Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: September 19 To September 25, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 905LOTUS PAY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884SHREYA BHARDWAJ THROUGH HER GUARDIAN v. SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 885SANJEEV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 886SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR GARG v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 887TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 888GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 889Touchstone Holdings Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 890DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT– 4(3) v. XIONGWEI LI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 891AAKASH CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR and another connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 892VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. vs KIRAT VINODBHAI JADVANI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 893AMITA VASHISHT versus TARUN VEDI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 894VINOD RAWAT v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 895WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. vs RAAJ COMPUTER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 896X v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 897X v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 898Court on its own motion v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 899X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 900R.S BHARGAVA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 901PANKAJ KUMAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 902SARVJEET SINGH v. STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 903RAJESH GIRI v. SUBHASH MITTAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 904Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 9051. Payment Aggregators Fall Within Definition Of Payment System, RBI Can Issue Guidelines For Efficient Management: Delhi High CourtTitle: LOTUS PAY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884The Delhi High Court has ruled that payment aggregators fall within the definition of designated payment system under Section 23A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has the power to issue guidelines for efficient management for such payment systems.A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju passed the ruling while dismissing a plea filed by Lotus Pay Solutions Private Limited, a company engaged in the business of providing recurring payment solutions for businesses through an authorised payment system, challenging Clauses 3, 4 and 8 of the circular dated March 17, 2020 issued by RBI titled "Guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateway".2. Sanskriti School Admissions: Delhi HC Says Delhi Judicial Service Cannot Be Included In Civil Services Category For Reservation BenefitTitle: SHREYA BHARDWAJ THROUGH HER GUARDIAN v. SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 885Dismissing the petition filed by the daughter of a lower court judge for admission under government quota in the Sanskriti School, the Delhi High Court has said Delhi Judicial Service officers cannot be included in the category of Central Officers (Group A) category for the purposes of the reservation scheme in the educational institution.Justice Chandra Dhari Singh passed the verdict on a petition contending that a judicial officer, who is holding a Civil Group A Gazetted Post by virtue of Rule 3(c) of the Delhi Judicial Rules 1970, has to be treated on a par with a government servant holding corresponding post in accordance with Rule 33 of DJS Rules.60 percent seats in Sanskriti School are reserved for children of officials of Civil Services, Defence Cadre and allied Services like Group-A Civil Service. The Court in the order said the reservation made by the School for admission was in the nature of welfare measures for a limited category of Government Officers and that the categories included in Quota did not specify the Delhi Judicial Service.3. COVID-19: Delhi High Court Closes Plea Challenging Centre's Permission For Clinical Trials Of Covaxin Among 2-18 Yrs OldTitle: SANJEEV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 886The Delhi High Court has disposed of a plea filed during the second wave of COVID-19 against Centre's permission for conducting Phase II and III clinical trials of Covaxin in the age group of 2 to 18 years.A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Ors. wherein it was held that Centre's policy on COVID-19 vaccination policy was reasonable.The Apex Court had rejected the contention that restricted emergency use approvals had been granted to COVISHIELD and COVAXIN in haste, without thorough review of the relevant data. It was also observed that the challenge to the procedures adopted by the expert bodies while granting regulatory approval to the vaccines on the ground of lack of transparency cannot be entertained.4....

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: September 19 To September 25, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags