Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 1006 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1021]NOMINAL INDEXNAYAB & ANR v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1006NAINA RANA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1007SAKET KUMAR SHARMA versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1008Prasar Bharti versus National Brain Research Centre & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1009SUNITA MALIK vs THE STATE OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1010SURINDER SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1011PCIT Versus IFFCO LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1012VINOD KUMAR ASTHANA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1013SMT. SARITA JOSHI v. RAVINDRA BHUSHAN JOSHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1014RAJAN KUMAR v. LAJJA DEVI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1015CHANDRA KISHORE CHAURASIA v. R A PERFUMERY WORKS PRIVATE LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1016RELAXO FOOTWEARS LTD vs AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1017M/s. Manraj Enterprises versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1018ANIL KUMAR vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1019RADICAL ARC VENTURES PVT LTD versus STATE NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1020 FMC CORPORATION v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 10211. Casually Written Judgement And Casually Appreciated Evidence Is A Casualty To Justice: Delhi High CourtTitle: NAYAB & ANR v. STATECitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1006Observing that appreciation of evidence is crucial to do justice, the Delhi High Court has said that a casually written judgment and casually appreciated evidence is a casualty to justice.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a judgment is the nectar explaining every aspect of the facts and circumstances in each case and as such, is a reason for reaching to a decision.The court made the observations while setting aside the conviction and order of sentence against two individuals namely Nayab and Khushnuma in a 2007 case connected to alleged kidnapping of a girl. The duo were accused of concealing the girl, who was allegedly kidnapped by another accused, in a house.2. Questions Of Faith Have No Bearing On Individual's Freedom To Choose A Life Partner: Delhi High CourtTitle: NAINA RANA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) other connected mattersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1007Observing that the freedom of choice in marriage is an intrinsic part of Article 21, the Delhi High Court has said that the questions of faith have no bearing on the freedom to choose a life partner.Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that in cases where couples are legally married out of their own free will and volition, the police is expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity in accordance with law.The court added that the police must take necessary measures for protection and safety of such couples if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from others including their own family members.3. Delhi High Court Junks RBI Officer's Plea Against Disciplinary Proceedings For Assisting Rajya Sabha MP In Drafting Private BillTitle: SAKET KUMAR SHARMA versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORSCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1008The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a senior officer of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) against whom proceedings were initiated by the regulatory body last year for allegedly assisting Rajya Sabha MP Rakesh Sinha in drafting a private member bill for establishment of Public Credit Registry.Justice Rekha Palli said the plea has no merit as it is an admitted position that the departmental inquiry against him was initiated "only recently" and on September 29, the inquiry officer has directed the Presenting Officer to tender evidence in support of the charges levelled against the officer."It is therefore clear that the petitioner has come to this Court at a premature stage when the inquiry has just commenced. It is trite law that the Court should generally not interdict the departmental proceedings initiated against an employee unless a case of gross perversity or high handedness is made out," said Justice Palli.4. 'Administrative Mechanism For Resolution Of Disputes' Is Not A Substitute For Arbitration: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Prasar Bharti versus National Brain Research Centre & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1009The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of Disputes (AMRD) is not a substitute for arbitration in cases where there is an arbitration agreement between the parties.The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the party invoking the arbitration clause fell within the scope and ambit of the AMRD, under the Office Memorandum No. 334774/DoLA/AMRD/2019, dated 31.03.2020, issued by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs. However, the Court held that the AMRD is only a mechanism for possible settlement of disputes between the governmental organizations and not a substitute for arbitration.5. Used To Say 'Something Or The Other' To Victim, Instigation Loud & Clear: Delhi HC Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers