Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 03 To April 09

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296NOMINAL INDEXGoyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284NG v. SG & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 286IRCON INTERNATIONAL v. PIONEER FABRICATORS, FAO(COMM) 200/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 287M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 288SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 289AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 290SONU@BILLA v. STATE, THROUGH SHO, PS PASCHIM VIHAR EAST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 291ABOOBACKER E. v. National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 292Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 293MS. M PROSECUTRIX v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 294RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 295Rashtriya Transport Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 296REPORTSArbitral Tribunal’s Order Rejecting The Application For Impleadment Of Party Doesn’t Constitute An ‘Interim Award’: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd vs. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 284The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party who is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, can be impleaded as a necessary party in the arbitration proceedings.The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain further ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting the application for impleadment of parties in the arbitral proceedings, does not constitute an ‘interim award’ under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it does not decide any substantive question of law or deal with the merits of the case.Right To Residence In Matrimonial Home Includes Right To Safe And Healthy Living: Delhi High CourtTitle: NG v. SG & ANRCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to residence in a matrimonial home under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also includes the right to safe and healthy living.While issuing notice on a wife’s plea challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in a civil case relating to matrimonial dispute, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said:“…. it goes without saying that the right to residence in a matrimonial home, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also would subsume within itself, the definition of “right to safe and healthy living” too. Hence, requiring interference by this Court.”Authorities In Patent Office Must Practice Due Application Of Mind In Decisions, Cut-Paste Orders Can’t Sustain: Delhi High CourtTitle: BLACKBERRY LIMITED v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNSCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 286The Delhi High Court has observed that the officers of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Mark must practice due application of mind while rendering decisions and that template or “cut-paste” orders must be discouraged and cannot sustain.While pulling up an Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs for passing a “mechanical order” while refusing an application for grant of patent, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed:“Reasoning through a speaking order is a vital aspect of the principles of natural justice and is of utmost importance, which needs to be underscored. If the patent office’s orders lack proper reasoning, it may be difficult for the applicant to identify the grounds for appeal. The legal proposition that an order of such kind should be supported by reasons, needs no reiteration.”Location Of Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Would Remain The ‘Venue’ Of Arbitration When The Agreement Confers Jurisdiction On The Courts In A Different Place: Delhi High CourtCase Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL v. PIONEER FABRICATORS, FAO(COMM) 200/2022Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 287The Delhi High Court has held that the location of the Facilitation Council administering arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 would remain the ‘Venue’ of arbitration when the parties have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a Court situated in a different place.The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Anoop Jairam Bhambhani held that by virtue of the provisions of the MSMED Act, only the procedure of constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is obliterated and the same does not eclipse the agreement between the parties of foisting exclusive jurisdiction on a particular Court.Services Provided By EY India To Overseas EY Entities Not “Intermediary Services”: Delhi High Court Directs IGST Refund To EY IndiaCase Title: M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 288The Delhi High Court has ruled that the services provided by M/s Ernst and Young Limited (India), the...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 03 To April 09

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags