Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 8 To August 14, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 781SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 766GHULAM SARWAR v. SMT. NILOFAR KHAN & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 767Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 768Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 769Sanser Pal Singh v. UOI & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 770SULEMAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 771MAN SINGH v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 772URMILA & ORS. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 773EXTREME COATING PRIVATE LTD v. JOTUN INDIA PRIVATE LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 774Rohit Madan v Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 775PCIT Versus Punjab & Sind Bank 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 776VIFOR INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 777Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. versus Ircon International Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 778TRIDENT INFOSOL PVT LTD v UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 779NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION v. ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 780RAKESH v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 7811. Sex Worker Entitled To All Rights Available To Citizens But Cannot Claim Special Treatment If She Violates Law: Delhi High CourtCase Title: SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANRCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 765The Delhi High Court has observed that although a sex worker is entitled to all the rights which are available to a citizen, she cannot claim special treatment if she violates the law.Justice Asha Menon observed:"No doubt, a sex worker is entitled to all rights available to a citizen, but at the same time, if she violates the law, she would be subjected to the same consequences under law and cannot claim any special treatment."The Court made the observation while denying interim bail to a woman, a sex worker, who had allegedly forced a minor girl into prostitution and did not allow her to leave the brothel house. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in a brothel house from where 13 minor girls were rescued.2. Unqualified Person Appointed On Ad-Hoc Basis Cannot Claim Right To Continue In Employment As A Matter Of Right: Delhi High CourtCASE TITLE: DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 766The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person appointed as a daily wager or on ad-hoc basis, who did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification, cannot as a matter of right claim to continue in such employment.The single judge bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,"Upon having perused the records of the case and having analysed the facts of the case at hand, it emerged that the petitioner did not meet the qualification criteria and necessary certification. Despite the opportunities granted, he failed to undergo the requisite professional or skill-based training and failed to furnish the certificate for the same. As such, an employee on daily wages or appointed on an ad-hoc basis, as a matter of right, cannot claim to be employed for a position to which one is ineligible."3. High Court Must Respect Exercise Of Discretionary Powers By District Judiciary, Cannot Play Role Of 'Headmaster': Delhi HCCase Title: GHULAM SARWAR v. SMT. NILOFAR KHAN & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 767"The High Court is required, at all times, to respect the exercise of discretionary powers by the district judiciary and not to act in a manner as could convey an impression that the court is playing the role of headmaster," the Delhi High Court has observed.Justice C Hari Shankar further added that if the High Court starts interfering with the orders passed by district judiciary in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is "bound to shake the confidence of the district judiciary" and "seriously impede the dispassionate exercise of discretion vested in them.""In my considered opinion, it is only as a matter of chance hierarchal circumstance that this Court is "above" the district judiciary. Else, the district judiciary, and the learned Courts of which it is comprised, exercise jurisdiction which, subjectively, is co-equal to the jurisdiction exercised by this Court," the Court said.4. Income Tax Dept. Can't Withhold Refunds In Mechanical And Routine Manner: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CircleCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 768The Delhi High Court has held that an order under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed in a mechanical and routine manner. The refunds cannot be withheld just because the notice under Section 143(2) has been issued and the department wants to verify the claim for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act.The division bench of...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 8 To August 14, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags