Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

IMPORTANT ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Family Courts Expected To Bring About Settlement, Endeavour Can't Be To Simply Dispose Of Cases At Cost Of Justice: Delhi High CourtCase Title: COMMODORE PAVAN CHAUHAN v. ANUSHA CHAUHANCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 38The Delhi High Court has observed that the Family Courts are expected to function so as to bring about a settlement between the parties if possible, adding that the endeavour of the Court cannot simply be to dispose of the matters, one way or another at the cost of sacrificing the cause of justice.A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside an order passed by a Family Court which had dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.The Family Court had dismissed the said application after observing that the appellant had failed to lead evidence, closing the right to the appellant to lead evidence.2. Public Company Employees May Be Subject To Disciplinary Proceedings By Authorities Other Than Appointing Authority: Delhi High CourtCase Title: SHRI FAJALUR RAHAMAN v. I.P.G.C.L. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. (W.P.(C) 890/2020) and B S PURIA v. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. & ANR. (W.P.(C) 3495/2021)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 39The Delhi High Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority, though not competent to impose major penalties of compulsory retirement, dismissal and removal, can initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of the same.It noted that there is nothing to suggest that the Appointing Authority alone would be the Competent Authority to institute the disciplinary / major penalty proceedings.The Court indicated that the Director (Technical), being the "Officer (Concerned)" of the Petitioners, designated with issuing major and minor penalties per the DOP, was eligible to issue charge sheet, notwithstanding him not being the Appointing Authority.3. Limitation Period For Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator Commences After Expiry Of 30 Days From Issuance Of Notice Invoking Arbitration: Delhi HCCase Title: Huawei Telecommunications (India) Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. WIPRO Ltd.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 40The Delhi High Court has held that the Limitation-period of 3 years for seeking Appointment of Arbitrator commences from the date of expiry of 30 days period, reckoned from date of issuance of the notice invoking arbitration.Holding thus, it has allowed the Petitioner, Bharat Sachar Nigam Limited (BSNL), to proceed with Arbitration against the Respondent, WIPRO Limited.4. Street Vendors, Hawkers Can't Fix Any Place Or Erect Permanent/ Temporary Structures: Delhi High CourtCase Title: SULEMAN ABBAS & ORS. Vs. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 41The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the concept of tehbzaari, street hawking and vending does not envisage that the hawker or vendor would fix himself to any particular place or erect any structure whether permanent or temporary on it's own.Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also added that there is no question of any hawker or vendor staking a claim to occupy any public space in the name of hawking and vending round the clock by placing a structure, temporary or otherwise, at the site and converting the same into a shop where the hawker or vendor and his goods can permanently remain.The Court was dealing with a petition seeking directions on North Delhi Municipal Corporation not to disturb or create obstacles in the business activities of the petitioners, a total of 20 traders, on the alternate tehbzaari sites allotted to them vide order dated December 29, 2021.5. Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Against Unnecessary Blockade Of Roads For Alleged Political ProtestsCase Title: Ankur Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 632/2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 42The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking necessary action against frequent blockade of roads in the national capital, in the name of protests.The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh directed the concerned Respondents to look into the grievance raised by the Petitioner and decide his representation in according with the law, rules, regulations and government policies, as early as possible.Moved by lawyer Ankur Bhasin, the petition, while citing various recent events, stated that the city has become a "symbolic protest site" for various pressure groups causing great inconvenience to the common masses by hampering their daily routine.6. Filing Affidavits Of Personal Assets Not Permitted Under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC: Delhi High CourtCase Title: GS Sandhu & Anr vs Geeta AggarwalCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 43The Delhi High Court has held that Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a judgment debtor (company) or its directors to file their list of assets.Justice Amit Bansal thus set aside the order of the District Judge,...

Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags