- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Delhi High Court Monthly Digest:...
Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations 156 To 265]
Nupur Thapliyal
4 April 2022 3:56 AM GMT
![Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations 156 To 265]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408685-delhi-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations 156 To 265]")
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265NOMINAL INDEXSHRI MUKESH KUMAR v. SMT KAMLESH DEVI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156Raj Singh Gehlot v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 157Gautam Thapar v. Enforcement Directorate 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 158Abhigyan Singh v Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 159Komal Rastogi v. Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force...
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265
NOMINAL INDEX
SHRI MUKESH KUMAR v. SMT KAMLESH DEVI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156
Raj Singh Gehlot v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 157
Gautam Thapar v. Enforcement Directorate 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 158
Abhigyan Singh v Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 159
Komal Rastogi v. Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 160
Gaurav Dalal v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 161
Adhir Kumar Verma v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 162
Saurabh Mittal Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 163
BLACK DIAMOND TRACKPARTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS v. BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 164
SH. HARNAM DASS LUTHRA (NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) v. USHA CHAUHAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 165
SMT.USHA @ DURGAWATI DEVI v. SH DILIP KUMAR SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 166
Avjit Saluja v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 167
Aanchal Mittal & Ors. Versus Ankur Shukla 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 168
X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 169
M/S. LG Electronics India Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 170
Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 171
Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 172
Mujeeb Ur Rehman v. Registrar General, Delhi HC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 173
Kurz India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174
Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi Versus Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 176
Kailash Gahlot Vs. Vijender Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 177
BHAGWATI TRANSFORMER CORP. AND ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 178
SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY v. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 179
DEVINA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 180
PURAN CHAND GUPTA & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 181
SHRI ASHOK PANWAR & ANR v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 182
AMARJEET SINGH DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 183
Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Versus Gracemac Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 185
CAPT SIMRANJIT SINGH SAMBHI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 186
DIGAMBER JAIN MAHILA ASHRAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 187
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 Versus M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 188
ROSHAN LATA ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 189
Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 190
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 191
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 192
Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 193
Amit Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 194
La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195
ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 196
AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. v. LAMINA SUSPENSION PRODUCTS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 197
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 198
ANJANI GUPTA v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 199
RAY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 200
DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. DR. KRATI MEHROTRA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201
JIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203
SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204
STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 205
SANTOSH TRUST & ANR. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 206
WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 207
ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 208
KINGS FURNISHING AND SAFE CO v. THE COMMISSIONER & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 209
DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 210
Jagdish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 211
LALIT RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 212
MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
ANUPAM & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 214
ANKUR MUTREJA v. AVIATION EMPLOYEES BUILDING SOCIETY LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215
Om Sehgal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 216
M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT v. M.J. PRASAD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 217
POONAM v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 218
KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 219
SETTU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 220
Radha Bisht v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 221
Ericsson India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 222
ANIL KUMAR @ NILLU v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 223
OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR v. ANJANI GUPTA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 224
Mayur Batra Versus ACIT And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 225
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC v. MR. SURJEET LAL & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 226
x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 227
ALOK KUMAR TIWARI v. MAMTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 228
x v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 229
Sushil Kumar Dhar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 230
M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 232
KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 233
KENT RO SYSTEM LTD. & ANR. v. GATTUBHAI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 234
IMAGINE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S GREEN ACCESSORIES THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235
KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 236
UNION OF INDIA v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 237
GURJIT SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 238
FOOMILL PVT. LTD. v. AFFLE (INDIA) LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 239
SANJAY GUPTA v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 240
UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. SH D.C. CHATURVEDI & ANR. and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241
MOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242
PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243
HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 245
Anand Kumar Pandey v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 246
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 247
MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ HUSSAIN v. NIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 248
ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. VINAY G DAVID & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 249
ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 250
PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251
VANDANA VERMA v. ROOP SINGH & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 252
RUIA EXPORTS & ANR. v. MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 253
BURBERRY LTD v. ADITYA VERMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 254
REENA PASWAN & ANR v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 255
Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 256
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA (HQ) PTE LTD v. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257
MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. TATA MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 258
Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259
RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED v. SARAO DISTILLERY (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 260
DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 261
Radhika Ashar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 262
Ankur Gupta v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 263
JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sithara Entertainment & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 264
Rakesh v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265
Case Title: SHRI MUKESH KUMAR v. SMT KAMLESH DEVI & ANR.
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 156
The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to correction of jurisdictional errors or cases where a view taken by the court or tribunal is perverse, in the sense that no reasonable court could have taken the same view.
Justice Prateek Jalan made this observation while dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, being the Principal District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts.
The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 1 against an order of the Additional Rent Controller by which her application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.
Case Title: Raj Singh Gehlot v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 157
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea of Ambience Group promoter Raj Singh Gehlot in connection with a money laundering case. (Detailed order awaited)
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri had reserved the order earlier this month after hearing Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Gehlot in the matter. Advocate Zoheb Hussain appeared on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement.
Gehlot is accused of siphoning off the loan amount and diverting funds while entering into a criminal conspiracy.
A loan was allegedly sanctioned to M/s AHPL by a consortium of banks led by J&K Bank, Ansal Plaza, Delhi for construction of a hotel.
Gehlot was accused of siphoning off the money in connivance of bank officials through a web of shell companies and his associates.
Case Title: Gautam Thapar v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 158
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail plea filed by Avantha Group Promoter Gautam Thapar in connection with the Yes Bank loan fraud case. (Detailed order awaited)
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri pronounced the order after reserving the same earlier this month. The Court heard Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Thapar in the matter. The bail plea was opposed by Amit Mahajan representing Directorate of Enforcement.
Thapar was arrested in August last year in connection to the allegations of misappropriation of funds granted by Yes Bank in the form of Loan.
An ECIR was registered against Gautam Thapar, M/s. Avantha Realty Ltd., M/s. Oyster Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and others, alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery for diversion and misappropriation of public money during the period 2017 to 2019, thereby causing losses to the tune of Rs. 466.51 Crores to Yes Bank.
Case Title: Abhigyan Singh v Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 159
Case Title: Komal Rastogi v. Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 160
Case Title: Gaurav Dalal v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 161
Case Title: Adhir Kumar Verma v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 162
The Delhi High Court has held that for selection to armed forces, the candidates must be fully fit and no benefit of doubt in this regard can be given to them.
It further held that the medical opinion of doctors of the Forces, who are well aware of the demands of duties and the physical standards required to discharge the same, cannot be discarded and would, in fact, prevail over the report of private or even other government doctors.
The Court further clarified that Medical Manuals for entry to the Forces cannot be said to be laying down all the complex ailments/grounds that would make a candidate unfit for appointment to Armed Forces. The recruiting medical officer may use his clinical acumen, to the best of his knowledge and keeping in view the best interests of the Forces.
In Gaurav Dalal v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr., WP (C ) 6595/2021, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for the appointment of a Constable, on the ground of 'undescended testis'. The petitioner alleged that disqualification on this ground is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In the case of Adhir Kumar Verma v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors., WP ( C ) 14926/2021, the petitioner, a Sub-Inspector aspirant, was declared unfit for 'Multiple keloid in Central area of chest and single keloid right scapular area'. This led to the petitioner filing the present petition.
Case Title: Saurabh Mittal Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 163
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the summons against a person accused of creating numerous fake firms and availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently. The court observed that there should be reasonable apprehension of coercion by the GST Department for 'summons proceedings' to be conducted through CCTV Cameras.
The single bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar has refused to quash the summons on the grounds that ​​the investigation is still at a nascent stage and that the present case involves fraud of Rs 350 crores approximately and around 200 firms are involved in placing fraudulent ITC.
Case Title: BLACK DIAMOND TRACKPARTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS v. BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 164
Case Title: SH. HARNAM DASS LUTHRA (NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) v. USHA CHAUHAN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 165
Case Title: SMT.USHA @ DURGAWATI DEVI v. SH DILIP KUMAR SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 166
The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
"…it may be noted that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being one of judicial superintendence cannot be exercised to upset conclusions, howsoever erroneous they may be, unless there was something grossly wrong or unjust in the impugned order shocking the court's conscience or the conclusions were so perverse that it becomes absolutely necessary in the interest of justice for the court to interfere," Justice Asha Menon observed.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 by the petitioners, defendants in the suit, against an order dated 10th January, 2022 passed by the Commercial Court, Saket Courts.
In the case of Harnam Dass Luthra v. Usha Chauhan, the Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 challenging a judgment wherein appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Additional Rent Controller was dismissed, thereby allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent landlady under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
In Smt. Usha v. Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh, the Court held that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and discretionary and that it does not extend to reappreciation of evidence as an appellate forum.
It said that the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, will not intervene to correct every error of law or fact committed by the courts below.
7. How Much Liquor Can An Individual Store At Home In Delhi? High Court Answers
Case Title: Avjit Saluja v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 167
The Delhi High Court has affirmed that an individual, aged above 25 years, can possess 9 litres of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor, i.e., whisky, vodka, gin and rum, and 18 litres of beer, wine and alcopop.
The observation was made by Justice Subramonium Prasad while adjudicating upon a petition for quashing of the FIR registered against a Delhi resident, for illicit liquor storage at his home.
132 bottles of liquor were recovered from the Petitioner's house, who did not possess a valid Liquor license. This included 51.8 litres of whisky, rum, vodka, gin, and 55.4 litres of wine, beer, alcopop.
Accordingly, he was booked under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
8. Delhi High Court Rules, Parties Under LLP Agreement Cannot Confer Jurisdiction On Courts
Case Title: Aanchal Mittal & Ors. Versus Ankur Shukla
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 168
A Single Bench of Delhi High Court of Justice Amit Bansal, has held that carrying of business in any place does not confer jurisdiction on courts to adjudicate a dispute inter se partners in an LLP.
The Partner of an LLP, registered at Hyderabad, had filed a suit before a Commercial Court in Delhi against the denial of access by remaining partners to the business accounts of LLP. The District Judge allowed the petition, dismissing the challenge to territorial jurisdiction raised by the remaining partners/ defendants on the ground that the business of LLP was undertaken in Delhi, therefore, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts in Delhi under the LLP Agreement is legally valid and enforceable. The remaining partners challenged the decision by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, before the High Court.
Case Title: X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 169
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the bail of a man accused of raping a 37 year old woman suffering from bipolar mental disorder episodic mania and psychotic features after taking her undue advantage, while directing him to surrender in custody within a week.
Justice Mukta Gupta noted that the Trial Court failed to notice that the accused was living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix, thus was aware of her mental faculties.
The Court said "The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to notice that the respondent No.2 was living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix, thus was aware of the mental faculties of the victim and taking advantage thereof, as her marriage was broken and she was eager to get married, he lured her stating that he would get the evil spirit out of her soul, get her married to a boy and called her on 21st July, 2021."
Case Title: M/S. LG Electronics India Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 170
A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, directed the Central Processing Center to determine and process the refund due to LG Electronics in accordance with the law after the later filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
LG had opted to be taxed under Section 115BAA of the Act, attracting a tax rate of 22%, yet the revenue authorities applied a tax rate of 25% under Section 115BA of the Act. LG filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act as well as seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to dispose of its rectification application under Section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the impugned intimation.
Case Title: Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v. UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 171
The Delhi High Court has observed that since the right of a person under Article 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India is impacted by what is offered on a platter, it is fundamental that a full and complete disclosure of a food article being vegetarian or non-vegetarian is made a part of consumer awareness.
A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a plea seeking guidelines for strict implementation of the existing Rules mandating food manufacturers to label their products according to the nature of the ingredients used therein.
The Court added that the failure of the authorities to ensure such full and complete disclosure of food article as to whether the same was vegetarian or non vegetarian defeats the objective of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
It therefore directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to issue a fresh communication to the authorities concerned to state the obligation for making a clear disclosure of food article as to whether it was vegetarian or non-vegetarian.
Case Title: Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 172
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea filed by Former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay, challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which had transferred his petition filed before the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh while pronouncing the order today observed that it sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the disciplinary proceedings including competence of the Central Government to issue charge sheet.
Case Title: Mujeeb Ur Rehman v. Registrar General, Delhi HC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking to adopt virtual court hearings as a norm across all the Courts in the national capital.
The petitioner, Mujeeb Ur Rehman, stated that virtual court hearings are extremely convenient and time saving, hence, the Court should consider adopting it as a norm in all district courts as well as the High Court.
However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that the issue is being considered at the administrative side and thus, it sees no reason to entertain the PIL at this stage
Case Title: Kurz India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that the reason to believe was invalid, had no rational nexus to the belief for escapement of income and there was no fresh material on record to initiate reassessment proceedings.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has opined that the reasoning "the contingent liability has been claimed as revenue expense" is contrary to the concept of contingent liability which is only required to be disclosed by way of a note in accordance with the requirement of applicable Accounting Standards.
Case Title : Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175
A Bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, has ruled that an application seeking compounding of the offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be rejected on the ground that the Assessee had not been acquitted of the criminal charges, if his conviction with respect to the given offence has been set aside by the Special Judge, CBI.
The Assessee had filed an application before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CCIT(A)) seeking compounding of offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said application was rejected by the CCIT (A) on the ground of expiry of limitation period and the conviction of the Assessee by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi.
Thereafter, the Assessee had filed an appeal against the order of the ACMM before the Special Judge, CBI who had set aside the conviction order and had directed the ACMM to consider the fresh documents filed by the Assessee and pass a fresh order. Simultaneously, the Assessee had filed an application before the CCIT (A) seeking review of the order rejecting the application for compounding of offence, which was rejected by the CCIT (A) on the ground that the conviction of the Assessee was still open for adjudication and that he had not been acquitted of the criminal charges.
The Assessee had filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against the impugned order of the CCIT (A) rejecting the review application.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi Versus Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in an appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 there can be no interference with the finding of fact if it involves re-appreciation of the evidence.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, held that if a particular receipt has been disclosed in the income and expenditure account, the same cannot be considered as unaccounted income in the hands of the Assessee and be subject to proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.
Case Title: Kailash Gahlot Vs. Vijender Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 177
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot, who sued BJP MLA Vijender Gupta for allegedly making defamatory remarks about him over procurement of 1,000 low-floor buses.
Gupta had alleged that Gahlot had committed corruption in awarding the tender for maintenance of DTC buses to Tata Motors and JBM Auto Ltd and was aware of the entire terms and conditions of the tender, however, he chose to object to the said tender only after it was awarded.
Following this, Gahlot moved the High Court seeking damages of Rs. 5 crores for defaming him and causing loss to his reputation. Apart from this, mandatory injunction was also sought to immediately delete all the defamatory posts made against him on Twitter and Facebook.
18. Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Govt Order Prohibiting Discounts On Liqour MRP
Case Title: BHAGWATI TRANSFORMER CORP. AND ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 178
The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the order passed by Excise Department of the Delhi Government, prohibiting discounts on MRP of liquor by retail licensees in the national capital.
Justice V Kameswar Rao pronounced the order on interim applications filed by L7Z liqour licensees in the city.
The Single Judge heard at length Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sajan Poovayya for the Petitioners. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rahul Mehra appeared for the Delhi government on advance notice.
The petition is filed in the backdrop of the new Delhi Excise Policy approved in June last year by the Delhi government for the year 2021-2022. This policy sets out the framework for various aspects pertaining to the liquor business.
Case Title: SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY v. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 179
Dealing with a batch of 88 petitions, the Delhi High Court has set aside the imposition of a moratorium issued by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) on opening of new pharmacy colleges for a period of five years with effect from the academic year 2020-21.
A single judge bench of Justice Prateek Jalan was dealing with the petitions challenging communications dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 addressed by the PCI to State Governments and Union Territory Administrations.
Vide impugned letter dated 17.07.2019, the decision of imposition of moratorium was communicated by PCI taken at its meeting held on 09.04.2019. The said letter dated 09.09.2019 conveyed the resolution providing certain exemptions to the aforesaid moratorium.
Case Title: DEVINA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Delhi High Court has ordered for postponement of the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2022, as also the date of receiving of applications, while dealing with a plea challenging the upper age limit (of 32 years) for appearing in the exam.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a petition filed by a practicing advocate namely Devina Sharma, intending to appear in the examination.
Sharma sought relaxation in the upper age limit for the exam. While the last date of submission of application was March 20, the preliminary exam was scheduled for March 27.
Case Title: PURAN CHAND GUPTA & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 181
The Delhi High Court has observed that unless the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are enforced in their true letter and spirit and the legislative intent underlying the Act is manifested, the vision of a society free of caste-based discrimination will only remain a distant dream.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed praying for quashing of an FIR bearing registered under sections 3(1)(r) and (3)(1)(s) of the Act.
Touching upon the legislative intent behind the SC ST Act, the Court said the object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied their civil rights.
"Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out whenever a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations, and harassment," the Court said.
Case Title: SHRI ASHOK PANWAR & ANR v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 182
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere pendency of a Title Suit would not be a ground to disentitle a person from obtaining an electricity connection in their name, particularly, in view of the fact that such person is in possession of the subject property.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a plea seeking a direction to BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to grant a fresh electricity connection in the name of either of the two petitioners at a shop in property in question.
Case Title: AMARJEET SINGH DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 183
Emphasising that an employee in a transferable job has no vested right to remain posted at one place, the Delhi High Court has said that Courts should not readily interfere with the transfer order which is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla added that if the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government or its subordinate Authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to the public interest.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking to set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Versus Gracemac Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an amount received under a distribution agreement with respect to a computer software did not amount to 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the agreement does not create a right to transfer the copyright with respect to it.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, had observed that in view of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited versus the Commissioner of Income Tax (2021), the said issue was no longer res integra.
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 185
Granting interim relief to Dabur India Limited, the Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of certain websites (John Doe) illegally using 'DABUR' domain name. "The attempt is to not merely infringe and pass off, but to indulge in complete impersonation," it observed.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that DABUR India Limited made out a prima facie case for the grant of ex-parte injunction and the balance of convenience was also in it's favour.
"Irreparable loss would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ex-parte injunction is not passed in favour of the Plaintiff. The loss to the public is also incalculable," the Court said.
The order is John Doe since the owner name of the impugned domain names is hidden.
Case Title: CAPT SIMRANJIT SINGH SAMBHI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 186
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered by a woman alleging rape by a man at multiple occasions after noting that the prosecutrix was in a long term relationship of four years with him and that the FIR was only filed after the said relationship ended on hostile terms.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Section 376(2) (n), 354, 354A of Indian Penal Code.
In the complaint, the woman stated that she was in a relationship with the Petitioner for three years and when she was told by the Petitioner that he was a divorcee, she was shocked. It was stated that the Petitioner had promised to marry her while he was in a relationship with someone else and that he went to her house, abused and assaulted her.
Case Title: DIGAMBER JAIN MAHILA ASHRAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 187
The Delhi High Court has observed that the amendments to pleadings must be sought by the party concerned within a reasonable time and should not sought to be introduced so as to stall the trial itself.
Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a plea challenging the order dated 13 February 2019 in terms of which the Estate Officer had rejected the applications made by the petitioners for amendment and for the issuance of interrogatories.
The Estate Officer was ceased of proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 19711. The proceedings started after the cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents on 11 January 2001.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 Versus M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 188
The Delhi High Court bench consisting of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh has dismissed the appeal against the deletion of income tax addition for share or bogus purchases or cash deposits and held that appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act cannot be entertained by High Court except on the grounds of perversity or for the complete lack of evidence.
The appellant/department challenged the order of ITAT on the grounds that ITAT has failed to take into account the true import and effect of the statement made by an accommodation entry provider who had denied having made any investment in the assessee. The statement pointed in the direction that the money which had ostensibly been invested in the assessee in the form of share capital or share premium were unaccounted funds of the assessee routed through accommodation entry providers.
Case Title: ROSHAN LATA ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 189
A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court to immediately constitute a panel of doctors from the AIIMS hospital for conducting a Post Mortem and Autopsy on IFS Mukul Arya, India's representative to Palestine who was found dead in his office premises in Ramallah last week.
Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for the Central Government, on instructions, informed the Court that the Ministry of External Affairs will faciliate the autopsy to be conducted at AIIMS as prayed for by the family.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the prayer to conduct autopsy of the deceased's body and ordered that the autopsy be videographed.
The plea was thus disposed off with liberty to the petitioner approach the court again in case of any grievance.
Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 190
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to pay the decreetal amount to Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) in latter's plea seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017 in two installments by May 31, 2022.
The Court directed that part-payment must be paid within two weeks.
DAMEPL submitted that the the gross decreetal sum along with interest up to 14.02.2022 computed in accordance with the arbitral award is Rs. 8009.38 crores. Out of the said amount, only a sum of Rs. 1678.42 crores has been paid so far by DMRC. Thereby, as on 14.02.2022, the remaining decreetal amount payable with interest is Rs.6330.96 crores [Rs.8009.38 crores - Rs. 1,678.42 crores].
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 191
The Delhi High Court has observed that wherein a land is being used for public purposes, if occupants of jhuggis or slums are evicted, it is the State's objective to provide them alternative accommodation after conduct of requisite surveys and collection of data.
Justice Pratibha M Singh reiterated the said observation while dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple.
While the Court had earlier clarified that none of the occupants who are in illegal occupation of the temple premises can remain in possession, it noted that there were some jhuggi dwellers and Dharamshala occupants who had not vacated the said premises.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 192
The Delhi High Court has dissolved marriage between a couple living separately for 12 years taking note of the fact that the wife had filed an unsubstantiated criminal complaint against the husband and his family members which caused them immense mental cruelty and agony.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Bench was of the view that there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties and that the marriage was irretrievably broken down. It also noted that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the matrimonial bond and the insistence to continue the relationship would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties.
33. Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Middleman Christian Michel In AgustaWestland Case
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 193
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail applications filed by Christian James Michel, facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with Augusta Westland case. The bail pleas were moved in July last year.
Justice Manoj Ohri pronounced the order today after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph for Michel, Advocate DP Singh for CBI and ASG SV Raju for the ED. Detailed order is yet to be uploaded.
The CBI has opposed Michel's bail saying that he is a British national not having roots in India, and is at flight risk. It was also stated that he acted as a middleman, received money pursuant to certain contracts concerning the scam, and is not cooperating in the investigation.
Case Title: Amit Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking premature release of old aged and infirm prisoners in terms of recommendations made by Mulla Committee (1980-83) and the Model Prison Manual (2003).
While expressing disinclination to even issue notice in the matter, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna remarked,
" This is a policy decision. People sometimes commit offences at an advance age, what about them? They have to remain in prisons."
The plea was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, stating that the aforesaid recommendations were made in larger perspective of the prisoners' welfare, keeping in view the overall objective of protecting the society and rehabilitating the offenders. They make provision for specialized treatment of women, old aged and infirm prisoners compatible with dignity of life. However, such recommendations are not implemented by Delhi Jails.
Case Title: : La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195
The Delhi High Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to allow rectification of bonafide errors in the tax period of the challan.
The petitioner submitted that in respect of the second quarter of 2015-2016, i.e., from 1.07.2015 to 30.09.2015, the petitioner filed its returns on 31.03.2017. The VAT liability for the period was Rs. 7,87,038/-whereas the liability under the CST Act was Rs. 37,381/-. The petitioner deposited Rs. 10,44,118 towards DVAT and Rs. 37,381 towards CST through challans, and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 2,58,912 was deposited in excess for the second quarter of 2015-2016.
Case Title: ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 196
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea by All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife seeking quashing of summons issued to them by Enforcement Directorate in connection with West Bengal coal scam case.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar also dismissed the plea by Banerjee's wife Rujira Banerjee assailing the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate against her in the money laundering case and the Trial Court order taking cognizance of the said complaint. The plea also assailed the subsequent issuance of summons against her for physical appearance.
The CBI had registered an FIR in respect to alleged offences of illegal mining and theft of coal from the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Ltd committed in the state of West Bengal by certain individuals. Pursuant to this, ED has registered an ECIR in the Head Investigative Unit located in New Delhi.
Case Title: AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. v. LAMINA SUSPENSION PRODUCTS LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 197
Granting interim relief to owners of registered trademarks 'VOLVO' and 'FMX', the Delhi High Court has restrained Lamina Suspension Products Limited from using the the said trademarks or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar to it, in relation to leaf springs and other parts used in the heavy vehicles or other goods or services, including on its websites, social media accounts and other third party websites.
Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction to the plaintiffs who offered a wide spectrum of transportation related products and services with a strong foothold in luxury buses and related services.
Case Title: MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 198
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a 2008 agreement between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) alleging siphoning off public money.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain was dealing with a plea filed by Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma seeking a direction to CBI to register an FIR under Sections 409, 420, 120B of IPC read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to investigate and prosecute the accused persons for allegedly siphoning off the public money under the garb of illegal and void ab initio agreement dated 25th August, 2008.
Case Title: ANJANI GUPTA v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court has observed that while issuing summons, a prima facie appreciation of evidence coupled with application of judicial mind needs to be carried out for a summoning order to be just and legal.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC against the impugned order dated 17th March, 2018 passed in a Revision Petition arising out of Summoning Order dated 20th June, 2015 passed in a case registered under Section 380 of IPC.
The marriage between the Petitioner and the son of the Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30th January, 1990 and the relationship between the couple was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time.
Case Title: DHRITIMAN RAY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 200
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University to put in place a mechanism so that in case of any urgency, a student can write an email to the concerned Dean of Examinations who shall then consider the said request and issue the attested marksheet or transcript manually within a period of 5 working days.
Justice Pratibha M Singh issued a slew of other directions in a bunch of pleas filed by students of the University of Delhi studying various courses who graduated in the year 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.
The petitions were filed in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic with a grievance that the petitioners were unable to get original degree certificates and transcripts issued from the University. The Petitioners had approached the Court as there was an unreasonable delay in the issuance of the transcripts and the degree certificates.
Case Title: DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. DR. KRATI MEHROTRA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court has observed that as long as conception occurs before the tenure of the contract executed between a woman-employee and her employer expires, she should be entitled to maternity benefits as provided under Maternity Benefits 1961 Act.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh observed that the Act seeks to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for given periods before and after child-birth, and, in particular, endeavours to provide for maternity benefit.
"Clearly, the provisions of the 1961 Act seek to invest a woman with a statutory right to take maternity leave and seek payment for the period that she is absent from duty on account of her pregnancy, albeit in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 Act," the Bench said.
Case Title: JIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court has observed that the term "sum in dispute" provided in the 4th Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has to be interpreted so as to include the aggregate value of the claims as well as counter claims.
The High Court disagreed with the Arbitrator's view that the claims and counter-claims have to be assessed separately for calculation of fee as per the fee scale provided under the 4th Schedule.
"The term "sum in dispute", would take in its ambit claims as well as counter claims. The said expression "sum in dispute" used in the 4th Schedule to the Act has to be given its ordinary meaning, to include the total amount of claim made by the claimant, and the total amount of counter claim made by the respondent", a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Case Title: Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court has upheld the penalty issued under the Income Tax ActIncome Tax Act, 1961 upon an assessee who had failed to fill the consent-cum-waiver form to enable the tax authorities to obtain information about the alleged Swiss Bank accounts held by it.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, has held that even if the Assessee had no connection with the alleged Swiss Bank accounts, no prejudice would have been caused to her if she had complied with the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act and had filled the consent form.
The Delhi High Court observed that in the case of Sanjay Dalmia versus PCIT (2018), the Delhi High Court had upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act which had arisen from the same search and bank account under consideration in the present case and for the same reason of not having filled the consent form. Also, the High Court observed that a Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The High Court also observed that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Selvi & Ors had no application to the facts of the present case as the same had only upheld the principle of 'right of silence' in the context of criminal proceedings.
Case Title: SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that it will take appropriate steps to institute an appeal before the next appellate forum challenging the death penalty awarded to Nimisha Priya, an Indian woman who was convicted by a Yemen court for killing a local in 2017.
Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for the Centre, on instructions, apprised Justice Yashwant Varma that the Government of India shall take all proactive steps to institute an appeal before next appellate forum in accordance with prevalent law in Yemen.
He also apprised the Court that the Councillor present in Yemen shall extend cooperation and facilitate the travel of persons wanting to negotiate with victim's family in order to pursue their purported aim to settle the dispute.
The Centre also informed the Court that it is providing miscellaneous amounts to Priya for her daily expenses inside prison.
Accordingly, the Court requested the concerned Ministry to duly pursue the remedy of further appeal against order of conviction and the plea was disposed of.
45. IPL 2022: Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of Rogue Websites Illegally Streaming Cricket Matches
Case Title: STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 8 rogue websites alleged to be illegally streaming cricket matches of TATA Indian Premier League (IPL) 2022.
Considering the fact that the match is starting from 26th March, 2022, Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that there was an imminent need to protect the investment of the plaintiffs, Star India Private Limited, as also to ensure that such Rogue Websites do not illegally stream the said cricket matches.
"The Court has perused the plaint as also the documents. The documentary evidence and the screenshots placed on record prima facie show that the following websites have previously streamed pirated content of the cricket matches for which the Plaintiffs hold Exclusive Rights," the Court noted.
Case Title: SANTOSH TRUST & ANR. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has directed increase in the number of seats in various post graduate and under graduate courses in a medical educational institute being run and managed by Santosh Trust, formerly known as the Maharaji Educational Trust in the city.
Taking note of the recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Justice Rekha Palli said that several thousand rescued Indian medical students, who had gone to pursue their medical education in Ukraine, have also lost their seats in medical colleges.
Accordingly, the Court directed the National Medical Commission and other respondent authorities to grant permission to the institute on the basis of the an inspection report and to increase the seats from 4 to 7 in MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), from 3 to 7 in MS (Orthopaedics), and from 100 to 150 in the MBBS course.
Case Title: WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has held that while the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 excludes the administrative supervision of the High Court under Article 227(4) of the Constitution but, it does not exclude the judicial superintendence and jurisdiction under Article 226.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a bunch of pleas raising the issue as to whether the power of Judicial Review conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 has been taken away in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Maj. Gen. Shri Kant Sharma and Anr. thereby denying litigants the right to approach High Court in writ jurisdiction against the judgment and orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal.
48. Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction In Favour Of 'ADOBE' In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 208
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte injunction in favour of ADOBE in a trademark infringement suit against one Namase Patel, who had registered the domain names www.addobe.com and www.adobee.com in respect of computer software and other IT related services.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant concerned had registered the Infringing Domains thereby engaging in completely illegal conduct for the last several years.
Justice Pratibha M Singh perused the list of domain names of the Defendant and various orders passed by the US National Arbitration Forum and other arbitral institutions and was of the view that the same clearly showed that the Defendant seemed to be a habitual cyber squatter engaged in registering various domain names.
Case Title: KINGS FURNISHING AND SAFE CO v. THE COMMISSIONER & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 209
Emphasizing that the State authorities remain duty bound to remove all unauthorised constructions on public land, the Delhi High Court has said that the mere fact that such encroachments represent religious structures, a place of worship or are given colour of a religious structure cannot detract or dilute the authorities from that obligation.
Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a petition concerning the encroachments made on a public pathway in city's Rani Jhansi Road.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Government apprised the Court that the Religious Committee, constituted in terms of a Government Circular dated 05 May 2014, had addressed a communication dated 07 December 2021 to the concerned Corporation. It was submitted that further information and inputs in order to assess the steps liable to be taken were awaited.
50. Delhi High Court Allows Reopening Of Four Floors Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz On Shab-e-Barat
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Delhi High Court allowed reopening of four floors, including Ground floor as well as three floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz for offering of prayers on the festival of Shab e-Barat.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri however removed the Delhi Police's restriction of only permitting 100 people inside Masjid to offer namaz by ordering that the management will ensure that while allowing the devotees on a particular floor, the COVID protocols and social distancing norms will be followed.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020.
Case Title: Jagdish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 211
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking a High Level Inquiry against the allegations of links between banned Khalistani organisation 'Sikhs for Justice' and Arvind Kejriwal led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
The plea also sought to bar the party from contesting elections until the enquiry is completed and to temporarily suspend its membership from the election commission.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla rejected the plea filed by one Jagdish Sharma, stating that it is "completely frivolous'.
The plea referred to a letter addressed by former Chief Minister of Punjab, Charanjeet Singh Channi, to Home Minister Amit Shah, alleging that the Aam Aadmi Party which is currently leading the Delhi government is taking financial support from the banned khalistani organization.
Case Title: LALIT RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court has observed that a writ to compel police to conduct an investigation can be denied for not exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Chadra Dhari Singh however added that such writ may be denied unless the exceptions enumerated in the decision of Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh are satisfied.
The Supreme Court in the said judgment had said that the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right or when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or in cases where order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or when vires of a legislation is challenged.
With the said observation, the Court dismissed a plea filed under Article 226 & 227 seeking immediate arrest of accused persons and taking appropriate action against the investigation officer for delay in lodging FIR and helping accused persons.
Title: MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court has observed that the FIR and chargesheet can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or complaint or the evidence collected, though remaining uncontroverted, do not disclose the commission of an offence.
Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the the decision of the Court to exercise or not to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be predicated on the facts of each case, however, while considering the facts, the court cannot embark on an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 4th December, 2021 emanating from an FIR registered with the Crime Branch, Rohini on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 by way of an email addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
Case Title: ANUPAM & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 214
The University of Delhi has told the Delhi High Court that the entire data related to the personal information of students has been well protected and kept with University developed Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software and that the University has a privacy policy in respect of the data received.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea filed by final year students of the University in July, 2020 being aggrieved over the conduct of the online Open Book Examinations by the University.
The Petitioners sought quashing and withdrawal of the notifications dated 14th May, 2020, 30th May, 2020 and 27th June, 2020 in respect of undergraduate and postgraduate students, including students of the School of Open Learning and Non-Collegiate Women Education Board. It was pointed out that there were several glitches in the online portal of DU.
Vide order dated 5th February, 2021, on the aspect of data privacy, the Court had directed the University to file an affidavit as to whether it has a privacy policy, in respect of the entire data related to the personal information of students which has been collected, and kept with the ERP software.
The Court was therefore informed and assured that the data relating to the personal information of students is well protected with an ERP software, and that the access to the same is restricted to the designated officers of the Examination Unit, the Admissions Unit and other Administrative Unit of the University.
Case Title: ANKUR MUTREJA v. AVIATION EMPLOYEES BUILDING SOCIETY LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 215
Calling it an extreme example of abuse of process, the Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on a litigant who had accused a Trial Court judge of being biased against him. The High Court opined that the allegations were levelled without any material.
Justice C Hari Shankar was of the view that though the standard of bias is one of apprehension rather than of proof, the apprehension has to be real and not merely chimerical or fanciful or a method to somehow try one's luck before another Court.
Furthermore, the Court said that every judicial officer is expected to act without fear or favour, affection or ill will and that it is the solemn oath which every judicial officer subscribes to, at the time of entering into his office.
Case Title: Om Sehgal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking recovery of ₹1 trillion debt allegedly owed by Pakistan to India. Stating that the plea involves issues pertaining to government policy, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla refused to interfere in the matter.
Om Sehgal, party in person, produced several documents to argue that India has loaned approximately ₹300 crore to Pakistan, popularly known as 'Pre-partition Debt'. He claimed that the sum to be repaid with interest now amounts to over 1 trillion rupees. However, it is averred that Pakistan has not paid even a single installment of debt or interest for any single year during past 75 years. Nevertheless, India has still not declared the debt as NPA.
He therefore sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Finance to take immediate steps for recovery of the sum, allegedly being used to "attack India".
Title: M/S GARRISON ENGINEER (CENTRAL), DELHI CANTT v. M.J. PRASAD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 217
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Regional Labour Commissioner has limited powers in proceedings under sec. 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and cannot exercise adjudicatory powers to ascertain whether the benefits claimed were due in the first place or not.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a petition challenging the orders dated 30th October, 2019, 27th July, 2020, and 20th August, 2020 by which notice for recovery for a sum of Rs.1,95,980 and for attachment of property under Sections 136 and 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, were issued to the Petitioner Management by the SDM, Delhi Cantt. and by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Delhi.
It was the case of the Workman that the recovery of the said sum constitutes the amounts payable to him, towards Modified Assured Career Progression/ Assured Career Progression (MACP/ACP) on the ground that his reinstatement had been ordered and therefore, he ought to be deemed to have been in service as the termination was held void ab initio.
The claim of MACP/ACP benefits was allowed by the Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequential orders were then passed for attachment and for recovery of the said amounts vide the impugned orders.
58. "Heinous Crime": Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Woman Accused Of Trafficking Minor
Case Title: POONAM v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 218
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a woman accused of trafficking a minor tribal girl aged 14 years, noting that it was unfortunate that an innocent girl of tender age was subjected to heinous crimes and was severely abused, exploited and tortured by several people.
"The offences under Sections 370 and 376 of the I.P.C are grave and serious in nature and have adverse social implications. The petitioner has been charged for trafficking a minor girl which is in itself a heinous offence," Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.
The FIR was registered under Section 370 (Buying or disposing of any person as a slave), 376D (Intercourse by any member of the management or staff of a hospital with any woman in that hospital), 376(2)(n) (Rape), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 120B (Criminal conspiracy) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 219
The Delhi High Court has granted interim injunction in favour of Khadi & Village Industries Commission in a trademark infringement suit observing that the use of the word 'KHADI' as mark, trading style and corporate name by the defendants was illegal and unlawful.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Commission, registered proprietor of various word marks and device marks bearing word 'KHADI' in Hindi and English, both in artistic form as also in logo form along with the 'Charkha Logos'.
The Defendants were a partnership firm namely 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. It was the case of the plaintiff that the Defendants were using the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE', the corporate name KHADI BY HERITAGE as also the mark 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' and the 'Charkha Logo' in various forms.
Title: SETTU v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 220
The Delhi High Court has observed that at the stage of framing of a charge, the probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into and that such material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that it is not obligatory for the judge at the stage of framing of charges to consider in detail and weigh in a sensitive balance as to whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not.
"The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or under Section 228 of the Code. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused," the Court said.
Case Title: Radha Bisht v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 221
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking regulation of activities of private detectives and their agencies.
While refusing to issue guidelines in the subject matter, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed, "It is not for the court to direct framing of law. No mandamus in this regard can be issued."
It however directed the Central Government to consider the plea as a representation and examine the aspect whether it is considered feasible to frame a law for regulation of activity of private detection.
Filed through Advocate Preeti Singh, the plea highlighted that the work of the private detectives, investigators, and their agencies remains outside the purview of any existing statutory framework.
Case Title: Ericsson India Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 222
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh has directed the department to release the refund as the transaction was revenue neutral, and did not affect the interest of revenue.
The petitioner/assessee filed three writ petitions in which the court granted six weeks to the respondents/department to pass a fresh order. The court directed the department to bear in mind probable additions that may have to be made in the scrutiny assessment proceeding, based on a prima facie estimation along with the reasons. The court has further directed the department to be mindful of the quantum of additions and disallowances, if any, on the basis of estimations and their likely tax impact; and the financial wherewithal of the assessee and its ability to meet and service any demand for tax that may be raised against it.
After the judgement was rendered by the court, the department refunded Rs. 561.72 crores (including interest) to the petitioner-assessee in respect of Assessment Year 2017-2018.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR @ NILLU v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 223
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man incarcerated for almost 8 years in connection with a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on account of inordinate delay in his trial and prolonged judicial custody.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there was an "egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial" as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated.
Emphasing that fair, just and reasonable procedure is implicit in Article 21 and it creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily, the Court observed:
"This Court has consistently observed that while Courts must remain cognizant of the deleterious impact of drugs on society, it is also important to keep in mind that deprivation of personal liberty without the assurance of speedy trial contravenes the principles enshrined in our Constitution. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been incarcerated for almost eight years now, i.e. since 27.03.2014, for an offence that is punishable with a minimum imprisonment of ten years."
"This is an egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated."
Case Title: OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR v. ANJANI GUPTA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 224
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2008 is exclusive to and isolated from any right that may arise under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which pertains to restitution of conjugal rights.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a plea filed by a couple, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge confirming the residence Orders in favour of their son's wife, Respondent No.1.
The relationship between the Respondent wife and her in-laws was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time. The Respondent left her matrimonial home on 16th September, 2011. Consequently, more than 60 cases, both civil and criminal, were filed by the parties against each other. One of these cases were initiated by the Respondent-wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and during the proceedings the Respondent claimed right to residence in the property in question.
Case Title: Mayur Batra Versus ACIT And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 225
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a penalty order passed by the income tax authority under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without granting a hearing to the assessee is violative of the principles of natural justice.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, quashed the penalty order and remanded the matter back to the income tax authority for fresh adjudication.
The Petitioner/Assessee Mayur Batra filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the penalty levied on him under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessee contended before the High Court that the income tax authority had not considered the replies filed by the Assessee nor was a personal hearing granted to the Assessee before passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the income tax authority to impose penalty on any person if it is satisfied that the person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.
Case Title: ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC v. MR. SURJEET LAL & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 226
The Delhi High Court has restrained the owner of trademark 'BLACK FORT' and 'POWER COOL' from manufacturing or selling under the trademark 'BUDWEISER' in recycled bottles, or in any other manner, in respect of beer manufactured and sold by it.
Ruling in favour of Anheuser-Busch LLC, owner of trademark 'BUDWEISER', Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the use of recycled 'BUDWEISER' beer bottles for the products being sold under the mark 'BLACK FORT' and 'POWER COOL' by the Defendant Company would clearly constitute `use in the course of trade'.
It added that the fact that the same were recycled bottles would not make a difference insofar as the question of infringement or passing off was concerned.
Case Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 227
Upholding a Family Court order granting decree of divorce in favour of the husband, the Delhi High Court has dismissed wife's appeal noting that accusations of unchastity or extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character as well as health of the spouse against whom such allegations are made.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also added that while such allegations of extra marital affairs causes mental pain, agony suffering and tantamount to cruelty, the tendency of making false allegations must be deprecated by the Courts.
The Court was of the view that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and had rightly found that the appellant wife, by making unfounded allegations amounting to character assassination against the respondent husband and his father, had inflicted mental cruelty upon the the husband.
Title: ALOK KUMAR TIWARI v. MAMTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 228
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the subordinate court can only make a reference to the High Court and that it cannot initiate contempt proceedings by itself.
Justice Anu Malhotra placed reliance on the judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court in Nusrat Ali v. State & Anr., Rajeev Mittal v. Sanjay Goel and Neville A Mehta v. Sanjay Goel as well as the provisions of sec. 10, 11 and 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The petitioner had sought the quashing of a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and a notice dated April 6, 2021 issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the effect that the Trial Court could not have proceeded in view of the sec. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act.
The Court noted that the reply filed by the respondent to the plea made it apparent that the respondent did not challenge the aspect of contempt proceedings being required to be initiated by the High Court court or the superior court and not by the subordinate courts.
Case Title: x v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 229
Passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the Delhi High Court has waived off the six months cooling off period as stipulated under Hindu Marriage Act after observing that keeping the couple tied to a legal bond would only mean snatching away from them the opportunity to lead a fulfilling life.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma set aside an order passed by the Family Court wherein the second motion petition moved by the parties jointly under sec. 13B (2) of the Act was rejected on the ground that the statutory period of six months from the date when the first motion was moved, and period of 18 months from the date of separation, had not expired.
The High Court took note of the fact that both the parties were well educated and independent individuals who had mutually decided the fate of their marriage.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Dhar v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 230
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Single Judge, denying relief to a Kashmiri migrant who had retired from government service and sought permission to retain the government accommodation allotted to him for a period three years.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed,
" We are not inclined. It is not that they (government authorities) are discriminating against you (appellant). If we permit this, what happens to other people waiting in queue for govt accommodation? Govt doesn't have unlimited accommodation."
The Bench was hearing an intra-court appeal, preferred against order dated February 16, passed by Justice V Kameswar Rao, dismissing a batch of petitions filed by government servants who are retired Kashmiri Migrants, challenging their eviction from the government quarters in Delhi.
71. GST Provisional Attachment Order Not Valid After Expiry Of 1 Year: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that every provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date the order was passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the letter issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 by which the respondent/department had directed the bankers of the petitioner to provisionally attach immovable property in the name of the petitioner.
The petitioner had prayed for the directions to release/de-freeze the immovable property of the petitioner that was provisionally attached.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that after December 1, 2020, no fresh attachment order was issued. He further clarified that no show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act has been issued to the petitioner till date.
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 232
In a matter concerning the redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to proceed with the eviction of unauthorized occupants of jhuggis and dharamshalas present in the temple premises.
Justice Pratibha M Singh took into consideration the stand taken by such unauthorised occupants that they will neither vacate nor opt for the flats on rent or rain basera.
The Court said that the eviction of the said occupants had a sense of urgency in view of the upcoming Navratra festival commencing from 2nd April, 2022 and the fact that proper arrangements will have to be made for the entry and exit of the lakhs of devotees who visit the temple during the said period.
However, on March 25, the Supreme Court refused to interfere the plea challenging the eviction order.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant, while refusing to interfere with the order, granted petitioner the liberty to approach the Administrator appointed by the High Court for redressal of grievances.
Case Title: KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 233
The Delhi High Court recently quashed a FIR registered under the Arms Act against a NRI, who was travelling from Delhi to Dubai in February this year, when two live ammunitions were detected in his flight check-in baggage.
While allowing the plea filed by the petitioner-accused under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC, Justice Asha Menon observed,
" There is no prima facie evidence that he had any mala fide intent in keeping the ammunition. The safety of passengers was not threatened. The possession was not conscious. "
As per the prosecution, the petitioner was unable to prove that he was not in the conscious possession of the cartridges.
Case Title: KENT RO SYSTEM LTD. & ANR. v. GATTUBHAI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 234
The Delhi High Court has vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in favour of Kent RO System Limited on the grounds of gross suppression and concealment of material facts.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed by Kent RO System Limited claiming that the trademark KENT was adopted by it in the year 1988 in respect of products relating to petroleum conservation. In 1999, the plaintiffs started using the mark KENT in respect of its water purifier systems.
The defendant no 1 claimed to own and control an enterprise, Kent Appliances. The defendants no.2 and 3 carried on business under the name and style of Shilpa Electricals in respect of sale of electrical and home appliances.
It was the plaintiff's case that besides holding the trade mark registration for the mark KENT, it also held the copyright registration in respect of its logo. In and around March, 2019, the plaintiffs came to know of the defendants selling products such as thermo flasks and other home appliances under the identical mark of KENT.
Case Title: IMAGINE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S GREEN ACCESSORIES THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235
The Delhi High Court has ordered a total of Rs. 15 lakhs monetary damages to be paid the owner of trademark 'BOAT' over seizure of various counterfeit products based on inspection made by Court appointed Local Commissioners.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the Defendants had blatantly infringed the trademark and logos as also the packaging of the Plaintiff's products.
Therefore, considering the quantum of counterfeit products which were seized, the Court decreed the suit against the two defendants no. 1 and 6. While the suit was decreed against the Defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, the same was done against the Defendant No. 6 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.
The Court directed the said defendants to make payment of the said amount to the Plaintiff within a period of two weeks. It however said that since no products were found in the premises of Defendant No.3, no monetary damages were being imposed on it.
75. Delhi High Court Upholds Right Of Putative Father To Visit Minor Child
Case Title: KINRI DHIR v. VEER SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 236
The Delhi High Court has observed that a putative father is entitled to visitation rights and that a minor child must not be insulated from parental touch and influence of other parent for his personal growth and development.
"It cannot be disputed that the respondent, being a putative father shall be entitled to visitation rights. While determining and granting such rights, more so when the child is of less than three years of age, surely his well-being / welfare is of paramount importance. At the same time, the minor must not be insulated from parental touch [Ref: Ruchi Majoo (supra)] and influence of the other parent for healthy growth of child and development of his personality," the Court said.
Noting that the tender age of the minor child, who was less than three years old, Justice V Kameswar Rao modified the impugned order dated October 28, 2021 passed by the Family Court which had granted visitation rights of the minor child to the putative father for two hours every day.
The Court modified the order and directed that instead of daily, the respondent putative father shall have visitation rights on alternate weekdays being three days in a week.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSION & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 237
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate being an intelligence and security organization as specified in Second Schedule of Right to Information Act is exempted from the purview of the Act except when the information pertains to allegation of corruption and human rights violation.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain was dealing with a plea concerning an RTI application filed by a Superintendent (respondent in the matter) working in the Administration with of Enforcement Directorate.
The said application sought copies of all the seniority list in respect of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) for the period of 1991 till date as also the copies of proposal for promotion of LDCs placed before the DPC together with copies of the Minutes of the Meetings and copies of the promotion orders issued on the recommendations of the DPC from time to time.
The CIC had directed the said information to be provided to the respondent. However, the said order was challenged by the Union of India before a Single Judge which had dismissed the said plea vide order dated 7th December 2018.
Case Title: GURJIT SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 238
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against a Canadian citizen whose flight check-in baggage was found with 50 live cartridges. The Court observed that prima facie, there was commission of offence under the Arms Act, 1959.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered under sec. 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner being a Canadian citizen, held an Overseas Citizen of India card.
According to the facts of the case, the petitioner had arrived in Delhi from Canada in February last year and was supposed to catch a connecting flight from New Delhi to Amritsar on February 10, 2021.
Title: FOOMILL PVT. LTD. v. AFFLE (INDIA) LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 239
The Delhi High Court has observed that the mere use of word 'Arbitration' in the heading in the Clause of Agreement would not lead to the inference that there exists an agreement between such parties seeking resolution of disputes through arbitration.
Justice Mukta Gupta referred to a 2014 decision of the Delhi High Court in Avant Garde Clean Room & Engg. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ind Swift Limited wherein the Court had dealt with the issue as to whether the use of word 'Arbitration' in the heading of an Agreement would entail existence of an arbitration agreement.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes in relation to the software development arising out of the agreement dated 29th July 2021 between the parties and costs.
Title: SANJAY GUPTA v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 240
Emphasising that once a person issues a cheque it must be honoured, the Delhi High Court has observed that such a person is bound to face criminal trial and consequences in case the cheque amount is not paid despite issuance of notice and opportunity to pay the said amount.
Noting that the Negotiable Instruments Act provides sufficient opportunity to a person who issues the cheque, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said thus:
"Once a cheque is issued by a person, it must be honored and if it is not honored, the person is given an opportunity to pay the cheque amount by issuance of a notice and if he still does not pay, he is bound to face the criminal trial and consequences."
The Court was of the view that once issuance of a cheque and signature are admitted, the presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises.
Case Title: UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. SH D.C. CHATURVEDI & ANR. and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 241
The Delhi High Court has observed that any employer can forfeit the gratuity of an employee if the employee is terminated for any act or omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to the property belonging to the employer.
Justice Pratibha M Singh however added that such forfeiture can only be to the extent of the damage or loss caused, and not beyond that.
The Court was dealing with two petitions pertaining to disputes between employee and Union Bank of India. In one of the petitions, a chargesheet was issued against the employee alleging that loans were issued by him accommodating certain parties which caused losses to the Bank.
In another matter, chargesheet was issued against the employee alleging that he was involved in lending loans in blatant violation of lending norms without completing the requisite formalities, sanctioning higher amounts of loans to borrowers whose earlier loans were either NPA or overdue, which allegedly caused losses to the Bank.
Thus, the two aspects to be considered in the cases by Court was, First, whether forfeiture of gratuity is permissible and, if so, in what manner is it to be effected and Secondly, whether long delay in approaching to Controlling Authority can result in rejection of the claim for gratuity.
Case Title: MOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242
The Delhi High Court has adjudicated an issue as to whether a petitioner who has filed a civil suit claiming certain private rights is disentitled to file a writ petition seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to carry out its duty.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has observed that the power exercised by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for ensuring that the administrative authorities perform their duties and that the same is clearly distinct from a civil right that a private party may exercise against another private party.
The Court further observed that merely because the petitioner had filed a civil suit for partition claiming the relief for injunction and no interim order was granted, does not condone the illegal action of a private entity of carrying out illegal unauthorised construction contrary to municipal bye-laws and the Master Plan or preclude a High Court from exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure compliance of the municipal bye-laws as well as the Master Plan.
Case Title: PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243
Observing that refusal of a trademark without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of natural justice, the Delhi High Court has asked the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to devise a proper mechanism for holding show cause hearings.
Further noting that the Trademark Registry deals with lakhs of applications every year, Justice Pratibha M Singh opined that the utilization of a platform for virtual conference hearing wherein only three individuals are permitted to join at a time, would be grossly insufficient and an outdated mode of holding hearings.
Case Title: HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no requirement to compulsorily register family settlements and to pay stamp duty for the same when such settlement is initially arrived at as an oral partition, however, later is put into writing for the purpose of information.
" The partition had been agreed upon between the parties by way of oral agreement with the intervention of their counsels. The memorandum of settlement does not itself partition the properties, but only records the same as an aid of memory ," Justice Pratibha M Singh observed.
The Court was dealing with an application in a partition suit seeking waiver of payment of stamp duty in respect of the assets inherited by the various parties from the estate in question.
Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 245
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against 'Club Factory', a China based portal which was banned by the Indian Government amid pandemic, in the trademark infringement suit filed by luxury brand 'Louis Vuitton'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh permanently restrained owners of website "www.clubfactory.com from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale directly or indirectly any goods including face masks etc., bearing the registered marks of Louis Vuitton on its portal or any other portal run by them.
The Court also directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology (MeiTY) to issue instructions to all internet service providers to block the website www.clubfactory.com so that the same is also not accessible through VPN or other platforms.
Case Title: Anand Kumar Pandey v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 246
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Delhi government's decision to resume physical classes for school-going children, from nursery to class 12th from April 1, 2022.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla orally remarked,
"There has to be a balance. Children are losing much more by missing school...There are reports highlighting the psychological aspects on growth of children. They are not able to develop social, oral and inter-personal skills."
Schools in Delhi will resume functioning in offline mode at 100% capacity for all classes from April 1, 2022. As per the DDMA guidelines, schools will run only physical classes and no online classes will be held.
Case Title: BHAGWAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 247
The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court cannot interfere with an order in second appeal under sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, solely on the ground of sympathy in the absence of any substantial question of law.
Sec. 100 of the CPC gives a procedural right of second appeal to either of the parties to a civil suit who had been adversely affected by the decree passed by a civil court. The second appeal lies to the High Court only if the court is satisfied that it involves a substantial question of law.
"Section 100 of the CPC permits the Court to interfere only if there is a substantial question of law, which arises from the orders of the courts below. Absence the existence of any SQL, the Section 100 Court cannot interfere with the order under challenge solely on the ground of sympathy," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
Title: MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ HUSSAIN v. NIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 248
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking probe into several foreign organizations that collected crowd funds under the garb of helping India amid the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic in April 2021 and allegedly siphoned off the same for funding terrorist activities.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that the government is cognizant of the issue and thus, no case is made out for judicial interference in the matter. It observed,
" Learned counsel the petitioner has herself tendered in Court communication received from Enforcement Directorate on 7 March 2022, requiring the petitioner to provide the relevant documents on the basis of which the petitioner has made the aforesaid claims. Counsel submits that the details have been provided to the ED. There is no reason for this court to assume that the Central government and its agencies are not alive to this problem, particularly when ED has sought the Petitioner's response."
Case Title: ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. VINAY G DAVID & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 249
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against 'ANINEWSINDIA' in a trademark infringement suit filed by news agency 'ANI'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh permanently injuncted the owners of ANINEWSINDIA from using the trademark 'ANI' or any other derivatives including the logo form, either with or without the word 'news' and 'India' as 'aninewsindia', 'aninews' or in any other manner on the internet or social media platform including Instagram and Facebook.
The suit was filed by ANI seeking protection of the registered trademark 'ANI' which was adopted by it in the year 1971.
89. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Details Of SC Collegium's December 2018 Meeting
Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 250
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging an order of Central Information Commission (CIC) denying information sought regarding the decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium in a meeting held on December 12, 2018.
Justice Yashwant Varma passed the order after reserving it earlier this week. The Court heard Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner, activist Anjali Bhardwaj.
The Court noted that the disclosures made by the respondents seemed to indicate that no resolution with respect to the agenda items was drawn by members who constituted the Collegium on 12 December 2018.
The Court was thus of the view that there was no ground to doubt the disclosure made that no resolution was drawn and that no cogent material was placed on the record which convinced the Court to take a contrary view.
Title: PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case where the Court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant.
Adding that what is required to be looked into is the averments and documents filed alongwith the plaint, Justice Asha Menon observed thus:
"When the court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is required to look at the averments in the plaint and plaint alone. The documents filed alongwith the plaint can also be considered. However, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant."
Case Title: VANDANA VERMA v. ROOP SINGH & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 252
The Delhi High Court has observed that the power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised by High Court mechanically or merely for the asking of plaintiff to the suit.
Justice Amit Bansal observed,
" provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC have to be used sparingly and that the plaintiff has to satisfy the Court that the defendant is seeking to remove or dispose of whole or part of his property with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree that may be passed against him. "
The Bench took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. Vs. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302, where it was held that purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilise the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged.
Case Title: RUIA EXPORTS & ANR. v. MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 253
Expressing a prima facie opinion, the Delhi High Court has observed that the participation of any party is not sufficient to infuse life to arbitral proceedings if the award is void ab initio on the ground of ineligibility of an arbitrator.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru made the said observation while staying the enforcement of an arbitral award in the case of Ruia Exports & Another v. Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited & Others.
"Prima facie, if the award is void ab initio on the ground of ineligibility of an arbitrator, the participation of any party in the arbitral proceedings may not be sufficient to infuse life to the arbitral proceedings," the Court said.
Title: BURBERRY LTD v. ADITYA VERMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 254
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case of infringement of registered Trade Marks or passing off, similarity of the marks used is to be considered and that there is no call to have an expert witness to testify to the use of an identical or similar Trade Mark.
Justice Asha Menon added that the emphasis is on the branding and not on the manufacture of the goods in question. It is the false branding that results in the product being counterfeit, the Court added.
The Court was dealing with a Regular First Appeal filed under sec. 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 CPC and Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 7th November, 2019 wherein the suit was dismissed.
94. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Eviction Of Chirag Paswan From Govt Bungalow
Case Title: REENA PASWAN & ANR v. UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 255
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the eviction of Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) MP Chirag Paswan from a government Bungalow situated in city's Janpath area which was originally allotted to his later father, Former Union Minister Ram Vilas Paswan.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a petition filed by Reena Paswan, Chirag Paswan's mother.
"This is not your party headquarters," the Judge orally remarked at the outset.
The Directorate of Estates (DoE) had issued an eviction order last year. In August last year, the Central Government had issued an eviction notice to Chirag Paswan and other occupants of the government bungalow in question regarding vacation of the same.
Case Title: Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 256
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the single judge excusing an Iranian woman from producing her estranged Indian husband before the authorities for processing her OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) card application.
The single judge had held that presence of both spouses for the purpose of processing an OCI card application is not mandatory
Upholding this view, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed,
" Normally, the spouse would also appear for their interaction before the authorities. However, that may not be possible to secure in all cases, such as, where a matrimonial dispute has erupted between the parties. There could also be cases where the Indian spouse may die, or go missing. In such situations, it may not be possible for the applicant to produce their Indian spouse. "
Title: SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA (HQ) PTE LTD v. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the action of income tax authorities denying the benefit of immunity from penalty under Section 270AA of Income Tax Act to the assessee on the ground that penalty was initiated under Section 270A for misreporting of income is arbitrary since the penalty notice issued by the authorities failed to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that since the authorities had failed to specify whether action was taken against the assessee for "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income under Section 270A of the Act, the order of the income tax authorities denying immunity from imposition of penalty was erroneous and arbitrary.
Case Title: MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. TATA MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 258
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an ad interim injunction against Tata Medical and Diagnostics Limited, manufacturer of 'OMISURE', an RTPCR kit used for detecting COVID-19 Omicron variant.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringement of trademark. The Plaintiff claimed to be the 5th largest pharmaceutical company in India with a large range of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Plaintiff therefore sought protection of its registered trademark 'OMIPURE' which was adopted by the Plaintiff in the year 2007.
Case Title: Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259
The Delhi High Court has ruled that requirement of payment of twenty per cent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite in all cases for putting recovery of demand in abeyance during the pendency of the first appeal.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that the order of the income tax authority disposing of assessee's application for stay against recovery of disputed tax demand without considering the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury to the assessee was a non-reasoned order.
Case Title: RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED v. SARAO DISTILLERY (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 260
The Delhi High Court has granted ad interim injunction in favour of manufacturer of "MAGIC MOMENTS" liquor in a trademark infringement suit over use of the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' as being deceptively similar to it's registered trademark for alcoholic beverages.
The suit was filed by Radico Khaitan Limited, one of the largest manufacturers and sellers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in India, having MAGIC MOMENTS as one of its leading products. The grievance in the present suit was that the Defendant No.1 was using the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' for whisky manufactured by it. The Defendant No.2 was the proprietor of the impugned trademark 'EVENING MOMENT'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh restrained Defendants from using the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' or any other mark consisting of the word 'MOMENT/MOMENTS' in respect of any alcoholic beverages manufactured, sold or offered by sale by them.
100. Delhi High Court Allows Reopening Of Five Floors Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz During Ramzan
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 261
The Delhi High Court has allowed reopening of five floors, including Ground floor as well as four floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz for offering of prayers during Ramzan month.
Justice Jasmeet Singh also directed that the CCTV cameras be made functional at entry, exit and staircase area of each floor.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020. This comes in a plea filed by Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020.
The Court further directed that while namaaz and religious prayers shall be permitted in the Masjid during Ramzan, it clarified that no clarified that no Tablighi activities and lectures can take place.
Case Title: Radhika Ashar v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 262
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed an appeal seeking to extend the cut-off date for completion of Internship towards determination of eligibility for All India Ayush Post-graduate Entrance Test, 2021.
" Appear next year. This is not the end of life," the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla orally remarked while dismissing the appeal.
The prescribed cut-off date by which a candidate must have completed his/her compulsory one year rotational internship to appear in the examination is December 31, 2021. The Appellants herein claim to have completed their internships in January 2022.
Case Title: Ankur Gupta v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 263
The Delhi High court recently imposed Rs. 1 lakh as cost on a litigant for filing a frivolous PIL with the objective of obstructing the sale of a property that was mortgaged by the borrowers (two private developers) with a financial institution to secure their loan.
The Petitioner had sought action against the financial institution for allegedly sourcing huge amount of money to the illegal group of companies as financial favour. However, during the hearing, the Court noted that the petitioner questioned the manner in which the mortgaged asset was sold by the Financial Institution to recover the loan.
A similar challenge to the auction sale of the mortgaged asset at the behest of the borrowers had already failed, it was informed.
103. Delhi High Court Passes Injunction Order Against Sithara Entertainment &Ors.
Title: JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sithara Entertainment & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 264
Commercial Suit was instituted before the Delhi High Court by JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, against M/s. SitharaEntertainment and others. It was argued before the Court that in light of the Assignment of Hindi remake right in favour of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, by the original Malayalam film's producer the exclusivity to exploit the same would vest with JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, alone and any attempt by M/s. Sithara Entertainment would infringe upon the copyright and commercial rights of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd. The court was further informed that the nature of rights granted by Gold Coin Motion Picture Company in favor of M/s. SitharaEntertainment was only restricted to remake and dubbing of the original Malayalam film in Telugu language alone, hence, copyright vested in favour of M/s. Sithara Entertainmentwould be restricted in Telugu language. This contention was supported with the Madras High Court Division Bench case of Thiagarajan Kumararaja v.Capital Film Works (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In view of the above facts and arguments the Hon'ble Justice Jyoti Singh of the Hon'ble Delh High Court was pleased to grant an Ex-parte Ad-interim injunction against Defendants till next date of the hearing for the Hindi dubbed version of the Telugu film titled "Bheemla Nayak" in the matter from releasing the same theatrically and/or on any platform or from distributing the same in any capacity. The matter is scheduled to be listed on 11th July 2022 before the Registrar and on 1stAugust 2022 before the Delhi High Court.
Case Title: Rakesh v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265
The Delhi High Court has refused to hear a PIL seeking to award 'Bharat Ratna' to industrialist Ratan Tata. The plea sought the award citing Tata's invaluable service to the country and for leading an "unblemished life".
At the outset, the Division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla made it clear that it is not for the Courts to decide as to who should be conferred the award.
" What kind of matter is this? Are we supposed to decide all this? You approach the government if you want. We can't interfere," the Bench orally said.
The PIL was filed by one Rakesh, claiming to be a social activist. He stated that Ratan Tata dedicated his whole life for the welfare of the country. In this regard, he highlighted how Tata has been a "great businessman" while also encouraging and investing with young entrepreneurs. The plea also highlighted his contributions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
