Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 1 To August 7, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal
7 Aug 2022 6:58 AM GMT
Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 1 To August 7, 2022
x

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764NAMANPREET S DHILLON v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728HIMANSHU GOEL v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 729NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 730SOUMITRA KUMAR NAHAR v. PARUL NAHAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 731ANIL SAMANIYA...

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764

NAMANPREET S DHILLON v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728

HIMANSHU GOEL v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 729

NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 730

SOUMITRA KUMAR NAHAR v. PARUL NAHAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 731

ANIL SAMANIYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 732

Shyama Power India Ltd. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 733

Buildmyinfra Private Limited versus Gyan Prakash Mishra 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 734

KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. RAMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 735

SH D.C. NARNOLIA v. CANARA BANK AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 736

MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 737

FAUJI & ORS. v. THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 738

Ajit Kumar v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 739

PCIT Versus Mamta Agarwal 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 740

Jasmine Kaur Chhabra v. UOI & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 741

KANWAL NAIN SINGH MOKHA v. REKHA KHURANA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 742

N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 743

DWARKA COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 744

GURMITO v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 745

SHAKARPUR SLUM UNION v. DDA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 746

NEELAM CHAUHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 747

NEW RISE FOUNDATION REGD. CHARITABLE TRUST v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 748

Piyush Kumar Dutt v. Vishal Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 749

Airport Authority of India (Kolkata Airport) v. TDI International Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 750

Court on its own motion v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 751

Priyanka Taksh Sood & Ors. versus Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 752

DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 753

Anil v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 754

M/s Best Buildwell Private Limited Versus ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 755

AKASH AGGARWAL v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 756

V v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 757

KAMINI ARYA THROUGH PEROKAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 758

M/s Expeditors International Of Washingtion, Inc. Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 759

SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS TITU v. STATE OF UT OF CHANDIGARH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 760i

SANTOSH KUMAR JHA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 761

THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 762

M/s Scholastic India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Kanta Batra 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 763

Miss Indira Uppal Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764

1. Conscious Possession Is 'Core Ingredient' To Establish Guilt Under Arms Act: Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against US Citizen Carrying Cartridge At IGI Airport

CASE TITLE: NAMANPREET S DHILLON v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a US citizen found in possession of live ammunition at the Indira Gandhi International Airport at New Delhi, without any valid license.

Justice Jasmeet Singh granted relief while noting that 'conscious possession' is a core ingredient to establish guilt for offences under the Arms Act, 1959. The bench however ordered the Petitioner to provide a kit of Mosquito Repellent and Hand Sanitizer to each student of a primary school.

"Since the police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the petitioner and useful time of the police which could have been utilised for important matters has been misdirected towards these petty matters, therefore, the petitioner must do some social good for the society," the bench said.

2. Delhi High Court Quashes 'Misguided' Rape FIR Filed By Woman Based On Compromise, Asks Her To Do Social Service In Blind School For Two Months

Case Title: HIMANSHU GOEL v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 729

The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a rape FIR registered by a woman under misguidance and wrong advice after a compromise deed was filed by the parties, subject to the condition that she will do social service in a blind school for two months.

Justice Jasmeet Singh was of the view that the woman had been very unfair in her conduct and that the criminal justice system was put in motion on account of her whims and fancies which need to be deprecated.

"However, I cannot lose sight of the fact that respondent No. 2 is staying with her family and has 4 children (one daughter aged 12 years and a set of triplets aged around 3 years.)," the Court said.

3. National Commission For Scheduled Castes Not Equivalent To Civil Court, Can't Issue Directions After Deciding Inter Se Rights Of Parties: Delhi HC

Case Title: NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 730

The Delhi High Court has observed that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot issue directions after deciding the inter se rights of the parties, like a civil court.

Justice Rekha Palli observed:

"Merely because the Commission, for the purpose of carrying out investigations or enquiring into any complaint, has the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and, therefore, is entitled to issue directions inter alia for enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the country, receiving evidence on affidavits, cannot imply that the Commission is equivalent to a Civil Court or that it can like a Civil Court issue directions after deciding the inter se rights of the parties."

4. Rejection Of Maintenance Application In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Disentitle Wife To Seek Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SOUMITRA KUMAR NAHAR v. PARUL NAHAR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 731

The Delhi High Court has observed that the pendency of a divorce petition and rejection of an application for maintenance in such petition, would not disentitle the wife to seek maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

Justice Yogesh Khanna was dealing with a plea filed by a husband challenging the order and the maintenance petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. pending adjudication before the Family Court.

It was the husband's case that the impugned order and the maintenance petition were in direct violation of the consent order duly clarified and reiterated by a Division Bench of High Court and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the Family Court, without appreciating the orders passed on the issue, in a mechanical manner had dismissed the application filed by the husband for dismissal of the maintenance petition filed by the respondent wife.

5. State Has Expertise & Confidential Info To Evaluate Threat Perception Of Individuals; Its Job To Protect Life, Limb & Property Of Its Subjects: Delhi HC

Case Title: ANIL SAMANIYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 732

The Delhi High Court has observed that since the State has expertise and confidential information to evaluate threat perceptions of individuals, it is the State's job to protect the life, limb and property of its subjects.

Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a plea filed by a retired police official who was the Investigating Officer of the famous Nitish Katara murder case, where the son and nephew of Former Minister D.P. Yadav were convicted and sentenced to 25 years in jail.

It was the petitioner's case that he was provided a security cover since 2002 and was to be withdrawn later when he retired on November 30, 2021.

On November 24, 2021, the High Court had provided the petitioner with security cover till the next date of hearing and issued notice to the Respondents.

6. If The Imposition Of LD Was Contingent On Extension Of Time, Recovery Of LD Is Not Time Barred: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shyama Power India Ltd. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 733

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot reject the claim of a party for refund of Liquidated Damages (LD) as barred by time if it was inextricably linked to the issue of Extension of Time (EOT) on which the decision of the competent authority was pending.

The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the period of limitation for the purpose of refund of LD would only begin from the date of the decision on the issue of EOT if the imposition of LD was contingent upon the EOT.

7. Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause Not Signed By A Party; Parties Can Still Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Buildmyinfra Private Limited versus Gyan Prakash Mishra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 734

The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the Agreement containing an Arbitration Clause has not been signed by a party to the dispute, the parties can still be referred to Arbitration.

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that it is not necessary for the written document to be signed by all the parties, as long as the existence of an arbitration agreement can be culled out from the exchange of letters or other means of communication between the parties.

The petitioner Buildmyinfra Private Limited issued an offer letter to the respondent Gyan Prakash Mishra to join its employment, which was accepted by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent signed a 'Confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreement'.

8. 'Khadi' Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against 'Khadi By Heritage', Awards ₹12 Lakhs Damages & Cost

Case Title: KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. RAMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 735

The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against KHADI BY HERITAGE, engaged in selling of PPE kits, hand sanitizers and fireballs, in the trademark infringement suit filed by KHADI observing that there was a "reasonable expectation" that the latter misused the former's trademark to promote its products.

Justice Pratibha M Singh awarded damages to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs and costs of Rs.2 lakhs in favour of Khadi & Village Industries Commission and observed thus:

"Such misuse of the Plaintiff's mark 'KHADI' cannot be condoned by the Court, inasmuch as the mark and the name, as also, the logo, have been identically used by the Defendants. The use by the Defendants is deliberate, conscious and mala fide in nature."

9. Article 226 | Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Already Considered By Departmental Authorities: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: SH D.C. NARNOLIA v. CANARA BANK AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 736

The Delhi High Court has held that it cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Indian Constitution, in cases of departmental enquiries, re-appreciate evidence which has already been reasonably considered by the departmental authorities.

A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also noted that it was not up to the High Court to adjudge upon the proportionality of the punishment in such cases. It observed,

" I t is not at all open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Equally, it is not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court."

10. No Distinct Status For Rifle Association Members Under Arms Act; They Can't Possess More Than 2 Firearms : Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MEET MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 737

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court held that a member of a Rifles' Association or Club cannot hold more than two firearms by claiming exemption under Section 3(2) of the Arms Act 1959. Justice Yashwant Varma stated that more than two firearms could only be held by a member on a temporary basis if holding of the additional weapon was licensed to the club or association that the said member was a part of.

Briefly, the facts of the case were that the petitioner had acquired a firearm license and was a life member of the National and State Rifles Associations. He acquired a point 22 bore target pistol in addition to the point 22 Rifle and point 32 revolver, already endorsed on his license.

11. Assault & Criminal Force: Delhi High Court Quashes Cross FIRs By Neighbours After Settlement, Asks Them To Install & Maintain Water Harvesting System

Case Title: FAUJI & ORS. v. THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 738

The Delhi High Court has quashed two cross FIRs lodged by neighbours alleging assault and use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the ladies involved in the fight between them, after the parties arrived at a settlement.

As the parties undertook to implement a water harvesting scheme at city's Fatehpur Beri village, Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the parties to provide necessary financial resources and manpower to install and implement the water harvesting system as well as to maintain the same for at least a period of 10 years.

12. [Unauthorized E-Rickshaws] Carrying Out Surprise Checks To Prevent Plying Without Fitness Certificate: Delhi Govt Informs High Court

Case Title: Ajit Kumar v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 739

The Delhi Government has informed the Delhi High Court that the registration of e-Rickshaws and procurement of Fitness Certificate as well as checking of violation of the said conditions is a regular ongoing process.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was also informed that regular checks are being conducted at various places in the city to ensure that each and every e-Rickshaw and e-Cart is plying only after obtaining the Fitness Certificate.

The Court was dealing with a public interest litigation stating that there are about 22,000 unauthorized autos and 52,280 unlicensed e-rickshaws presently plying on Delhi roads.

13. No Material Found On Search, Income Tax Additions Can't Be Made On Presumption: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Mamta Agarwal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 740

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora held that if no incriminating material is found during the course of the search, then no addition can be made in the assessment under Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act.

The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department carried out a search and seizure operation against M/s K.R. Pulp & Papers Limited under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at various residential and business premises. The company was stated to be managed and controlled by Madho Gopal Agarwal, Raj Gopal Agarwal, and Gopal Agarwal. The statements of Gopal Agarwal were recorded, and the statements of Madho Gopal Agarwal were recorded during the post-search inquiry.

14. Separate Toilets For Transgender Persons Will Be Created On Fast Track Basis: Delhi Govt To High Court

Case Title: Jasmine Kaur Chhabra v. UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 741

The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that it is making all possible efforts to ensure creation of separate toilets for the use of Transgender persons and that the same will be done on a fast track basis.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was further informed by the Delhi Government that as many as 505 toilets meant for Persons with Disabilities have been designated for the use of Transgender or Third Gender persons.

The status report filed on July 27 by Delhi Government's Department of Social Welfare further stated that a total of 9 new toilets for the use of Transgender persons had already been constructed and that further construction of 56 more toilets was underway.

15. Cross-Examination Cannot Encompass Questions Which Are Scandalous, Intend To Cause Humiliation To Witness: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KANWAL NAIN SINGH MOKHA v. REKHA KHURANA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 742

The Delhi High Court has observed that the cross-examination cannot encompass questions that are scandalous or intended to cause humiliation to the witness.

Justice Asha Menon further observed that while there is a right to ask questions of a witness to impeach his creditworthiness, it cannot descend to harassment and humiliation of the witness.

The Court added thus:

"Thus, it is clear that both examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts. The reason why cross-examination is not confined to the facts to which the witnesses testified is obvious. The witness who is examined-in-chief is from the side of the party who has called him. Therefore, his testimony would be, in-chief relating to the case of that party. But since the opposite side is also required to prove their case, the right has been given to such adverse party to put questions that would be beyond the examination-in-chief."

16. Disciplinary Authority Of Parent Organization Can Issue Chargesheet Against Employee's Misconduct In Borrowing Department: Delhi High Court

Case Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 743

The Delhi High Court has observed that once the employee is sent back to his parent department, it is the competent disciplinary authority of the parent organisation which can issue a charge sheet against the misconduct even though it has taken place in the borrowing department.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed an appeal against a single judge order which had refused to grant relief to a man, employed as an Executive Director in the Power Finance Corporation Limited, challenging a chargesheet wherein he was proposed to be proceeded against in disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions made in Rules 28 and 30 of the Power Finance Corporation Limited (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

17. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Fill Vacant Staff Posts In Indira Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital Within Six Months

Case Title: DWARKA COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 744

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to fill up within a period of six months the vacant posts at Indira Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital in city's Dwarka area, noting that the deficit staff deserved to be recruited as early as possible.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed Delhi Government's Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Department to carry out a periodic review after every 6 months for enhancing the number of beds and also the manpower in the said hospital.

"The hospital in question is catering to the needs of the people in and around Dwarka and there is no other Government Hospital," the Court noted.

18. Denial Of Speedy Trial Infringes Fundamental Right Under Article 21, May Be A Ground For Grant Of Bail: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: GURMITO v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 745

The Delhi High Court has held that speedy trial form an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution and the denial of same may be a ground for bail in certain circumstances.

The single judge bench comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that denial of bail without any possibility of the trial concluding anytime soon would cause an infringement of the accused person's right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since the case was instituted under the NDPS Act, the court also recorded satisfaction regarding twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the Act.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that an application was filed seeking release of an accused under the NDPS Act on regular bail till final disposal of the case registered by the CBI.

19. Persons Cannot Be Evicted With "Bulldozer" At Their Doorstep Without Any Notice, Rendering Them Completely Shelterless: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHAKARPUR SLUM UNION v. DDA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 746

Observing the action of Development Authority (DDA) in removing alleged encroachers 'overnight', the Delhi High Court has observed that persons cannot be evicted with a bulldozer at their doorstep "early in the morning or late in the evening" without any notice, rendering them completely shelterless.

Justice Subramonium Prasad further added that a reasonable period has to be given to such persons and temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities.

"The DDA has to act in consultation with the DUSIB before embarking upon any such venture and persons cannot be evicted with a bulldozer at their door step early in the morning or late in the evening, without any notice, rendering them completely shelter-less. A reasonable period has to be given to such persons and temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities," the Court observed.

20. S.41 CrPC | Arrest Should Not Be Made Merely Because It's Lawful, Police Officer Must Justify It Apart From His Power To Do So: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NEELAM CHAUHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 747

The Delhi High Court has observed that no arrest should be made merely for the reason that that it is lawful, thereby adding that the police officer has to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Satendar Kumar v. CBI which has discussed compliances of sec. 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1943, Justice Anu Malhotra was of the view that the said provisions have to be adhered to by the Investigating Agency in the event the police officer considers it essential to arrest the accused persons.

"It is essential to observe that the said provisions come into play at the time of arrest of a person and the requirement of calling upon a person to appear before the police officer on his having credible information or where there is a reasonable suspicion of that person having committed a cognizable offence," the Court said.

21. "Unfortunate That PIL Being Used For Blackmailing Citizens": Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10 Lakhs Cost On NGO Alleging Illegal Construction

Case Title: NEW RISE FOUNDATION REGD. CHARITABLE TRUST v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 748

The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on an NGO alleging illegal and unauthorised construction in city's Neb Sarai area, observing that it was unfortunate that PIL forum was being used for blackmailing citizens.

Observing that it was a blackmailing type of litigation, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the NGO to deposit the cost to Army War Widows Fund within a period of 30 days.

The PIL was filed by New Rise Foundation Regd. Charitable Trust, claiming that it provides shelter to orphan children and food to the poor, alleging that an illegal structure was in existence admeasuring 600 sq. yards.

22. Arbitration Clause In The Annexure To The Agreement Would Be Binding On The Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Piyush Kumar Dutt v. Vishal Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 749

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in the annexure to the main agreement would be binding on the parties to that agreement.

The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that in view of Section 11(6-A) the justiciability of claims and the defences can only be determined through adjudication by the arbitrator.

23. Arbitral Tribunal Has The Power To Vacate/Modify Its Earlier Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Airport Authority of India (Kolkata Airport) v. TDI International Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 750

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitral tribunal would be guided by the principles of O. 39 R. 1&2 of CPC while considering the issue of vacation/modification of an interim order.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the tribunal does not have the power of substantive review of its order, however, it does have the power to vacate or modify the conditions of the interim order.

24. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Ensure Strict Compliance Of Senior Citizens Act, Closes Suo Moto Proceedings

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 751

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Delhi Government to ensure strict compliance of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to ensure that legal aid is extended to persons covered under the Act with promptitude, in order to avoid any inconvenience to them.

The Court closed the suo moto proceedings in the nature of public interest litigation which were initiated on its own motion based on a May 23 letter of Advocate Neha Rai, who highlighted the current state of affairs regarding implementing the said Act.

25. Remedy Under RERA Act Is Not A Bar For Initiation Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Priyanka Taksh Sood & Ors. versus Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 752

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute involving refund of payment under the 'Flat Buyer Agreement' from a real estate developer is arbitrable and is not barred by the existence of a concurrent remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the remedies available under the RERA Act are in addition to, and not in supersession of, the remedies available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and that the application of concurrent remedies under the A&C Act is not barred under the RERA Act.

Applying the 'Doctrine of Election', the Court ruled that since the party had not initiated any proceedings under the RERA Act, therefore, it was not barred from electing to avail the remedy of arbitration.

26. Delhi HC Directs Speedy Disposal Of Cases For COVID Protocol Violations; Disapproves Police Issuing 41A Notices In Such Cases

Case Title: DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 753

The Delhi High Court on Thursday observed that it would be appropriate for the Delhi police to take quick action in all the pending matters relating to violation of orders passed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 by filing complaints as required under law before the appropriate court, adding that such courts ought to dispose of the matters without further delay.

Justice Asha Menon added:

"The offence has been made cognizable only in order to facilitate the police to take immediate action, including the arrest of a person, who is found disobeying the orders issued for maintenance of law and order and in the interest of public health. That purpose cannot be converted into one that subjects the offender to unnecessary harassment and entails violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing the right to life, of which liberty is an inalienable facet."

27. Mere Fact That Liberty Of Bail Was Not Misused During Trial Does Not Per Se Warrant Suspension Of Sentence U/S 389 CrPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Anil v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 754

"The mere fact that during trial liberty of bail was not misused may not per se warrant suspension of sentence and grant of bail," the Delhi High Court has observed.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that even though a detailed examination of the merits of the case may not be required for suspension of sentence, however, the exercise of jurisdiction is to be made in judicious manner and for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

"The difference between grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. during trial as well as (suspension of sentence) Section 389 Cr.P.C. after conviction is well distinguished and presumption of innocence which is provided at the time of trial does not continue after the conviction of accused," the Court said.

28. Show Cause Notice And Reassessment Order Based On Distinct And Separate Grounds, No Details Of Bogus Purchases Were Given: Delhi High Court Quashes The Order.

Case Title: M/s Best Buildwell Private Limited Versus ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 755

The Delhi High Court has held that the show cause notice as well as the reassessment order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act were based on distinct and separate grounds. The department failed to provide the details of the transaction and the vendors from whom the bogus purchases were made.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that "the show cause notice primarily states that "it is seen that the petitioner has made purchases from certain non-filers." However, no details or any information about these entities were provided to the petitioner. It is not understood as to how the petitioner was to know which of the entities it dealt with were filers or non-filers!"

29. E-Commerce Platforms Can't Permit Third-Party Sellers To "Latch On" Bestseller's Trademark: Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction Against Flipkart

Case Title: AKASH AGGARWAL v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 756

In the context of e-commerce platforms, the Delhi High Court has held that permitting a third-party seller to 'latch on' to a Best-Seller's name or trademark is nothing but 'riding piggyback', which also constitutes passing off.

Justice Pratibha M Singh further said:

"It amounts to taking unfair advantage of the goodwill that resides in the Plaintiff's mark and business. In the context of e-commerce, this Court has no doubt that 'latching on' by unauthorised sellers results in and constitutes 'passing off' as known in the brick and mortar world. It is a mode of encashing upon the reputation of the Plaintiff which he has painstakingly built."

30. Courts Must Be Sensitive To Plight Of Woman Lodging Complaint Against Her Own Husband For Sexual Assault Of Their Daughter: Delhi High Court

Case Title: V v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 757

The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that the Courts have to be sensitive to the situation where allegations have been lodged by mother of a minor victim against her own husband of having sexual contact with the daughter, that too in her presence in the house.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a husband, whose wife had alleged that he had sexually assaulted her five year old daughter.

The FIR was registered against the petitioner under sec. 377 of Indian Penal Code as well as sec. 6 of POCSO Act. Later, sec. 376AB (punishment for rape of minor under 12 years of age) of the Code was also invoked against him.

31. "Court Has To Become Voice Of Voiceless": Delhi HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance To Facilitate School Admission Of Child Whose Parents Are In Custody

Case Title: KAMINI ARYA THROUGH PEROKAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 758

The Delhi High Court has taken suo motu cognizance to facilitate admission of an 8 year old child to school which could not be facilitated for the reason that her parents were in judicial custody in a murder case since July 2021.

Observing that the Court has to become the "voice of the voiceless", Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added thus:

"This court is of the opinion that the child must get admitted in a school at the earliest so that shadow of no unpleasant happening falls upon the child's life to darken her future."

The Court noted that the child, being an individual Indian citizen, enjoyed the Fundamental Rights including the right to Education and that the welfare of child should not only be considered in cases dealing with family disputes but also like the present one.

32. Recovery Of Demand Against Issues Decided In Favour Of Assessee Is Unwarranted: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Expeditors International Of Washingtion, Inc. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 759

The Delhi High Court has held that the recovery of demand against issues decided in favour of the assessee is unwarranted.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Singh Arora has found that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has itself issued an Instruction dated February 2, 1993, giving guidelines for Stay of Demand. One of the guidelines for the grant of complete stay was "if the demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided in assessee's favour by an appellate authority or court earlier...."

33. Voice Sample Of Accused Can Be Obtained After Filing Of Charge Sheet With Court's Permission: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS TITU v. STATE OF UT OF CHANDIGARH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 760

The Delhi High Court has observed that framing of charges cannot defeat the right of the prosecution to obtain an expert opinion on voice samples that it had been permitted to take by Court.

Justice Asha Menon added that the purpose of taking a voice sample is to investigate a crime, but it would be incorrect to interpret the same as meaning that the voice sample would have to be taken only within the time the chargesheet is filed and not thereafter.

The Court made the observations while dealing with a plea filed by an accused in a case relating to the leaking of the question paper set for Haryana Civil Services (Judicial) (Preliminary) Examination 2017. The trial was later transferred to Delhi.

34. Enjoyment Of Liberty By Persons Overreaching Law Not Comprehended In Constitution, Legal Consequences Bound To Follow: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR JHA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 761

"Any attempt to create an impression that one can over reach the law and still he can enjoy the liberty would not be comprehended in the constitutional scheme," the Delhi High Court has observed while denying anticipatory bail to a man in a rioting case.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav added that when an individual behaves in disharmonious manner, society disapproves and the legal consequences are bound to follow.

The development came in an FIR registered under sec. 145, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 308 and 505 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

35. Theobroma & Theos Settle Trademark Dispute Before Delhi High Court

Case Title: THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 762

Competing entities Theos and Theobroma have agreed before the Delhi High Court to settle their trademark infringement suit in respect of bakery related products and confectionery.

Justice Pratibha M Singh noted the said settlement conditions while dealing with a suit filed by Theos Food Private Limited against Theobroma Foods Private Limited seeking to restrain the latter from infringing the trademark 'THEOS', 'THEO'S' and 'THEO'S PATISSERIE & CHOCOLATARIE'.

It was the case of Theos to restrict Theobroma that was using the mark 'THEOS' as a prefix to the names of various food items being sold in its outlets.

With respect to the use of the mark or name 'THEOS'/'THEO'S' by THEOBROMA on social media, physical, online menu cards and signages of Theobroma, the parties agreed before the court that Theobroma shall restrict such use of the mark 'THEOS'/'THEO'S' only for the following five food items offered by it, along with variants of the same.

36. Account Statements And IT Returns Relied On By Arbitral Tribunal, Have Evidentiary Value : Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Scholastic India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Kanta Batra 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 763

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the arbitral award cannot be set aside on the ground that the material relied upon by the Arbitral Tribunal does not measure up to the standards under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, held that an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, by relying upon the Bank Account statements and the Income Tax Return furnished by the Claimant, cannot be said to be an unreasoned award or an award based on no evidence.

37. Definition Of Relative Under Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Treated At Par With Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Miss Indira Uppal Versus UOI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 764

The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner's real intent was to ensure that gift tax is not levied on donee. The petition does not promote the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora has observed that as per the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Income Tax Act, 1961, the expression "relative" is not used in a similar context. The term "relative" being wholly context-specific, there is no reason to assume that the criteria used in defining it in one context will provide even a useful starting point in another context.

Next Story