Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

Citations [2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1144]NOMINAL INDEXRavinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125 PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1126 RK vs State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1127 DELHI WAQF BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1128 MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS vs ASMITA SACHIN WAMAN 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1129 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Virat Saxena 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1130 NEETU SINGH vs TELEGRAM FZ LLC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1131 ITC LIMITED vs CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1132 SHISHRAM AS GUARDIAN OF MR. KAWAL vs BAL BHAVAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1133 Javed vs State NCT Of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1134 SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1135 JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HONBLE LG OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1136 Web Overseas Limited versus Universal Industrial Plants Manufacturing Company Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1137 INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1138 SWISS BIKE VERTRJEBS GMBH SUBSIDIARY OF ACCELL GROUP v. IMPERIAL CYCLE MEG. CO. (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1139 ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1140 RAMESH KAUSHIK v. STATE OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1141 R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1142 Rahul Jain v. Atul Jain, ARB. P. 539 of 2017 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1143 LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 11441. Notice Under Section 148 Of Income Tax Act Against A Struck-Off Company Valid, In View Of Subsequent Order Of NCLT Restoring The Company: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax OfficerCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1125The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed by NCLT under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, directing restoration of a struck off company, will have the effect of placing the company in the same position as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies. Thus, the Court held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued against a Company on the date it stood dissolved as a consequence of being struck off, was valid in view of the subsequent order passed by the NCLT.The bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the continuing liability of a struck-off Company envisaged under Section 250, is in addition to Section 248(7) of the Companies Act, which provides that the liability of every director or manager of a company dissolved as a result of being struck off, shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved.2. Ad Wars: Delhi High Court Sends Parle, Britannia To Mediation, Restrains Re-Publishing Of Print Adverts Against Parle-GTitle: PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTDCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1126The Delhi High Court has referred Parle Products Private Limited and Britannia Industries to its Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolution of the dispute over alleged disparaging advertisements of Britannia Milk Bikis against Parle-G biscuits.Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed that while the settlement is explored between the parties, the two print advertisements of Britannia shall not be re-published.The court said a perusal of the two print advertisements clearly shows that the use of the terms such as 'G-NAHI', 'Adhura poshan' clearly make a reference to Parle-G biscuits. 3. 18 Years After Murder Conviction, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Life Sentence As Ossification Test Reveals Convict Was Minor On Date Of IncidentTitle: RK vs StateCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1127In a case dating back to 1999, the Delhi High Court has set aside the life sentence of a murder convict after he took the plea of juvenility during the pendency of his appeal. The ossification test revealed that his age was between 10 to 20 years old on the day of incident."Considering the fact that the upper age limit cannot be taken to the detriment of the appellant and as per the lower limit, the appellant was a minor at the time of alleged incident, he is entitled to the benefit of juvenility. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/452 IPC as noted above. Maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the said offences, which is not being challenged on merits before this Court, the order on sentence is set aside," said the court.4. Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Police To Handover Keys Of Markaz Nizamuddin To Maulana SaadTitle: DELHI WAQF BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1128Rejecting Delhi Police's stand regarding the continuing restrictions at Tablighi Jamaat headquarter in...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags