Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: January 31 To February 6, 2022

ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK1. Arbitral Award Is To Be Executed At A Place Where Judgment Debtor Resides, Carries Business Or Has Assets: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Continental Engineering Corporation v. Sugesan Transport Pvt Ltd.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 59The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an execution petition filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act by a Decree Holder for an arbitral award because the the Judgment Debtor was carrying out its business in Chennai and it did not have any office or asset within Delhi jurisdiction.The present petition was filed under Section 36 (the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court) of the Arbitration Act ('the Act'). The Court also relied on Order XXI, Rule 30 of CPC for grant of execution of a money decree.While going through the assets of the Judgement Debtor, the judge noted that, the Judgement Debtor is a company carrying out its business in Chennai, its primary bank account is based out of Chennai and it does not have any office/ asset located in Delhi. The affidavit of assets filed by the Judgement Debtor also does not disclose an moveable/ immoveable assets within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. 2. "Serious Assault On Dignity Of Complainant": Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIR Of Stalking, Sexual Harassment Despite Settlement Between PartiesCase Title: MOHD. NAZIM v. THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 60The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR filed against a man accused of stalking, sexual harassing and circulating morphed photographs of an undergraduate girl, despite settlement between parties.Considering the nature of offences committed against the girl, Justice Mukta Gupta was of the view that the FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the man later showed repentance for the offences committed as the same was a "serious assault on the fundamental right to live with dignity of the complainant."3. Fair Trial Is Hallmark Of Criminal Procedure, Court's Duty To Ensure Fair & Proper Opportunities To Accused For Just Decision: Delhi HCCase Title: KRISHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE (GNCT) OF DELHICitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 61The Delhi High Court has observed that a fair trial is the hallmark of criminal procedure which entails not only the rights of the victims but also the interest of the accused.Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri added that it is the duty of every Court to ensure that fair and proper opportunities are granted to the accused for just decision of the case."In furtherance of the above, adducing of evidence by the accused in support of his defence is also a valuable right and allowing the same is in the interest of justice," the Court said.4. S. 3(1)(w) Of SC/ST Act Does Not Come Into Play When Offence Had No Reference To Prosecutrix's Caste : Delhi High CourtCase Title: Joy Dev Nath v. State (NCT of Delhi)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 62The Delhi High Court has held that to prosecute a person for an offence committed under Section Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must show that the offence was committed in reference to the 'caste' of the victim/ prosecutrix.Section 3(1)(w) penalizes a person, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent.5. Liquidated Damages Over & Above Actual Damages Cannot Be Awarded By Sole Arbitrator: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Bhopal Dal Udyog v. Food Corporation of India, FAO (OS) 415/2011Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 63The Delhi High Court observed that in breach of a contract, if the actual damages have been ascertained then the sole arbitrator is not justified in granting liquidated damages over and above such actual damages.The Bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manmohan observed," In the present case as the actual damages suffered by the respondent were proven and accepted by the learned Sole Arbitrator, liquidated damages over and above such actual damages could not have been awarded. Accordingly, the Arbitral Award insofar as it grants Rs.8,38,656/- in favour of the respondent is set aside."6. 'Strong Suspicion' Of Prima Facie Case Based On Materials On Record Sufficient To Frame Charges; Need Not Assess Probative Value Of Evidence: Delhi HCCase Name: Shakiluddin @ Babloo v. The State CRL.REV.P.-150/2020Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 64The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Revision Petition filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing the charge of murder against the accused-revisionist.It held that at the stage of framing charges, the Court need not consider the probative value of the evidence. A prima facie view of the materials on record is sufficient for framing...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: January 31 To February 6, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags