Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 29 To September 4, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 838HANZLA IQBAL v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806VISHV MOHAN v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 807RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA v. MANJU BHATIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 808SMT. SHIPALI SHARMA v. State & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 809VED PRAKASH MANCHANDA v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENTBOARD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 810SHRI B K PARCHURE v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 811ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. v. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 812SGT. NAVNEET KUMAR SINGH (977823-F) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 813OM PRAKASH v. THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY (REGO.) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 814BHARTI SAHANI v. STATE (GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 815Rithala Education Society Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 816PVR Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 817Babuddin v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 818Royal Orchids versus Kulbir Singh Kohli & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 819ANIL KUMAR & ORS. v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 820SANJAY SARIN v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 821NEETU SINGH & ANR. v. TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 823BOLT Technology OU v. Ujoy Technology Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 824MS HNUNPUII v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 825BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 826SIKANDER SONI AND ANR v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 827TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED v. SHENZHEN COLOURSPLENDOUR GIFT CO LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 828Puri Constructions Ltd v. Shailesh Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 829SIDDHAST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 830Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 831KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 832SHARAFAT SHEIKH @ MD. AYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 833BIRPAL SINGH v. NUTAN MARATHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 834SARVESH MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 835RATTAN MEHTA & ANR. v. GAYATRI SHAH & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 836Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar Versus Commissioner of CGST 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 837Geeta Poddar v. Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 8381. Person Having Consensual Physical Relationship Not Required To Judicially Scrutinse Other Person's Date Of Birth: Delhi High CourtTitle: HANZLA IQBAL v. THE STATE & ANR.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806"The person, who is in a consensual physical relationship with another person, is not required to judicially scrutinise the date of birth of the other person," the Delhi High Court has observed.Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting bail to a man accused in a rape case. The complainant had alleged that after becoming friends, in September 2019, the petitioner called her to a hotel and established a physical relationship with her and also made her video, thereby blackmailing her.The complainant further alleged that the petitioner forced her to have physical relationships with different people under the threat of releasing the video.It was also alleged that around August, 2021, the complainant managed to escape from the petitioner's house where she was held captive, after which she met an advocate who helped her lodging the FIR.On the other hand, it was the petitioner's case that the date of incident as alleged was September, 2019, whereas the FIR was filed after three years in 2022.2. Welfare State Expected To Create Conducive Conditions For Disabled Citizens, Provide Avenues For Public Employment: Delhi High CourtCase Title: VISHV MOHAN v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 807The Delhi High Court has observed that a welfare State is expected to create conditions which are conducive to citizens with disabilities by providing them avenues for public employment.A division bench comprising of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela was of the view that under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the State is enjoined to create conditions and opportunities for the welfare and betterment of the citizens with disabilities and those who are differently abled."The Central Government had enacted the said Act to ensure that the citizens falling in this category are not deprived of their rightful means of livelihood in respect of public employment. It is with a view to give impetus to the beneficial provisions of the said Act, that the Central Government and the State Governments created various avenues for public employment of such differently abled citizens," the Court said.3. Plaintiff Cannot Value Suit Differently For Purpose Of Jurisdiction & For Payment Of Court Fees:...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 29 To September 4, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags