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

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. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 453Case Title: Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL) v. Cobra Instalaciones Y Services Sa and Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. JV 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 454Case Title: Rahul Biala Vs ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 455Case title - M. Nageswara Rao v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 456Case Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. LOOKPART EXHIBITIONS AND EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 457Case Title: Parashar Narayan Sharma v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 458Case Title: SINGH & SINGH LAW FIRM L.L.P & ANR. v. SINGH & SINGH LAW, PLLC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 459Case Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. DR. NAVEEN AGGARWAL AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 460Case Title: BURGER KING CORPORATION v. SWAPNIL PATIL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 461Case Title: KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. MR. RAMAN KWATRA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 462Case Title: N.D. TYAGI v. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 463Case Title: SALONI YADAV & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 464Case Title : KERZNER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v VIKAS AGGARWAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 465Case Title: APARNA BHAT v. SAKSHI SINGH & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 466Case Title: Seven Seas Hospitality Private Limited Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 467Case Title: SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ministry of Finance 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 468Case Title: BHARAT PETRORESOURCES LIMITED v. JSW ISPAT SPECIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 469Case Title: HARSH SEHGAL v. STATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 470Case Title: SANDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 471Case Title: DELHI SARKARI RATION DEALERS SANGH DELHI v. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 472Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. VINAY SHEEL SAXENA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 473Case Title: SAURABH AGARWAL v. STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 474Case Title: Divya Capital One Private Limited Vs. ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 475Case Title: M/S BHARAT INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. SMT. SANJANA SAINI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 476Case Title: Indus Tower Ltd. Versus ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 477Case Title: People for Better Treatment v. National Medical Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 478Case Title: Intercontinental Consultants v. Ministry of Road & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 479Case Title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. MR FAYYAZ SHAIKH & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 480Case Title: Omkar Nath Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 481Case Title: RAJESH GUPTA v. RAM AVTAR, O.M.P. (COMM) 121/2020 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 4821. Initiation Of Proclamation/ Attachment Process Against Accused Not Bar To Consider His Anticipatory Bail Plea: Delhi High CourtCase Title: ASHISH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 450The 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 CourtCase Title: DR VIMLA MENON AND ANOTHER v. GOPINATH MENONCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 451The 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 CourtCase...

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

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags