS RAJESH WADHWA AND ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. and other connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1051 X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1052 ABHISHEK YADAV v. DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1053 X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1054 RAJEEV KUMAR vs. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1055 DIRECTOR GENERAL, PROJECT VARSHA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY), UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI v. M/S NAVAYUGA-VAN OORD JV 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1056 Christian Michel James v. CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1057 Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1058 ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1059 Abhinav Jindal HUF versus ITO 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1060 Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1061 Poonam Mittal v. Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1062 Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1063 Rajiv Oberoi vs. Rajesh Gupta 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1064 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. RAHIL HITESHBHAI CHOVATIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1065 SHUBHAM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1066 SHWETA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1067 Fresh Pet Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1068 International Hospital vs. DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1069 GEETA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1070 RAVI KUMAR Versus DEPARTMENT OF SPACE AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1071 STATE THROUGH RPF v. DHARMENDRA @ DHARMA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1072 Arn Infrastructures India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. (and connected matters) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1073 Director of Income Tax versus ANZ Grindlays Bank 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1074 Sanat Kumar v/s Sanjay Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1075 Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1076 EX CHAA MOHAMMED ZULKARNAIN, 550032-Z v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1077 PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK v. SH. RAJ KUMAR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1078 Delhi High Court Quashes POCSO Charges Against 19-Yr Old Boy For Consensual Relationship With Minor GirlCase title: Mr. Sujit Kumar Vs. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And AndCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1044The Delhi High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a 19-year old man for offence of rape against a 17-year old girl by taking into account the circumstances of the case, including that the accused and minor had entered into sexual relations consensually, begotten a child together and that the minor's mother had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.The Court noted that the minor girl is staying with her parents along with her child and stated that if FIR is not quashed, it would “adversely affect the minor child who needs protection and care from his parents, and destroy the lives of three individuals, the couple and the new born.”Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Rule Mandating Preservation Of Unused Embryos Solely For Original-RecipientTitle: Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1045The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea challenging the Rule which mandates that all unused gametes or embryos shall be preserved by the assisted reproductive technology clinic for use on the same recipient and shall not be used for any other couple or woman.Vulnerable Witnesses Must Be Protected From Unnecessary Re-Traumatisation In Sensitive Cases: Delhi High CourtTitle: SUDARSHAN v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1046While dealing with a case under the POCSO Act, the Delhi High Court has observed that vulnerable witnesses must be protected from unnecessary re-traumatization, particularly in sensitive cases.Emphasising that recalling a victim for additional cross-examination is not a matter to be taken lightly, Justice Amit Mahajan said:“When a victim, especially a child or someone of tender age, is recalled to the stand, they are compelled to relive the traumatic events associated with the incident. Such repeated questioning can result in significant emotional distress and further psychological harm.”S.125 CrPC | Wife Not Disentitled To Claim Maintenance Merely Because She Seeks Divorce:...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 23 To September 29, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags