Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: May 16 To May 22, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal
22 May 2022 8:05 AM GMT
Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: May 16 To May 22, 2022
x

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 450 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 482Case Title: ASHISH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 450Case Title: DR VIMLA MENON AND ANOTHER v. GOPINATH MENON 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 451Case Title: RASHI MISRA v. B KALYANA RAMAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 452Case Title: National Highway Authority of India versus MEP Chennai Bypass Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. &...

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 450 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 482

Case Title: ASHISH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 450

Case Title: DR VIMLA MENON AND ANOTHER v. GOPINATH MENON 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 451

Case Title: RASHI MISRA v. B KALYANA RAMAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 452

Case Title: National Highway Authority of India versus MEP Chennai Bypass Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 453

Case Title: Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL) v. Cobra Instalaciones Y Services Sa and Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. JV 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 454

Case Title: Rahul Biala Vs ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 455

Case title - M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 456

Case Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. LOOKPART EXHIBITIONS AND EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 457

Case Title: Parashar Narayan Sharma v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 458

Case Title: SINGH & SINGH LAW FIRM L.L.P & ANR. v. SINGH & SINGH LAW, PLLC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 459

Case Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. DR. NAVEEN AGGARWAL AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 460

Case Title: BURGER KING CORPORATION v. SWAPNIL PATIL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 461

Case Title: KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. MR. RAMAN KWATRA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 462

Case Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 463

Case Title: SALONI YADAV & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 464

Case Title : KERZNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v VIKAS AGGARWAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 465

Case Title: APARNA BHAT v. SAKSHI SINGH & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 466

Case Title: Seven Seas Hospitality Private Limited Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 467

Case Title: SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ministry of Finance 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 468

Case Title: BHARAT PETRORESOURCES LIMITED v. JSW ISPAT SPECIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 469

Case Title: HARSH SEHGAL v. STATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 470

Case Title: SANDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 471

Case Title: DELHI SARKARI RATION DEALERS SANGH DELHI v. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 472

Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 473

Case Title: SAURABH AGARWAL v. STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 474

Case Title: Divya Capital One Private Limited Vs. ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 475

Case Title: M/S BHARAT INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. SMT. SANJANA SAINI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 476

Case Title: Indus Tower Ltd. Versus ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 477

Case Title: People for Better Treatment v. National Medical Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 478

Case Title: Intercontinental Consultants v. Ministry of Road & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 479

Case Title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. MR FAYYAZ SHAIKH & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 480

Case Title: Omkar Nath Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 481

Case Title: RAJESH GUPTA v. RAM AVTAR, O.M.P. (COMM) 121/2020 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 482

1. Initiation Of Proclamation/ Attachment Process Against Accused Not Bar To Consider His Anticipatory Bail Plea: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ASHISH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 450

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has initiated the process of proclamation or attachment proceedings under sec. 82 or 83 of Cr.PC despite the pendency of the anticipatory bail application before High Court, the same does not bar the consideration of such an application.

Section 82 contemplates procedure for issuing proclamation against a person absconding. Section 83 talks about attachment of property of person absconding.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with an anticipatory bail application in an FIR registered under sec. 420, 467, 120B of IPC read with sec. 66D of the IT Act.

2. Order X CPC | Oral Examination Of Any Party To Suit Regarding Controversy Involved Therein Is A Matter Of Discretion: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DR VIMLA MENON AND ANOTHER v. GOPINATH MENON

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 451

The Delhi High Court has observed that under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, the question of whether any of the parties to the suit is required to be orally examined on any aspect relevant to the controversy is a matter of discretion.

Order X of the Code provides for the examination of parties by the Court.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed thus:

"A bare reading of Order X of the CPC makes it apparent that the question of whether any of the parties to the suit is required to be orally examined on any aspect relevant to the controversy is essentially a matter of discretion. Where a court feels that, in order to elucidate matters in controversy in the suit, oral examination of one or more of the parties to the suit is necessary, the court is empowered to so order."

3. Order XVA CPC | Mere Default In Payment Of Rent On Court's Direction Doesn't Justify Striking Off Defence Of Defaulting Tenant: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RASHI MISRA v. B KALYANA RAMAN

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 452

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere default in payment of rent as directed by the Court under Order XVA(1) of Code of Civil Procedure cannot, ipso facto, justify passing of an order striking off the defence of the defaulting tenant.

Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 07th December, 2019, passed in a civil suit by the Trial Court in which the petitioner was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.

The impugned order adjudicated three applications preferred by the petitioner as the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 and sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, the impugned order struck off the defence of the petitioner, purportedly in exercise of jurisdiction under the proviso to Order XV-A(1) of the CPC.

4. Challenge By NHAI On Fee Fixation By Arbitral Tribunal, Delhi High Court Holds That Tribunal Can Fix Its Fees

Case Title: National Highway Authority of India versus MEP Chennai Bypass Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 453

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal is permitted to fix its fee, if its appointment is made by way of an ad hoc agreement between the parties.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that where the Arbitral Tribunal has accepted its appointment outside the mandate of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR), it is entitled to determine its fee and is not bound by ICADR Rules. The Court upheld the order of the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the arbitral fee separately for the claims and the counter-claims. The Court added that the Arbitral Tribunal's observations that the arbitral fee is to be determined in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), does not mean that the fee has to be charged cumulatively on the claims and counter-claims.

5. Deferment Charges On Liquidated Damages, No Liability To Pay When Liquidated Damages Itself Not Payable : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL) v. Cobra Instalaciones Y Services Sa and Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. JV

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 454

The High Court of Delhi has held that there would be no question of recovery of deferment charges on the liquidated damages when the liquidated damages are themselves not payable.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that deferment charges cannot be treated as separate charges payable irrespective of whether the liquidated damages are payable or not.

The Court held that these would only be payable when the liquidated damages are held to be payable.

6. Time Of 8 Hours To File Reply To Show Cause Notice, Not Reasonable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rahul Biala Vs ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 455

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that the time of eight hours to file a reply to the show cause notice was neither reasonable nor effective. The assessee could not have provided relevant information and documents to establish his case in such a short period of time.

The petitioner/assessee submitted that the reasonable time was not given to file a reply to the show cause notice, which was issued only on March 30th, 2022 at 16:21 p.m., effectively giving the petitioner only eight hours' time to file a reply to the show cause notice.

7. Delhi High Court Dismisses With Cost Plea Filed By Former CBI Head M Nageswara Rao Against Removal Of His Twitter Verification Tag

Case title - M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 456

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000 the plea filed by former Central Bureau of Investigation head and Retired IPS Officer M. Nageswara Rao against the decision of microblogging website Twitter to remove his verification tag, also known as blue tick from his account.

Justice Yashwant Varma was of the view that a similar plea with identical prayers was disposed of by the Court vide order dated April 7, 2022, by giving liberty to Rao to reapply for verification.

Consequently, Rao had, in compliance of the said order, reapplied for the Verification Tag last month. However, Rao was aggrieved about the fact that Twitter had not re-instated the Verification Tag attached to his twitter handle till date.

8. Delhi High Court Appoints Expert To Assist On Fair Use Of Sound Recordings In Marriage Ceremonies U/S 52(1)(za) Of Copyright Act

Case Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. LOOKPART EXHIBITIONS AND EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 457

The Delhi High Court has appointed Dr. Arul George Scaria as an expert to assist it in the interpretation of sec. 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to the extent of fair use and fair dealing of sound recordings in marriage ceremonies and weddings.

Dr. Scaria is the Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Centre for Innovation, IP and Competition at National law University, Delhi.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the issue raised would have large scale implications for artists such as lyricists, music composers, singers, sound recording producers and owners on the one hand as also, for entities involved in the organisation and management of weddings and other social events.

9. 'No Different From Offering Freebies': Delhi HC Dismisses Challenge To Practice Of Political Parties Promising "Cash Benefits" In Election Manifestos

Case Title: Parashar Narayan Sharma v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 458

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the alleged practice of political parties offering cash benefits in lieu of votes during elections.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla was of the view that the issue has already been considered by the Supreme Court in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, and the present case is no different.

In Subramaniam Balaji (supra), the issue of political parties promising freebies to voters if elected to powers was raised. In the said judgement, the Top Court had directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines, in consultation with all the recognized political parties, that directly govern the contents of the election manifesto.

10. 'Will Confuse Clients': Delhi High Court Grants Ad Interim Ex-Parte Injunction In Favour Of Law Firm Against Use Of Deceptively Similar Mark

Case Title: SINGH & SINGH LAW FIRM L.L.P & ANR. v. SINGH & SINGH LAW, PLLC & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 459

Delhi High Court recently granted ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of "Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP" against a company namely Singh and Singh Law, PLLC and two others, on grounds that the names are deceptively similar and can cause a confusion in the minds of clients in India and abroad.

Present suit was instituted by the Plaintiffs, aggrieved by the use of the name "Singh & Singh", "Singh & Singh Law", "Singh & Singh Law, PLLC" and other derivatives, by Defendants No. 1 to 3.

11. Court Exercising Contempt Jurisdiction Is Meant To Uphold Majesty Of Law, Can't Sit In Appeal Of Orders Passed By Lower Courts: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. DR. NAVEEN AGGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 460

The Delhi High Court has observed that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is meant to uphold the majesty of law and that it cannot sit in appeal of the Orders passed by the lower Courts and Tribunals.

Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the contempt jurisdiction is invoked to ensure that public respect and confidence in the judicial process remains impaired.

"This jurisdiction is sui generis and allows the Court to exercise such power to punish a person who is guilty of contempt for the sole purpose of preventing non-adherence of the rule of law. In order to exercise such jurisdiction, the Courts must act judicially, and must not be hypersensitive. Once the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court must proceed with the contempt so as to uphold the majesty of law," the Court added.

12. Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction In Favour Of Burger King In Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: BURGER KING CORPORATION v. SWAPNIL PATIL & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 461

The Delhi High Court has recently granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of 'BURGER KING' in the trademark infringement suit filed by it against the defendants alleging that they were misusing, its registered trademarks and also engaging in registering infringing domain names incorporating the trademark 'BURGER KING' and operating fake websites without its permission and authorisation.

Justice Jyoti Singh thus restrained the defendants from advertising, offering any goods or services, using or registering corporate names, domain names or pages bearing the trademarks BURGER KING, BK or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks.

The Court also directed disclosure of the WHOIS details with respect to the domain names www.burgerkingfranchises.co.in and www.burgerkingfranchises.in and blocking access to the same.

13. Injunction Has To Follow Where Trademark Infringement Is Established, Concurrent & Honest Use No Defence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. MR. RAMAN KWATRA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 462

The Delhi High Court has observed that where a case of infringement is made out, an injunction has to necessarily follow and that it is no defence to the defendant to urge that the user of the allegedly infringing mark was honest and concurrent.

Justice C Hari Shankar, who found a prima facie case in favour of Kei Industries Limited for an interlocutory injunction, thus restrained the defendants, or anyone acting for their behalf from using the impugned mark 'KEI' in relation to any electrical goods or instruments, including electrical fans, room coolers, geysers, electric heating apparatus etc., pending disposal of the suit.

14. Mere Expiry Of Employee's Deputation Period Does Not Divest Disciplinary Authority From Initiating Enquiry For Misconduct: Delhi High Court

Case Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 463

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the period of deputation of an employee may have come to an end, it would not divest the Disciplinary Authority of the company, Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFCL) in the present matter, from initiating an enquiry.

Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a petition filed by a man, employed as an Executive Director in the Power Finance Corporation Limited, challenging a chargesheet wherein he was proposed to be proceeded against in disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions made in Rules 28 and 30 of the Power Finance Corporation Limited (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

15. NEET-UG Mandatory For Admissions To BSc In Military Nursing Service: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NTA Notification

Case Title: SALONI YADAV & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 464

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by aspirants seeking admission in Military Nursing Service courses, challenging the notification issued by the National Testing Agency that made clearing of NEET-UG examination a prerequisite.

Justice Rekha Palli dismissed the contention that the exam pattern was changed last minute on account of the extension granted by the NTA to apply for the NEET-UG exam and that candidates will get more than two months' time to prepare and appear in the exam.

16. 'Atlantis Resorts Enjoy Enormous Global Reputation': Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Use Of Infringing Marks

Case Title : KERZNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v VIKAS AGGARWAL & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 465

The Delhi High Court recently granted injunction in favour of Kerzner International, a company which owns the chain of Atlantis resorts in Dubai, Bahamas and China, against one Vokas Aggarwal using the mark 'Atlantis Park Ballroom' in respect of a banquet hall.

Though the resort is not situated in India, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed,

" Plaintiff's mark 'ATLANTIS', owing to the unique nature of the resorts which are run by it, have prima facie, gained enormous global reputation, especially in the Indian subcontinent. "

17. "If Citizens Claim Environment As Their Own, Wonders Could Happen": Delhi High Court Bats For Community Participation For Preservation Of Trees

Case Title: APARNA BHAT v. SAKSHI SINGH & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 466

The Delhi High Court has called for community participation for the purpose of preservation of trees, while asking the land-owning agencies to consider engaging RWAs and citizens' groups in the nurturing and preservation of trees.

"When citizens claim the environment as their own and participate in its preservation and rejuvenation, wonders could happen. The efforts of governmental agencies would receive an immense boost and positive results are likely to be visible sooner than one would anticipate," Justice Najmi Waziri added.

18. AO & PCIT Failed To Consider Balance Of Convenience And Irreparable Injury While Deciding The Stay Application: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Seven Seas Hospitality Private Limited Versus PCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 467

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Principal Commissioners of Income Tax (PCIT) have considered the three basic principles, i.e., the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, while deciding the stay application.

The petitioner company/assessee filed an application for a stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CIT (A) against the additions made by the department was pending adjudication. The assessee was under financial stress on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. The accounts of the assessee have been declared as NPA by all the banks due to non-payment of principal instalment and interest to the banks.

19. Delhi High Court Directs Designated Committee To Manually Process Payments Of Assessee Under SVLDR Scheme

Case Title: SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ministry of Finance

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 468

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam A. Bamba has directed the designated committee to manually process payments of an assessee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS).

The petitioner/assessee, while taking recourse to the SVLDRS to avail the benefits provided, had attempted to remit the "amount declared" electronically. The only reason remittance could not go through was that there was a miniscule discrepancy between the figure mentioned in the Icegate challan and the amount that was sought to be transmitted.

20. Rejected Claims By Resolution Professional In Insolvency Proceedings, To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BHARAT PETRORESOURCES LIMITED v. JSW ISPAT SPECIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 469

The High Court of Delhi held that the claims rejected by Resolution Professional in the insolvency proceedings on the ground that they arose after the Insolvency Commencement Date (ICD), are to be decided by the arbitrator.

The Court held that extinguishment of claims that arose after the Insolvency Commencement Date (ICD) is a contentious issue that is to be decided by the arbitrator when the parties have an arbitration agreement.

The Court reiterated that the scope under Section 11 of the A&C Act is confined to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Court is not to decide any contentious issue while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act.

21. Applicability Of S.148 NI Act Will Extend To Appeals Arising Out Of Complaint Cases Filed Prior To 2018 Amendment: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HARSH SEHGAL v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 470

The Delhi High Court has observed that the applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will be extended to appeals arising out of complaint cases that have been filed prior to the amendment of 2018.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a batch of pleas seeking setting aside of order dated 5th February, 2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts.

It was argued by the petitioners that sec. 148 of the NI Act was never intended to be made applicable to all pending appeals but only for the appeals which were filed after the amendment came into force. It was added that the that the amended provisions are not retrospective for appeals filed prior to the amendment.

22. Trial Court Has Power To Modify Orders Of Custody & Disposal Of Property Pending Trial U/S 451 CrPC As Per Changed Circumstances: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SANDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 471

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Trial Court would not be powerless to modify orders of custody and disposal of property pending trial as provided under sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per changed circumstances.

Justice Asha Menon added that the power to modify orders passed under sec. 451 Cr.P.C. is inherent in the provision as the purpose is only safe custody and production "during trial".

23. Delhi Govt Can't Implement Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme Without LG's Approval: High Court

Case Title: DELHI SARKARI RATION DEALERS SANGH DELHI v. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 472

While setting aside the Delhi government's scheme for doorstep delivery of ration, the Delhi High Court has observed that the decision of the Council of Ministers headed by Delhi Chief Minister to roll out the said scheme cannot be described as an Executive action taken by, or in the name of the Lieutenant Governor.

The Court reasoned that the same cannot be done since the LG had expressed his disagreement, which stood unresolved as the scheme was placed before the President.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh thus quashed the three tenders issued by the Delhi Government in respect of the doorstep ration delivery scheme.

Read Also: Right To Dignity Not Offended Merely By Queuing Up At Fair Price Shop: High Court On Quashing Delhi Govt's Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme

24. "No Other Way To Mitigate Ecological & Environmental Degradation In City": High Court Stays Felling Of Trees In Delhi As An Interim Measure

Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 473

As an interim measure, the Delhi High Court on Thursday stayed further felling of trees in the city observing that there is no other way to mitigate the ecological and environmental degradation.

Justice Najmi Waziri, who was hearing a contempt plea concerning felling of trees, stayed the said exercise by the authorities till June 2, the next date of hearing.

Noting that ex-facie, it was evident that the large scale denudation of fully grown trees only worsens the ecological balance in the city, the Court ordered thus:

"It would therefore be in the fitness of things and in the public interest as well as for the sake of environment of present as well as future generations that tree felling in Delhi is not permitted till the next date so as to ensure that felling is done only when it is fully assured by the applicant that the trees would atleast be transplanted."

25. "No Infirmity": High Court Upholds Delhi Police's Standing Order Mandating Inclusion Of Advocate's Details In Criminal Dossier Of Accused

Case Title: SAURABH AGARWAL v. STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 474

The Delhi High Court has upheld a standing order issued by the city police mandating inclusion of Advocates' details in Criminal Dossier of an accused, observing that there was no infirmity in the same.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla was of the view that merely because particulars of the advocate may be entered into the confidential record, it does not follow that such an advocate would be hounded or put under surveillance.

"The purpose of the Criminal Dossier is merely to record the particulars of the accused, including the name of the advocate who may be representing such an accused. Merely for this reason alone, it cannot not be said that the Standing Order suffers from any infirmity or violates any Fundamental Rights of the accused, as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The said information is not placed in public domain. It is confidential," the bench added.

26. Non Consideration Of Detailed Reply To Show Cause Notice Submitted After Stipulated Time, Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order

Case Title: Divya Capital One Private Limited Vs. ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 475

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has quashed the reassessment order, alleging income of more than Rupees one lakh crore having escaped assessment on the grounds of violation of natural justice.

The petitioner/assessee has submitted that the order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act was passed without considering the replies filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice.

The petitioner filed a preliminary response to the show cause notice in which she objected to the validity of legal notice under Section 148A(b) on the grounds that there was no evidence that income had escaped assessment.

27. Right To Lead Evidence May Be Closed If Party Acts In 'Recalcitrant Fashion', Unjustifiably Refuses To Produce Witnesses For Examination: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S BHARAT INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. SMT. SANJANA SAINI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 476

The Delhi High Court has observed that where a party is acting in a recalcitrant fashion, and refusing to make the witness available for examination or cross- examination on repeated occasions without due justification, the court may close the party's right to lead evidence.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that while it is a matter of Court's discretion which takes a call on the request of the party to lead evidence and that the Court may be ill-inclined in a petition under Article 227 to interfere, it said that such principle applies equally to the Court which passed the order under challenge as to the Court which is seized of the challenge under Article 227.

28. Initiation Of Reassessment Proceedings By Income Tax Officer Without Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Quashes The Proceedings

Case Title: Indus Tower Ltd. Versus ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 477

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that since the petitioner jurisdictional Assessing Officer is headquartered in Delhi, the income tax officer from Jaipur had no authority to send a notice proposing the beginning of reassessment proceedings.

The petitioner/assessee challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the initiation of reassessment proceedings.

The petitioner contended that there was no valid jurisdiction with the Income Tax Officer located at Jaipur for the issuance of notice or proposed initiation of reassessment proceedings. The jurisdiction over the petitioner lies solely with the Income Tax Officer at New Delhi.

29. Doctors' Strike | Can't Initiate Disciplinary Action In Absence Of Actual Events Of Patients' Suffering, Media Reports Not Sufficient: Delhi HC

Case Title: People for Better Treatment v. National Medical Commission

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 478

The Delhi High Court has refused to issue orders for initiation of action against doctors alleged to be involved in the November 2021 strike.

Disposing of the public interest litigation filed by a Kolkata based NGO namely 'People for Better Treatment', a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed,

" In our view, before any disciplinary action can be taken, it would be necessity for complainant who must first approach the State Medical Council to make out specific grievance based on actual events since that would be necessary for State Medical Council to initiate disciplinary action against an identified doctor who may have gone on strike,"

30. Not Feasible To Entertain Plea Relating To Road Development Work In Madhya Pradesh Merely Because Ministry Office Is In Delhi: High Court

Case Title: Intercontinental Consultants v. Ministry of Road & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 479

The Delhi High Court has expressed its distinction to hear a matter pertaining to debarment of a contractor by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of India, in connection with its alleged failure to perform the road development work in Madhya Pradesh.

The plea was filed in the Delhi High Court by Intercontinental Consultants, stating that the head office of the Ministry is in Delhi and the competent authority which issued the SOP under which the order debarring the appellant was issued also has its office in Delhi. Since a single Judge had refused to entertain the matter, the instant appeal was preferred.

31. CNN News: Delhi High Court Awards ₹3 Lacs Compensation In Trademark Infringement Suit, Grants Permanent Injunction Against Use Of Identical Marks

Case Title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. MR FAYYAZ SHAIKH & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 480

While dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by Cable News Network (CNN) news channel, the Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against various entities over use of identical mark 'CNN' while providing similar news services.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also awarded Rs. 3 lakhs cost in favour of CNN news channel, observing that its rights in the mark 'CNN' were undisputed and unchallenged and that the same had been declared as a well-known mark.

"Thus, the use of an identical mark for identical services is clear infringement of the Plaintiff's rights in the 'CNN' mark. There can be no justification for the Defendants to use an identical mark," the Court said.

32. No Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Granted To Taxpayer: Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order

Case Title: Omkar Nath Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 481

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh has quashed the assessment order as an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to the taxpayer.

The petitioner/assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2018-2019 on 31.03.2019. The petitioner pegged his taxable income at Rs. 29,66,880.

The Assessing Officer picked up the petitioner's case for scrutiny and issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Apparently, the AO had also issued several notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act between 24.11.2020 and 15.02.2021.

33. The Arbitrator Cannot Allow Forfeiture Of A Substantial Amount Of Consideration Without Proof Of Actual Loss Solely On The Ground That It Was Earnest Money: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAJESH GUPTA v. RAM AVTAR, O.M.P. (COMM) 121/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 482

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot allow forfeiture of a substantial amount of consideration without the proof of actual loss solely on the ground that it was referred to as Earnest Money under the contract.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru partly set aside an award on the ground that the arbitrator wrongly allowed the forfeiture of Earnest Money which formed a substantial portion of the total consideration without the respondent proving actual loss suffered by it.

The Court reiterated that Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act would apply in case of forfeiture of Earnest Money and the employer must prove the loss it has suffered.

Next Story