Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: October 3 To October 9, 2022

Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 927 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 945]NOMINAL INDEXMICROMAX MEDIA PVT LTD v. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 927PAWAN RELEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 928PADMA DOONGA vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 929ABC v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 930Dhiraj Aggarwal v. UOI & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 931FREYA KOTHARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 932TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 933PANKAJ CHOUDHARY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 934Extramarks Education India Private Limited v. Shri Ram School & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 935SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. TATA MOTORS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 936XYZ v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 937ANMOL AND ANOTHER v. SUSHILA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 938JAMES PASCAL v. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 939SACHIN HINDURAO WAZE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 940Loreal India Private Limited v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 941Consulting Engineers Group Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 942PEPS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. KURLON LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 943VIRENDER SINGH v. PR SECRETARY CUM DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 944Vinita Gupta v. Amit Arora 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 9451. [CPC] Objective Of Interrogatories Is To Narrow Controversy, Can't Be Used By Plaintiff For Substituting Burden Of Proof: Delhi High CourtTitle: MICROMAX MEDIA PVT LTD v. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 927The Delhi High Court has observed that the interrogatories cannot be used by the plaintiff in a suit for substituting its burden of proving things by adducing relevant evidence, adding that its objective is to narrow the controversy and facilitate framing of issues regarding the disputed facts.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further added that Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is for expediting trial of the suit, thereby saving judicial time and costs of litigation."The interrogatories must be used liberally by the parties. One of the great object of the interrogatories when properly administered is to save evidence i.e., to diminish the burden of proof which was otherwise on the plaintiff. The object is not merely to discover the facts but also to save the expense of proving a part on the case," the court said.2. [Senior Citizens Act] Lawyers Can Represent Parties Before Maintenance Tribunal, Section 17 No Bar: Delhi High CourtTitle: PAWAN RELEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected mattersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 928The Delhi High Court has said that Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 will not bar parties from having legal practitioners represent them before the Maintenance Tribunal.Section 17 of the 2007 Act specifically states no party to a proceeding before a tribunal or appellate tribunal shall be represented by a legal practitioner, notwithstanding anything contained in any law. A batch of petitions filed before the High Court in 2019 challenged the provision, alleging that it was in violation of Section 30 of the Advocates Act which gives advocates the right to practise in courts and tribunals.A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan in a recent judgement expressed their agreement with a 2014 ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it was held that if a tribunal is legally authorised to take evidence, an advocate has a right to practice there.3. Cannot Issue Directions To Authorities For Out of Turn Disposal of Matters, Amounts to Controlling Their Roster: Delhi High CourtTitle: PADMA DOONGA vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORSCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 929The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court, while exercising the powers of superintendence and control under Article 226 and 227, cannot issue directions to the competent authorities for disposal of matters as the same would amount to controlling their roster.Justice Yashwant Varma in the order said that while a statute may prescribe timelines for disposal of cases, it is for the relevant authority to examine and evaluate which matters are required to be accorded precedence."Ultimately it must be left to the competent authority to manage its board and prioritise matters based on an assessment of individual facts of each case. The issuance of the writs as prayed for would clearly amount to the Court controlling the roster of the authority," the court added.4. Delhi Govt Yet To Constitute State Mental Health Authority Under 2017 Act, Existing Panel Cannot Continue: High CourtTitle: ABC v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORSCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 930Rejecting Delhi government's stand that the State Authority for Mental...

Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: October 3 To October 9, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags