- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Delhi High Court Monthly Digest:...
Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 266 - 387]
Nupur Thapliyal
6 May 2022 9:15 AM GMT
![Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 266 - 387]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408682-delhi-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 266 - 387]")
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 387NOMINAL INDEXSacheerome Advanced Technologies (SAT) versus NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NECI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266RANA AYYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 267LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 268DR NAND KISHORE GARG v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del)...
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 387
NOMINAL INDEX
Sacheerome Advanced Technologies (SAT) versus NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NECI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266
RANA AYYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 267
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 268
DR NAND KISHORE GARG v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 269
IRCON International Limited v. GPT-Rahee JV 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 270
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Teracom Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 271
India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (ITDC) versus Bougainvillea Multipex & Entertainment Centre Pvt Ltd (BMEL) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 272
Mother Sparsh Baby Care Pvt Ltd v. Aayush Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 273
M/S KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (COAL SALES) LTD. v. MMTC LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 274
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. PREM BHUTANI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 275
Kirti Lata v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 276
Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 277
Vijay Kumar Munjal V. Pawan Kumar Munjal 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 278
SHALEN BHARDWAJ (ADVOCATE) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 279
Mahavir Prasad Gupta versus Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 280
SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. UNFADING OPC PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 281
GIAN CHAND BANSIWAL v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 282
AMAN VACHAR v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 283
MAMTA v. RISHIPAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 284
Glocaledge Consultants Pvt Ltd versus Rec Power Distribution Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 285
V. P. SINGH @ VIJENDER PAL SINGH v. STATE AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 286
The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Union Of India And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 287
Dr. Vidyottma Jha v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 288
American Express India Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 289
Ajay Singh v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 290
Virtual Perception Opc Pvt Ltd versus Panasonic India Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 291
Shailendra Kumar Yadav V State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 292
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited versus Naveen Kachru Proprieter of M/S South Delhi Motorcycle & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 293
CIT (E) Versus India HIV Aids Alliance 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 294
SHIVAM SONI v. STATE(GNCTD) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 295
ANNIE GURMEHER KAUR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 296
Ecogreen Energy Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 297
Case Title: ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 298
Case Title: HTC CORPORATION v. MR. LV DEGAO & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 299
Case Title: Aarin through her next friend and natural father Sh. Pawan Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan& Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 300
Case Title: Red Bull AG v PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 301
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi versus Hamdard National Foundation (India) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 302
Case Title: Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 303
Case Title: MANSI GUPTA v. PREM AMAR & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 304
Title: RAJENDER KUMAR SETHI & ANR. v. M/S V.G. MARKETING PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 305
Case Title: Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 306
Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports versus Agility Logistic Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 307
Case Title: NASTOR FARIRAI ZISO v. NCB 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 308
Case Title: SUNIL TOMAR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 309
Case Title: Richie Rich Exim Solutions versus Commissioner of CGST Delhi South 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 310
Case Title: Alstom Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojeccts Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 311
Case Title: Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 312
Case Title: SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 313
Case Title: SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD v. HETERO HEALTHCARE LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 314
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 315
Case Title: SUNNY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 316
Case Title: SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 317
Title: MRS OMITA MAGO & ORS. v. AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 318
Case Title: PARDEEP KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 319
Case Title: SH VIVEK CHAUHAN v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL CRIMINAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 320
Case Title: SHERRY GEORGE v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 321
Case Title: MUKESH KHURANA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 322
Case Title: Parsvnath Developers Ltd versus Future Retail Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 323
Case Title: SH PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. SMT DEEPIKA SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 324
Case Title: AARIN THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER SH PAWAN KUMAR v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 325
Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 326
Title: DR RAMESH CHANDER MUNJAL & ORS. v. DR SURAJ MUNJAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 327
Case Title: Fada Trading Private Limited Versus Commissioner Goods and Service Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 328
Case Title: Cement Corporation of India versus Engineering Industries Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 329
Case Title: SAIF II MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2) DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 330
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Continental Engineering Corporation (CEC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 331
Case Title: Pulkit Versus State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 3321.Del) 331
Case Title: Pulkit Versus State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 332
Case Title: Asifa v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 333
Case Title: RISHU AGGARWAL v. MOHIT GOYAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 334
Case Title: Neha Pudil v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 335
Title: SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 336
Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. SATBIR BHARDWAJ & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 337
Case Title: INDRA PASRICHA v. DEEPIKA CHAUHAN & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 338
Case Title: KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 339
Case Title: RAJA BERWA & ORS v. STATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 340
Case title: M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 341
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 342
Case Title: SHRI KUSUM LATA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 343
Case Title: DR. MANOJ BAJPAI v. MS SEEMA JASSAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 344
Case Title: X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 345
Case Title: APURV SHANKAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 346
Case Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Watcon Water Specialists Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 347
Case Title: DR S S CHAHAR v. SH D K SARRAF & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 348
Case Title: SHILPA SINGH v. VIKAS KHANNA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 349
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 350
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus M/S Abhijeet Angul Sambalpur Toll Road Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 351
Case Title: SOURABH GUGNANI & ORS v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 352
Case Title: BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD v. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 353
Case Title: ASHUTOSH SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 354
Case Title: NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR v. OM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 355
Case Title: SUMANDEEP VIDYAPEETH, AN INSTITUTE DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 356
Case Title: VISTRAT REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASIAN HOTELS NORTH LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 357
Case Title: VEENA GARG v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 358
Case Title: MR BHAVANISHANKAR H SHARMA THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH SATISH KUMAR TIWARI v. SRS PRIVATE INVESTMENT POWAI LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR ROHIT DAVE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 359
Case Title: ULTIMATE INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED v. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 360
Title: RAZIA BEGUM v. COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 361
Case Title: COSCO INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. v. JAGAT SINGH DUGAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 362
Case Title: SUSHIL ARORA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 363
Case Title: SAURABH BHARDWAJ v. DELHI POLICE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 364
Case Title: GOVERNMENT E MARKETPLACE v. UNILEX CONSULTANTS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 365
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR SETH v. LALIT KUMAR SETH AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 366
Case Title: SH. DINESH SHARMA v. MRS. KRISHNA KAINTH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 367
Case Title: Religare Finvest Ltd v. Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 369
Case Title: SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v. KINETIC LIFESCIENCE (OPC) P. LTD. AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 369
Case Title: THE BRITISH SCHOOL SOCIETY v. SANJAY GANDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 370
Case Title: ALKA GHALOT v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 371
Case Title: DUMPALA MEENAVATHI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 372
Case Title: NAVIN SONI v. MUNISH SONI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 373
Case Title: JITENDRA KUMAR GARG v. MANJU GARG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 374
Case Title: Jan Sewa Welfare Society v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 375
Case Title: Jindal Realty Limited versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 376
CaseTitle: GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL v. ARSH VERMA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 377
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 378
Case Title: Hunch Circle Pvt. Ltd. v. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 379
Case Title: TARUN PREET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 380
Case Title: DEEPAK v. RAMESH SETHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381
Case Title: BHARTI ANAND v. SUSHANT ANAND AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 382
Case Title: SHADAB v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 383
Case Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. BOOKING.COM B. V. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 384
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 385
Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR BANGA v. KAILASH MAKKAR AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 386
Case Title: Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Cobra Instalaciones Y. Services S.A. & M/s Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. (JV) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 387
Case Title: Sacheerome Advanced Technologies (SAT) versus NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NECI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not provide a separate remedy to the parties to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator, notwithstanding the provisions under Section 13 of the Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a party can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator only according to the procedure set out in Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and that a petition under Section 14(1) could not be filed to challenge the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal on the grounds mentioned under Section 12(3) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator.
Title: RANA AYYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 267
The Delhi High Court has quashed the look out circular issued by the Enforcement Directorate against journalist Rana Ayyub on the ground of it being devoid of merits as well as for infringing her human right to travel abroad and freedom of speech and expression.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure.
"An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC," the Court said.
Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 268
Observing that the reputation and goodwill in the name and mark 'AAJ TAK' is well established, the Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order in favour of the news channel in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against various entities.
The order was passed by Justice Pratibha M Singh as John Doe since the owner name of the impugned domain names is hidden.
The suit was filed by Living Media India Limited which had registered the mark 'AAJ TAK'. According to the plaintiffs, the mark 'AAJ TAK' was a well-known mark which is used extensively on social media. The Plaintiffs had created various accounts, profiles and handles on social media and content sharing platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc. wherein millions of people subscribe to them.
Case Title: DR NAND KISHORE GARG v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 269
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the decision to appoint of Delhi Chief Secretary Vijay Kumar Dev as the Election Commissioner of Municipal Corporations.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla also refused to issue guidelines for appointment of election commissioners in the future. It observed that this relief sought by the Petitioner falls within the domain of the government, and it is not for the courts to frame the law on appointment of officers.
The petition was filed by former BJP MLA Nand Kishore Garg. He had challenged the notification dated November 25, 2021 issued by the Delhi government for appointment of Dev, presently serving as Delhi Chief Secretary, as the Election Commissioner of MCDs from April 21, 2022.
Case Title: IRCON International Limited v. GPT-Rahee JV
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 270
The High Court of Delhi has observed that a No Claim Certificate (NCC) shall be examined along with the covering letter in which it is sent and that mere issuance of the NCC by the Claimant shall not ipso facto entail the extinguishment of all the claims.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru further held that while adjudicating an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the Court must be mindful of the fact the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and strict rules of evidence are not applicable in arbitration and the tribunal enjoys considerable discretion to take a view on the quality and sufficiency of the evidence.
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Teracom Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 271
The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no principle in law whereby a party could be permitted to retain the Performance Security after it had acknowledged due performance of a contract.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru upheld the award of an Arbitral Tribunal directing BSNL to refund the amount recovered by it from invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee, since no claim regarding failure to perform obligations under the Contract was made by it.
Case Title: India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (ITDC) versus Bougainvillea Multipex & Entertainment Centre Pvt Ltd (BMEL)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 272
The Delhi High Court has upheld the award of an Arbitral Tribunal that stipulating the condition of 'as is where is basis' in a License Agreement does not absolve the contracting parties to make a disclosure about the licensed premises, which is otherwise not evident on visual inspection.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru ruled that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal and that the Court was not required to reappreciate every material or piece of evidence that was placed before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: Mother Sparsh Baby Care Pvt Ltd v. Aayush Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 273
The Delhi High Court recently confirmed the ex-parte injunction granted in favour of "Plant Powered", an entity involved in sale and distribution of baby care and personal care products, in a trademark infringement suit.
The Court rejected the contention of the Defendant, also said to be using the name 'Plant Powered' as a trading style for identical goods, that the impugned term is a descriptive mark and there can be no monopoly over the same.
Title: M/S KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (COAL SALES) LTD. v. MMTC LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 274
The Delhi High Court has observed that for the purposes of enforcement of arbitral award, no distinction can be made between decree or awards where amounts are decreed or awarded in foreign currencies on the basis of the nationality of the disputing parties.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru was dealing with a plea filed by a Decree Holder under sec. 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to enforce an Arbitral Award dated 07.01.2017.
The issue before the Court was regarding the rate of conversion of foreign exchange to be applied for determining the amount required to satisfy the Arbitral Award to the extent of the amount awarded in foreign currency (US Dollars).
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. PREM BHUTANI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 275
The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required and is rather discouraged at the stage of framing of charges and that only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that as per the requirement of Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC, the Judge shall consider whether sufficient grounds exist or not and that such consideration shall be supported by material on record.
"The Judge need not be satisfied on the question of whether the trial, when conducted, will lead to the conviction or acquittal of the accused, but the consideration needs to be whether the accused is to be sent for trial at the first instance or not, based on the material on record. An investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required, and is rather discouraged, at the stage of framing of charges and only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant," the Court said.
Case Title: Kirti Lata v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 276
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by a specially-abled tennis player, seeking to participate as a substitute player in the upcoming Deaflympics to be held at Brazil in May 2022.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navneet Chawla observed that there is no vested right in the Appellant to claim that she should form part of the contingent that will take part in the event. It was of the opinion that if any mandamus in this regard is issued by the Court, it will open floodgates and similarly placed athletes will approach the Court seeking similar reliefs.
The Court further observed that it is open to the Respondent, Sports Authority of India, to take decision on the number of athletes to be selected to take part in the event, as the applicable Rules merely prescribe the "maximum" limit, and not minimum.
Case Title: Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 277
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar card to avail free ration under the National Food Security Act, 2013.
" Supreme Court has said that if you wish to avail of state largess, you can be required to have Aadhar cards," the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed at the outset.
It further said that from a combined reading of the judgment in Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India and the Aadhaar Act, it is clear that Aadhaar can be made mandatory to avail welfare schemes.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Munjal V. Pawan Kumar Munjal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 278
The High Court of Delhi has observed that all the disputes that arise out of the Trade Marks Agreement are not outside the scope of arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru clarified that disputes that purely deal with the interpretation of the terms of a trademark agreement and are not related to the grant or registration of the trademarks can be decided in arbitration.
The Court further clarified that unless it is a dispute relating to registration of trademarks, there is no legal requirement of raising the same before the Registrar of Trade Marks or the IP Division of the High Court and the disputes that purely arise out of contractual rights and obligations under a Trade Mark agreement can be adjudicated in arbitration.
Case Title: SHALEN BHARDWAJ (ADVOCATE) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 279
The Delhi High Court has said that the obligation to ensure compliance of COVID-19 protocols must be adhered to even more strictly by those who are charged with its enforcement, Delhi Police in particular, who must therefore lead by example.
Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a plea moved by Advocate Shalen Bhardwaj seeking directions for taking legal action against the Delhi police officials for violating the Covid-19 guidelines on duty and not implementing the Covid-19 guidelines despite issuance of circulars by Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Disaster Management Authority.
Case Title: Mahavir Prasad Gupta versus Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 280
One of the long pending Arbitration proceedings have come to a logical conclusion by making the arbitral award 'the rule of the Court' under the old Arbitration Act, 1940.
The Delhi High Court had made the arbitration reference way back in 1994, but the arbitral proceedings took an inordinately long time to complete with the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal being changed a number of times and finally the award was passed in the year 2021. And finally, the Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has made the arbitral award the rule of the Court as per the requirement of Arbitration Act, 1940.
Case Title: SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. UNFADING OPC PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 281
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by "Dream 11", a fantasy sports platform, against "Satta Dream 11".
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the defendant from using the mark SattaDream11 or any deceptively similar variant as the trademark, trade name or domain name amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs' 'Dream11' trademark or passing off, till the next date of hearing.
The Court also directed Godaddy.com LLC to suspend access to the domain name www.sattadream11.com, within a period of one week.
Case Title: GIAN CHAND BANSIWAL v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 282
The Delhi High Court has observed that where the pleadings of the plaintiff disclose that a suit is barred by time, there is no fetter on the trial Court rejecting the suit on that ground, without subjecting it to trial.
Justice C Hari Shankar rejected the contention of the Appellant (original plaintiff) that limitation being a mixed question of fact and law, ought to have been decided only consequent to trial.
The Bench was dealing with a matter concerning the dispute relating to a passage way which, according to the appellant, was the only mode for ingress and egress to the property owned by him as well as to other adjoining plots.
By reason of construction of a brick wall, the passage way, according to the appellant, was blocked, as a result of which there is no access to his entry gate.
Case Title: AMAN VACHAR v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 283
The Delhi High Court has struck down an office memorandum dated July 13, 2021 issued by Ministry of External Affairs, to the extent that it required the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to seek political clearance for private visits abroad.
"Insofar as the instant O.M. dated 13.07.2021 requires judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to seek political clearance for private foreign visits, it is uncalled for, given the high offices they are holding, especially given the fact that nothing has changed since the 2011 guidelines were issued," a division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh held.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by petitioner in person, Aman Vachar, who contended that the condition to require judges of Constitutional Courts to seek political clearance qua private visits to foreign countries, infringes not only their right of privacy but also, in a sense, degrades or diminishes the high office that they hold.
Case Title: MAMTA v. RISHIPAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 284
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no proscription in law, either statutory or precedential, inhibiting a court from issuing notice on an application filed under Order XI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to serve interrogatories on the opposite party, before deciding whether to grant, or refuse to grant, leave.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the right to serve interrogatories is not absolute, serving of interrogatories on the opposite party can only be by leave of Court.
" The sequitur would, therefore, be that the opposite party could oppose the grant of such leave, " the Court said.
Case Title: Glocaledge Consultants Pvt Ltd versus Rec Power Distribution Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 285
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely filing a complaint with an unrelated government office expressing one's grievance does not constitute a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that though it is a trite law that all contentious disputes are to be addressed by the Arbitration Tribunal, however in cases where there was no doubt that the claims raised were barred by limitation, the Court would decline to appoint an arbitrator.
Case Title: V. P. SINGH @ VIJENDER PAL SINGH v. STATE AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 286
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered with the allegations of rape, observing that the NOC given by the complainant and the fact that she had turned hostile does not waive off the offence as alleged by the her.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that by simply entering into a compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or that the allegations leveled by the complainant regarding the alleged offence lost its gravity by any means.
"Act of rape is not an act against individual but this is an offence against the society," the Court said.
Case Title: The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 287
The Delhi High Court has allowed a writ petition seeking refund of bid security paid by Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) and dismissed the state's allegation of breach of contract at pre-formation stage.
In this single bench judgment, Justice Yashwant Varma held that the state's (respondent) action of forfeiture of the bid security, having no basis in any clause of the request for proposal (RFP) but merely being on the basis of certain communication during the pre-bid stage, was wholly unjustified. The respondent had invited bids for selecting a developer cum operator for a proposed a five-star hotel to be built at the International Exhibition cum Convention Centre, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi by way of the RFP.
Case Title: Dr. Vidyottma Jha v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 288
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass orders for payment of Rs. 1 crore as ex-gratia compensation to families of those who have died due to Covid-19 or due to post Covid infections within one month of recovering.
"The entire country will go bankrupt," the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla remarked at the outset. It further noted that there is already a policy in place with respect to payment of compensation to the victims' families and the same has been approved by the Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 539/2021.
Case Title: American Express India Private Limited Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 289
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has directed the income tax department to decide on the rectification application filed by American Express and grant a refund, if any, along with the interest.
The petitioner/assessee sought the direction from the respondents/department to pass orders disposing of the rectification applications for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2017-18, 2006-07 (FBT) and 2007-08 (FBT) filed by the assessee. As a result, a grant refund of Rs. 45.60 crore, including applicable interest, should be made under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act of 1961.
Case Title: Ajay Singh v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 290
The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to SpiceJet Promoter Ajay Singh in an alleged fraud case relating to transfer of airline's shares to some individuals.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta pronounced the order after hearing counsel appearing on behalf of Singh, Delhi Police and the complainant. While listing the matter for hearing on May 24, the court directed Singh to join investigation.
Singh was denied anticipatory bail by a city Court here last month observing that there was no sufficient ground for granting relief to him given the overall facts of the case and gravity of offence alleged.
Case Title: Virtual Perception Opc Pvt Ltd versus Panasonic India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 291
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be allowed against an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting a plea raised under Section 16(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, on the ground that the Tribunal had violated the applicable legal provisions.
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that such an expansive reading would open the doors of the Court under Article 227 against virtually any procedural order of the Arbitral Tribunal, adding that Article 227 cannot be used to correct every order of an Arbitral Tribunal, even if it is found to be erroneous.
27. Sex On Basis Of "Genuine Promise" To Marry That Didn't Fructify Not Rape: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Shailendra Kumar Yadav V State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 292
The Delhi High Court has observed that a "genuine promise" to marry that did not materialise in future cannot be said to be false, and therefore doesn't amount to rape.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed,
" If it is found that the promise of marriage was genuine and that the marriage failed to fructify due to external circumstances, then the promise cannot be said to be false, and consent as per Section 90 IPC is not vitiated."
The facts of the case are that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were engaged and fixed to get married to each other. However, due to some problems at the end of the prosecutrix's family, the marriage was postponed. Later on, due to some arguments between the prosecutrix and the petitioner, the marriage could not take place. The prosecutrix then filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 376(2)(n) IPC against the Petitioner.
Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Limited versus Naveen Kachru Proprieter of M/S South Delhi Motorcycle & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 293
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not lay an embargo in proceeding with arbitral proceedings during the pendency of insolvency proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that the issues involved in the insolvency proceedings and the issue involved in the arbitral proceedings were completely different and therefore the embargo of Section 10 of CPC does not apply.
Case Title: CIT (E) Versus India HIV Aids Alliance
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 294
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that charitable institutions cannot be denied income tax exemption for collecting service charges from their donors to defray administrative costs.
The appellant/ department has challenged the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in which exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was allowed to the assessee, India HIV Aids Alliance, when the actual work of the assessee was to receive and simply transfer grants to other NGOs and the assessee was found to be charging service charges from its donors in various forms, like management fees, etc., for the execution of projects.
CaseTitle: SHIVAM SONI v. STATE(GNCTD)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 295
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to make necessary arrangements for providing the court documents in a readable language to visually impaired in all cases wherever the circumstances so warrant.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the right to access to justice includes the right to receive documents to which the parties are legally entitled in the language and means of communication decipherable by them.
Case Title: ANNIE GURMEHER KAUR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 296
The Delhi High Court has quashed a circular of the Delhi University in so far as it does not take into consideration the revaluation result for award of gold medals and prizes to students.
Calling it wholly arbitrary, Justice Rekha Palli set aside the circular dated 6th March 2014 which stated that award of Gold Medals and Prizes should be considered only in cases who passed the examination on the basis of original result declared by the University, adding that neither revaluation nor improvement will be taken into consideration.
The plea was filed by student who had taken admission in a college affiliated by the Delhi University in the year 2017 in B.A. (Hons.) (Economics) course.
32. Rules Of Arbitral Institution Do Not Determine The Place Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ecogreen Energy Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 297
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court has held that the rules of arbitral institution would not determine the place of the arbitration and only the Courts at the place of arbitration proceedings will have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for the appointment of an arbitrator.
The parties entered into a Concession Agreement for the "Implementation of Regional Integrated Solid Waste Management Project for 16 Urban Local Bodies".
Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the said agreement and the respondent terminated the agreement and also enchased the bank guarantee issued by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner issued the notice invoking arbitration to the respondent and asked the respondent to appoint its nominee arbitrator.
Case Title: ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 298
The Delhi High Court has sought status report from the Delhi Government over further progress in the implementation of 'Single Window System' (SWS) for clearing fee memos of its Government counsel.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a matter concerning outstanding bills of Advocate Anjana Gosain and the non-payment of the outstanding fee by the Delhi Government.
While Gosain submitted that all her outstanding fee memos have been cleared by the GNCTD, a status report was filed by the Delhi Government regarding Single Window System for the payment of fee to Government counsels appearing for the GNCTD.
Case Title: HTC CORPORATION v. MR. LV DEGAO & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 299
The Delhi High Court has observed that if two Trade Marks are validly registered, both the registered proprietors can use the Trade Marks to the exclusivity of third parties, but cannot assert their rights against each other.
Justice Asha Menon was of the view that concurrent registration of the same or similar Trade Mark by two or more persons is not per se barred under the Trademark Act, 1999.
"When a challenge is raised to the registration, ordinarily till the Register is rectified and such registration is cancelled, both the proprietors would be entitled to claim a right to its use," the Court said.
Case Title: Aarin through her next friend and natural father Sh. Pawan Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan& Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 300
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the minimum age criteria of 6 years for admission in class 1 in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the academic year 2022-23.
While dismissing the petitions, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli observed thus:
"No doubt, the policy which was formulated in 2020 is yet to be implemented across schools in Delhi, despite the same having been already implemented in 21 states but once the statute i.e., the RTE Act, 2009 in itself places the KVS in a separate category coupled with the fact that all branches of KVS across the country, being run by the same management are obliged to follow the uniform criteria, the anxiousness of the KVS to introduce the age criteria of 6 years in accordance with the NEP, 2020 is well understandable."
Case Title: Red Bull AG v PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 301
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Red Bull AG's (Red Bull/plaintiff) application for interim injunction against PepsiCo India, holding that prima facie, the latter's tagline "STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY" on their energy drink "Sting" does not infringe the former's Trademark in tagline "VITALIZES BODY AND MIND". It held that both the taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature.
A single judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal did not accept Red Bull's contention that Pepsi has been using the impugned mark in a manner that is likely to be taken as being used as a trademark. The court ruled that the Pepsi has not committed infringement under Section 29 (infringement of registered trademarks) of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi versus Hamdard National Foundation (India)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 302
The Delhi High Court has upheld the factual findings made by the CIT (A) and ITAT that the merit-cum scholarship/financial assistance provided by Hamdard National Foundation was not confined to students of a particular religious community, and therefore exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to it.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, while noting that similar factual findings were made by the appellate authorities with respect to previous assessment years, held that though the principle of res-judicata and estoppel are not applicable to taxation matters, a consistency of approach must be maintained.
Case Title: Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 303
The Delhi High Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to treat as representation a PIL seeking to reconsider the decision to increase the stakes held by Hinduja Group as the promoters of IndusInd Bank.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla directed the RBI to examine the petition, highlighting the criminal antecedents of the promoters and seeking probe into its "fit and proper" status.
The petition was filed by Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, appearing in person, as an upshot of recommendations made by RBI's Internal Working Group for raising shareholding of promoters in private banks from 15 percent to 26 percent.
Case Title: MANSI GUPTA v. PREM AMAR & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 304
The Delhi High Court has observed that existence of the cause of action cannot be equated with the merits of the suit filed.
Justice Asha Menon was dealing with an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 read with sec. 151 of CPC on behalf of the defendants in a suit seeking rejection of the plaint.
The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.5 crores, by the plaintiff, daughter-in-law of the defendants. Her case was that the defendants had, by their words and actions, including a press-conference addressed by them, openly accused her of being guilty of and conniving and conspiring to have her husband murdered.
Title: RAJENDER KUMAR SETHI & ANR. v. M/S V.G. MARKETING PVT LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 305
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 11,000 on a party seeking directions to the Trial Court to expeditiously decide a civil suit, remarking that the petition was an abuse of process of court.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that the petition is a means to try and use the High Court as an avenue to pressurise the trial court in dealing with the matter.
"This is not what Article 227 of the Constitution of India is meant for," the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea with costs of Rs. 11,000 to be paid by way of a crossed cheque favouring the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC).
Case Title: Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 306
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) is an authority entrusted with an important task of regulating medical education in India. Thus, it is expected to at least prima facie show some justification for its decisions.
It added that MARB cannot be given unbridled power to routinely overrule the assessors' inspection reports pertaining to medical institutes, merely on suspicions.
It stated that such arbitrariness on part of MARB cannot be countenanced as it is antithetical to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports versus Agility Logistic Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 307
The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is not necessary that a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) should quantify the amounts that are claimed by the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a notice under Section 21 is required to set out the disputes between the parties, and upheld the view of the Arbitral Tribunal that the claims raised by the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be rejected only on the ground that they were not mentioned in the notice issued under Section 21.
Case Title: NASTOR FARIRAI ZISO v. NCB
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 308
The Delhi High Court has held that a mere apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the accused may flee the course of justice, cannot be the sole determinative factor for denying benefit of Section 445 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sec. 445 of CrPC states that "where any person is required by any Court or officer to execute a bond with or without sureties, the Court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or officer may fix in lieu of executing such bond."
Justice Anoop Kumar Mediratta thus granted relief to a woman and a foreign national, observing that she cannot be forced to undergo incarceration till the conclusion of trial merely because she was unable to furnish a local surety bond.
Case Title: SUNIL TOMAR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 309
The Delhi High Court has observed that partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be allowed.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar quashed an FIR registered under sec. 406, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and the proceedings emanating therefrom qua a man who had approached the Court seeking quashing of the same.
The matter was registered on the basis of a complaint filed against the petitioner and two other persons alleging that accused No. 2 was an old friend and well aware about financial position of the complainant.
It was alleged that in August, 2013 accused No. 2 had hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No. 1 and 3 to cheat the complainant and accused No. 1 showed him a villa which was allotted in name of accused No. 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 2.33 Crores.
Case Title: Richie Rich Exim Solutions versus Commissioner of CGST Delhi South
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 310
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order rejecting an applicant's refund application under GST Act on the ground that the revenue authority had breached the principles of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant before rejecting its refund application
The Bench, consisting of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Poonam A. Bamba, ruled that the authority had failed to discharge its onus that a date for grant of personal hearing had been fixed before rejecting the applicant's refund application.
Case Title: Alstom Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojeccts Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 311
The High Court of Delhi has observed that when the agreement between the parties provides for mandatory mediation, the time spent in the mediation process shall be excluded from the period of limitation.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that the notice invoking arbitration as well as the substantive claims of a party would not become time-barred if the parties were undergoing the mediation process contemplated in the arbitration clause and the time consumed in an unfruitful mediation process shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation period.
The Court further observed that the breaking point at which any reasonable party would have abandoned efforts in arriving at the settlement and contemplated referral of the dispute to arbitration would be the date when the mediation fails and the period of limitation would begin from that day only.
Case Title: Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 312
The High Court of Delhi has observed that a subsequent dispute arising from the same transaction can be referred to a separate arbitration and the arbitration agreement cannot be said to be a one-time measure that cannot be invoked after an award is made in the earlier reference.
The Single Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta observed that the word "all disputes" in an arbitration agreement means all the existing disputes at the time of invocation of arbitration and the disputes that arise subsequently can be decided in a separate arbitration. There is no legal impediment that proscribes the invocation of the arbitration agreement if there is a pending arbitration or an award is made in an earlier arbitration.
Case Title: SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 313
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking directions upon the Indian Government to facilitate the family of Nimisha Priya, an Indian citizen who killed a Yemen national and has been sentenced to death there, to negotiate with the family of the deceased victim.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla remarked,
" Learned Single Judge has granted all the reliefs that could have been granted. Court has said Union of India shall take all steps to pursue remedy of further appeal...provide consular support for all assistance in travelling…what more do you need?"
The Bench added that it cannot command the Central Government to be party to any intervention. "You go and negotiate. Thereafter if you need any help, then…it's very premature to say. We can't get into these nitty-gritties."
Case Title: SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD v. HETERO HEALTHCARE LTD & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 314
The Delhi High Court has observed that a trademark owner cannot drag a Defendant to multiple fora, being a higher court or before a court of coordinate jurisdiction, when the matter is pending before the first Court, especially when the matter is part heard before the first Court, merely to find a forum where it is able to get relief.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that principles such as res judicata, res subjudice, bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, forum shopping, which apply in general to civil and criminal proceedings would also be applicable to trademark suits as well.
The Court was dealing with a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringement of trademark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts of profits/damages, delivery up and other reliefs. It was the Plaintiff's case that the defendant was infringing upon its registered trademark 'LETROZ' by using the mark 'LETERO' in respect of its medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 315
Observing that the situation has undertaken a "sea change" since the country witnesses the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic, the Delhi High Court has closed the suo moto case registered by it concerning the way bodies were being handled by the mortuary as well as crematoriums back then.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla said:
"The situation has undertaken a sea change with the passage of time and the present petition has, therefore, lost its relevancy in today's context. We, accordingly, close these proceedings at this stage."
Case Title: SUNNY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 316
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to 8 men accused of vandalising Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's official residence recently, observing that their continued detention in judicial custody was not required for proper investigation of the offences.
Justice Asha Menon further noted that there was no possibility of the applicants tampering with the evidence or inducing or threatening any witness and that nothing was brought on the record by the State to suggests that they would not appear before the court when required.
"As to proper investigations, the witnesses are the policemen who were on duty and the staff of the CM Residence and the CCTV footage, which has been preserved. There is no dispute that others have been issued notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, they are joining investigations," the Court said.
Case Title: SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 317
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant for the case.
Justice Jasmeet Singh expunged the remarks made against the Investigating Officer by a Trial Court in a criminal revision case. The plea was filed by the IO seeking setting aside the direction of the Trial Court for initiating inquiry against him.
The Investigating Officer had conducted investigation in a murder case and the Additional Sessions Judge of city's Karkardooma Court in his order dated 25.10.2021 had set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Title: MRS OMITA MAGO & ORS. v. AHLCON PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 318
The Delhi High Court has observed that the employees of an unaided private school are entitled to the benefits as being given to the employees of the government run schools.
Justice V Kameswar Rao thus granted relief to the petitioners who were working as Teachers including pre-primary, Librarian, TGT and PGT in city's Ahlcon Public School.
The Court allowed the plea which had sought directions on the school to pay to petitioners the amounts wrongfully deducted from their salaries from the month of June 2020 and onwards till date. The plea also sought directions on the school to fix their pay terms of the 7th central pay commission along with allowances and other benefits including arrears of salaries.
Case Title: PARDEEP KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 319
The Delhi High Court has refused to issue directions to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) to increase the insurance coverage for depositors in insured banks. The current maximum limit of insurance against deposits in insured banks is Rs. 5 lakh.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that the Banks are also "in business" and it would be "impractical" for the Court to pass such a direction.
Case Title: SH VIVEK CHAUHAN v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL CRIMINAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 320
The Delhi High Court has said that it shall be appropriate that newly recruited officers of the Delhi Judicial Service may be sensitized by holding of appropriate sessions at Delhi Judicial Academy with reference to proceedings under sec. 82/83 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 82 contemplates procedure for issuing proclamation against a person absconding. Section 83 talks about attachment of property of person absconding.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate of Dwarka Courts, which had dismissed the exemption application filed on behalf of the petitioner and directing issue of process under sec. 82 Cr.P.C. against him.
Case Title: SHERRY GEORGE v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 321
The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the cause or reason for recusal by a judge, particularly, by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice.
Justice Asha Menon added that the discretion of the concerned judge in the matter of disclosure is absolute.
"When a judge recuses, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire. The recusal has to be respected, whether a reason has been spelt-out in detail or not. Had a judge refrained from giving a reason for recusal, no one can insist on the judge making such disclosures," the Court said.
Case Title: MUKESH KHURANA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 322
The Delhi High Court has observed that while custodial interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.
Justice Asha Menon was dealing with a plea seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under sec. 420, 406 and 34 of IPC.
The FIR was lodged by an authorized representative of M/s Vaishali Infratech (Pvt.) Ltd., on the allegations of cheating and misappropriation. The applicant was a builder and had a project, namely, Rudra Palace Heights, in which, the complainant Company booked 11 flats. Large sums of money had also been paid for the flats amounting to Rs.1,33,87,500 towards 75% of the consideration.
Case Title: Parsvnath Developers Ltd versus Future Retail Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 323
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Court cannot adjudicate on the issue whether the claims made by the petitioner are barred by limitation while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for referring the parties to arbitration.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the dispute as to whether the contract containing the arbitration clause is sufficiently stamped or not, and the nature of the contract, are contentious issues which cannot be decided by the Court in a petition filed under Section 11.
Case Title: SH PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. SMT DEEPIKA SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 324
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only continuous and repeated acts of adultery or cohabitation in adultery would attract the rigours of the provision under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sec. 125(4) of the CrPC states that no Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also observed that law on maintenance is a welfare law that exists to ensure that the wife, children and parents of an able and capable man are not left to become destitute in cases when they themselves are not capable of maintaining themselves.
Case Title: AARIN THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER SH PAWAN KUMAR v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 325
Noting that there was nothing sudden about the implementation of the policy, the Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with minimum age criteria of 6 years for admission in class 1 in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the academic year 2022-23.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which had dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the minimum age criteria.
The appeal was moved by a minor girl, born on June 3, 2016, who was 5 years 9 months and 28 days old as on March 31, 2022. It was thus the case of the appellant that the KVS had all of a sudden made change in the minimum age criteria for admission in class I from 5 years to 6 years by uploading the impugned guidelines, just 4 days before admission process started.
Due to the increase of age from five to six years, the appellant who was not six years as on 31.03.2022, could not secure admission in a KVS School.
Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 326
The Delhi High Court has observed that filing of a revocation petition could be done at any point in time when such a person's interest either arises or continues during the life or term of the Patent.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea raising a question as to whether revocation petitions are subject to any limitation period under the Limitation Act?
The Court held that since there is no limitation which is prescribed either in the Patents Act or under the Patents Rules, a limitation period cannot be read it into the provision.
62. Suit Cannot Be Rejected Partially Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC: Delhi High Court
Title: DR RAMESH CHANDER MUNJAL & ORS. v. DR SURAJ MUNJAL & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 327
The Delhi High Court has observed that there cannot be a partial rejection of a suit under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with two applications filed under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in a trademark infringement suit.
The suit was filed seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from passing off and violating the registered trademark and trade names of the defendant no. 4 Company, which owned and ran a famous eye hospital by the brand and trade name of 'Spectra Eye'.
Case Title: Fada Trading Private Limited Versus Commissioner Goods and Service Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 328
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam Bamba has quashed the order cancelling the GST registration as the Show Cause Notice was completely deficient in material particulars.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Delhi GST) on the grounds that the show cause notice gave no details as to the date and time on which the petitioner's authorised representative was to present himself for a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority.
The petitioner submitted that neither the show cause notice nor the subsequent order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was received by the petitioner.
Case Title: Cement Corporation of India versus Promac Engineering Industries Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 329
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures of protection, is not maintainable before the Court against the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, held that the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the arbitration fees does not fall within the ambit of Section 9 of the A&C Act, and rejected the contention that the petition was maintainable under the residuary clause of Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: SAIF II MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2) DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 330
The Delhi High Court has observed that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a bunch of pleas challenging the notices dated 30th March, 2021 issued under sec. 148 and the orders disposing of the objections dated 11th February, 2022 for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18.
The notices dated 30th March, 2021 were issued to the petitioner under sec. 148 on the ground that the assessee's transactions for the Financial Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 were flagged in the Non-Filers Monitoring System (NMS). As per Form 15CA, the assessee had made a remittance to its head office without deducting TDS thereof and claimed the same to be tax free as per DTAA between India and USA.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Continental Engineering Corporation (CEC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 331
The High Court of Delhi has observed that the failure of the contractor to issue notice under the contract does not deprive him of his right to claim additional payment before the arbitral tribunal.
The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru also observed that such a stipulation in the contract is not a mandatory provision but only directory in nature and must be examined with reference to the other clauses and the contemporary records.
The Court further held that ground of patent illegality as provided under S. 34(2-A) would not be available when the Respondent is a company incorporated outside India as the arbitration would be an International Commercial Arbitration.
67. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused Of Fraudulently Claiming ITC
Case Title: Pulkit Versus State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 332
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has granted bail to the person accused of fraudulently claiming an input tax credit (ITC) under the CGST Act who has already undergone 9 months in custody.
The applicant, Pulkit, has sought bail in respect of the offence of setting up a number of fictitious companies, which were being used for the purposes of defrauding the government. The accused have allegedly opened bank accounts in fictitious names and provided their telephone numbers and email addresses.
The FIR alleged cheating and fraud by Saraswati Enterprises, of which Sanjay Garg is the proprietor, causing a loss to the government for the sum of Rs. 9.97 crores. The applicant was an employee of Saraswati Enterprises.
Case Title: Asifa v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 333
The Delhi High Court has ordered the production before a juvenile justice board, of an accused claiming to be a juvenile aged 16 years, arrested in connection with the clashes that broke out last week in city's Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.
The juvenile accused was sent to one day police custody remand here by a Duty Magistrate of Rohini Courts recently.
A bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar was dealing with a habeas corpus plea filed by a woman, asserting that her minor brother in law was kept in unlawful detention without proper disclosure of his age, despite being 16 years only.
Case Title: RISHU AGGARWAL v. MOHIT GOYAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 334
The Delhi High Court has held that though denial of conjugal relationship is a ground for divorce and tantamounts to cruelty, the same cannot be said to amount to "exceptional hardship" under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Section 14 prescribes a mandatory 1 year waiting period from the date of marriage, before filing for divorce. A proviso to this Section states that the 1 year period may be waived off on the ground that the case is one of "exceptional hardship" to the petitioner or of "exceptional depravity" on the part of the respondent.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the denial of sex by one spouse to the other, or by both of them to each other may certainly constitute "hardship", but it cannot be said to be "exceptional hardship".
Case Title: Neha Pudil v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 335
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Medical Commission to explore, in consultation with Central Government, the possibility of physically disabled candidates being able to pursue some disciplines of medical education with the advancement of science and technology, in the next six months.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla disposed of a plea of a medical aspirant, with disability namely amputation of thumb, index finger and part of middle finger of right hand, who had secured provisional admission in the Maulana Azad Medical College in MBBS course.
She was aggrieved with a disability certificate, issued to her by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, pegging her disability at 45%.
Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. SATBIR BHARDWAJ & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 337
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by news channel "AAJ TAK", a part of India Today Group, against "AAJ TAK GURGAON".
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the defendants to use the trademark 'AAJ TAK' in relation to any goods or services including their print, digital newspaper, publication, website, social media and content sharing platforms including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, and any other location on the internet, till the next date of hearing.
The Court also directed that the domain name registration of the impugned domain name 'aajtakgurgaon.com' be suspended.
Case Title: INDRA PASRICHA v. DEEPIKA CHAUHAN & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 338
The Delhi High Court has observed that disobedience of an order of the Court, if permitted, will result in striking at the root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of an effective legal system and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been primarily legislated to prevent interference in the course of administration of justice.
"It is, therefore, well settled that though broadly a person who is not a party to the proceedings cannot be proceeded against for violation of the order, but a third party cannot seek to absolve themselves if they are informed about the fact that their conduct amounts to a violation of the Court order and that despite the information, they choose to wilfully flout the mandate of the Court. If such a conduct is permitted, then it will encourage subversion of judicial orders, which are to be properly understood and complied with," the Court observed.
Case Title: KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 339
The Delhi High Court has enumerated various principles highlighting the special role that a Family Judge is obligated to discharge as distinct from the general role of an adjudicator.
In the 54-page judgment, Justice Yashwant Varma also touched upon the essential qualities of a judge or adjudicator and the tests as propounded by the Indian judiciary in relation to an apprehension of bias.
While the Court noted that the family jurisprudence has progressed over time, it said that the Family Judge is no longer viewed as one who is to act in the capacity of a mere "fault finder".
Case Title: RAJA BERWA & ORS v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 340
The Delhi High Court has observed that FIR or complaints can be quashed even in respect of non-compoundable offences pertaining to matrimonial disputes if the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled their disputes amicably, without any pressure.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed thus:
"Even in non- compoundable offences pertaining to the matrimonial disputes, if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, FIRs or complaints or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed."
The Court quashed an FIR registered under sec. 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2 (wife) got married to each other on 20th April, 2003 but due to some temperamental differences between them, they started living separately since May, 2005. There was a girl child born out of their wedlock, who was now major.
Case title - M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 341
The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere in a writ plea filed by former Central Bureau of Investigation head and Retired IPS Officer M. Nageswara Rao seeking restoration of his Twitter Blue Tick.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma however disposed of Rao's writ plea by giving him the liberty to reapply for verification. It may be noted that Rao had moved to the Delhi HC with his writ plea submitting that his account on Twitter did contain a blue tick, but the same was removed in March 2022.
During the course of the hearing, the Court noted that vide communication dated 22 March 2022, Twitter had apprised the petitioner that his account could not be verified since he had failed to confirm his email and phone number. In its communication, the social media platform had also left it open to the petitioner to reapply for verification.
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 342
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Trial Court order issuing show cause notice to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to explain why not a reference of Contempt of Court be made by him against the respective officers of the agency for the purported non-compliance of judicial orders.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that it was "outrightly illegal" for the Special CBI Judge of the Rouse Avenue Court to issue the said order.
" A subordinate court on its own cannot assume jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act and issue show cause notice as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated," the Bench observed.
77. "Strong Suspicion Of Planned Syndicate Selling & Buying Children": Delhi High Court Upholds Charges Framed Against Medical Professional
Case Title: SHRI KUSUM LATA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 343
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld charges framed against a woman, a medical professional, under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, finding a "strong suspicion" of a planned syndicate for selling and buying of children.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Trial Court order which had framed charges under sec. 120B read with sec. 363 and 370 of IPC as well as sec. 80 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Case Title: DR. MANOJ BAJPAI v. MS SEEMA JASSAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 344
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not permissible for a litigant to seek adjournments before a Trial Court and thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking expeditious proceedings.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a petition seeking a direction to the Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, to decide expeditiously, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for decreeing the suit on admissions.
At the outset, the Court noted that out of the five occasions on which the matter was listed before the Trial Court for hearing of arguments on the application, dates were taken by the petitioner on two occasions.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 345
The Delhi High Court has observed that a father cannot deny his responsibility to maintain his wife and daughter even if he has to take care of his parents. It thus upheld a Family Court order directing him to give maintenance to the wife and daughter.
A Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna added that merely because the daughter is living with her maternal grandparents, it cannot be said that the father stands absolved of his responsibility towards his child.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a husband challenging the order passed by a Family Court dated 21st February, 2022 directing him to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife and daughter under sec. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: APURV SHANKAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 346
The Delhi High Court has observed that in view of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, a foreign qualified MBBS is necessarily required to obtain 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology to be eligible for appearing in Screening Test and get registered as a medical practitioner in India.
Justice Kameswar Rao observed:
"It is clear that in view of the provisions of the IMC Act, 1956, read with the regulations made there under, the petitioner was necessarily required to be eligible for admission to an MBBS course in India, i.e., he should have possessed 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together for him to be issued the Eligibility Certificate to sit in the Screening Test. The petitioner, admittedly having only 47.83% marks in the three subjects, was ineligible for admission to an MBBS course in India, and as such, could not have been issued the Eligibility Certificate to enable him to sit in the Screening Test"
81. Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Award Interest On Interest: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Watcon Water Specialists Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 347
The High Court of Delhi has observed that the arbitral tribunal cannot award interest on the amount of interest already granted in the award. It held that pendente lite interest on the amount of awarded interest amounts to awarding of interest on interest.
The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru has held that when the arbitrator has awarded interest on a substantive claim, allowing interest on the awarded interest is not permissible under the law.
The Court reiterated that construction of the terms of the contract falls purely within the domain of the arbitrator and the scope of S.34 is very narrow and the court does not sit in appeal over the award. The possibility of having another view is not a ground to set aside the award.
Case Title: DR S S CHAHAR v. SH D K SARRAF & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 348
"An individual cannot try to stall the entire functioning of the Board by stating that the decision taken by the Board are against his views because the majority differs from his view," the Delhi High Court has recently observed.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a contempt petition filed by a Member (Legal) of the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board constituted under the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.
In 2009, a Public Interest Litigation was filed challenging the illegal and arbitrary manner in which the Board, which was represented by the Central Government, was being run by the Chairman.
Case Title: SHILPA SINGH v. VIKAS KHANNA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 349
The Delhi High Court has observed that the ambit and extent of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Family Courts Act, 1984, being two competing statutes, must be harmoniously construed so as to avoid a situation of repugnancy and conflict.
Justice Yashwant Varma relied on a 2017 judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar and another v. Charu Makin wherein it was observed that "The Act of 1984 was specially meant for establishment of special Courts so that matters referred in explanation to Section 7 of the Act can be dealt by the special Courts established for that purpose whereas the object of enactment of the Act of 2005 was to protect the woman from being victim of the domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society."
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a wife challenging an order dated 2nd April 2022 passed by the Family Judge granting visitation rights albeit supervised and in the concerned Court complex.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 350
The Delhi High Court has rejected an application moved by a group of street vendors, seeking impleadment in the suo moto public interest litigation initiated over the issue of illegal constructions and encroachments of public land in city's Okhla industrial area.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that as per Supreme Court's orders, a vendor has no right to occupy the place of vending round the clock or to keep his articles at the place of vending continuously.
" In the garb of vending, you can't set up a stall, keep you goods, lock it everyday and encroach on the area. You can't do that!" it remarked orally.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus M/S Abhijeet Angul Sambalpur Toll Road Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 351
The Delhi High Court has ruled that any matter on which the Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass a final award can also be the subject of an interim award made by it, and the same can be challenged before the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that the right of a party to file counter claims before the Arbitral Tribunal exists independently of any liberty granted to it by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: SOURABH GUGNANI & ORS v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 352
The Delhi High Court has observed that the criminal justice machinery should not be kept in limbo and that the proceedings before the Trial Court cannot remain stayed because of the non-availability of the counsel.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 29th January, 2013 in the FIR registered under sec. 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prayed for an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel appearing in the matter was travelling abroad and thus, was not able to appear before the Court.
Case Title: BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD v. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 353
In relief to Britannia which runs the product range Good Day Butter Cookies, the Delhi High Court has directed Parle Biscuits to take down two of its advertisements, disparaging the former's products.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed Parle to ensure that it modifies the ads within 2 weeks by blurring the image of cookies displayed by them, which is similar to those sold and marketed by Britannia.
" Defendants shall ensure that within two weeks from now, the impugned Advertisement No.2 and Advertisement No.3 shall be modified with the blurred image of the cookie and the currently used cookie image would be no longer visible in the said advertisements on any online platforms from 1st May, 2022, onwards, " the order stated.
Case Title: ASHUTOSH SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 354
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University to grant admission to a LLM candidate for the academic year of 2021-22 belonging to the Non Creamy Layer of the Other Backward Castes (OBC category), being aggrieved by University's action in rejecting his candidature in the 'Spot Admission' round on account of the caste certificate.
The caste certificate submitted by the petitioner alongwith his application did not belong to the current financial year. The petitioner had thus impugned the University's action of not giving him anytime to submit the requisite certificate.
Justice Rekha Palli allowed the plea and directed that the petitioner will be permitted to appear in the 1st semester exams along with the exams for subsequent semesters as per the practice being followed by the University.
Case Title: NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR v. OM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 355
The Delhi High Court has observed that while it is for the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to grant or refuse recognition to the institutes upon satisfaction of all the norms laid down, the State Government, though is to be consulted, cannot cause an impediment in such process.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla added that even at the stage of grant of affiliation, the State Government or affiliating body cannot undermine the position of the NCTE and refuse to grant affiliation to the institution on the very same grounds, that have already been scrutinized by, and otherwise fall within the domain of NCTE.
Case Title: SUMANDEEP VIDYAPEETH, AN INSTITUTE DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 356
Noting that the country has been staunchly promoting the Ayurvedic system of medicine after the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, the Delhi High Court has said that it is the need of the hour to encourage institutes which possess the necessary infrastructure for running ayurvedic medical colleges, to contribute to the bigger goal of strengthening the infrastructure of this system of medicine in the country.
Justice Rekha Palli made the observation while allowing a plea filed Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, an Institute Deemed to be University, desirous of starting a new Ayurvedic Medical College with 100 seats in the undergraduate (UG) programme Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery for the Academic Year 2021- 2022.
Case Title: VISTRAT REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASIAN HOTELS NORTH LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 357
The Delhi High Court has observed that the issue as to whether any third party is required to be impleaded in the proceedings is covered by the Doctrine of Competence-Competence and that it will be for the Arbitrator to decide the said issue.
Justice Mukta Gupta observed thus:
"Therefore, once a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in the absence of a third party to the agreement or that third party is required to be impleaded in the proceedings, is covered by the Doctrine of Competence-Competence and it will be for the Arbitrator to decide the said issue."
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: VEENA GARG v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 358
The Delhi High Court has observed that when participating in the tender, a bidder cannot seek for deviation from the tender document which has been accepted on his own accord.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that it goes against contractual obligations steeped in accepting such a tender, and therefore, violates the principles under Article 14 of the Constitution with respect to other bidders.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking directions on the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to refund the amount retained by them to the Petitioner along with interest of 18% p.a. from the date of deposit.
Case Title: MR BHAVANISHANKAR H SHARMA THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH SATISH KUMAR TIWARI v. SRS PRIVATE INVESTMENT POWAI LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR ROHIT DAVE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 359
The Delhi High Court has observed that a petition filed under sec. 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not confer any power on the Court to expunge any part of the order of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a plea filed under sec. 14(2) read with sec. 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and also for expunging the adverse and prejudicial remarks contained in order dated October 5, 2021 of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Respondent party had filed the subject claim before the Arbitral Tribunal on March 23, 2021 of the value of approximately Rs. 248 cores besides interest.
Case Title: ULTIMATE INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED v. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 360
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is only in cases where proceedings for levy of penalty have been initiated on account of alleged "misreporting of income" that an assessee is prohibited from applying and availing the benefit of immunity from penalty and prosecution under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea challenging the order dated 26th March, 2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi under sec. 270A for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
95. Domain Name Registrars Are "Intermediaries" Under Information Technology Act: Delhi High Court
Title: SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 336
The Delhi High Court has held that the Domain Name Registrars are "intermediaries", within the meaning of sec. 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a suit filed by Snapdeal Private Limited regarding "SNAPDEAL trade mark". Defendants 1 to 32 were Domain Name Registrars who provide domain names for parties who may seek to register their respective websites under such domain names. Defendant 33 was the Department of Telecommunications and Defendant 34 is the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI).
Title: RAZIA BEGUM v. COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 361
The Delhi High Court has handed over investigation of a missing man, a truck driver, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) observing that police authorities of three States including Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh were "simply dragging their feet."
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea filed by Razia Begum, widowed mother of the missing truck driver namely Mohd. Parvez who was missing for months. The truck was spotted for the last time on 19th February 2018, when the CCTV captured its movement in Shahjahanpur, District Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.
In the meantime, considering the financial status of the Petitioner whose son was missing, the Court directed that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs is released in her favour as interim compensation.
Case Title: COSCO INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. v. JAGAT SINGH DUGAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 362
The Delhi High Court has observed that the filing of a written statement within the prescribed time but without an accompanying affidavit of admission or denial of documents, does not amount to non-est filing since it cannot be said that nothing was filed at all.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani further added that the same would however amount to a defect, that is required to be cured after it is brought to the attention of the party by the Registry.
"Chapter VII Rule 3 only bars taking on record a written statement that is filed without an accompanying affidavit of admission/denial of documents. Filing of the written statement and it being taken on record are two separate and distinct matters," the Court said.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking setting aside of order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the Joint Registrar, declining to take the defendant's written statement on record.
Case Title: SUSHIL ARORA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 363
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the notification conferring powers of Presiding Officer of the Designated Court and Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to each and every Officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) in pursuance of the transfer or posting orders made by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
The impugned notification dated September 15, 2010 issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi conferred the said power to be exercisable by each of such officer of the DHJS with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post of Presiding Officer or Judge of the Designated Court or Special Court.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that it is entirely for the High Court, headed by the Chief Justice to decide on the aspect of transfer and posting of the Officers of the Judicial Service of the State.
Case Title: SAURABH BHARDWAJ v. DELHI POLICE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 364
The Delhi High Court has expressed dissatisfaction at the report filed by the Delhi Police with respect to the security arrangement made outside Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's residence, which was attacked by an "unruly mob" on March 30.
" This kind of incident happening at residence of a constitutional functionary is very disturbing state of affairs. What kind of bandobast did you have? You need to look into your functioning. It could have been anybody, any Minister, Judge," the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed at the outset.
It has therefore directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to look into the aforesaid lapse and inquire into: firstly, whether bandobast was adequate; secondly, the reasons for failure of arrangements; and thirdly, fix responsibility for the admitted lapse.
Case Title: GOVERNMENT E MARKETPLACE v. UNILEX CONSULTANTS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 365
The Delhi High Court has observed that the nominative fair use is permissible in so far as the use is such that it does not depict sponsorship by the trademark owner and the use is "reasonably necessary".
Normative use refers to use of another's trademark to identify one's own goods or services. This defence has following three requirements: First, the product or services in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Government E Marketplace (GeM), a National Public Procurement portal and end to end online marketplace from where both Central and State Government Ministries or Departments, CPSUs and SPSUs effect the procurement of goods and services. The mark used by the Plaintiff is 'GeM' along with the logo.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR SETH v. LALIT KUMAR SETH AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 366
The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be even more restricted with an order passed by the court below under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
"If, therefore, the courts below are functioning in a manner which calls for correction in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in the court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the court would interfere; else, the court would hold its hands," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
On the question of whether to grant, or not to grant, injunctive relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, is discretionary, the Court said that there is no right that inheres, in any party, to interim injunction under Order XXXIX.
Case Title: SH. DINESH SHARMA v. MRS. KRISHNA KAINTH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 367
The Delhi High Court recently affirmed a judgment on admission, passed by the court below in exercise of its discretionary powers under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, on the ground that the defence set up was such as to make it impossible for the party to succeed.
In this regard, Justice V Kameswar Rao observed,
" Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can also be invoked when the objections raised against rendering a judgment are such, which goes to the root of the matter or whether the objections are inconsequential, making it impossible for the party to succeed, even if entertained. "
The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 in a Civil Suit concerning a suit property.
Case Title: Religare Finvest Ltd v. Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 368
The High Court of Delhi has held that the sufficiency of the stamp duty on the arbitration agreement is a jurisdictional issue under Section 16 of the A&C Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has held that an objection as to the deficiency in the stamp duty shall be decided as a preliminary issue since the inadequately stamped arbitration agreement can neither be taken in evidence nor can be acted upon, therefore, the tribunal should direct the parties to first get the agreement sufficiently stamped before adjudicating rights and obligations under the agreement.
The Court reiterated that when an insufficiently stamped instrument is presented before the arbitrator, he shall impound the same and direct the parties to pay the requisite stamp duty.
Case Title: SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v. KINETIC LIFESCIENCE (OPC) P. LTD. AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 369
The Delhi High Court has observed that the phonetic identity or similarity is an important index of similarity or deceptive similarity of one mark against the other competing mark and that the tests of phonetic, visual and structural similarity or identity are disjunctive and not conjunctive.
Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit for permanent injunction filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited concerning it's trademark, prominently displayed on the website www.sunpharma.com. The plaintiffs are involved in the manufacturing of speciality pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients since the year 1983, having 45 manufacturing sites in 6 continents and 10 world class research centres with over 30,000 strong multi-cultural work force from over 50 different nationalities.
Case Title: THE BRITISH SCHOOL SOCIETY v. SANJAY GANDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 370
While dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by the British School Society over the mark 'The British School', the Delhi High Court has directed changing of names of four schools run by Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society, purportedly using identical name.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the defendants to change the name of their schools w.e.f. 1st May, 2022 and apply to the CBSE, with whom they are presently affiliated.
"The process shall be undertaken in an expeditious manner so that no inconvenience is caused to the students studying in the schools of the Defendants. Certificates, prizes, medals, etc. to be given to the students presently studying in Defendants' schools shall be issued in the name of 'The British School' only till the end of academic year 2021-2022 and not beyond that," the Court added.
Case Title: ALKA GHALOT v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 371
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking to remove election symbols from the ballot paper, including the Electronic Voting Machine for the city's Municipal Corporation polls.
A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed thus:
"Though the level of literacy has increased in the State of Delhi, and the presence of a photographs of the candidates on the EVM may also aid in empowering the illiterate to properly exercise their right of franchise in favour of the candidate of their choice, in our view, the election symbols still play an important part in the election process in the country. In our view, in the absence of a clear prohibition, it is not for this Court to guide the policy or frame a law in this regard."
Noting that Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India vests the power and duty to conduct elections to the Municipalities on the State Election Commission and that the State Legislature has been empowered to make provisions with respect to all matters relating to elections to the Municipalities, the Court was of the view that it is for these institutions to decide the Rules for conduct of a free and fair election to the Municipality, including use of election symbols.
Case Title: DUMPALA MEENAVATHI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 372
The Delhi High Court has constituted a Committee, to be led by a District Judge, to keep a close watch and monitor the situation at Adhyatmik Vidyalaya, a spiritual ashram in Rohini led by absconding self-styled godman Virendra Dev Dixit. The ashram is said to confine over 100 women in "animal-like" conditions.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that women and children are a vulnerable class and therefore, some vigilance is required to keep a check on the functioning of these institutions.
Case Title: NAVIN SONI v. MUNISH SONI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 373
Observing that the absence of rule of law or the presence of utter disregard for the rule of law propels a country towards inevitable ruin, the Delhi High Court has said that it is the duty of the Court to take a strict view when there is non-compliance of judicial orders.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the Courts should not hesitate in wielding the sword of contempt when grappling with a situation pertaining to wilful disobedience.
"The process of due course of administration of justice must remain unimpaired. Attempts to circumvent or undermine judicial decisions need to be viewed seriously in order to ensure that the functioning of our country is unhindered, especially during turbulent times. It is only the rule of law which not only cements the civilised functioning of a country, but also drives a country towards progress and development," the Court observed.
Case Title: JITENDRA KUMAR GARG v. MANJU GARG
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 374
The Delhi High Court has observed that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.
Justice Subramonium Prasad also said that the provision was enacted to ensure that women and children are provided maintenance by the husband so as to protect them from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution.
"The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman's sustenance, along with that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities," the Court observed.
Case Title: Jan Sewa Welfare Society v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 375
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking removal of police booths allegedly built on footpaths meant for public use.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that it is open to the Petitioner to raise grievance against any particular booth which is causing obstruction to public movement. However, it is not inclined to pass a general direction in this regard.
The development ensued in a PIL filed by a NGO namely 'Jan Sewa Welfare Society', claiming that construction of police booths on footpaths/ roads by Delhi Police has resulted in grave inconvenience to the general public.
Case Title: Jindal Realty Limited versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 376
The Delhi High Court has quashed an assessment order passed by the revenue department without issuing a prior show cause notice and draft assessment order to the assessee. The High Court has ruled that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory procedure prescribed under the "Faceless Assessment Scheme" under the Income Tax Act.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that when there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, the availability of an appellate remedy does not bar the maintainability of a writ petition.
CaseTitle: GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL v. ARSH VERMA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 377
The Delhi High Court has observed that child-bearing age for the young couple should not be irretrievably prejudiced by the non-grant of a relieving order for the All India Service officers.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed:
"….the right to a healthy family life, to start a family and the right to parenthood have to be respected while balancing the careers and duties of the officers concerned. Time and tide wait for none. Child-bearing age for the young couple should not be irretrievably prejudiced by the non- grant of a relieving order for the officers to start their family."
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus PCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 378
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has stayed the reopening of income tax assessments, keeping in view the credentials of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL).
BHEL, the petitioner, has challenged the order issued under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018–19.
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act deals with the issuance of a notice if any income has escaped recomputation or assessment.
Case Title: Hunch Circle Pvt. Ltd. v. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 379
The High Court of Delhi has given primacy to an exclusive jurisdiction clause over the seat clause in an arbitration agreement. The Court held that when a clause confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court other than the seat court, then only the court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred shall decide all the applications arising out of the arbitration agreement.
The Agreement between the parties stipulated that the courts, at the place where the main premised of the petitioner is located which admittedly is in Gurgaon, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with applications for interim measures and the enforcement of arbitral award. It further designated New Delhi as the seat of arbitration.
Case Title: TARUN PREET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 380
The Delhi High Court has granted compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to a victim of Connaught Place shootout which took place on 31st March 1997. The man was grievously injured and continued to carry shrapnel in his body.
The Court observed that the injury caused due to the state action where the police officials were convicted of criminal offences needs to be considered at "higher standard" as compared to ordinary cases of negligence and inaction.
Justice Pratibha M Singh clarified that the order was being passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the incident was not an ordinary incident.
Case Title: DEEPAK v. RAMESH SETHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381
Observing that the right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play, the Delhi High Court has said that the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed thus:
"The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. No doubt, where a party is unconscionably indolent, the Court may put its foot down and close the right of the party to lead evidence; else, as adversarial litigations are meant to be tried after allowing the parties to an adequate opportunity to place their respective stands on record, the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like."
Case Title: BHARTI ANAND v. SUSHANT ANAND AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 382
The Delhi High Court has observed that the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the "shared household" under Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Prateek Jalan observed thus:
"Just as the woman living fleetingly or casually at different places, would not convert those places into a "shared household", the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the "shared household"."
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a wife challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court to the extent that summons in her complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were not issued to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Case Title: SHADAB v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 383
The Delhi High Court has observed that while granting parole, a humanist approach needs to be taken affording convicts an opportunity to resolve their personal and family issues and to encourage offenders to demonstrate a commitment in relation to the society.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that that parole is a relief granted by the State which goes a long way for redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners and that they are ultimately aimed for the good of the society and, therefore, are in public interest.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking directions on the State to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three months. The petitioner was a life convict serving sentence in a murder case.
The petitioner had undergone incarceration for about 10 years and 10 months in actual without remission and had also earned remission of about 01 year 07 months and 11 days as on May 5, 2020.
Case Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. BOOKING.COM B. V. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 384
The Delhi High Court recently granted injunction in favour of Make My Trip while observing that use of its registered mark by competitors even as metatags is an infringement under Trademarks Act and that third party bidding on trademarks as sponsored keywords for use by internet search engines can constitute misrepresentation.
The observation was given by Justice Prathiba M. Singh,
"In view of the facts, orders and legal position as discussed above, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the use of the Plaintiff's registered mark 'MakeMyTrip' on the Google Ads Program as a keyword would amount to trademark infringement. The same would be detrimental to the Plaintiff's monetary interest as also to the brand equity of the Plaintiff's mark. To allow competitors such as www.booking.com and even Google to encash upon the reputation of the Plaintiff's mark for their own monetary advantage is not permissible in the opinion of the Court."
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 385
Observing that the entire process of redevelopment of the Kalkaji temple would be severely jeopardized if encroachments happen on a daily basis either by vendors or any other unauthorized occupants, the Delhi High Court has directed erection of boundary wall surrounding the temple premises in order to prevent such encroachments.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple
Noting the concerns expressed about continuous encroachment into the Kalkaji Mandir premises, as also into the land which was adjacent to the Mandir area, the Court said:
"….it is deemed appropriate to secure the entire land surrounding the Kalkaji Mandir premises, being used for the activities of the Mandir, by erection of a barricade or a boundary wall for safeguarding the entire land."
Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR BANGA v. KAILASH MAKKAR AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 386
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree that is to be executed and give relief to the judgment debtor that was expressly denied to him.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a revision petition challenging the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby the objection petition filed by the Petitioner under sec. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction order passed as well as an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the objection petition, was dismissed.
A suit for eviction was filed by the Respondents regarding a property claiming themselves to be the owners of the said property which they purchased from the previous owners by way of sale deed dated 09.09.1987.
122. The Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Reduce The Liquidated Damages On 'Guess Work': Delhi High Court
Case Title: Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Cobra Instalaciones Y. Services S.A. & M/s Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. (JV)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 387
The High Court of Delhi has held the arbitral tribunal cannot reduce the liquidated damages on 'guesswork' if it finds that it is genuine pre-estimated damages and it is not possible to quantify the damages.
The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru held that once the arbitrator finds that the employer has suffered substantial losses due to the fault of the contractor and the contract provides for liquidated damages which were genuine pre-estimate of the loss as the quantification of the claim is not possible, then the arbitrator cannot reduce the amount of the damages on guesswork.
The court partially set aside the award on the ground that the arbitrator has taken inconsistent views regarding the imposition of liquidated damages and made guesswork without there being any material on record to make an educated guess as to the quantum of damages payable.
