Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: March 21 To March 27, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241NOMINAL INDEXANKUR MUTREJA v. AVIATION EMPLOYEES BUILDING SOCIETY LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215Om Sehgal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 216M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT v. M.J. PRASAD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 217POONAM v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 218KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 219SETTU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 220Radha Bisht v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 221Ericsson India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 222ANIL KUMAR @ NILLU v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 223OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR v. ANJANI GUPTA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 224Mayur Batra Versus ACIT And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 225ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC v. MR. SURJEET LAL & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 226x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 227ALOK KUMAR TIWARI v. MAMTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 228x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 229Sushil Kumar Dhar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 230M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 232KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 233KENT RO SYSTEM LTD. & ANR. v. GATTUBHAI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 234IMAGINE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S GREEN ACCESSORIES THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 236UNION OF INDIA v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 237GURJIT SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 238FOOMILL PVT. LTD. v. AFFLE (INDIA) LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 239SANJAY GUPTA v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 240UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. SH D.C. CHATURVEDI & ANR. and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241JUDGMENTS/ ORDERS THIS WEEK1. 'Apprehension Must Be Real': Delhi High Court Imposes 25K Cost On Litigant Alleging Judicial Bias Without Any MaterialCase Title: ANKUR MUTREJA v. AVIATION EMPLOYEES BUILDING SOCIETY LTDCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215Calling it an extreme example of abuse of process, the Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on a litigant who had accused a Trial Court judge of being biased against him. The High Court opined that the allegations were levelled without any material.Justice C Hari Shankar was of the view that though the standard of bias is one of apprehension rather than of proof, the apprehension has to be real and not merely chimerical or fanciful or a method to somehow try one's luck before another Court.Furthermore, the Court said that every judicial officer is expected to act without fear or favour, affection or ill will and that it is the solemn oath which every judicial officer subscribes to, at the time of entering into his office.2. Delhi High Court Refuses To Hear Plea For Recovery Of ₹1 Trillion Debt Allegedly Owed By Pakistan To IndiaCase Title: Om Sehgal v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 216The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking recovery of ₹1 trillion debt allegedly owed by Pakistan to India. Stating that the plea involves issues pertaining to government policy, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla refused to interfere in the matter.Om Sehgal, party in person, produced several documents to argue that India has loaned approximately ₹300 crore to Pakistan, popularly known as 'Pre-partition Debt'. He claimed that the sum to be repaid with interest now amounts to over 1 trillion rupees. However, it is averred that Pakistan has not paid even a single installment of debt or interest for any single year during past 75 years. Nevertheless, India has still not declared the debt as NPA.He therefore sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Finance to take immediate steps for recovery of the sum, allegedly being used to "attack India".3. Regional Labour Commissioner Cannot Exercise Adjudicatory Powers In Proceedings Under Sec. 33(1) Of Industrial Disputes Act: Delhi High CourtTitle: M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT v. M.J. PRASAD & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 217The Delhi High Court has observed that the Regional Labour Commissioner has limited powers in proceedings under sec. 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and cannot exercise adjudicatory powers to ascertain whether the benefits claimed were due in the first place or not.Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a petition challenging the orders dated 30th October, 2019, 27th July, 2020, and 20th August, 2020 by which notice for recovery for a sum of Rs.1,95,980 and for attachment of property under Sections 136 and 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, were issued to the Petitioner Management by the SDM, Delhi Cantt. and by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Delhi.It was the case of the Workman that the recovery of the said sum constitutes the amounts payable to him, towards...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: March 21 To March 27, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags