Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: February 7 To February 12, 2022

ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK1. A Reliable Testimony Of An Injured Witness Holds Weight Even In The Face Of Procedural Irregularities For Conviction Under S. 307 IPC: Delhi High CourtCase Name: Saleem Khan v. The State (Govt. of GNCT, Delhi)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 92The Delhi High Court vindicated the case of the State upholding S. 307/324 IPC (attempt to murder/voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons) Conviction after confirming the reliability of the testimony of the injured witness. Appellant's objections to procedural irregularities such as non-examination of public witness and non-recovery of the weapon of offense by the prosecution were brushed aside in light of the reliable testimony of the injured witness.Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri highlighted the law on appreciation of injured witness according to a very high degree of reliability.Thus, the testimony of an injured witness, unless countered by significant discrepancies, is highly reliable, removing all doubts as to the likelihood of the witness falsely implicating the attacker.2. CPC- Plaint Has To Be Amended Once Application For Amendment Allowed Under Order VI Rule 18: Delhi High CourtTitle: THARVINDER SINGH & ORS. v. VIRESH CHOPRA & ANRCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 93The Delhi High Court has observed that once an application for amendment is allowed in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint has to be amended.Justice Pratibha M Singh also reiterated that in case the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter.The Court was dealing with a revision petition, the wherein the petitioners, who were defendants in the suit, had challenged the impugned order dated 28th July, 2020 by which the respondents (plaintiffs') application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed and the application of the Defendants under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.The Plaintiffs were accordingly directed to file the amended plaint, on the next date of hearing or within 15 days upon resumption of normal hearing, whichever was later.3. Delhi High Court Clarifies Controlled Substances Are Not Affected By The Bar To Bail Under Section 37 Of The NDPS ActCase Name: TINIMO EFERE WOWO Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHICitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 94In a case involving a foreign national arrested under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Delhi High Court clarified the liability of persons accused of offenses involving controlled substances and the foreigner's right to bail.In this case, the Petitioner was the source person for Pseudoephedrine drug for a business chain operating in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. Holding the drug to be a "controlled substance", Justice Bhatnagar held that the bar of Section 37 is not applicable in this case.4. Settlements Entered In Industrial Disputes Valid & Legal Even Though Provisions Similar To Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Do Not Exist In Industrial Disputes Act: Delhi HCTitle: M/S WEARWELL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED v. MOHD. NIZAMCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 95The Delhi High Court has observed that settlements entered into in industrial disputes are legal and valid even though provisions similar to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC do not exist in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Justice Pratibha M Singh added that settlements can be entered into between Management and Workman even outside the court or conciliation proceedings as is clear from sec. 18(1) Industrial Disputes Act."Such settlements would be valid and legal. Upon a settlement being entered into, parties may place the same before the forum concerned and the same can be recorded, upon the Court being satisfied that the terms are legal, just and fair. A settlement under Section 18(1) would be binding on the parties. The usual procedure for recording a settlement would be that parties would file an application and appear before the court and confirm the settlement," the Court said.5. Order XXXVII CPC- Defendant Entitled To Unconditional Leave To Defend Suit If Substantial Defence Or Triable Issues Shown: Delhi High CourtTitle: SMT. NEELAM BATRA v. SHRI V. RAMCHANDRA RAOCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 96The Delhi High Court has observed that under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant is entitled to the leave to defend the suit if he satisfied the Court that he has a substantial defence or that there are triable issues by way of which the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait made the following observations:"Order XXXVII CPC was included in the Code of Civil Procedure with the intent to allow the plaintiff who has an undisputed liquidated claim against the defendant, who has no substantial defence and/or raises no genuine triable issues to obtain a quick and summary judgment without pointlessly being kept away from what is due, in respect of any monetary dues, to recover the dues swiftly by a summary procedure instead of...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: February 7 To February 12, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags