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

Nupur Thapliyal

6 Feb 2022 6:24 AM GMT

  • 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...

    ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

    1. Arbitral Award Is To Be Executed At A Place Where Judgment Debtor Resides, Carries Business Or Has Assets: Delhi High Court

    Case Title: Continental Engineering Corporation v. Sugesan Transport Pvt Ltd.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 59

    The 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 Parties

    Case Title: MOHD. NAZIM v. THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 60

    The 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 HC

    Case Title: KRISHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 61

    The 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 Court

    Case Title: Joy Dev Nath v. State (NCT of Delhi)

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 62

    The 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 Court

    Case Title: Bhopal Dal Udyog v. Food Corporation of India, FAO (OS) 415/2011

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 63

    The 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 HC

    Case Name: Shakiluddin @ Babloo v. The State CRL.REV.P.-150/2020

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 64

    The 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 charges.

    Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar held:

    "When the material placed before the Court discloses great suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be justified in framing charge. No roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial was being conducted. If on the basis of materials on record a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists."

    7. Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Of 72 Yrs Old Accused In POCSO Case

    Case Title: Miss M (Minor) v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., Crl. M. C. 1909/2020

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 65

    The Delhi High Court cancelled the bail granted to a 72 years old man, who is accused of raping a 7 years old girl child and is booked for the offence of Rape under Section 376 IPC and Penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

    The petitioner/ complainant had filed a petition under Article 227, read with Section 439(2) CrPC, assailing the order granting bail to the accused.

    8. Assembly Elections 2022: Delhi HC Refuses To Entertain Congress Leader's Plea To Postpone Polls In Five States Amid Third COVID Wave

    Case Title: Jagdish Sharma v. UOI

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 66

    The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea filed by Congress Leader Jagdish Sharma seeking postponement of polls in States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Manipur, Uttarakhand and Goa in view of the growing cases of new Covid-19 variant Omicron.

    The Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh expressed their displeasure and termed the petition as "frivolous" amid decline in the cases. It asked the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the plea and warned that the same will otherwise be dismissed with cost.

    Accordingly, the plea was withdrawn from Court.

    9. "Sensitive Matter": Delhi High Court Grants Protection To Inter Faith Couple Apprehending Honour Killing

    Title: FARHEEN SAINI & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 67

    The Delhi High Court has granted police protection to an inter faith couple who was apprehending honour killing at the hands of woman's family members, after observing that their constitutional right to life and liberty was under threat.

    Noting that the matter was sensitive in nature as the parties belonged to different religious communities, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said:

    "There is no doubt that the present matter is of sensitive nature as the parties involved belong to different religious communities. The right to life and liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the same is an essential right to be protected, and in the present matter the Petitioners right was under threat at the instance of Respondents No. 3 to 5."

    10. Delhi Riots: High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused Of Killing 85 Yrs Old Woman, One Denied Relief

    Case Title: State v. Vishal Singh and other connected pleas

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 68

    The Delhi High Court granted bail to two men accused in the murder case of 85 year old woman, Akbari who died of asphyxiation due to inhaling smoke during the North East Delhi riots after her house was set on fire by a riotous mob. One other accused has however been denied relief.

    Justice Subramonium Prasad denied bail to Vishal Singh. Relief was granted to Arun Kumar and Ravi Kumar, all booked in FIR 70/2020 registered at Bhajanpura police station.

    11. Vendors Selling Essential Goods & Services Can't Be Equated To Regular Shops: Delhi High Court

    Case Title: SAPTAHIK PATRI BAZAR ASSOCIATION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 69

    The Delhi High Court has observed that participation of vendors in weekly markets in selling or dealing with essential goods and services is no ground to equate them with regular shops or establishments.

    A Bench of Justicr Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh added that the nature of regular shops or establishment in a market area is very different from any weekly markets owing to the reason of density of both vendors and visitors.

    "Footfall in a weekly market is much higher and therefore the risk of spread of disease in weekly market is much higher," the Bench said.

    Therefore, the Court observed that a weekly market cannot be controlled and managed in the same way as regular shops or establishments in a regular market.

    12. Delhi High Court Dismisses Allegations Of False Implication Against Complainant, Cites Law On Appreciation Of Injured Witness' Testimony

    Case Title: Ankit v. State (NCT of Delhi) CRL.A. 170/2020

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 70

    The Delhi High Court recently referred to the law on appreciation of testimony of an injured witness, while upholding the judgment and conviction for attempted Murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

    Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri noted that the complainant/ witness had identified the appellant (convict) in Court and in cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the appellant was falsely implicated by him as he had taken loan from the appellant.

    In this regard, the Judge referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Others (2011), to hold that the testimony of the complainant can be relevant and reliable, depending on the facts and circumstances of every case.

    13. Award Of Interest Contrary To Express Terms Of Agreement Susceptible To Challenge Under S.34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

    Case Title: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation (India), OMP (COMM) 432/2019

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 71

    The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that the award of interest contrary to the express terms of the agreement between the parties would be susceptible to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.

    However, Justice Vibhu Bakhru added, if there is no such agreement proscribing award of interest, the award of interest cannot be faulted.

    The observation was made while dealing with an application filed by the National Seeds Corporation Limited under Section 34 of the Act, impugning an arbitral award rendered by a Sole Arbitrator.

    14. Appears To Be Dishonest Adoption Of Plaintiff's Trademark: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection To Owner Of "Baazi" Games

    Case Name: MOONSHINE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus TICTOK SKILL GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 72

    In a case concerning alleged trademarks infringement, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction against the Defendants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unjustifiably using the trademarked word "Baazi" for its gaming services.

    Holding that dishonest use of trademark "Baazi" or a similar word by a competitor of the registered proprietor of the trademark would suffice to restrain such user, the Court allowed the application of the Plaintiff/the registered proprietor for ad-interim injunction till the disposal of the suit.

    15. Adequacy Of Court Fees Has To Be Decided By Joint Registrar, Independent Of Any Objections Recorded By Registry: Delhi High Court

    Case Title: SHAILENDRA GHAI v. ANIL GHAI & ORS

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 73

    The Delhi High Court has said that it is incumbent on the Joint Registrar to consider the question of adequacy of court fees filed by a party, independent of any objections recorded by the Registry in that regard.

    "It is underlined that when an objection as to adequacy of Court Fees is raised, it is incumbent upon the learned Joint Registrar to consider the question independently of any objections recorded by the Registry and to pass appropriate orders," Justice Asha Menon said.

    The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved with the orders of the Joint Registrar dated 8th October, 2021 directing him to pay the deficient Court Fees without fail before the next date of hearing.

    16. NI Act- Limitation Period For Issuance Of Legal Notice To Exclude Day On Which Intimation Received From Bank About Return Of Cheque: Delhi HC

    Title: M/S RAYAPATI POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 75

    The Delhi High Court has observed that while computing the limitation period of 30 days prescribed under sec. 138(b) Negotiable Instruments Act for issuance of a valid legal notice, the day on which intimation is received by the complainant from the bank that the cheque in question has been returned unpaid has to be excluded.

    Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri was dealing with a bunch of petitions filed under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaints qua them. 

    17. Encroachment Of Govt Land An 'Ill That Plagues Civil Litigation', Trial Courts Must Decide Maintainability Of Such Cases At Initial Stage: Delhi HC

    Case Title: NATHU RAM v. D.D.A & ANR.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 76

    The Delhi High Court has observed that it is incumbent on the Trial Courts to consider the maintainability of suits at the initial stage so as to ensure that long delays do not take place, especially in respect of government land.

    Justice Pratibha M Singh dismissed a second appeal challenging a single Judge's order against possession of the Appellants of a government land.

    It was the case of the plaintiffs (Appellants herein) that they were in possession of the suit property situated in revenue estate of Humayunpur since the time of their forefathers. The original suit was filed against the DDA on the ground that on 8th May, 1984, DDA had threatened to demolish the construction of the house and asked the Plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the same.

    18. Limitation Under Art. 68 & 91(a) Runs From 'Date Of Actual Knowledge' Of Misappropriation: Delhi High Court

    Case Name: K.N. Rao & Anr. V. M/s. Composite Securities Ltd. & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 77

    The Delhi High Court has clarified that the phrase "first learns" used in the Limitation Act 1963 vide Articles 68 and 91(a) in its Schedule means "actual knowledge" of misappropriation and not merely "speculative knowledge."

    Limitation under Article 68 pertains to specific movable property lost, or acquired by theft, or dishonest misappropriation or conversion. The period of limitation is 3 years, time from which begins to run when the person having the right to the possession of the property first learns in whose possession it is.

    Similarly, Article 91(a) pertains to wrongfully taking or detaining any specific movable property lost, or acquired by theft, or dishonest misappropriation, or conversion. The period of limitation is three years, time fir which begins to run when the person having the right to the possession of the property first learns in whose possession it is.

    19. S.34 SARFAESI Act | General Bar On Civil Proceedings Not Applicable When Secured Creditor Accused Of Committing Fraud: Delhi High Court

    Case Name: Tajunissa & Anr. V. Mr. Vishal Sharma & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 78

    The Delhi High Court has held that invocation of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act results in a general bar to civil court proceedings, in light of Section 34 of the Act. However, this general rule is subject to the exceptions of fraud or absurd claims by the secured creditor.

    Justice C. Hari Shankar, quoted the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. UOI (2004), in the context of this invocation:

    "To the statutory proscription engrafted in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, the Supreme Court has, in the aforeextracted passage from Mardia Chemicals, chiseled out an exception, in a case in which "for example, the action of the secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent or his claim may be so absurd and untenable which may not require any probe whatsoever".

    20. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Rotation Of Wards For Reserved Categories In Upcoming Municipal Polls

    Case Title: Pankaj Sharma v. State Election Commission, WP (C ) 1892/2022 connected with Manoj Kumar Jha v. State Election Commission & Ors., WP (C ) 2027/2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 79

    The Delhi High Court has dismissed two petitions challenging a notification issued by the State Election Commission last month, changing the seats reserved in some wards under the General and Scheduled Caste category, for the upcoming municipal elections on the basis of descending order of percentage of population.

    The Division Bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that relied reservation and rotation of seats for SC/ST members in municipal seats is not prohibited under Article 243T(1) of the Constitution.

    The Court further noted that the power for rotation for the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes in different wards is vested upon the Central Government, and the delegation of this power to the State Election Commission (via a 1993 notification) has not been challenged.

    21. Delhi High Court Refunds Entire Court Fees In A Trademark Infringement Suit Resolved Amicably Outside Court

    Case Title: Western Infrabuild Products LLP v. M/s Western Steel India & Anr.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 80

    The Delhi High Court recently decided to refund the entire court fees in a trademark infringement case, which was amicably settled by the parties outside the Court.

    In doing so, the Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait followed suit of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam.

    In the said case, the Top Court had held that the parties who privately agree to settle their dispute outside the modes contemplated under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure are also entitled to refund of Court fees.

    22. Order VII Rule 11 CPC | There Cannot Be Piecemeal Rejection Of Plaint: Delhi High Court

    Case Title: Kavita Tushir v. Pushpraj Dalal, CM (M) 13/2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 81

    The Delhi High Court has held that there cannot be a piecemeal rejection of a plaint under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In other words, Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all.

    The observation is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. Therein, a Division Bench had held as follows:

    "it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against the others. In no uncertain terms the Court has held that if the plaint survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial. 12. In view of this settled legal position we may now turn to the nature of relief."

    23. 'Policy Matter': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Reduce Covid Booster Dose Interval

    Case Title: Dishank Dhawan v. GNCTD, WP (C ) 5239/2021

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 82

    The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking to reduce the time gap for administration of precautionary doses of Covid-19 vaccines (booster shots) to front line workers and senior citizens.

    The Bench comprising of Chief Justice Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that it is an administrative decision and the Court cannot interfere in policy matters, based on the whims of the petitioners.

    " These policies are made by Doctors who are subject-matter experts and High Courts will be extremely slow in interfering in such matters," the Bench remarked orally.

    24. Espionage Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Freelance Journalist Rajeev Sharma

    Case Title: Rajeev Sharma v. Enforcement Directorate

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 83

    The Delhi High Court has granted bail to freelance journalist Rajeev Sharma in connection with a case alleging that he supplied confidential information to Chinese Officials, in exchange of remuneration.

    Enforcement Directorate had initiated investigation on the basis of an FIR filed against Sharma under the provisions of IPC and Official Secrets Act.

    Justice Mukta Gupta pronounced the order after reserving the judgment on December 21, 2021.

    25. Take Immediate Steps For Filling Vacancies, Providing Infra At Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora Across State: High Court Tells Delhi Govt

    Case Title: MOHAN PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SH. YOGESH & ORS. v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 84

    The Delhi High Court has called for a report in respect of filling up of vacancies and infrastructure requirements across all District Fora and the State Consumer Redressal Forum in the city.

    Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the Delhi Government to submit the said report within six weeks.

    The Court also directed the said officer to coordinate with Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (Retd.), President of the State Consumer Redressal Forum, in order to ascertain the vacancies across the District Fora in Delhi and further requirements of the said fora and the State Forum.

    The Court was dealing with a petition highlighting a grievance that the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (West), Janakpuri, Delhi had not disposed of the consumer complaint, which was filed way back in 2007.

    26. POCSO | Child Witness' Testimony Must Be Evaluated More Carefully, Sufficient For Conviction If It Inspires Confidence & Is Reliable: Delhi HC

    Case Title: Ravinder v. State

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 85

    The Delhi High Court has held that a trustworthy testimony of a child witness is sufficient to record a conviction under the POCSO Act. At the same time, the Court struck a note of caution that the testimony has to be evaluated more carefully..

    The observation was made by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while hearing an appeal against conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, which pertains to sexual harassment upon a child.

    After perusing the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finally set aside the conviction of the accused, citing unreliable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

    27. Chapter XXIA CrPC | Provisions Of Plea Bargaining Applicable To Offences U/S 132 & 135 Of Customs Act: Delhi High Court

    Case Name: AIR Customs v. Begaim Akynova

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 86

    In a case concerning illegal smuggling of gold by two Kazakh nationals, the Delhi High Court upheld the plea bargain reached between the Smuggler Respondent, Consul at the Kazakh Embassy, Air Customs Officer, and Senior SPP for the Customs Department vide Mutually Satisfactory Declaration (MSD).

    Per the MSD, the Respondent pled guilty to Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. In return, the Respondent shall plead for a lenient sentence from the Court.

    Accordingly, Trial Court sentenced her to a period of imprisonment already undergone along with a fine under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

    28. Inherent Jurisdiction Of High Court U/S 482 CrPC Can't Be Invoked To Override Bar Of Review U/S 362: Delhi HC

    Case Title: Dr Sanjeev Kumar Rasania v. CBI and Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 87

    The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for setting aside its own Judgment, citing the bar on review envisaged under Section 362 CrPC.

    Section 362 stipulates that no Court, when it has signed its Judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

    Explaining that the Court's inherent powers under Section 482 does not confer any new powers, at the cost of an existing provision under the Code, the Court held that the provision does not grant unlimited jurisdiction. 

    29. "Young Students Should Not Be Denied Opportunity To Pursue LLB Degree": High Court Directs Delhi University To Fill Vacant Seats

    Case Title: DEEPANSHU KHANNA & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 88

    The Delhi High Court has directed the University of Delhi to fill up all the available vacant seats across all the categories in its LLB course, with a period of two weeks, notwithstanding the cut-off date for admission.

    Justice Rekha Palli observed that young students should not be denied the opportunity to pursue LLB degree who have shown their grit and determination in clearing the entrance examination.

    The Court was dealing with the pleas moved by three students aggrieved of not being granted admission in LLB course of Delhi University despite availability of vacant seats. The Court directed that the University must consider all eligible candidates for filling up the vacancies including the petitioners.

    30. Delhi High Court Directs Employees' State Insurance Corporation To Constitute Committee To Frame Policy Regarding Contractual Workers

    Title: Sh. Hansraj & Ors v. ESIC & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 89

    The Delhi High Court has directed the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to constitute a committee in order to frame a broad policy for all its establishments in respect of contractual workers.

    Justice Pratibha M Singh added that the Committee shall consist of at least two experts, two representatives from the Workmen and two representatives from the Contractors, as also other officials, as the ESIC deems appropriate, in order to frame the proposed policy.

    31. Purpose Of Admitting Students In Schools Under EWS Category Is To Ensure Access To Quality Education To Under-Privileged Students: Delhi High Court

    Title: AMBIENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 90

    The Delhi High Court has observed that the purpose of admitting students to schools under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category is to ensure that students of the under-privileged strata of society get access to quality education as envisaged under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

    Justice Rekha Palli was dealing with a petition moved by a private unaided and recognised school, assailling the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Directorate of Education of Delhi Government vide which the school's request for grant of exemption from admitting 25 students in the EWS category based on the permissible intake to the schools was rejected.

    32. Employee Of Border Roads Organization Has No Fundamental Right To Claim Deputation To Any Other Organization Or Dept Like NHAI: Delhi High Court

    Title: KAMLESH KUMAR JHA v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL BORDER ROADS AND ORS.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 91

    The Delhi High Court has held that an employee of the Border Roads Organisation has no fundamental right to claim a deputation to any other Organisation or Department like National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

    A bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla added that since an employee of Border Roads Organisation has to work primarily in the said Organisation, he has only a right of fair consideration in accordance with the policy and needs of the organisation.

    The Court dismissed a plea filed by one Kamlesh Kumar Jha challenging the rejection letter dated and show cause notice thereby seeking directions to the Border Roads Organisation to allow the his application for deputation to the NHAI on the ground of parity.

    IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES

    1. Marital Rape Exception: Centre Requests Delhi High Court To Defer Hearing In View Of Pending Consultative Process

    The Central government has reiterated its request before the Delhi High Court to defer hearing in a bunch of pleas challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape provided the wife is above 15 years of age.

    Time is sought for providing a stipulated timeline within which the Central Government would conduct an effective consultative process in order to assist the Court on the issue.

    Also Read: Leave It To Trial Courts To Decide How Marital Rape Is Proved : Colin Gonsalves To Delhi High Court

    Also Read: Marital Rape Exception Restricts Women's Freedom Of Sexual Expression, Violates Art. 19(1)(a) Of Constitution: Adv Karuna Nundy To Delhi High Court

    Also Read: 'Marital Rape Will Remain Condoned Unless Criminalized, Marriage Not License To Ignore Consent': Adv Karuna Nundy Argues In Delhi HC

    2. "Constitute High Level Committee For Preventive Measures To Ensure Juveniles Are Not Lodged In Adult Jails": DCPCR To Delhi High Court

    The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) has prayed from the Delhi High Court to constitute a High Level Committee for outlining preventive measures to ensure that juveniles are not lodged in adult jails.

    In the written submissions filed before a bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani, DCPCR has stated that it believes that a serious inquiry into "every lapse made in age investigation of juveniles" is the strongest deterrent for the erring police officials to be conscious of the aspect of age of juveniles.

    3. Whether Parents Of A Deceased Unmarried Man Have Right Over His Preserved Sperm? Plea Filed In Delhi High Court

    An interesting case has come up before the Delhi High Court wherein the parents of a deceased unmarried young man have sought a direction upon the Ganga Ram Hospital to release their late son's frozen semen sample to them.

    It is their case that following the unfortunate demise of their son, they are the "sole claimants" over his remaining "bodily assets" and such, the Hospital's action of denying them access to the semen sample is violative of their rights.

    Notices in the matter were issued to the Health Department of Delhi government and the Hospital in December 2021. Justice V. Kameswar Rao has now posted it for hearing on 13 May 2022.

    4. Delhi Riots: High Court To Hear Next Week Pleas Seeking SIT Investigation, Registration Of FIRs Against Politicians For Alleged Hate Speech

    The Delhi High Court will commence hearing next week a bunch a pleas seeking independent SIT investigation into the North East Delhi Riots of 2020. The pleas also seek registration of FIRs against politicians for alleged hate speeches and action to be taken against errant police officials.

    A bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani posted the matter for hearing on February 8.

    The Bench however told the counsels appearing for the petitioners to identify and collate the prayers in the pleas in order to enable the Court to determine the issues which are to be considered and those which may have been rendered infructuous.

    5. Search Engines Like Google Not 'Publishers' Under Part III Of IT Rules, 2021: Centre Tells Delhi High Court

    The Central Government has told the Delhi High Court that search engines like Google are not 'publishers' under Part III of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

    Section 2(s) of the Rules defines a publisher as a "publisher of news and current affairs content or a publisher of online curated content."

    The Centre through Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has filed a counter affidavit in a plea filed by a CBSE official seeking removal of various links and news items published in the year 2017, regarding the alleged NET answer sheet scam case, after a closure report was filed by the CBI finding no criminal involvement of the officials.

    6. Delhi HC Directs Centre To Issue Communications To AIIMS, Centres Of Excellence To Start Treatment Of Children Suffering From Rare Diseases

    The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to issue communications to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and Centres for Excellence established across the Country, for starting the treatment of the children suffering from rare diseases, without any delay.

    The Court was hearing a clutch of petitions concerning children suffering from rare diseases like Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), Hunter's syndrome. The pleas sought directions to provide them free of cost treatment owing to the reason that the medical treatment involved was very expensive.

    7. 'It Is Absurd': Delhi High Court Asks Govt To Reconsider Order Mandating Face Masks Inside Private Vehicles

    The Delhi High Court  called the order passed by the Delhi Government mandating wearing of face mask inside private vehicle as "absurd", asking further as to why the same was still prevailing in the changed circumstances.

    A bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was apprised by Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra appearing for the Delhi Government that the order needed revisitation.

    Since the order was passed by the Delhi Government, the Bench asked Mehra as to why can't it consider withdrawing the same. To this, Mehra responded that while the Governmental exercise might take a few months, an observation from the Court will be a more expeditious option.

    Next Story