Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134 - 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150]

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150NOMINAL INDEXVINAY KHURANA v. SHWETA KHURANA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134DR. SANJIV BANSAL v. DR. MANISH BANSAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 135GOPALA KRISHNA MOOTHA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 136JOHRINA BEGUM v. SUKHBIR SINGH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 137SUMER SINGH SALMAN v. VIKRAM SINGH & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 138UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. & ORS. v. 123MOVIESHUB.TC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 139VIPIN SEHRAWAT v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SDMC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 140NIPUN MIGLANI v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 141MOHD FAROOQ v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 142DR MOHAMMAD AJAZUR RAHMAN v. UNION OR INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 143DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 144THARVINDER SINGH & ORS v. VIRESH CHOPRA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 145JAYABRATA BOSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 146SUNDER SINGH BHATI v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 147AFROZNISHA v. DELHI WAKF BOARD & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 148COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 149KLJ ORGANIC LTD v. Ltd. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS/ORDERS THIS WEEK1. What Is The Scope Of Judicial Separation & Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? Delhi High Court ExplainsCase Title: VINAY KHURANA v. SHWETA KHURANACitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134The Delhi High Court has explained the scope of Judicial Separation and Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the scope of the two concepts is qualitatively different and that Judicial separation is a completely different relief that the aggrieved spouse may seek against the other, under sec. 10 of the Act."Thus, the aggrieved spouse may, instead of seeking the relief of divorce, seek a decree of judicial separation on the same grounds on which he/she may seek divorce. The law gives an option to the aggrieved spouse/petitioner to seek either of the two reliefs," the Court said.2. Contempt Of Court | Seeking Legal Redressal Cannot Tantamount To Interference Or Obstruction To Course Of Justice: Delhi High CourtCase Title: DR. SANJIV BANSAL v. DR. MANISH BANSALCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 135The Delhi High Court has observed that seeking legal redressal cannot tantamount to interference or obstruction to the course of justice in relation to contempt of Court.Justice Asha Menon was dealing with a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from writing, circulating, speaking, publishing or making any demeaning remark or material against it or engaging in any conduct which causes mental pain and agony to the Plaintiff.The suit also sought damages of Rs. 3 Crores. It also sought directions on the Defendant to withdraw the alleged ex-facie demeaning, derogatory, false and wrong allegations made against the Plaintiff in the suit.3. Delhi High Court Reiterates Factors To Be Considered Before Making A Person Vicariously Liable For Offences By Company Under S.138 NI ActCase Title: GOPALA KRISHNA MOOTHA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANRCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 136The Delhi High Court has reiterated the various necessary factors to be kept in mind before making a person vicariously liable for offences committed by a company under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The Court dismissed a plea seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner also sought to quash an order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to him.The respondent No.2 in the petition had filed a complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court alleging that he was appointed as the CFO of the India Ahead News Private Ltd. which is engaged in the business of running a TV news channel.It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and the accused No.2, who was the son of the petitioner, were the directors of India Ahead News Pvt. Ltd. and that they were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company had been running the TV channel and actively controlling all the operations of the company.4. Jurisdiction Under Art. 227 To Be Exercised Sparingly When Challenge Is To Orders Of Rent Controller & Tribunal: Delhi High CourtCase Title: JOHRINA BEGUM v. SUKHBIR SINGHCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 137The Delhi High Court has observed that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised by the High Court when the challenge is to the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal.Justice Prateek Jalan added that where orders have been passed on consideration of the materials placed before the Rent Controller and the Tribunal, the High Court would not be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227.The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134 - 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags