Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 To December 11, 2022

Citations [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1145 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1161] NOMINAL INDEX MRS. X v. GNCTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1145 SUSHIL KR. JAIN( ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1146 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1147 SHWETA v. GNCTD AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1148 Spectrum Power Generation Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1149 Kush Raj Bhatia v. M/S DLF Power & Services Ltd. ARB. P 869/2022 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1150 FARIDA BEGUM vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1151 PCIT Versus Simon India Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1152 Ram Kumar v. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. FAO (COMM.) 60 of 2021. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1153 SANJAY PANDEY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1154 ANTI-CORRUPTION COUNCIL OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MOHD KAMRAN KHAN v. STATE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1155 SRI DESARAJU VENUGOPAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1156 JOLLY SINGH v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1157 UMESH BABU vs JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1158 POWER INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1159 Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1160 New India Assurance Company Limited v. Khanna Paper Mills Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 11611. Mother's Choice & Quality Of Unborn Child's Life Deciding Factors For Final Decision: Delhi High Court On Termination Of Pregnancy With Fetal AbnormalitiesTitle: MRS. X v. GNCTD & ANR.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1145The Delhi High Court this week ruled that ultimate choice in the pregnancy cases involving fetal abnormalities is of the mother and emphasised that the medical boards in such cases must give qualitative reports."In conclusion, the Court holds that the ultimate decision in such cases ought to recognize the choice of the mother, as also, the possibility of a dignified life for the unborn child," said Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the ruling, while allowing a 26-year-old married woman's plea seeking medical termination of her foetus of over 33 weeks suffering from cerebral abnormalities.Justice Singh said the opinion of the medical board in such cases of termination of pregnancy is of considerable importance for the assistance of the courts. "Such opinions cannot be sketchy and fragmented. They ought to be comprehensive in nature," said the judge.The court further said that in such cases, speediness coupled with qualitative reports is of utmost importance."There ought to be some standard factors on which the opinion should be given by the board to whom such cases are referred. Such factors ought include medical condition of the fetus. While giving the scientific or medical terminologies, some explanation in laypersons terms as to the effect of such condition ought to be mentioned. Alternatively, medical literature could be an annexed with opinion."2. High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Deportation Of African Nationals Allegedly Living Without Valid Visa Or Passport In DelhiTitle: SUSHIL KR. JAIN( ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1146The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking immediate deportation of people from Africa, Bangladesh and other foreign nationals allegedly living without a valid visa or passport in the national capital.A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed as withdrawn a plea filed by Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain. The plea also claimed the foreign nationals are living as tenants in Delhi without any proper verification. 3. Delhi High Court Directs Registry To Issue Practice Directions For Arraying Workman As First Respondent In Pleas Challenging Labour Court OrdersTitle: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1147The Delhi High Court has directed its Registry to ensure that the petitioners array the workman as first respondent in the petitions assailing the order or award passed by labour courts or any other statutory authority, where the workman is a contesting respondent so that he or she is easily able to locate the writ petition in the cause list.The direction was issued by Justice Rekha Palli on the judicial side while hearing petitions filed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation against recovery certificates issued in favour of the workmen by the Deputy Labour Commissioner.Justice Palli said that when the writ petitions assailing the awards or orders passed by the labour court are filed by the management including the municipal corporation, the Delhi government is impleaded as first respondent and the workmen are generally impleaded as respondent two or three. The court said due to such practice, the title of the petitions assailing different awards becomes identical and it causes confusion to the workmen.4. Delhi High Court...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 To December 11, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags