Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: June 13 To June 19, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 577Case Title: Mukish v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566Title: BRINDA KARAT AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 567Case Title: Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 568Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 569Case Title: SURENDER @ TANNU @ TANVA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 570Case Title: THE EUROPEAN UNION REPRESENTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 571Case Title: HANUMAN BENIWAL AND ORS. v. VINAY MISHRA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 572Case Title: VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 573Case Title: DEVENDER GUPTA v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 574Case Title: Davinder Singh Thapar versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 575Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited Vs DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 576Case Title: KULVINDER SINGH KOHLI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 5771. Non-Examination Of 4-Yr-Old Rape Victim Not Fatal To Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Upholds Life Sentence Under POCSO ActCase Title: Mukish v. StateCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 566The Delhi High Court has upheld life sentence awarded to a man for committing rape on a 4 year old minor girl within his close family.A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an appeal filed by one Mukish, challenging the Judgment dated 28th November, 2019 and order on point of sentence dated 29th November, 2019 passed by POCSO Judge.The Court had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and awarded sentence of Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000.2. Hate Speeches Delivered By Political & Religious Leaders Bulldoze Constitutional Ethos, Warrant Stringent Peremptory Action: Delhi High CourtTitle: BRINDA KARAT AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 567The Delhi High Court has observed that hate speeches especially delivered by elected representatives, political and religious leaders based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity militate against the concept of fraternity, bulldoze the constitutional ethos and violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution of India.Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also observed that the same is in blatant derogation of the fundamental duties prescribed under the Constitution and therefore warrant stringent peremptory action on the part of Central and State Governments.The judgment began by referring to a shloka from Bhagwat Gita which states that whatever action is performed by a leader, common men follow in his footsteps; and whatever standards he sets by his acts, are pursued by his subjects."The persons who are mass leaders and occupy high offices must conduct themselves with utmost integrity and responsibility. Leaders elected in a democracy like that of India, owe their responsibility not only towards the electorate in their own constituency, but also towards the society/nation as a whole and ultimately to the Constitution. It is they who are the role models for the ordinary masses. Thus, it does not befit or behove the leaders to indulge in acts or speeches that cause rifts amongst communities, create tensions, and disrupt the social fabric in the society," the Court observed.The observations were made while the Court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by CPM leader Brinda Karat and politician KM Tiwari against a trial court order rejecting their plea for registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in the year 2020.3. Underreporting Of Income Due To Re-Computation Of Disallowance By The AO, Does Not Amount To Misreporting Of Income: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 568The Delhi High Court has ruled that where the underreporting of income allegedly done by the assessee is due to the re-computation of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, it would not amount to misreporting of income.The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed that the underreporting of income by the assessee was due to the increase in the disallowance made under Section 14A, which was voluntarily estimated by the assessee and later recalculated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same material.The Court held that in some cases underreporting of income may result in misreporting of income, however, the underreporting allegedly done by the assessee would not amount to misreporting of income.4. Disclosing Elaborate Reasons For Passing 'Interception Orders' ...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: June 13 To June 19, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags