Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544 M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT. v. & BEN GROUPO PVT. LTD. & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 548INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (ITDC) v. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD. (BMEL) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 549M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550Charu v. High Court of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 551In Re: Housing for the Poor in Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 552DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE v. M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 553DUSHYANT KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 554PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556HARYANA STATE JUDO ASSOCIATION v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 557MAMTA DEVI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 558TARUN AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 559DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. v. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 560JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 561YOGESH JAGIA v. JINDL BIOCHEM PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562MASTER DIVYAM BHATEJA THROUGH FATHER MR VINOD BHATEJA v. BHAI PARMANAND VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 563UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 564NAVED v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 5651. IPR Suits Below Rs. 3 Lakhs Threshold To Be Listed First Before District Judge (Commercial) To Determine Whether Valuation Is Deliberately Undervalued: Delhi HCTitle: VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRYCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543The Delhi High Court has held that in a case where a plaintiff values an IPR suit in the city district courts below the threshold of Rs.3 lakhs, such suits would be listed before the District Judge (Commercial) first in order to determine as to whether the valuation is arbitrarily whimsical or deliberately undervalued.Justice Pratibha M Singh added that it would be mandatory for IPR suits to be ascribed a 'specified value', in the absence of which the valuation of the suit below Rs.3 lakhs would be arbitrary, whimsical and wholly unreasonable."This Court is cognizant of the fact that the valuation of intellectual property is by itself a very complex process. It is clarified that the Commercial Court is not expected to value the specific IP on the basis of any mathematical formulae but to broadly take into consideration whether the said IP would be worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs, which is the threshold for the Commercial Court to exercise jurisdiction," the Court said.2. Re-Examination Can't Be Used To Give Chance To Witness To Undo Statement Made In Cross Examination & Fill Lacunae In Evidence: Delhi High CourtCase Title: CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTACitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544 The Delhi High Court has observed that the opportunity of re-examination cannot be used to give a chance to a witness to undo its statement made in cross-examination and fill in the lacunae in evidence.Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed seeking to injunct the defendants, who were occupants, from unlawfully entering any part of the first floor including the balcony of a Shop on the ground floor of the premises.Issues were framed in the suit on 2nd August, 2019 and a Local Commissioner was appointed to record evidence of the parties.3. Show Cause Notice Mailed To The Wrong Email Address: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter To The Assessing Officer For A Fresh DecisionCase Title: M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACITCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has remanded the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh decision as the department mailed the show cause notice to the wrong email address.The petitioner/assessee submitted that the department alleged that the petitioner's claim for IGST Refund was incorrect and, hence, the amount "is required to be disallowed." An IGST refund, being a balance sheet item, is not a claim made in the profit and loss account and it cannot be termed as "income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment". Hence, in terms of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act as well as the first proviso to Section 148, the show cause notice was patently illegal.4. Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order Issued Without Considering The Reply Filed By The AssesseeCase Title: Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACITCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del)...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags