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

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: May 23 To May 29, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal
29 May 2022 8:42 AM GMT
Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: May 23 To May 29, 2022
x

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 512Case Title: CIT Versus Microsoft Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483Case Title: Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd Versus ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 484Case Title: M/S SRI SHYAM INCORPORATION & ANR. v. M/S SHREE BALAJI INDUSTRIES 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 485Title: INDIAN PROFESSIONAL NURSES THROUGH ITS...

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 512

Case Title: CIT Versus Microsoft Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483

Case Title: Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd Versus ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 484

Case Title: M/S SRI SHYAM INCORPORATION & ANR. v. M/S SHREE BALAJI INDUSTRIES 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 485

Title: INDIAN PROFESSIONAL NURSES THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY SIJU THOMAS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 486

Case Title: ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 487

Case Title: ABHISHEK GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 488

Case Title: AKRITI AGGARWAL & ANR. v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 489

Case Title: AK Builders versus Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 490

Case Status: M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd v. Shivani Cosmetics 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 491

Case Title: ASLAM SHER KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 492

Case Title: AAA VEHICLEADES PVT LTD v. BALKISHAN GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 493

Case Title: PUMA SE v. HI-TEC POINT TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 494

Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 495

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v. The State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 496

Case Title: Help India Against Corruption v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 497

Case Title: Ketan Ribbons Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 498

Case Title: M/S Chhavi & Ors v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 499

Case Title: PRAVEEN CHHABRA v. REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 500

Case Title: SHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT AND ANR. v. YOGESH PATEL AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 501

Case Title: A-One Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Energy Efficiency Services Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 502

Case Title: JAI KUMAR JAIN AND ORS v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 503

Case Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. WWW.HINDUSTANTIMES.TECH & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 504

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD & ANR. v. M/S JINDAL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 505

Case Title: Sanjay Roy versus Sandeep Soni & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 506

Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 507

Case Title: Suresh Chand Gupta Versus State of Govt. Of NCT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 508

Case Title: KRISHAN KAKKAR v. KIRAN CHANDER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 509

Case Title: SANJAY SINGH v. SUKHPAL KAUR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 510

Case Title: NIZAMUDDIN KHAN v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 511

Case Title: Amrish Gupta v. Gurchait Singh Chima 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 512

1. Licensing Of Software Products By Microsoft Is Not Taxable In India As Royalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus Microsoft Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 483

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has ruled that licensing of software products by Microsoft in the Territory of India by Microsoft is not taxable in India as royalty.

The department had challenged the order passed by the ITAT for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000. The ITAT ruled that the licencing of software products of Microsoft in the Territory of India by the respondent/assessee, i.e., Microsoft, was not taxable in India as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act read with Article 12 of the Indo-US Direct Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

2. Minimum 7 Days Time Has To Be Granted To The Taxpayer To File Reply To The Show Cause Notice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd Versus ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 484

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, a minimum time of seven days has to be granted to the assessee to file reply to the show cause notice.

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the Notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential order issued under Section 148A(d) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

The department has issued a notice to petitioner under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act on 22nd March, 2022 on the ground that the petitioner had made cash deposits in its bank accounts but had not filed its Income Tax Return. The Petitioner was asked to furnish a reply to the notice on or before 25th March, 2022. The Petitioner duly replied to the said notice on 25th March, 2022 clearly explaining that all the cash deposited by the petitioner was received from the members of the society. The petitioner had also explained that KYC of all the members were properly done and books of accounts of the Petitioner were duly audited and were furnished to the Registrar of Companies.

3. Temperance & Dignity In Language Absolute Essence In Pleadings Filed In Judicial Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S SRI SHYAM INCORPORATION & ANR. v. M/S SHREE BALAJI INDUSTRIES

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 485

The Delhi High Court has observed that temperance and dignity in language is of absolute essence in pleadings filed in judicial proceedings.

Justice C Hari Shankar further added thus:

"It is not permissible for any litigant, especially in a petition filed through Counsel, to attribute qualities such as obstinacy to a judicial forum. Courts do not pass orders based on personal predilections, but to conform to the correct position in law as they perceive it to be."

4. Implement Order On Nurses' Salary In Pvt Hospitals Before July 12 : High Court Warns Delhi Govt Of Contempt Action

Title: INDIAN PROFESSIONAL NURSES THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY SIJU THOMAS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 486

The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Delhi Government for not implementing an earlier order passed by it in the year 2019 regarding payment of nurses working in private hospitals as well as nursing homes.

Observing that the conduct of the Delhi Government could be construed as wilful disobedience of judicial orders, Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed dissatisfaction by ordering thus:

"It is expected that the GNCTD shall comply with the Order dated 22.07.2019 before the next date of hearing. In case the said Order is not complied with, the concerned Officers are directed to be present in the Court to explain as to why contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against the erring Officers."

The next date of hearing is July 12, 2022.

5. Person Invoking Article 226 Jurisdiction Must Come With Clean Hands, Must Disclose Complete & Correct Facts: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 487

The Delhi High Court has observed that a person approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with a pair of clean hands, adding that there must be disclosure of full, complete and correct facts.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla also observed that a petitioner should not suppress any material facts and also not take repeated or parallel recourse to legal proceedings.

The Court made the observations while dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment of a Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by Association of MD Physicians with cost of Rs.25,000.

6. Detention Order A Preventive Measure, Sense Of Urgency Is Must, Failure To Serve/ Detain At Earliest Possible Defeats Its Purpose: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ABHISHEK GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 488

The Delhi High Court has observed that the purpose of detention order is a preventive measure and if the detenu is not served or detained at the earliest possible, keeping in view the spirit of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the purpose is defeated.

A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta quashed the detention order issued under sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) to detain the petitioner in custody for a period of one year.

Apart from challenging the detention order, the petitioner had also challenged the further order under sec. 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 directing him to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within seven days of the publication of the detention order.

7. Delhi HC Dismisses Students' Plea Requiring GGSIP University To Provide Certified Copies Of Answer Scripts As Per Fee Prescribed Under RTI Rules

Case Title: AKRITI AGGARWAL & ANR. v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 489

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by two final year law students seeking directions on Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University for providing certified copies of answer-scripts to students as per the fee prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012 at candidate's request.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta however clarified that the Court has not examined the issue as to whether the charges or fee prescribed by the University of Rs. 1,500 per examination answer sheet is excessive, or could be said to defeat the right to obtain information, as no challenge was raised to the prescription of the said fee under its Rules.

Filed by Akriti Agarwal and Lakshya Purohit through Advocate Paras Jain, the plea sought a direction in compliance of the Supreme Court judgment in the case titled ICSI v. Paras Jain wherein it was held that if a candidate seeks information under the RTI Act, then payment has to be sought under the rules made therein.

8. Waiver Under Section 12(5) Of A&C Act Has To Be By An Express Agreement In Writing: Delhi High Court

Case Title: AK Builders versus Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 490

The Delhi High Court has ruled that any right under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), that deals with the ineligibility of certain persons to be appointed as an arbitrator, can be waived of only by an express Agreement in writing entered into after the disputes had arisen between the parties.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru dismissed the contention that since the petitioner had participated in the arbitral proceedings it was precluded from raising any objections towards the appointment of the Arbitrator. The Court reiterated that a person who is ineligible to act as an arbitrator would also be ineligible to appoint an arbitrator.

9. 'Can't Encourage Such Dishonest Conduct': Delhi High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh Damages To Blue Heaven Cosmetics For Trademark Infringement

Case Status: M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd v. Shivani Cosmetics

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 491

In the case of competing trademarks of a cosmetics range, the Delhi High Court awarded damages of Rs. 10 lakh to M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Looking at the similarity of the defendant's product to the Blue Heaven range, Justice Pratibha M. Singh remarked,

"...this is not a case of innocent adoption, and the Court cannot encourage such dishonest conduct on behalf of the Defendant. Thus, taking a reasonable assessment of the products which may have been sold by the Defendant, the present suit is decreed for Rs.10 lakhs as damages. In addition, Rs.2 lakhs is awarded as costs."

A suit was filed by M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademark, trade dress, copyright, writing style, color combination, label, packaging, passing off goods, delivery up, retention of account of profit along with further damages.

10. Delhi High Court Puts Affairs Of Hockey India In Hands Of Three Member Committee Of Administrators Comprising Of Former SC Judge

Case Title: ASLAM SHER KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 492

The Delhi High Court has put the affairs of Hockey India in the hands of Committee of Administrators (CoA) as per a recent Supreme Court order, observing that its administrative setup was erroneously or illegally constituted because of the Life President and Life Members.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma added thus:

"The Government of India cannot grant recognition to a NSF whose constitution is not in consonance with the Sports Code. The posts of Life President, Life Member in the NSF are illegal so is the post of CEO in the Managing Committee. These posts are struck-down. All such references in the Constitution/Memorandum of Association of R-2 will have to be removed."

The Court relied on the recent Supreme Court order in All India Football Federation vs. Rahul Mehra dated May 18, 2022.

11. Defendant In A Plaint Cannot Insist That Plaintiff Should Sue A Third Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: AAA VEHICLEADES PVT LTD v. BALKISHAN GUPTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 493

The Delhi High Court has observed that a defendant in a plaint cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a third party, adding that he can only defend the plaint qua the allegations against him.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that the defendant cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a party whom the plaintiff has not chosen to sue. The Court added that if the plaintiff fails to sue a necessary party, it would be at the risk and cost of the plaintiff.

"A defendant in a plaint cannot insist that the plaintiff should sue a third party. He can only defend the plaint qua the allegations against him. It is open to a defendant to contest his liability, qua the plaintiff, and, in an appropriate case, the defendant may also be entitled to move an application for rejection of the suit outright, if it fails to make out any sustainable cause of action against the plaintiff invoking, for the purpose, Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC," the Court observed.

12. PUMA Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court Directs Google To Remove 'PUMA GUARD' App From Play Store

Case Title: PUMA SE v. HI-TEC POINT TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 494

The Delhi High Court has directed Google LLC to remove the application 'PUMA GUARD' from its Google Play Store while dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by 'PUMA'.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by the Plaintiff PUMA SE seeking protection of its mark 'PUMA' which was coined and adopted by it internationally in 1948.

'PUMA' is one of the world's leading sports brand designing, developing, selling and marketing footwear, apparel and accessories. The mark 'PUMA' has been used in India from 1980's onwards and the same is registered under several classes.

The Defendant No.1 M/s Hi-Tech Point Technologies Pvt. Ltd. started a GPS service through electronic application by the name 'PUMA GUARD'. Defendant No.2 Black Box GPS Technology OPC Pvt. Ltd. also launched a device with GPS tracking and anti-theft capabilities under the mark 'PUMA'.

13. Kalkaji Temple Redevelopment: Delhi High Court To Direct Final Vacation Of Dharamshala Premises By All Occupants On June 1

Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 495

Observing that redevelopment of city's Kalkaji Temple can commence only if all persons who are in occupation of dharamshalas vacate the said premises, the Delhi High Court has said that it will direct final vacation of the same by all occupants on June 1.

Justice Pratibha M Singh, who was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of the temple, added that the pujaris or baridaars who are occupying the dharamshalas shall make submissions before the Court concerning the timelines of such vacation on the said date.

"The pujaris/baridaars shall submit their suggestions with regard to the redevelopment, to the ld. Administrator within 15 days of obtaining the layout plan. Pursuant to the same, such parties shall appear before the ld. Administrator on 4th June, 2022 at 5 P.M., by which time all the suggestions of the pujaris/baridaars shall be submitted. On the said date, the ld. Administrator would consider the suggestions given with respect to the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir," the Court added.

14. Delhi High Court Asks Sharjeel Imam To Approach Trial Court Seeking Interim Bail In Sedition FIR

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v. The State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 496

The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted liberty to Sharjeel Imam to approach the Trial Court seeking interim bail in an FIR against him involving the offence of Sedition under sec. 124A of Indian Penal Code, in view of recent Apex Court order wherein the sedition law has been kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.

The development came after Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the interim bail application before the High Court, submitting that according to a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, the bail application has to be moved in the first instance before the Special Court and if aggrieved, an appeal would thereafter lie before the High Court.

15. 'Can't Direct Legislature To Amend/ Broaden Any Law': High Court Dismisses Plea To Include Group A, B, C & D Officers Under Delhi Lokayukta Act

Case Title: Help India Against Corruption v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 497

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of Group A, B C and D officers of the Delhi government within the scope and ambit of the Delhi Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1995.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed that it is not for the Courts to issue a writ of mandamus to the legislature to either enact or amend the law in a particular way, as may be required by the Petitioner.

" A government functionary indulging in corruption activities, first of all it is a Criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is also subject to departmental inquiry. So it is all covered...We can quash a law if it is unconstitutional. We can interpret the law. But we cannot direct enactment of the law," Justice Sanghi said.

16. Taxpayers Have Independent Statutory Right To File A Reply To Show Cause Notice And Draft Assessment Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ketan Ribbons Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 498

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, while directing the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to pass the fresh assessment order, held that the taxpayers have an independent statutory right to file a reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order.

The Assessing Officer had extended the timeframe for filing objections to the show cause notice and draft assessment order dated April 22nd, 2021, from April 26th, 2021, to May 17th, 2021. The Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order dated May 23, 2021 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in violation of the principle of natural justice.

17. NEET-UG Mandatory For Admissions To BSc Nursing: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging NTA Notification

Case Title: M/S Chhavi & Ors v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 499

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal pertaining to admission in B.Sc. Nursing courses, challenging the notification issued by the National Testing Agency (NTA) that made clearing of NEET-UG examination a prerequisite. The appeal was preferred from the order of a Single Judge, refusing to interfere in the matter.

A Division Bench bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta noted that the case of the appellants is no different from the earlier decided case of Saloni Yadav where it was held that there is no infirmity in NTA's decision to include a mandatory eligibility condition of qualifying the NEET-UG as a pre-condition for admission in Military Nursing Service courses.

It held that merely because the appellants are desirous of competing for B.Sc. (Nursing) as opposed to the Military Nursing Service, it makes no difference. It noted that the distinctions sought to be drawn by the appellants between the courses are wholly irrelevant.

18. Real Estate Appellate Authority Can't Initiate Suo Moto Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PRAVEEN CHHABRA v. REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 500

The Delhi High Court has held that the Real Estate Appellate Authority cannot possibly be recognized as conferred with the power to initiate proceedings suo moto or on its own motion.

Analyzing the relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Justice Yashwant Varma added that the Appellate Tribunal is a creation of statute and that it is not an authority which may be recognised as being vested with inherent powers.

"Regard must also be had to the fact that the Appellate Tribunal is not part of the hierarchy of traditional judicial institutions which constitute the judicial system of our country. It is an appellate forum whose origin and formation stems from the provisions of the Act. It is in that sense an adjudicatory authority which owes its existence and authority to a special statute," the Court observed.

19. Titles Of Films Are Capable Of Being Recognised Under Trademark Law: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT AND ANR. v. YOGESH PATEL AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 501

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a contention that titles of films cannot be registered under Trademark Law and has held that the word 'SHOLAY' being the title of an iconic film cannot be held to be a mark devoid of protection.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that certain films cross the boundaries of just being ordinary words and the title of the film 'SHOLAY' is one of them.

"Titles and films are capable of being recognised under trademark law and in India 'SHOLAY' would be a classic example of such a case," the Court said.

It added,

"If there is one film that transcends generations of Indians, it is 'SHOLAY'. The said film, its characters, dialogues, settings, box office collections are legendary. Undoubtedly, 'SHOLAY' is one of the biggest, record-breaking films that India has ever produced, in the history of Indian cinema...The mention of the word 'SHOLAY' immediately creates a connection with the movie 'SHOLAY'. There are industry estimates which claim that, although the words 'SHOLAY' may have a dictionary meaning in Hindi (specifically, 'burning coal'), upon the movie going public, the word 'SHOLAY' came to be associated only with the film."

Thus, it awarded Rs.25,00,000/- as costs and damages to Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd. and Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd. which holds rights in the film.

20. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled To Return Of Court Fees When The Parties Are Referred To Arbitration Under Section 8 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: A-One Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Energy Efficiency Services Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 502

The High Court of Delhi has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to return of Court Fess when the parties are referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the benefit of Section 16[1] of the Court Fees Act would only be available to the plaintiff when the parties are referred to arbitration for settlement in terms of Section 89 of the CPC and not under Section 8 of the A&C Act.

21. "Judicial System, State Resources Burdened; Litigants Must Be Conscious Of Their Actions": Delhi HC Condemns Lodging FIRs On Frivolous Issues

Case Title: JAI KUMAR JAIN AND ORS v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 503

The Delhi High Court has condemned the practice of lodging FIRs on frivolous and minor issues, adding that the Judicial system and state resources are already heavily burdened and litigants must be conscious of their actions.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Jasmeet Singh added that such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety.

"Parties before lodging an FIR, must have due regard as to not only the nature and gravity of what offences they are alleging but also the state and police resources that go into investigating those matters, which are ultimately put up before court to only be quashed," the Court said.

22. Intends To Encash Goodwill Of HT Media In Trademark 'Hindustan Times': Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction Against Rouge Website

Case Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. WWW.HINDUSTANTIMES.TECH & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 504

The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of HT Media Limited which runs news publications in various languages under the registered trademark Hindustan Times, against a rogue website using a deceptively similar domain name.

Passing an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of HT Media, Justice Pratibha M Singh restrained the use of www.hindustantimes.tech, consisting of the word 'Hindustan Times'. It also restrained the website from publishing any content including articles, stories, columns, reviews, etc., being in violation of HT Media's copyright.

23. Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Terms Of The Agreement Merely Because It Flouts Business Common Sense: Delhi High Court

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD & ANR. v. M/S JINDAL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 505

The High Court of Delhi held that the arbitrator cannot re-write the terms of the agreement between the parties merely because they flout business common sense.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that an award wherein the arbitrator re-work a bargain between the parties merely because it is commercially difficult for one party to perform the same would be against the fundamental policy of Indian Law and vitiated by patent illegality.

The Court held that when the agreement confers on one party the right to place an additional order on the same terms and conditions during the currency of the contract, the condition under the agreement must be given effect to and the arbitrator cannot negate the mandate of such a stipulation.

24. Arbitral Award Passed In Disregard To Judicial Decisions Conflicts With The Public Policy : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Roy versus Sandeep Soni & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 506

The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitral award that is not in consonance with the judicial decisions and principles laid down by the courts of India would be in violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law and thus in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, upheld the order of the Single Judge setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 on the ground that the Arbitrator had failed to apply the basic fundamental law as contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

25. The Provisions For The Quantum Of Damages Under Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Would Apply To Arbitrations Under The Resettlement Of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 507

The High Court of Delhi has held that the provisions for the quantum of damages under Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (LARR Act) would apply to arbitrations under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948.

The Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla has held that the provisions of the LARR Act being beneficial in nature would also apply to all the pending arbitrations under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act.

The Court further held that only the provisions qua the quantum of compensation under the LARR Act are made applicable and the arbitrator appointed under Section 7 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act would continue to determine the amount of compensation and not the collector under the LARR Act.

26. Prosecution For Customs Duty Evasion Can't Be Initiated As The Valuation Of The Goods Is Less Than Rs.1 Crore: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Suresh Chand Gupta Versus State of Govt. Of NCT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 508

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be initiated under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act as valuation of the goods is less than Rs.1 Crore.

The single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has observed that the department has not examined any witness to prove its case against the petitioner. The Court below while passing the summoning order has not assigned any reason for summoning the petitioner.

The Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed a criminal complaint under Section 132 and 135 (1)(a) of the Customs Act, before the Trial Court. The complaint stated that intelligence reports have been received that M/s Elgin Electronics, of which petitioner was the Proprietor.

27. Can't Compel Party To File Documents On Which It Did Not Rely Except For Certain Specific Eventualities Mentioned In CPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KRISHAN KAKKAR v. KIRAN CHANDER

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 509

The Delhi High Court has observed that no Court can compel a party to file documents on which the party did not choose to rely, save and except in respect of certain specific eventualities for which provisions are contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that in any litigation, the choice of the documents which are to be brought on record is the sole prerogative of the party who files the documents.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging orders dated 8th July, 2021 and 6th May, 2022, passed by the Additional District Judge in a civil suit.

The order dated 8th July, 2021 rejected an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in in the suit, seeking dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Towards the conclusion of the impugned order, the ADJ directed the respondent to file two documents.

28. Reluctance Of Judges To Conduct Virtual Proceedings Not In Alignment With Tech Advancements, Expected To Ensure System Is Put To Use: Delhi HC

Case Title: SANJAY SINGH v. SUKHPAL KAUR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 510

Observing that the Courts have to march in sync with the latest developments in technology, the Delhi High Court has said that the reluctance of the judges to conduct virtual proceedings is not in alignment with the technological advancements.

Adding that the system of conducting Court proceedings through video conferencing is being encouraged by the Apex Court as well as the High Court, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed thus:

"It is thus expected of the judges in the District Courts also to ensure that such a system of conducting the proceedings through video conferencing is put to usage. Virtual proceedings provide an opportunity to modernise the system by making it more affordable and citizen friendly, enabling the aggrieved and/or litigants to access justice from remote parts of the country and the world."

29. Matters Regarding Personal Liberty To Be Dealt Cautiously, Balance To Be Struck Between Respect For Fundamental Rights & Fair Investigation: Delhi HC

Case Title: NIZAMUDDIN KHAN v. THE STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 511

The Delhi High Court has observed that matters regarding liberty of a person have to be dealt with cautiously and that a balance has to be struck between respect for his fundamental rights and free and fair investigation as well.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma made the observation while granting bail to a man in an FIR registered under sec. 376D, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

It was the case of the complainant, real sister of the petitioner, that the incident in question had allegedly taken place in March 2019. When a query was put to the counsel for the complainant regarding reason for the delay in lodging of the FIR, it was stated that since it was a sensitive relationship, at the instance of their father who had unfortunately passed away in October, 2021, the complainant did not lodge any complaint.

30. A Party Cannot Dispute The Jurisdiction On Account Of Non-Existence Of The Arbitration Agreement After Submitting Of The Jurisdiction Of The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amrish Gupta v. Gurchait Singh Chima

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 512

The High Court of Delhi held that a party cannot dispute the jurisdiction on account of non-existence of the arbitration agreement after submitting to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that generally, the arbitration clause contained in the main agreement would also fall when the validity of the main agreement is challenged and the dispute would be non-arbitrable.

However, when a party agrees to refer the dispute to arbitration and chooses to dispute only the main agreement without laying any challenge to the arbitration clause, it is deemed to have waived its objections qua the arbitration clause and it cannot contend that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

The Court held that the Court can have a 'second look' at the issue of arbitrability, however, it must be within the four corners of the limited grounds of interference under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

Next Story