Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023: Part III [Citations 801 - 1100]

National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801

Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 803

WASIM AHMAD & ORS. v. GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 804

DR. S. JAITLEY & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 805

THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY v. THE VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 806

PCIT Versus Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 808

NIPUN SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 809

SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 810

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. v. AJIO ONLINE SHOPPING PVT LTD AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 811

Captain Arvind Kathpalia v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 812

Aphv India Investco. Private Limited Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813

M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 814

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED vs FAST CURE PHARMA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 815

M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 816

SANGHI BROS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. vs KAMLENDRA SINGH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 817

TEK CHAND v. STATE OF U P & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 818

Amazon Web Services India Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 819

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820

FIROZ AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 821

Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 822

ANITA SANTIAGO v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 823

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 824

PALLAVIMOHANALIASPALLAVIMENON v. RAGHU MENON 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 825

SILICA UDYOG INDIA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 826

MALINI CHAUDHRI v. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 827

Rajat Kapoor v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 828

BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 829

LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 830

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 831

SANTOSH BHUTANI & ANR v. SAVITRI DEVI THROUGH LRs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 832

Sarika Patel v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 833

GOPAL RAI v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 834

SIDHARTHA EXTENSION POCKET C RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 835

Ashok Kumar Rajdev & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Directorate of Vigilance & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 836

MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 837

Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 838

Sandhya Gupta & Anr v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 839

RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840

DIKSHIKA MEENA vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 841

DD Global Capital v. S E Investment Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 842

Prince Singh v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 843

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. MR. AMAR SINGH BHALLA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 844

MUSKAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 845

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 846

Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 847

MOHD. AMIR JAVED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 848

Sagar & Ors v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 849

IRSHAD ALI v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 850

MD IMRAN AHMAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 851

RD v. VD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 852

PEPSICO INC. & ANR. v. PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 853

ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 854

D v. AK 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 855

ACHAL RANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 856

Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 857

HEMANT JAIN & ANR. vs STATE (GNCTD) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 858

AHIRE AJINKYA SHANKAR v. INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 859

ASHISH BHALLA v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 860

Harish Kumar Gautam v. University of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 861

RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 862

GNCTD v. Sashank Yadav 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 863

VIKAS THAKUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 864

RAJAN & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 865

J v. ND 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 866

DELHI WAQF BOARD v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 867

FAROOQ v. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 868

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. ASHOK KUMAR RAJDEV & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 869

Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 870

S Rajadurai v. State & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 871

JRA INFRATECH v. ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 872

Vivek Khanna v. OYO Apartments Investment LLP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 873

GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 874

KOMAL GUPTA v. AMRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 875

Rahul Gupta v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 876

ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 877

NADEEM MAJID OOMERBHOY vs SH. GAUTAM TANK AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 878

RAM KISHOR ARORA v. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 879

SUHAIL AHMAD THOKAR vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 880

UNION OF INDIA v. MS. KIRAN KANOJIA and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 881

CBI v. SHYAMAL GHOSH & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 882

RAJAN DEVI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 883

ASHOK SINGH BHADAURIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 884

UJJWAL SHORI (THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 885

Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. Versus CIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 886

ROHAN PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS PALAM VILLAGE AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 887

MISS TANISHKA v. ANR v. GNCTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 888

THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST, INDIA v. HTTPS://BHAGAVATAM.IN/#GSC.TAB=0 & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 889

P v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 890

JOSEPH VARGHESE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 891

NAVEEN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 892

Raja v. State & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 893

Disha A Ravi v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 894

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 895

DEEPAK VERMA v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 896

AS v. NN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 897

KARTIKYA SWAMI & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 898

SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 899

OMID HUSSAIN KHIL @ UMED MILAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 900

Vinod Kumar vs G.N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 901

NHAI v. D.S. Toll Roads Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 902

DLF Limited v. PNB Housing Finance Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 903

RAHUL MAHAJAN v. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 904

SNV AVIATION PVT LTD & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 905

PADMAJA GARIKIPATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 906

S. DAYA SINGH LAHORIA AND ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 907

VBM MEDIZINTECHNIK GMBH vs GEETAN LUTHRA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 908

THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 909

STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. JIOLIVE.TV & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 910

GR Builders v. Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 911

Sarvesh v. AIIMS & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 912

JAINEMO PRIVATE LIMITED v. RAHUL SHAH AND OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 913

SP Singh Dhillon v. Delhi Capital Badminton Association & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 914

NHAI v. GMR Ambala Chandigarh Expressway Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 915

Jitendr Lala & Ors vs The State Of Delhi & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 916

PCIT Versus Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 917

ADITYA N PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 918

DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. MS DOMINICK PIZZA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 919

SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 920

Shelly Oberoi v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 922

Abhishek SIngh v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 923

Sudershan Kumar Bhayana (Deceased) v. Vinod Seth (Deceased) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 924

Harshita Gandhi v. Nimit Gandhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 925

SHRI RAMLEELA COMMITTE JANAKPURI & ANR. v. RISHU KANT SHARMA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 926

Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 928

PRASHANT REDDY T v. CPIO, UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 929

STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. YODESISERIAL.SU & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 930

AAKASH GOEL v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DELHI GOVT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 931

FRESH FRUIT FLOWERS AND VEGETABLES TRADERS ASSOCIATION v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 933

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. KENDRIYA VIDVALAYA SANGTHAN & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 969

Centre for Policy Research v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 970

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 971

S v. State & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 972

TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. CAPITAL TV AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 973

AYUR UNITED CARE LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 974

MRS. D & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 975

PCIT Versus Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 976

Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 977

Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v. Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 978

Amit Sharma v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 979

Japan Patent Office v. Ms. A2Z Glass and Glazing Co. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 980

DR RAVIKANT CHAUHAN & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. & Other Connected Matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 981

Nayati Healthcare and Research NCR Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. through its Authorized Representative Sh. Satish Kumar Narula & Ors. v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs through its Standing Counsel & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 982

Berger Paints India Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 983

Red Bull AG v. Rohidas Popat Kapadnis & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 984

Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Fantasy Sports MyFab11 Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 985

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 986

AMIT SAHNI v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 987

KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 988

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 989

Viacom18 Media Private Limited v. BiggBos.Live & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 990

Adarsh Kanojia v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 991

ASHISH MITTAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 992

Directorate of Enforcement v. Sh. Dev Inder Bhalla 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 993

New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Salman Khan & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 994

CIT Versus Deloitte Touche Tohmastu 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 995

Sinogas Management Pte Ltd Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 996

MRS B. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 997

SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 998

Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 999

M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. 9TH KILOMETER, MEX ESTATE, PATHANKOT ROAD, JALANDHAR v. VIKRAM SURI TRADING AS M/S ARMEX AUTO INDUSTRIES 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1000

Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1001

Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Abony Healthcare Limited through its Directors & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1002

Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v. Ashraf V 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1003

INDIAMART Intermesh Limited v. Mr. Sameer Samim Khan & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1004

SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1005

PINKI IRANI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1006

Modicare Limited v. Maa Adishakti Multi Trade Enterprises & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1007

ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1008

INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. QUESS CORP LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1009

Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1010

FSN E-COMMERCE VENTURES LTD & ANR. v. PINTU KUMAR YADAV & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1011

ASFIVE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1012

Dr. P. V. Vijayaraghavan & Ors v. Nityam Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1013

MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD. v. OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1014

SANGEETA WAHI v UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1015

Strix Ltd v. Maharaja Appliances Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1016

Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

Wills John v. Delhi Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi Versus M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

KAVI VAIDWAN & ORS. v. DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. GOLA SIZZLERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1022

Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1024

SMT. DEEPALI & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT LTD v. GREY MANTRA SOLUTIONS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ANR. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

Sakshi Rathore and Ors v. Union of India and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

WONDER BRICKS Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

TTK PRESTIGE LTD v. ARJUN RAM & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

Ajay Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

PCIT Versus Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

CIT Versus Indus Towers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. A B SUGARS LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATEL TRADING AS RAKESH PHARMACEUTICALS v. SSS PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. Dabico Airport Solutions Private Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

SATPAL SINGH v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

Vasudev Garg v. Embassay Commercial Project 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

PCIT Versus M/S Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

AJEET SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

ASHOK AGARWAL v. UOI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

POOJA V . SHAH v. BANK OF INDIA & Other Connected Matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

MOHD NASIM v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

Seema v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

New Balance Athletics Inc. v. New Balance Immigration Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Parle Product Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

SUNITA KEJRIWAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

Juniper Hotels Private Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

Sushant Kaushik v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

SHANTANU v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079

ANR International Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

BT (India) Private Limited Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082

National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083

Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084

ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

Aryan Kumar (Minor) through Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088

NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089

Viridian Development Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090

DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091

VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy's Hospitality Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094

MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095

Tata Steel Limited Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096

Indian Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association v. Director General of Foreign Trade 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097

Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098

ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099

BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100

Use Term 'Staff Contribution' Instead Of Service Charge, Amount Can't Be More Than 10% Of Total Bill: Delhi HC To Members Of Restaurant Association

Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 801

The Delhi High Court has directed the members of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India to only use the term “Staff Contribution” for the amount being charged as “service charge” currently.

Justice Prathiba M Singh added that the amount being charged as “staff contribution” shall not be more than 10% of the total bill amount excluding the GST component.

Defence Ministry Cannot Suspend An Entity Indefinitely Without Adhering To Safeguards For Banning Under Guidelines On Business Dealings: Delhi HC

Case Title: DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 802

The Delhi High Court has observed that indefinite suspension of an entity under the Union Ministry of Defence's 2016 guidelines for penalties in business dealing, without resort to the safeguards prescribed for banning, would not be permissible.

The guidelines were issued on November 21, 2016. They provide for suspension and debarment of suppliers for violation of defense procurement processes.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the suspension is a subset or species within debarment or banning and not an independent measure and that suspension cannot be read in isolation but has to be read as a part of the banning process.

Section 100A CPC Bars Second Appeal Where Single Judge Heard Appeal From Original Or Appellate Decree Or Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse and Anr and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 803

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars the filing of a second appeal where a Single Judge had heard an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that the restraint on a further appeal shall operate notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent of a High Court or any other law for the time being in force.

Do Ten Pro Bono Cases: Delhi High Court To Lawyer While Quashing FIRs Lodged Against Him By Ex-Wife

Case Title: WASIM AHMAD & ORS. v. GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 804

The Delhi High Court recently directed a lawyer to do ten pro bono cases while quashing two FIRs registered against him by his former wife, after they amicably settled the disputes and got talaq.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma quashed the FIRs registered under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as under Section 354 IPC and 10 of the POCSO Act.

The cases were registered by the wife due to matrimonial disputes between her and the husband. After a settlement was entered between them, they were granted Talaq-E-Mubarat.

Criminal Courts May Allow Accused To Appear Virtually If Circumstances Warrant, Integrity Of Trial Should Not Be Compromised: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DR. S. JAITLEY & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 805

The Delhi High Court has observed that courts should be flexible in embracing modern technology and allowing virtual appearance in criminal trials, provided they do not compromise the integrity or fairness of the trial.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that where the criminal trial can proceed effectively with the accused remaining present before the court through an alternative means such as vide-conferencing and representation by legal counsel, courts should be flexible in considering such prayers made by the accused.

Delhi HC Denies Interim Relief To Ivy League Princeton University In Trademark Suit Against Hyderabad-Based 'Princeton' Schools & Colleges

Case Title: THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY v. THE VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 806

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because several Indians may have studied in the prestigious Princeton University in the United States would not amount to “use” by the American Ivy League college of its “Princeton” mark in India for providing its services in terms of the Trade Marks Act.

“ Reference to Indian students studying at Princeton, howsoever large the number, cannot amount to the plaintiff providing services, in India, under the PRINCETON mark. Opening of centres in the plaintiff-institution in the US, dealing with Indian subjects, Indian studies, or Indian cultural activities, too, does not reflect use, by the plaintiff, of the PRINCETON mark in India prior to 1991,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of Rule 8 of Chewing Tobacco And Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules 2010

Case Title: Gopal Corporates LLP Versus Commissioner Delhi-East

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 807

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 8 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 (CTUT), which deals with the alteration in the number of operating packing machines.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that Rule 8 notes that in case a machine is added to the production capabilities existing in a factory, the number of operating packing machines for the month shall be deemed to be the maximum number of packing machines installed and existing on any day during that month.

Undisclosed Income Taxed In The Hands Of Flagship Company Can't Be Again Subjected To Tax In The Hands Of Assessee Companies: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 808

The Delhi High Court has held that undisclosed income taxed in the hands of flagship companies cannot be again subjected to tax in the hands of assessee companies.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that since the undisclosed income, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, had already been taxed in the hands of the flagship company Surya Food & Agro Ltd., it cannot be again subjected to tax in the hands of the respondents or assessee companies in the form of application of the income as their share capital.

Banks Can't Use Look Out Circulars As Measure To Recover Money From Creditors: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NIPUN SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 809

The Delhi High Court has observed that banks cannot use Look Out Circulars (LOCs) as a measure of recovering money from creditors just because they feel remedy available under law is not sufficient.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that LOC can be issued only when there are sufficient reasons. He added that if there is a condition precedent for issuance of such LOC, the same must be provided therein.

Patent And Trademark Agents Do Not Come Within Ambit Of BCI Or Advocates Act, Regulatory Authority Need Of The Hour: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SAURAV CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 810

The Delhi High Court has observed that patent and trademark agents do not come within the ambit of the Bar Council of India or the Advocates' Act, 1961. Justice Prathiba M Singh added that there is no supervisory or regulatory authority over trademark and patent agents which appears to be the 'need of the hour'.

The bench thus sought to know the manner in which the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks intends to regulate or supervise the functioning of trademark and patent agents.

High Court Directs Delhi Police's Cyber Cell To Probe 'Large Scale Operation' Of Collecting Money Under AJIO's Name

Case Title: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. v. AJIO ONLINE SHOPPING PVT LTD AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 811

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police's Cyber Cell to investigate “unscrupulous individuals” involved in “large scale operation” of collecting money under the name of fashion and lifestyle brand AJIO, by way of scratch coupons and prize money.

“….the Court is convinced that this appears to be a large-scale operation carried out by unscrupulous individuals with the intention of collecting money under the name of 'AJIO' and 'AJIO Online Shopping Private Limited'. The letters and the scratch cards, etc., are so convincing that any customer or recipient would be unable to distinguish between the Plaintiffs' (Ajio's) communications and those of the said entity or person,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

Person Exonerated In Disciplinary Proceedings Can't Be Subjected To 'Double Jeopardy' By Continuing Criminal Action For Same Offence: Delhi HC

Case Title: Captain Arvind Kathpalia v. GNCTD & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 812

The Delhi High Court has said that a person cannot be subjected to double jeopardy by initiating criminal proceeding after he has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding on same allegations.

The case pertains to a pilot of Air India who was facing criminal proceeding for forgery even after the disciplinary case against him was closed by the department.

Overlooking Assesssee's Reply Demonstrates Non-Application Of Mind By The AO: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aphv India Investco. Private Limited Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813

The Delhi High Court has quashed the draft assessment orders, final assessment orders, and consequential demand on the grounds that the assessing officer inadvertently overlooked the email reply of the assessee, in which the assessee disclosed vital facts pertaining to its case.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the denial of sufficient time to respond was not just an abrogation of jus naturale but also infringed clause B(1) of the Standard Operating Procedure dated November 19, 2020, of the CBDT, according to which normally a response time of 15 days has to be given to the assessee in order to respond to the notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act.

Claims Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration When The Requirement To Mandatorily Notify Such Claims Was Not Followed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 814

The Delhi High Court has held that claims of a party cannot be referred to arbitration when the requirement to mandatorily notify such claims with the General Manger (GM) was not followed.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Court can conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out if the dispute is arbitrable in terms of the agreement and refuse arbitration when the claims are ex facie non-arbitrable.

Rectification Petition Maintainable Before High Court If 'Dynamic Effect' Of Trademark Registration Felt Within Its Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED vs FAST CURE PHARMA AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 815

The Delhi High Court has ruled that High Courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the rectification petition seeking removal of trademark from the Register of Trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if the 'dynamic effect' of the impugned registration is felt within the High Court's jurisdiction by the person who has challenged the validity of the trade mark registration or has sought its removal.

Accordingly, the court said, the High Court dealing with a suit for infringement of Trademark would have the jurisdiction to entertain the rectification petition after the court comes to the conclusion that the plea of invalidity raised by the party under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act, is tenable.

If Contract Mandates Arbitration Only When Claims Collectively Are 20% Or Less Of Contract Value, Court Won't Compel Arbitration If Exceeds : Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s BCC-MONALISHA (JV) v. Container Corporation of India, ARB.P. 933/2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 816

The Delhi High Court has held that in cases where the contract stipulates arbitration solely in instances where the cumulative value of claims is below 20% of the contract value, the court would abstain from directing the parties towards arbitration if the claims surpass this specified cumulative value threshold.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Court can conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out if the dispute is arbitrable in terms of the agreement and refuse arbitration when the claims are ex facie non-arbitrable.

Sale Of Property To Third Party During Pendency Of Suit Inequitable To Grant And Enforce Specific Performance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SANGHI BROS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. vs KAMLENDRA SINGH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 817

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant decree of specific performance against a suit property after noting that the property had been sold to a third party during the pendency of the suit. The court said the said circumstance made it inequitable to grant and enforce the specific performance decree.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh reiterated that it is a settled law that specific performance is not granted by the Courts due to the various hardships which may be caused to the third party in case the specific performance is granted. The bench said that while exercising the discretion of granting specific performance, the court has to balance the interests of justice and equity for the parties involved and has to look into the probable consequences of granting such specific performance.

Delhi High Court Cautions Delhi Police, UP Police For Conducting 'Terrible Investigation', Upholds Acquittals In Murder Case

Case Title: TEK CHAND v. STATE OF U P & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 818

While upholding the acquittal of five accused persons in 2015 in a murder case registered way back in 1998, the Delhi High Court has cautioned the Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Police for conducting “terrible investigation.”

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that both the investigating agencies “mechanically investigated” the FIR which was registered in 1998 wherein the accused persons were acquitted in 2015 and thus, faced “ordeal of long trial and suffered loss of time, energy and reputation” which cannot be compensated in terms of money or otherwise.

Delhi High Court Directs AWS India To Withhold 8% Payment Of The AWS USA And Deposit It With The Dept.

Case Title: Amazon Web Services India Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus ITO

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 819

The Delhi High Court has directed that AWS India withhold 8% of payments payable or paid to AWS USA and deposit the same with the income tax department.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the nature of the proceedings is confined to the withholding of tax and that the financial year 2022–23 is already over.

Highly Qualified And Earning Wife Not Disclosing Her True Income Won't Be Entitled To Maintenance From Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820

The Delhi High Court has said that a wife cannot be entitled to maintenance by the husband when she is highly qualified and has been earning even after her marriage, though she does not truthfully disclose her true income.

While upholding a family court order dismissing a wife's application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

“We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.”

Applying Law Not Akin To Solving Maths Theorem, Legal Decisions Affect People's Lives: Delhi High Court

Case Title: FIROZ AND ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 821

Applying law is not akin to solving a mathematical theorem, it cannot be done in isolation, the Delhi High Court has observed.

“As the people of the State are affected by these legal decisions, a rigid and mathematical application of the law may lead to disastrous outcomes. For instance, if a person is the sole provider for their family and serves as the head of the household, sending them to jail could result in severe hardship for their dependents. Therefore, such a strict approach would be considered cruel and impractical,” Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said.

Civil Services Exam 2023: Delhi High Court Admits Plea Seeking Publication Of Prelims Answer Key

Case Title: Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 822

The Delhi High Court has admitted the plea challenging the decision of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to publish the answer key of the preliminary examination of Civil Services Examination 2023 only after declaration of final result.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh pronounced the judgment on maintainability of the plea which has been moved by 17 civil services aspirants seeking publication of answer key before the entire process is completed. The court had reserved the verdict on August 02.

Stray Dogs Captured For Preparation Of G20 Summit Being Released As Per Law: MCD To Delhi High Court

Case Title: ANITA SANTIAGO v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 823

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has told the Delhi High Court that the process of releasing stray dogs that were captured during the preparation for G20 Summit has been initiated in strict adherence with law.

The G20 Summit was held in the national capital on September 9-10.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing a PIL moved by an animal activist highlighting the manner in which the stray dogs were captured in Delhi during special events like Independence Day, Republic Day and most recently, the G20 Summit.

Brand Names Are Specie Of The Trademark: Delhi High Court Allows Depreciation

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh Versus M/S Kuantum Papers Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 824

The Delhi High Court has allowed the depreciation and held that the expression "trademark" under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in the appended Explanation 3(b) would clearly include brand names.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the definition of assets, as explained in the explanation, includes commercial rights of similar nature. Brand names certainly invest in the owner's commercial rights and, therefore, will fall within the scope of intangible assets, which are amenable to depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Period Of Limitation For Filing Appeal Against Family Court Order Is 30 Days, Delay Can Be Condoned If Sufficient Cause Shown: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PALLAVIMOHANALIASPALLAVIMENON v. RAGHU MENON

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 825

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against a judgment or order of the family court is 30 days.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that the delay in filing of such an appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1963, if sufficient cause is shown.

LPG Cylinders Tender: Delhi High Court Upholds Restriction On Manufacturers Having Common Business Ownership To Quote Single Bid

Case Title: SILICA UDYOG INDIA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 826

The Delhi High Court has upheld a restriction on LPG gas cylinder manufacturers, having common business ownership including sister companies, to quote only a single bid while applying in the tender floated by Hindustan Petroleum, Bharat Petroleum and Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the petitions moved by various vendors who were effectively barred from submitting bids separately through each of their manufacturing units.

Divorced Daughter Not 'Dependant' U/S 21 Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, Not Entitled To Maintenance From Late Father's Estate: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MALINI CHAUDHRI v. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 827

The Delhi High Court has observed that a divorced daughter is not a “dependent” under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased father.

“An unmarried or widowed daughter is recognized to have a claim in the estate of the deceased, but a “divorced daughter” does not feature in the category of dependents entitled to maintenance,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.

Helmet, Insurance Cover Mandatory Even For Electric Vehicles, Relevant Provisions Of Motor Vehicles Act Applicable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rajat Kapoor v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 828

The Delhi High Court has clarified that provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 that are relevant for the purpose of electric vehicles are applicable to them.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that insurance cover and wearing helmet or protective gear is mandatory for e-bikes and that electric vehicles will also be subjected to the requirement of registration and penal provisions in law, as applicable to other vehicles.

No Permission To Be Granted For Felling Of Trees To Construct Houses In Delhi: High Court

Case Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 829

The Delhi High Court has said that no permission shall be granted to anyone by the city authorities for felling of trees for construction of houses in the national capital.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that its earlier interim order, recording the Delhi Government's stand that no permission will be granted to any individual for felling of trees and that any permission required for important projects will be intimated to court, shall continue till October 06.

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Aaj Tak, Permanently Restrains YouTube Channels, Social Media Handles From Using Deceptively Similar Marks

Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 830

Ruling in favour of Aaj Tak, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained various YouTube channels and social media handles from using marks that are deceptively similar and identical to the registered trademark of the news channel.

Justice C Hari Shankar passed the permanent injunction order in favour of Living Media India Limited which runs the news channel under the registered trademark “Aaj Tak.”

It was Aaj Tak's case that the YouTube channels and social media handles were violating its registered mark by using “Aaj Tak” mark and its various derivative forms illegally and unauthorisedly.

Husband Living With Another Woman After Long Years Of Separation From Wife Not Ground To Refuse Divorce On Proven 'Cruelty': Delhi HC

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 831

The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband living with another woman, after long years of separation from his wife with no possibility of re-union during the pendency of the divorce petition, cannot disentitle him from seeking divorce on proven grounds of cruelty by the wife.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the allegations of cruelty made in criminal cases by the wife should be substantiated in divorce proceedings.

Mere Disability Doesn't Deprive An Individual Of The Constitutional Right To Practice Any Profession Or Carry Business: Delhi High Court

Title: SANTOSH BHUTANI & ANR v. SAVITRI DEVI THROUGH LRs

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 832

The Delhi High Court has said that mere disability does not deprive an individual the constitutional right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

“Thus, it would be wholly retrograde, and in derogation of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 & 21, to deny the right of a person suffering from any disability, to carry on any trade or business,” Justice Sachin Datta observed.

Delhi High Court Closes Dog-Bite Cases Against "Animal Lover", Asks MCD To Urgently Take Action On Stray Dog Menace

Title: Sarika Patel v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 833

The Delhi High Court has asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to urgently take appropriate action on the “serious issue” of stray dog menace.

“…the issue of stray dog menace is a serious issue, which needs to be addressed with urgency by the concerned authority. Let a copy of this order be sent to Commissioner, MCD for taking appropriate action,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.

High Court Closes Delhi Minister Gopal Rai's Plea After Centre Grants Political Clearance For Attending Columbia India Energy Dialogue

Case Title: GOPAL RAI v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 834

The Union Government has informed the Delhi High Court that political clearance has been granted for the foreign visit of Delhi's Environment Minister Gopal Rai for attending Columbia India Energy Dialogue in New York.

The programme is scheduled to be held in New York, United States of America on September 18.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told Justice Subramonium Prasad that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, political clearance was being granted for Rai's travel from September 15 to 21.

Delhi HC Rejects Residents' Concern Over Rapid Rail Project Passing Through Their Colony, Says Public Interest Above Individual Property Rights

Title: SIDHARTHA EXTENSION POCKET C RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 835

The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected the concerns raised by certain residents from whose area a rapid metro rail would pass, observing that overarching public interest must take precedence over individual property rights.

The project in question is the Delhi-Meerut Regional Rapid Transport System, a semi-high-speed rail corridor, which will connect the cities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Meerut

Delhi CM Residence Renovation: High Court Grants Interim Protection To PWD Officials Facing Show Cause Notices

Tiitle: Ashok Kumar Rajdev & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Directorate of Vigilance & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 836

The Delhi High Court has ordered that no coercive steps be taken by any authority against six PWD officials who have challenged the show cause notices issued to them by the Delhi Government's Vigilance department over alleged gross violations of rules in the renovation work undertaken at the official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that despite an undertaking given to the court by the city authorities that no coercive steps shall be taken against the officials, yet, steps were taken against them in the “teeth of the judicial order.”

Delhi High Court Dismisses Tehelka's Review Against Order Directing It To Pay ₹2 Crore Damages To Former Army Officer For Defamation

Case Title: MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 837

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by news magazine Tehelka and its co-founder Aniruddha Bahal seeking review of an order directing them to pay Rs. 2 crores damages to a former Army officer Major General MS Ahluwalia in a defamation suit filed by the latter in 2002.

“There is no error apparent on the face of record nor has the applicants been able to highlight any error or mistake which can be corrected within the ambit of review,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Accused Has Right To Default Bail Where Prosecution Files Preliminary Or Incomplete Chargesheet: Delhi High Court

Title: Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 838

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused has a right to be released on default bail where the prosecution files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet within the statutory period.

Justice Amit Sharma said the fundamental right to personal life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and its co-relation with 167(2) of the CrPC has been clearly established by way of judicial precedents over the years.

Delhi High Court Quashes Brother's FIR Against Lawyer Sister, Asks Her To Assist Legal Services Committee For One Month

Title: Sandhya Gupta & Anr v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 839

While quashing an FIR registered by a brother against her sister, who recently completed her graduation in law, the Delhi High Court directed her to provide her assistance to its Legal Services Committee for one month.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee quashed the case filed in 2019 against the sister as well as the mother wherein the brother accused them of falsification of documents in respect of a family dispute.

Delhi High Court Appoints Retired Justice Najmi Waziri As Chairman For Extraordinary General Meeting Of Equestrian Federation Of India

Title: RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 840

The Delhi High Court has appointed its retired judge, Justice Najmi Waziri, as the Chairman for the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) to be held today.

The agenda for the meeting is for amendments in the ECI calendar, participation and funding for the 19th Asian Games being held from September 23, hiring of a PR agency, digitalisation of old records and status of cases pending before the court.

UPSC Mains: Delhi High Court Declines Aspirant's Plea To Appear In Exam After She Uploaded Incorrect Photo, Signature In Application Form

Case Title: DIKSHIKA MEENA vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 841

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of a Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) aspirant to appear in the forthcoming Civil Services (Main) Examination after her candidature was cancelled for uploading incorrect photograph and signature in the application form.

The petitioner, who had cleared the Preliminary Examination, claimed she had inadvertently uploaded her brother's photo and signature in her application form. She challenged the cancellation of her candidature before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The interim relief sought by her that she be permitted to appear in the Main Examination was rejected by the Tribunal.

Arbitration Clause In Loan Restructuring Agreement, Liability Is Transferred To New Agreements, Binding On Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DD Global Capital v. S E Investment Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 842

The Delhi High Court has held that when earlier loan agreement liabilities are transferred through an agreement, the subsequent loan agreements' arbitration clauses become binding on the parties.

The bench of Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna reiterated that Section 12(5) inserted through the 2015 Amendment to the Act would not apply to an arbitration that had commenced before the amendment came into force. It held that an arbitration commences on the date when the notice of arbitration is issued.

High Court Permits Delhi University To Offer Admissions In Five-Year LLB Courses Based On CLAT Score For Current Academic Year

Case Title: Prince Singh v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 843

The Delhi High Court on Monday passed an interim order and permitted the Delhi University to offer admissions in its newly introduced five-year integrated law courses on the basis of CLAT-UG 2023 score, only for the current academic year.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the interim order considering the fact that classes have already started for this academic year in all other universities.

Delhi High Court Sentences Man To Six Months In Jail For Failing To Pay Dues To Deceased Driver's Wife, Repeatedly Flouting Undertakings

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. MR. AMAR SINGH BHALLA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 844

The Delhi High Court has sentenced a man to six months of simple imprisonment for failing to pay dues to the wife of his deceased driver and repeatedly flouting undertakings given to that effect to the court.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found the man guilty of committing contempt of court for wilfully disobeying his undertakings of making payment to the widow who had a minor daughter.

Right To Choose Life Partner Can't Be Affected By Faith Or Religion: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MUSKAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 845

The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual's right to choose a life partner cannot be affected by matters of faith and religion and that the right to marry is an “incident of human liberty.”

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that it is not for the State or the society or even the parents of the parties involved to, in any way, dictate the choice of life partner or curtail and limit such rights of an individual when it involves “two consenting adults.”

Public Prosecutors Should Be Adequately Trained To Shoulder The "Weighty Responsibilities" Of Post: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 846

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to conduct training of the newly recruited public prosecutors in coordination with Delhi Judicial Academy.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that given the distinct role played by the Public Prosecutors, it must be ensured that the new appointees are adequately equipped to “shoulder the weighty responsibilities the post carries.”

Delhi High Court Directs VAT Dept. To Refund Rs. 6.62 Crores To Flipkart

Case Title: Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 847

The Delhi High Court has directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to refund Rs. 6.62 crore to Flipkart along with interest.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the VAT department has acted arbitrarily in making numerous adjustments post-May 31, 2015, thus illegally depriving the petitioner, Flipkart, of the refund as claimed. The various adjustments clearly appear to have been made even though objections before the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) had been duly lodged online by the petitioner. The department thus clearly appeared to have acted contrary to the clear mandate of Section 38 of the DVAT Act.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA For Allegedly Planning Terror Activities, Bomb Blasts

Case Title: MOHD. AMIR JAVED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 848

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man, Mohd. Amir Javed, booked under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, for allegedly planning terror activities in the country.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal said that there was a reasonable possibility that Javed was one of the links in the network of people who were cognizant of the plan to trigger terrorist activity by using bombs and explosives and causing loss of life.

Do Basic Cleaning Work At Four Police Stations: Delhi High Court To Parties While Quashing FIR Based On Settlement

Title: Sagar & Ors v. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 849

While quashing an attempt to commit culpable homicide case after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed all 24 individuals involved in the matter to do “basic cleaning work” for three days at four police stations by dividing themselves in four groups.

“The said 24 persons shall be at liberty to decide amongst themselves as to the composition of each group of 6 persons and also the Police Station where each group shall undertake the aforesaid basic cleaning duty,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Head Constable Ratan Lal Murder Case, Says He May Tamper With Evidence

Title: IRSHAD ALI v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 850

The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to an accused in the murder case of Delhi Police's head constable Ratan Lal during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that there are chances that once out on bail, accused Irshad Ali may influence or threaten the witnesses and is likely to tamper with the evidence which can jeopardise and derail the proceedings thereby, “setting the clock back once again.”

Job Ads Not Complying With Minimum Wages Act Shouldn't Be Carried On 'Rozgar Baazar' Portal: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: MD IMRAN AHMAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 851

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to not publish any job advertisement in its “Rozgar Bazaar portal” which is non-compliant with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula took note of Delhi Government's submission that steps are being taken to update the software portal so that not a single advertisement reflecting wages below the prescribed minimum wages would be uploaded.

Wife Refused To Fast For 'Karwa Chauth', Didn't Acknowledge Her Husband: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce On Ground Of Cruelty

Title: RD v. VD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 852

The Delhi High Court has ruled that constant rejection and non-acknowledgment of the husband in a marriage by his wife is a source of “great mental agony” for him.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by his wife. The couple got married in March 2011 and started living separated just after six months.

Delhi High Court Restrains Parle From Using 'For The Bold' Tagline As Predominant Part Of Advertising 'B Fizz' Drink In Suit By PepsiCo

Case Title: PEPSICO INC. & ANR. v. PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 853

The Delhi High Court has restrained Parle from using the tagline “For The Bold” as predominant part of any advertising campaign for its “B Fizz” beverage in a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational chain PepsiCo.

Justice C Hari Shankar passed the interim order in PepsiCo's suit seeking a permanent injunction against Parle from using the tagline “For The Bold”. The suit is filed by PepsiCo Inc. and PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited.

Child's Age, Circumstances During Separation With Parent Relevant To Determine Its 'Intelligent Preference' While Appointing Guardian: Delhi HC

Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 854

Observing that a child is the worst victim where there is acrimonious relationship between the parents, the Delhi High Court has said that a minor's age and the surrounding circumstances of the period of separation from a parent are relevant while considering his or her 'intelligent preference'.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while referring to Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which states that while appointing a guardian, court may consider preference of a minor in case he or she is old enough to form an “intelligent preference”

Family Courts Not Empowered To Grant Divorce On 'Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage', Must Restrict To Statutory Provisions: Delhi High Court

Title: D v. AK

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 855

The Delhi High Court has ruled that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for seeking divorce and that Family Courts must strictly restrict their considerations to the statutory provisions like those under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

While discussing the theory of breakdown of marriage, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan said that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for grant of divorce under the enactment.

Cyber-Crimes Proliferating At Alarming Rate: Delhi High Court Denies Relief To Man Booked For Hacking Lawyer's Phone, Duping Him Of Money

Title: ACHAL RANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 856

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that in today's digital era, cyber-crimes are proliferating at an alarming rate and that such offences are neither bound by border restrictions due to their global reach, nor do they discriminate among their victims.

Observing that cyber-crimes target the elderly, young, businesses as well as the governments in the digital landscape, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “The consequences of cyber-crimes go beyond individual boundaries, impacting numerous unsuspecting victims.”

Delhi High Court Protects Actor Anil Kapoor's Personality Rights, Restrains Use Of His Name, Image Or Voice Without Consent

Title: Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 857

The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor and restrained various entities from misusing his image, name, voice or other elements of his persona for monetary gains without his consent.

Justice Prathiba M Singh also restrained “other unknown persons” from disseminating various videos, links of which will be uploaded in the order, and directed that the same shall be taken down immediately by all internet service providers.

The court passed interim injunction order in Kapoor's suit seeking protection of his personality rights. The suit seeks to restrain various entities, including John Does, from violating his personality rights by using his name, acronym 'AK', nicknames like 'Lakhan', 'Mr. India ', 'Majnu Bhai' and phrase 'Jhakaas' and his voice and images, without his permission for commercial gain.

Delhi High Court Quashes Forgery And Cheating FIR On Compromise, Parties To Distribute Uniform Socks To Police Officers

Case Title: HEMANT JAIN & ANR. vs STATE (GNCTD) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 858

The Delhi High Court, while quashing an FIR for forgery and cheating based on the settlement between the accused and the complainant, has directed the parties to pool in money and purchase uniform socks for the police personnel stationed at 6 police stations in Delhi.

The court has directed the parties to procure uniform socks worth Rs. 48,000 for the police officials posted at Keshavpuram, Bharat Nagar, Model Town, Ashok Vihar, Roop Nagar and Maurice Nagar police stations.

Mere Omission Of Surname In Caste Certificate Doesn't Imply Impersonation: Delhi High Court Quashes Rejection Of Candidature

Title: AHIRE AJINKYA SHANKAR v. INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 859

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to an applicant whose candidature in the Indian Coast Guard was rejected due to the mismatch of surname in the caste certificate issued to him.

The mismatch prevailed in the name of the candidate and his father in the SC Certificate, due to the omission and addition of their surnames, respectively, with the names submitted in the application form.

Once Investigation Is Initiated By SFIO Under Companies Act, Parallel Probe By Separate Agency Not Permissible: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ASHISH BHALLA v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 860

The Delhi High Court has ruled that once an investigation has been initiated by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, a parallel investigation by a separate agency into the affairs of such a company is not permissible.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed so in view of the bar contained under Section 212(2) of the Act which states that where a case has been assigned by the Central Government to the SFIO, no other investigating agency shall proceed with the probe.

High Court Upholds Delhi University's Decision To Relax Upper Age Limit For Candidates Participating In Student's Union Elections

Title: Harish Kumar Gautam v. University of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 861

The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi University to relax the upper age limit for undergraduate and postgraduate student candidates participating in Delhi University Student's Union for the current academic year.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that a one-time age relaxation has been granted for candidates as the elections were being held after a hiatus of three years due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Delhi High Court Directs Meta, Telegram To Suspend Groups And Channels Illegally Circulating Content Of Jawan Film

Title: RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 862

The Delhi High Court has directed Meta and Telegram to suspend or deactivate the groups and channels illegally circulated content of latest film Jawan starring Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan.

Justice C Hari Shankar also directed the two platforms to provide the basic subscriber information and other details relating to the administrators of the groups or channels.

Potential Infringement Of Child's Right To Privacy: High Court Upholds Stay On Aadhar Mandate For EWS Admissions In Delhi Private Schools

Title: GNCTD v. Sashank Yadav

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 863

The Delhi High Court has upheld a single judge order staying two circulars issued by the Delhi Government mandating furnishing of Aadhaar card of a child in the online process for admission in a private school in the national capital under the EWS or DG category.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the issue of obtaining sensitive personal details of a child, as observed by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy case, would have the potential of infringing their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Delhi High Court Enunciates Principles To Be Followed By Magistrates While Taking Cognizance Of Offences, Says Can't Be A Routine Exercise

Case Title: VIKAS THAKUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 864

The Delhi High Court has recently enunciated various principles to be followed by Magistrates while taking cognizance of offences, observing that the process cannot be a routine exercise.

“If there is such an order taking cognizance then the same would be perfunctory and not reflective of the Magistrate having applied his/her mind. The Magistrate cannot be mechanical in his approach. More so, whence at the end of the day, the Magistrate is setting into motion the judicial machinery against the alleged accused person as it inevitably involves their personal liberty and freedom,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

Provide 100 First Aid Kits To 5 Police Stations: Delhi High Court Directs Parties While Quashing FIR Based On Settlement

Case Title: RAJAN & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 865

While quashing an FIR for attempt to commit culpable homicide and criminal intimidation based on settlement, the Delhi High Court has directed the parties to give 100 first aid kits to Delhi Police personnel deputed in five police stations.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed the three accused and the complainant to give the first aid kits in Ashok Vihar, Keshav Puram, Bharat Nagar, Adarsh Nagar and Model Town police stations within two weeks.

Wife's Misrepresentation About Having 'Sufficient Means' To Set Up Business Not 'Fraud' For Seeking Annulment Under Hindu Marriage Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: J v. ND

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 866

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's misrepresentation about having 'sufficient means' to set up business cannot be said to be of the nature as would amount to 'fraud or concealment' of material fact entitling the husband to seek annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observations while dismissing a husband's appeal challenging a family court order dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud by the wife under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

No Mosque, Graveyard Or Legitimate Delhi Waqf Board Properties To Be Demolished In Mehrauli Archaeological Park: DDA To High Court

Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 867

The Delhi Development Authority has assured the Delhi High Court that no mosque, graveyard or legitimate properties owned by the Delhi Waqf Board will be demolished in Mehrauli Archaeological Park in the national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula took the statement on record and bound the DDA to the same.

Delhi Govt Assures High Court To Minimize Unauthorised E-Rickshaws Plying On Routes Allotted To Gramin Sewa Operators

Case Title: FAROOQ v. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 868

The Delhi Government has told the Delhi High Court that it will continue to take necessary steps to check and minimize plying of unauthorized stage carriages, including e-rickshaws, on the routes allotted to Gramin Sewa operators in the national capital.

Taking note of the assurance, Justice Prateek Jalan disposed of two petitions moved by drivers and operators of Rural Transport Vehicles plying on specific routes under the Gramin Sewa scheme.

Delhi CM Residence Renovation: High Court Asks PWD Officials Facing Show Cause Notices To Approach Central Administrative Tribunal

Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. ASHOK KUMAR RAJDEV & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 869

The Delhi High Court has directed the six PWD officials to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for challenging the show cause notices issued to them by Delhi Government's Vigilance department over alleged gross violations of rules in renovation work undertaken at official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the petitions moved by the PWD officials before a single judge challenging the show cause notices was not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.

Cost Accountants Not Similarly Placed As CAs, Preference To Chartered Accountants For Finance Director Post Not Arbitrary: Delhi High Court

Title: Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 870

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Cost Accountants cannot be treated at par with Chartered Accountants in matters of public employment.

The court remarked that Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant are not at all similarly placed and are governed by two independent statutes, and that it is for the employer to decide the qualifications for posts, keeping in view the nature of the job for which the advertisement has been issued.

Married Woman Can't Prosecute For Rape On False Pretext Of Marriage: Delhi High Court

Title: S Rajadurai v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 871

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a sexual relationship between two adults, who are legally married to other partners, cannot be considered an act for which legal protection is available.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that an unmarried woman who is induced into a sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage by someone, whom she believes to be legally eligible for marriage, may constitute an offence of rape. However, the court added, that when the victim herself is not legally eligible to marry someone else due to her existing marriage to another partner, she cannot claim to have been induced into a sexual relationship under false pretext of marriage.

Also Read: Live-In Relationship Between Married Individuals Not Criminal, Courts Can't Impose Their Perception Of Morality On Adults: Delhi High Court

Whether The Arbitration Agreement Is Vitiated By Fraud Should Be Left To The Wisdom Of The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: JRA INFRATECH v. ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 872

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a question as to whether the arbitration agreement is vitiated by fraud should be left to the wisdom of the arbitrator who will be free to decide the same on the basis of the evidence and the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act should not get into such a finding.

Justice Rekha Palli held that merely because a criminal complaint has been lodged against the petitioner for the alleged fraud is not a ground to refer the parties to arbitration when the dispute is squarely and undisputedly covered by the arbitration clause.

Liquidated Damages Provided In The Agreement Cannot Be Awarded To A Party In Absence Of The Proof Of Actual Loss: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vivek Khanna v. OYO Apartments Investment LLP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 873

The Delhi High Court has held that the sum agreed by the parties as liquidated damages would not dispense with the requirement of proof by the party claiming liquidated damages that it actually suffered a loss.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that a sum ascertained as liquidated damages in the contract is not in the nature of penalty, but is a pre-estimate of loss estimated by the parties likely to be suffered by a party in the event of breach of contract by the other party. It held that Liquidated damages are not payable merely as a penalty for breach of contract, if no loss is suffered.

PMLA Does Not Postulate Separate 'Reason To Believe' For Each Property Attached Provisionally Under Section 5: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 874

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, does not postulate a separate “reason to believe” for each property which stands attached under the provisional attachment order passed under Section 5(1) of the enactment.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by M/S Gold Croft Properties Private Limited challenging the single judge's order which upheld the order of PMLA Adjudicating Authority disposing of its application seeking deferment of the proceedings before on the ground that the Bench suffered from “coram non-judice”.

Family Courts Have To Be A Little Liberal, Stringent Test Applicable To Commercial Disputes Can't Be Applied: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KOMAL GUPTA v. AMRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 875

The Delhi High Court has observed that family courts have to be a little liberal in family disputes and that the stringent test, as may be applicable to commercial disputes, cannot be applied in such cases.

Dealing with a case where a family court closed a wife's right to file her written statement in the divorce proceedings, Justice Navin Chawla said:

“It is to be remembered that closing of the right to file written statement would result in grave personal consequences to the party concerned. The approach of the learned Family Court, therefore, has to be guided by the object of the Family Court, rather than the technicality of law.”

Filing SLP Before Supreme Court Constitutes 'Special Circumstance' Under Delhi Prison Rules For Granting Parole To Convict: High Court

Title: Rahul Gupta v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 876

The Delhi High Court has observed that filing a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court by a convict challenging the conviction constitutes a “special circumstance” for granting parole in terms of Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

“…this Court is of the opinion that the bar contained in Rule 1211 of the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute. The ground taken herein, i.e., filing on an SLP constitutes a 'special circumstance' in terms of the said rule,” Justice Amit Sharma said.

Family Courts Can't Compel Parties To Take Divorce If Not Mutually Acceptable: Delhi High Court

Title: ABC v. XYZ

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 877

The Delhi High Court has said that family courts cannot compel the parties to take divorce if not mutually acceptable and that their approach must be reconciliatory.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dismissing a husband's appeal against a family court order rejecting his contempt petition against the wife for not having abided by the MoU whereby they had agreed to take divorce by mutual consent.

Court Can't Return Finding Of Infringement Against Registered Trademark Holder Without Invalidating Its Registration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NADEEM MAJID OOMERBHOY vs SH. GAUTAM TANK AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 878

The Delhi High Court has ruled that it cannot returning a finding of infringement against the holder of a registered trade mark without invalidating its trademark registration in the first instance.

Justice C. Hari Shankar was hearing a suit for infringement of trademark, where the defendants were subsequently granted registration of the impugned trademark. The court remarked that by operation of Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the registration dated back to 29th April 2004, i.e., the date of filing the application, which was notably before the date of filing of the trademark suit by the plaintiff. Therefore, the court said, it could not hold the defendants to be infringing the plaintiff's trademark unless the court finds the registration of the defendants' trademark to be invalid.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Supertech Chairman RK Arora's Plea Challenging Arrest By ED In Money Laundering Case

Case Title: RAM KISHOR ARORA v. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 879

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition moved by Supertech Chairman Ram Kishor Arora challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that no fundamental rights of Arora were violated and that there was nothing on record to suggest that he was denied right to consult or be defended by a legal practitioner.

“The petitioner here failed to show that the arrest of the petitioner is in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA,” the court said.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA In J&K Larger Conspiracy Case

Case Title: SUHAIL AHMAD THOKAR vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 880

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal against the Trial Court order denying bail to Suhail Ahmad Thokar, one of the accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), in connection with the Jammu and Kashmir “larger conspiracy” case post revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

The court observed that several pieces of evidence were procured during the course of investigation that suggested the accused's significant involvement in the larger conspiracy and in activities related to militancy and terrorism. It further noted that as per the chargesheet filed by NIA, the accused had attempted to arrange shelter for two militants associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a banned terrorist organization listed in the First Schedule of the UAPA.

Deeply Unsettling To See Govt Embroiled In Frivolous Litigation: Delhi High Court Calls For Mechanism To Hold Erring Officers Accountable

Title: UNION OF INDIA v. MS. KIRAN KANOJIA and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 881

The Delhi High Court has said that there is an urgent need for a system that prevents unnecessary and frivolous litigation concerning government departments or bodies which should focus on conducting audit of decision-making process to contest cases.

The court added that such a mechanism must also focus of the principles of responsibility and accountability of erring government officials.

Unsubstantiated Judicial Remarks Against CBI Demoralizes Entire Agency: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CBI v. SHYAMAL GHOSH & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 882

The Delhi High Court has observed that unsubstantiated judicial remarks against the Central Bureau of Investigation demoralizes the entire agency, calling it India's “premier investigating agency.”

“…. the function assigned to investigating agency is very sensitive in nature. It is also pertinent to note that the CBI is the premier investigating agency of this country and any observation or remarks which does not have substantive basis, demoralise the entire agency itself,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed.

Derogatory Terms That Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes Must Not Be Used In Pleadings: Delhi HC Recommends Use Of Supreme Court's Handbook

Title: RAJAN DEVI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 883

The Delhi High Court has said that derogatory terms that perpetuate gender stereotypes and undermine the dignity and rights of individuals based on their gender should not be used in pleadings.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the 'Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes' launched by the Supreme Court recently may be used while drafting pleadings as well as the orders and judgments.

Unnao Rape Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Ex-UP Police Officers Convicted For Custodial Death Of Survivor's Father

Case Title: ASHOK SINGH BHADAURIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 884

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to two former-Uttar Pradesh Police officers who were convicted in the case involving the custodial death of the Unnao rape survivor's father.

Ashok Singh Bhadauria and Kamta Prasad Singh (appellants) were convicted by the Trial Court on 04.03.2020, along with co-accused Kuldeep Singh Sengar and 3 others, for several offences including criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and were sentenced to 10 years in jail. Their appeals against the conviction and sentencing order is pending before the court.

Revisit Rules On Domicile Or Permanent Residency Status Of Candidates Seeking Admissions To Educational Institutions: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: UJJWAL SHORI (THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN) v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 885

The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government to revisit the existing rules or consider drafting new rules on the eligibility criteria of candidates seeking admissions to educational institutions in respect of their domicile or permanent residency status.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the said rules should determine the criteria for designating someone as a domicile or permanent for admissions and also for granting suitable relaxation to genuine residents of Delhi “who are rendered ineligible due to fortuitous circumstances.”

Tax Authority Based In Delhi Lacks Jurisdiction On Withholding Tax Liability On Share Purchase Transaction: Delhi High Court Quashes Tax Demand Against Sumitomo

Case Title: Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. Versus CIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 886

The Delhi High Court has deleted the tax demand against Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the jurisdiction on the withholding tax liability on the transaction of share purchase by the Assessee was already exercised by the tax authority based in Mumbai, thus the tax authority based in Delhi had no jurisdiction to pass the order.

Delhi High Court Quashes POCSO Case After Settlement, Asks Accused's Father To Arrange Free Health Checkup For Teachers In 10 Govt Schools

Case Title: ROHAN PANDEY v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS PALAM VILLAGE AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 887

While quashing a POCSO case after settlement between parties who were young individuals, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused's father to arrange free health checkups by Orthopaedic doctors for teachers in 10 government schools in the national capital.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee asked the accused's father, presently working as Chief Administrative Officer of Indian Orthopaedic Association, to arrange Orthopaedic Surgeons or doctors associated with the said association to provide free medical health checkup for the teachers.

Ordinances Of Universities For Self-Regulation Can't Override Student's Right To Education And Human Dignity: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MISS TANISHKA v. ANR v. GNCTD & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 888

The Delhi High Court has said that the Ordinance of the Universities for self-regulation cannot override a student's right to education and the right to live a life with human dignity.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the Universities should not be rigid while taking decisions in those cases where cogent reasons are given by students for seeking migration.

No Copyright In Religious Scriptures But Adaptions Or Dramatic Works Entitled To Protection: Delhi High Court

Case Title: THE BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST, INDIA v. HTTPS://BHAGAVATAM.IN/#GSC.TAB=0 & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 889

Observing that no copyright can be claimed in religious scriptures, the Delhi High Court has ruled that adaptions of such work, including making TV series or creating dramatic works, would be entitled to copyright protection.

Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while dealing with a suit filed Bhaktivedanta Book Trust created by a renowned scholar and spiritual leader Srila Prabhupada, against various websites, mobile applications and social media accounts which were allegedly disseminating its copyrighted works, including Bhagavat Gita and other religious books.

[S.173(2) CrPC] Prescribe Mode For Police To Inform Complainant About Completion Of Probe, Filing Of Final Report: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: P v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 890

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue a notification prescribing the manner in which the details about completion of investigation and filing of final report is to be given by officer-in-charge of a police station to the complainant in terms of Section 173(2)(ii) of CrPC.

In an order passed on September 04, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the notification may be issued within three months.

Delhi High Court Orders Release Of ₹1 Crore Ex-Gratia Compensation To Husband, Son Of Health Worker Who Died On COVID-19 Duty

Case Title: JOSEPH VARGHESE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 891

The Delhi High Court has ordered release of Rs. 1 crore ex-gratia compensation to the husband and minor son of a health care worker who died on COVID-19 duty during the first wave of pandemic.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed that Rs. 50 lakhs be released to the husband whereas the remaining Rs. 50 lakhs shall be released to the son.

Delhi High Court Calls For Uniform Eligibility Conditions For Recruitment To Various Teaching Posts

Case Title: NAVEEN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 892

The Delhi High Court has called for uniform and consistent eligibility conditions for recruitment to the posts of primary teachers, post graduate teachers and trained graduate teachers respectively, and has asked the Union Ministry of Higher Education to look into the matter.

“It may be in consonance with the objective of National Education Policy to streamline and provide uniform/consistent eligibility conditions for the recruitment to the posts of Primary Teachers, TGTs and PGTs since the curriculum to be taught is generally similar across different educational boards including CBSE,” a division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Between Neighbours After Settlement, Asks Accused To Offer Social Service At Hanuman Temple For 40 Days

Case Title: Raja v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 893

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered between neighbours after settlement between them and asked the accused to offer social service at Hanuman temple situated at Connaught Place for 40 days.

Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the petition moved by the accused Raja seeking quashing of an FIR which was registered in 2018 under Section 354 (outraging modesty of a woman) of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of POCSO Act.

Toolkit Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Disha Ravi's Plea To Modify Bail Condition Restricting Foreign Travel Without Prior Permission

Case Title: Disha A Ravi v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 894

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by climate activist Disha Ravi, accused in the 2021 “toolkit case”, seeking modification of a bail condition requiring her to obtain prior permission from court each time before travelling abroad.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the petition moved by Ravi seeking modification of the bail condition which read as “She shall not leave the country without the permission of the court.”

Husband Making Friends At Work Not Cruelty, Merely Drinking Alcohol Daily Doesn't Make Him Alcoholic When No Untoward Incident: Delhi High Court

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 895

The Delhi High Court has observed that making friends at workplace or otherwise when both husband and wife have been living separately due to work exigencies cannot be termed as cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a person who is living alone may find solace by having friends, and merely because such individual used to talk to friends can neither be held to be an act of ignoring the spouse nor a cruel act.

Give Woollen Blankets Worth ₹25K To Shelter Home For Girls: Delhi High Court To Accused While Quashing Sexual Harassment Case After Settlement

Case Title: DEEPAK VERMA v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 896

While quashing a sexual harassment case after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused to contribute Rs. 25,000 in the form of woollen blankets to a shelter home for girls in the national capital.

Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the accused's plea for quashing of the FIR registered in 2014 under Section 354 (outraging modesty of a woman), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Wife Working To Supplement Her Daily Expenditure Amid Non-Payment By Husband No Ground To Reduce Maintenance: Delhi High Court

Title: AS v. NN

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 897

The Delhi High Court has observed that if a wife starts working to supplement daily expenditure for herself and the child due to financial crunch, it is not a ground to reduce maintenance payable to her by her husband.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a husband's appeal challenging a family court order refusing to modify monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000 to the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the minor child.

High Court Quashes Wife's FIR Against Husband After Settlement, Asks Him To Contribute Towards Delhi's Green Cover

Title: KARTIKYA SWAMI & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 898

The Delhi High Court has asked a man to make contributions towards the "green cover" of the national capital, while quashing an FIR registered against him and his family members by his wife. The parties had reached a settlement after divorce by mutual consent.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee asked the husband to provide 500 ml of “Organic Fungicide for Plants” to five police stations in Delhi within two weeks.

Delhi High Court Stays Termination Of Delhi Assembly Fellows, Notes Speaker Himself Had Objected To It

Case Title: SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 899

The Delhi High Court recently stayed the order of the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat disengaging the services of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre Fellowship Programme.

The tenure of petitioners was terminated prematurely on the ground that the reservation policy had not been followed while making the appointments and that the approval of the Lt. Governor had not been taken.

Convicted Foreigner Gets Parole For Filing SLP, Delhi HC Says Severity Of Offence/ Free Legal Aid Not Ground To Revoke Such Entitlement

Case Title: OMID HUSSAIN KHIL @ UMED MILAD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 900

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of a convict to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court cannot be denied solely based on the severity of the offence or the availability of free legal assistance even if such a plea can be filed from jail itself.

The Court said that every individual has the right to “effectively pursue their legal recourse in the ultimate court of justice within the nation” accomplished by submitting a SLP through a chosen legal representative.

Period Of Absence Of Convicted Employee Who Is Later Acquitted To Be Counted Towards Seniority And Subsistence Allowance But Not Backwages: Delhi HC

Case Title: Vinod Kumar vs G.N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 901

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the period under which an employee is placed under suspension, cannot be treated as period “not spent on duty” for all intents and purposes. The court remarked that the period can be treated as “not spent on duty” only for the purposes of back wages and not for the purposes of seniority and promotion.

Delay In The Handing Over The Work Front Affecting Completion Is A Material Breach : Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. D.S. Toll Roads Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 902

The Delhi High Court has held that delay in the handing over of the Right of Way is a material breach of contract if it affects the issuance of Completion Certificate or delays the Commercial Date of Operation (COD).

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri upheld an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator held NHAI to be in material breach of the contract for its failure to provide the Right of Way or the work front to the contractor which resulted in the delay in issuance of provisional completion certificate and delayed commercial date of operation.

Right Of Pledgee To Sell Pledged Shares Is Subservient To The Pledgor's Right To Redeem Such Shares: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DLF Limited v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 903

The Delhi High Court has held that the right of the pledgee to sell the pledged shares for default to repay the loan amount is subservient to the right of the pledgor to redeem such shares under Section 177 of Indian Contract Act.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the pledged shares cannot be sold by the pledgee without deciding on the offer made by the pledgor to redeem such shares

Delhi High Court Asks UGC To Take Action Against Colleges Offering Unspecified Degrees

Case Title: RAHUL MAHAJAN v. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 904

The Delhi High Court has directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to take necessary action against the varsities and colleges offering unspecified degrees and ensure compliance of law including penal provisions on the issue.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the purpose of providing specification of degrees approved by UGC is to maintain uniformity in the standards of education.

[Akasa Air Case] DGCA At Liberty To Act Against Pilots In Breach Of Contract, No Absolute Restraint: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SNV AVIATION PVT LTD & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 905

While dealing with a plea moved by budget carrier Akasa Air in relation to resignation of its pilots without serving mandatory notice period, the Delhi High Court has said that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is at liberty to act against the defaulting pilots in case they are in breach of the contract.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh observed that in case of non-compliance of the contract, the Civil Aviation Rules, 2017 become operative and thus, DGCA can act in accordance with the said Rules as well as the extant law against the party in breach.

Sports Code Compliance: Delhi High Court Stays Executive Committee Elections Of Gymnastics Federation Of India

Case Title: PADMAJA GARIKIPATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 906

The Delhi High Court has stayed the election of the office bearers and members of executive committee of the Gymnastics Federation of India (GFI).

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the Federation was in non-compliance of the mandate of an order passed on August 16 last year wherein a division bench ordered that the Indian Olympic Association and National Sports Federation have to necessarily comply with the mandate stated under the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.

Delhi High Court Upholds Restriction On MCOCA Inmates To Meet Family Members Only

Case Title: S. DAYA SINGH LAHORIA AND ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 907

The Delhi High Court has upheld the restriction put by the prison authorities on the inmates booked under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, to meet only their family members and no one else.

This was after prison authorities submitted that they are authorized to separate high-risk prisoners or prisoners perceived as security threats, and lodge them in high security wards.

Indian Entity Invokes "Holy Trinity Of Hindu Gods" To Defend Trade Name In Delhi High Court But Fails, German Company Gets Interim Relief

Case Title: VBM MEDIZINTECHNIK GMBH vs GEETAN LUTHRA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 908

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the attempt of an Indian entity to invoke the holy Trinity of Hindu gods- Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh- to justify the use of a mark which allegedly infringed a German medical equipment company's “VBM” mark.

While granting interim relief to the latter, bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar said,

“The “Vishnu Brahma Mahesh” explanation is too facile to pass legal muster, besides being unsupported by any corroborative documentary evidence,” the court said.

Theos v. Theobroma: Delhi High Court Closes Trademark Infringement Suit, Issues Clarifications

Case Title: THEOS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. THEOBROMA FOODS PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 909

The Delhi High Court has decreed with certain clarifications a trademark infringement suit between two competing bakery entities Theos and Theobroma, after a settlement between them.

Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Screening ICC Cricket World Cup Matches

Case Title: STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. JIOLIVE.TV & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 910

The Delhi High Court has restrained nine rogue websites from screening or disseminating any part of the ICC World Cup cricket matches on any electronic or digital platform.

“Rogue websites, which in the past have indulged in piracy of copyrighted content, are very likely to continue communicating copyrighted works to the public during the currency of World Cup 2023. Thus, there is a need to restrain any rogue websites from disseminating and communicating to the public any part of the cricket match events without authorisation or license from the Plaintiffs,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

Accrual Of Cause Of Action At A Place Is Not A Consideration For Determining Jurisdiction For The Purpose Of Section 11 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: GR Builders v. Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 911

The Delhi High Court has held that the accrual of cause of action at a place for pursuing a substantive legal action is not a consideration for determining jurisdiction for the purposes of Section 11 of the A&C Act.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reiterated that the place of arbitration would be the seat of arbitration when there is no contrary indicia present in the agreement to show that the place of arbitration was not intended to be the seat of arbitration.

Delhi High Court Constitutes Committee For Streamlining Process Of Availing Free Medical Treatment Under Govt Schemes

Title: Sarvesh v. AIIMS & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 912

The Delhi High Court has constituted a seven member Committee to streamline the process of availing free medical treatment under various government schemes in the hospitals in the national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the Committee will give recommendations for “alleviating and curing the defects” in the current system to avail financial assistance.

Delhi HC Orders Blocking Of Telegram Channels, Deactivation Of WhatsApp Numbers Illegally Sharing Course Materials Of 'Apna College' Platform

Title: JAINEMO PRIVATE LIMITED v. RAHUL SHAH AND OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 913

The Delhi High Court has restrained various entities from circulating or sharing the course materials of online education platform “Apna College” on WhatsApp groups, telegram and YouTube channels.

Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with Apna College's suit alleging infringement of its copyrighted content by 17 defendant entities who were disseminating its courses, including printed course materials, videos, etc. on social media platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram and YouTube.

High Court Appoints Retired Justice Pankaj Naqvi As Administrator Of Delhi Capital Badminton Association

Title: SP Singh Dhillon v. Delhi Capital Badminton Association & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 914

The Delhi High Court has appointed retired judge of Allahabad High Court, Justice Pankaj Naqvi, as administrator of the Delhi Capital Badminton Association.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma ordered that Justice Naqvi shall be entitled to take over the day-to-day affairs and administration of the Association, subject to further orders.

Widening And Improvement Of An Existing Road Would Be A 'Bypass' When Such Improvement Diverts Traffic From Project Road Resulting In Loss Of Toll Revenue: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. GMR Ambala Chandigarh Expressway Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 915

The Delhi High Court has held that development, improvement, widening and construction over an existing narrow highway would be considered to be a 'bypass' when such improvement makes the road viable for heavy vehicles and becomes an alternate road, resulting in reduction of the traffic from the project highway, affecting the toll revenue.

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award wherein the tribunal had rejected the claims of the contractor by observing that the widening or development of an existing road would not be a 'bypass' even if does lead to reduction in the traffic on the project highway.

Arrange 'Delhi Darshan' Bus Ride For Old Age Home Residents: Delhi High Court To Accused While Quashing FIR

Title: Jitendr Lala & Ors vs The State Of Delhi & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 916

While quashing an FIR after settlement between the parties, the Delhi High Court has directed three accused to arrange bus ride for “Delhi Darshan” for senior citizens residing in an old age home in the national capital.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee asked the accused persons to collectively arrange a bus on hire for taking the senior citizens for Delhi Darshan for a minimum duration of 4 hours.

EPF Contribution Paid Next Day After National Holiday, Delhi High Court Allows Deduction As Due Fell On National Holiday

Case Title: PCIT Versus Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 917

The Delhi High Court has allowed the deduction for the employee's contribution towards the provident fund as the due date fell on a national holiday.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that since the due date fell on a date that was a national holiday, the deposit could have been made by the respondent or assessee only on the date that followed the national holiday.

Display 'Environmental Cost' Of Projects At Construction Sites: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: ADITYA N PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 918

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to ensure that the environmental cost of all projects, including the number of trees that are felled and location of compensatory plantation, is displayed at the construction sites.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that an officer not less than the rank of Joint Secretary in the Union Ministry of Urban Development should be made responsible to ensure compliance of the direction.

[Trademark Infringement] Higher Degree Of Caution Required Where Marks Pertain To Food Items Or Eateries: Delhi High Court

Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. MS DOMINICK PIZZA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 919

The Delhi High Court has observed that where the trademarks in a suit pertain to food items or eateries where food items are served, a “higher degree of care and caution” is to be observed.

Observing that running an eating house using a mark which is deceptively similar to a reputed mark does not speak well for the enterprise concerned, Justice C Hari Shankar said:

“The intent to capitalise on the reputation of a known and established brand, by using a mark which is deceptively similar to the mark used by the brand, can, in a given case, give rise to a legitimate apprehension of quality compromise by the imitator. Courts have, therefore, to be vigilant in ensuring that, where the marks relate to consumable items or to enterprises such as hotels, restaurants and eating houses where consumable items are served to customers, such imitative attempts are not allowed to go unchecked.”

Delhi High Court Vacates Stay On Termination Of Delhi Assembly Fellows

Case Title: SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 920

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday vacated its interim order staying the decision of the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat disengaging the services of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre Fellowship Programme.

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the Supreme Court in July had refused to stay the operation of the letter issued by Delhi Government's Services Department directing the disengagement of the Fellows and Associate Fellows.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Ban On Display Of 'Gross Images' In Anti-Tobacco Ads In Cinemas, OTT Platforms

Case Title: DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 921

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking prohibition on the display of anti-tobacco health spots containing “graphic or gross images” during films in cinemas, TV or OTT platforms.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the graphic description given in the Government issued advertisements are meant to be “eye-openers for the people” to not use tobacco and tobacco products and therefore, is in public interest.

Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi Gets Political Clearance To Travel Abroad; High Court Disposes Plea

Title: Shelly Oberoi v. Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 922

Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi informed the Delhi High Court that she has been granted political clearance by the Union Government for her visit to Brisbane to attend a conference.

Noting that the grievance no longer survives, Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of the plea upon being informed of the clearance.

Oberoi had sought permission to attend the 2023 Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayor's Forum in Brisbane. The event is scheduled to take place between October 11 and 13.

[DJHS 2023] No Requirement That Question Must Refer To Statute On Which It Is Based, Clues Sufficient: Delhi High Court Rejects Candidate's Plea

Title: Abhishek SIngh v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 923

While dismissing a plea moved by a candidate who appeared in Delhi Judicial Higher Services Preliminary examination 2023, the Delhi High Court has said that there is no requirement that a question asked in the exam must refer to the statute on which it is based.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that it is sufficient that the question contains clues so as to enable an examinee to select the correct option.

Award On Damages Cannot Be Sustained Just On Penalty Clause In Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sudershan Kumar Bhayana (Deceased) v. Vinod Seth (Deceased)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 924

The Delhi High Court has held that an award of damages based on no evidence of loss cannot be sustained on the basis of a penalty clause in the agreement.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that mere presence of a clause providing for liquidated damages does not dispense with the requirement of proof of loss from a party claiming damages.

Delhi High Court Expresses Regret To Retired Judge For 'Agony' She Suffered After Appointment As Local Commissioner In Matrimonial Dispute

Title: Harshita Gandhi v. Nimit Gandhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 925

The Delhi High Court has expressed regret to a retired Principal and Sessions Judge who was appointed by it as a local commissioner in a matrimonial dispute for the agony caused to her during the appointment.

Justice Navin Chawla observed that the wife was making a mockery of the court system by first seeking substitution of the Local Commissioner initially appointed by the family court and later making allegations against the substitute Local Commissioner appointed by the High Court as well.

Fresh Air Lifeline For Survival But Socio-Cultural Activities Equally Essential: Delhi High Court Permits Dussehra Mela On Janakpuri Ground

Case Title: SHRI RAMLEELA COMMITTE JANAKPURI & ANR. v. RISHU KANT SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 926

The Delhi High Court on Thursday permitted hosting of Dussehra Mela in the District Park, Janakpuri while directing the organizers to ensure that no damage or harm be done to the ground's green cover or trees already in existence.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna permitted Shri Ram Leela Committee, Janakpuri to host the Dussehra or Ramleela celebrations on the ground for the current year from today till October 30.

Court-Monitored Probe Is A Significant Measure, Can't Be Employed Routinely: Delhi High Court

Title: TARUN NARANG v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 927

The Delhi High Court has observed that a court-monitored investigation is a significant measure which is invoked in cases of “palpable sense of governmental neglect or oversight” and should not be employed routinely or without just cause.

“We must preserve its weight for situations where the state appears either ignorant or non-cognizant of issues. Resorting to such an investigation without substantial reasoning could inadvertently diminish its efficacy,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Delhi High Court Orders ₹50K Compensation To Man Illegally Detained For Half An Hour, Criticises Delhi Police's "High-Handedness"

Title: Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. GNCTD & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 928

The Delhi High Court has ordered compensation of Rs. 50,000 to a man who was illegally detained for about “half an hour” in a Delhi Police's lockup “for no rhyme or reason” and said that a meaningful message must be sent to the authorities that police officers cannot be law unto themselves.

Justice Subramonium Prasad directed that the compensation amount be recovered from salaries of two erring Sub-Inspectors of Badarpur Police Station who brought the man and placed him in the lockup.

Details Of Agreements Between UIDAI And External Organizations Handling Its Grievance Redressal Mechanism Can Be Given Under RTI Act: Delhi HC

Title: PRASHANT REDDY T v. CPIO, UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 929

The Delhi High Court has ruled that details of the agreements entered into between the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) with external organisations engaged in handling the grievance redressal mechanism of the statutory body can be provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the details pertaining to non-disclosure agreements entered into with the personnel and individuals who will be covered under the said agreement will however be exempted.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Rogue Websites From Illegally Streaming Shows, Films Broadcasted On Disney Hotstar

Title: STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. YODESISERIAL.SU & ORS

Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 930

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained 50 rogue websites from illegally streaming various television shows, TV series and movies broadcasted on OTT platform Disney plus Hotstar.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that prima facie, exclusive rights to stream or telecast the content contained in the 26 shows and films vests in the platform and not others.

The court was hearing a suit moved by Star India Private Limited and Disney Plus Hotstar against the rogue websites alleging that they were engaged in piracy of their copyrighted content.

High Court Asks Delhi Govt To Review Cap On Beneficiaries Under Old Age Assistance Rules, Relook At Eligibility Criteria Of 1 Lakh Family Income

Title: AAKASH GOEL v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DELHI GOVT and other connected matter

Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 931

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to conduct an exhaustive review of the existing cap on the beneficiaries under the Old Age Assistance Rules, 2009, taking into account the contemporary socio-economic conditions and the emerging needs of the elderly population.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also directed the government to relook at the eligibility criteria of annual family income of Rs. 1 lakh per annum which is one of the eligibility conditions for the applicants to receive the financial aid under the Rules.

Deprivation Of Conjugal Relationship 'Extreme Cruelty': Delhi High Court Allows Husband's Plea For Divorce

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 932

The Delhi High Court has observed that for a married couple to be deprived of the conjugal relationship and of each other's company is an act of extreme cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, on the ground of cruelty by wife.

Restricting Cut Flowers Import To Chennai Airport Aims To Fortify Nation's Bio-Security, Not Discriminatory Against Delhi Traders: Delhi High Court

Title: FRESH FRUIT FLOWERS AND VEGETABLES TRADERS ASSOCIATION v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR.

Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 933

The Delhi High Court has upheld a notification issued by the Union Government's Directorate General of Foreign Trade in 2020 prohibiting importation of a variety of cut flowers into India through all airports, except Chennai airport.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the notification does not arbitrarily discriminates against flower traders in the Delhi-NCR region but rather aims to fortify the nation's bio-security.

Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. KENDRIYA VIDVALAYA SANGTHAN & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 969

The Delhi High Court has directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to conduct an audit of the total number of vacancies and prepare a “vacancy based roster” for recruitment of persons with disabilities within three months.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the exercise be done as per Rule 11 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2016.

FCRA License Suspension: Delhi High Court Allows Centre For Policy Research To Use 25% Of 'Unutilized Funds'

Case Title: Centre for Policy Research v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 970

The Delhi High Court has allowed a plea moved by India's leading think-tank Centre for Policy Research (CPR) seeking permission to utilise 25% of “unutilized funds” in the fixed deposits towards the payment of salaries of its employees.

Justice Subramonium Prasad allowed the application moved by CPR in the petition against the suspension of its licence under Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) by the Union Government on February 27.

No Interim Maintenance To Wife U/S 24 Hindu Marriage Act Where Both Spouses Qualified And Earning Equally: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 971

The Delhi High Court has observed that where both the spouses are equally qualified and earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the object of Section 24 is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings under the enactment, either party should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity of source of income.

Delhi High Court Pulls Up Trial Court For Discharging Accused In Rape Case Based On Victim's Polygraph Test

Title: S v. State & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 972

The Delhi High Court has pulled up a trial court in the national capital for discharging an accused in a rape case on the basis of the results of polygraph test conducted on the victim.

Calling it erroneous, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the result of polygraph test at best could have been considered as part of the investigation and tested during the trial on the touchstone of testimonies of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, since such result by itself is not a piece of independent evidence.

Interim Relief To TV Today, Delhi High Court Restrains Capital TV From Using 'To The Point' & 'Special Report' Marks For News Programmes

Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. CAPITAL TV AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 973

The Delhi High Court has restrained Capital TV news channel from using “To The Point”, “Halla Bol”, “Special Report”, “Black & White” and “Kismat Connection” in a trademark infringement suit filed by TV Today Network which runs India Today and Aaj Tak news channels.

Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the individual words by themselves, which are part of the common parlance in Hindi and English language, could be used in a different manner or in conjunction with other combinations in a way that Capital TV's programs of are clearly differentiable from TV Today's programmes.

Writ Petitions Against Orders Passed By IPAB Must Be Decided By Single Judge: Delhi High Court

Title: AYUR UNITED CARE LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 974

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) before its abolition in 2021 would have to be heard and decided by a single judge and not a division bench.

Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 abolished various Tribunals including India's Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and assigned their functions to the country's Commercial Courts and High Courts.

Individuals Already Undergoing ART Process Prima Facie Can't Be Disqualified Due To Age Bar Under Surrogacy Act 2021: Delhi High Court

Title: MRS. D & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 975

The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that individuals who have already undergone Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) process prima facie cannot be disqualified due to the age bar prescribed for intending couples under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the 2021 Act, which imposes an age restriction in respect of intending parents, cannot be applied retrospectively.

Transfer Pricing Report, Appellate Authorities Can Adopt Different Method From That Adopted By Assessee: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 976

The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authorities are not precluded from adopting a method different from that adopted by the assessee in the transfer pricing report.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the ultimate aim of the transfer pricing exercise is to determine an accurate value of the arms length price for the purpose of taxation.

Delhi High Court Allows AAP MP Raghav Chadha's Appeal Against Order Paving Way For His Eviction From Govt Bungalow

Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 977

The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal moved by Aam Aadmi Party MP Raghav Chadha challenging the trial court order which granted nod and paved way for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to evict him from a government bungalow.

“Accordingly the appeal is allowed, holding : (a) that there was no requirement for the appellant/plaintiff to file the application under section 80 CPC, or to comply with that provision; and therefore the application under section 80 CPC is disposed-of as infructuous,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.

It directed Chadha to present the plaint before the trial court within three days and has further asked the trial court to proceed with the matter by deciding the AAP leader's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Ching's Trade Mark Registration For “Schezwan Chutney”

Case Title: Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v. Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 978

In a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products seeking cancellation of Ching's Secret owner Capital Foods' registered trade mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, the Delhi High Court refused to grant stay over the impugned registration.

The order was passed by Justice Pratibha M. Singh, while noting that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Capital Foods Private Limited v. Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd., has prima facie held the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” to have acquired secondary significance. It was also observed that an issue of jurisdiction arising in the matter needed to be considered first.

Online Financial Scams Erode Public Confidence In Online Transactions, Strike At Nation's Financial Stability: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amit Sharma v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 979

Financial trap-laying scam conducted through online channels erodes the public's confidence in online financial transactions and strike at the heart of the nation's financial stability, the Delhi High Court has observed.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma thus refused anticipatory bail to an accused in an online financial scam case.

Akin To Theft In Police Station: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Against Indian Companies Using Japan Patent Office's Logo

Case Title: Japan Patent Office v. Ms. A2Z Glass and Glazing Co. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 980

The Delhi High Court has restrained Indian company 'A2Z Glass and Glazing Co.' and its two sister concerns from using Japan Patent Office's mark/logo (or any mark identical or similar thereto) as well as the mark 'JPO PLATINUM' in respect of any product or service, with immediate effect.

The judgment came to be passed by Justice Prathiba M. Singh in an application filed by the Japanese governmental agency under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC, alleging imitation of its logo by the Defendant-Indian companies for manufacture and sale of tools and kits.

Surrogacy | Notification Barring Use Of Donor Gametes Prima Facie Violates Married Infertile Couples' Right To Parenthood: Delhi High Court

Title: DR RAVIKANT CHAUHAN & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. & Other Connected Matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 981

The Delhi High Court has observed that the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, barring use of donor gametes for an intending couple wanting to undergo surrogacy, prima facie violates the basic rights of a married infertile couple to parenthood by denying them access to legally and medically regulated procedures and services.

“Further, the Impugned Notification does not disclose any rational justification, basis or intelligible criteria for discriminating between citizens based on their ability to produce gametes for the purpose of availing Surrogacy services,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

FIR In Predicate Offence Stands Quashed Based On Settlement, ED Complaint Cannot Survive: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nayati Healthcare and Research NCR Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. through its Authorized Representative Sh. Satish Kumar Narula & Ors. v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs through its Standing Counsel & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 982

The Delhi High Court has quashed an ECIR and proceedings arising therefrom, observing that the predicate offence had already been quashed and the order to that effect had attained finality.

Delhi High Court Upholds Sales Tax Demand Against Berger Paints On Stock Variations

Case Title: Berger Paints India Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 983

The Delhi High Court has upheld the sales tax demand against Berger Paints on stock variations.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the discrepancies in the sales figures as well as the physical stock were not explained by the appellant.

The assessing authority took a fair, just, and reasonable view of the matter in proceeding to carry out a best judgment assessment by enhancing sales by 10% of the net Goods Transport Operator (GTO) after deducting the stock transfer figure of GTO, and accordingly, the levy of tax with interest cannot be unpalatable or an unconscionable exercise of powers.

Delhi High Court Decrees Red Bull's Suit, Protects Its Signature Silver And Blue Color Combination

Case Title: Red Bull AG v. Rohidas Popat Kapadnis & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 984

The Delhi High Court has decreed Red Bull's suit against an entity's adoption of identical silver and blue colour combination for energy drinks.

The suit was filed against Defendants 'Rohidas Popat Kapadnis' and 'Blue Marine Bottling Company', alleging that they were manufacturing and marketing an energy drink under the name 'SEVEN HOURS' bearing Red Bull's trade mark color combination. Reportedly, these products were being sold on e-commerce platforms and promoted on social media.

'Originality' Is Test To Claim Injunction For Copyright Infringement, Not Novelty: Delhi High Court Denies Relief To Fantasy Gaming App

Case Title: Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Fantasy Sports MyFab11 Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 985

The Delhi High Court has allowed an application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by the owner of fantasy sports app MYFAB11 (defendants) for vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier in favour of the Plaintiffs.

After a meticulous analysis of judicial precedents, Justice Jyoti Singh emphasized that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Originality is a key criterion for copyright protection, meaning that the work should originate from the author.

Hindu Marriage Act Bars Second Marriage When Spouse Living, Consent Of Parties Can't Confer Validity: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 986

The Delhi High Court has ruled that once there is a legal bar on the performance of second marriage when either spouse of the parties are living, the consent of such parties cannot confer validity to the second marriage.

Noting that both the parties should not have a living spouse according to Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

“In case, there is a violation of this condition, the marriage is void in terms of Section 11 of HMA, 1955. Once there is a legal bar to the performance of the second marriage, the consent of the parties cannot confer the validity to a marriage held in violation of the condition specified in Section 5(i) of HMA, 1955.”

Delhi High Court Directs Its Administration To Ensure All Commercial Courts Are Made Fully Functional As And When Infra, Judges Are Available

Title: AMIT SAHNI v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 987

The Delhi High Court has directed its administration to ensure that all the Commercial Courts in the national capital are made fully functional as and when the infrastructure and judges are available for such courts.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula disposed of a PIL moved by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking setting up of the Commercial Courts in terms of a 2021 decision taken by the Delhi Government's cabinet for creation of 22 Commercial Courts and 42 additional posts of judges.

Delhi High Court Directs District Judges To Ensure Records Of Disposed Cases Are Immediately Transmitted To Record Room

Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 988

The Delhi High Court has directed all the District Judges in the national capital to ensure that after disposal of a case, its records are immediately transmitted to the record room.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula was dealing with a public interest litigation concerning the lack of standardised procedure for the acknowledgment of pleadings, documents and applications filed in the district courts of Delhi.

'Crucial For Rehabilitation': Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Increase Awareness About Welfare Schemes For Prisoners, Their Families

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 989

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to increase awareness and publicity of the existing schemes for welfare of prisoners and their families.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that ensuring that convicts, undertrials and their dependents are aware of and can access benefits designed for their welfare will be crucial in their rehabilitation and social reintegration.

Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of Websites Illegally Streaming Popular Reality Show 'Bigg Boss'

Case Title: Viacom18 Media Private Limited v. BiggBos.Live & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 990

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte injunction against illegal streaming of reality show 'Bigg Boss'. The order came to be passed in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC by leading broadcaster-Viacom18.

Notably, 'Big Boss' is being produced and broadcasted in India since 2008. It is based on a Dutch show 'Big Brother', rights of which are owned by M/s Endemol Shine IP BV. M/s Endemol is stated to have given rights of the show's format to Viacom18, which broadcasts the show on television channels Colors and Colors Kannada as well as its OTT platform 'JioCinema'.

Intelligence Bureau Exempt From Rigours Of RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Adarsh Kanojia v. Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 991

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) stands exempted from rigours of RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 (Act not to apply to certain organizations) thereof.

The issue had arisen when the Appellant appeared for Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II Examination conducted by IB in 2017, but his name did not appear in the list of successful candidates. Some irregularities with respect to the exam were reported in newspapers. The same led the Appellant to file an RTI application seeking information regarding marks, certified copy of his OMR sheet and a model answer key.

ED's Power To Issue Summons Under Section 50 PMLA Does Not Include Power To Arrest: Delhi High Court

Title: ASHISH MITTAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 992

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the power of the Enforcement Directorate to issue summons to a person under Section 50 of PMLA does not include the power to arrest.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the power to arrest is “conspicuously absent” in section 50 of the PMLA which empowers ED officers to arrest any person, subject to satisfying the conditions mentioned therein.

Delhi High Court Denies ED's Plea For Police Remand Of Singapore-Based Businessman Accused In Embraer Aircraft Deal

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Sh. Dev Inder Bhalla

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 993

The Delhi High Court has upheld order of the Special Court refusing police remand of Dev Inder Bhalla, an accused in the money laundering case registered in connection with Indian government's aircraft deal with M/s Embraer, Brazil.

Bhalla is the Director of Singapore-based M/s Interdev Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Allegations against him are that he helped launder proceeds of crime generated from procurement of defense deal by M/s Embraer upon payment of bribe to Indian officials.

Selling Counterfeit Goods Is As Much A Tort Of Infringement Or Passing Off As Manufacturing The Goods: Delhi High Court

Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Salman Khan & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 994

The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit in favour of New Balance Athletics Inc., holding that dealing in counterfeit goods was sufficient to constitute infringement/passing off.

The suit had been filed by the plaintiff as proprietor of registered marks 'NEW BALANCE' and 'NB', under which it was selling footwear and readymade clothing in over 120 countries, including India.

Subscription Fee Received By Deloitte Exempted From Tax On Principle Of Mutuality: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CIT Versus Deloitte Touche Tohmastu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 995

The Delhi High Court has held that subscription fees received by Deloitte are exempted from tax on the principle of mutuality.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the expression “mutuality” flows from the expression “mutual”, which indicates reciprocity of arrangement in which the concerned parties have reciprocal rights or understanding or arrangement to abide by the mandate of the group for benefit of other members.

Non-Adherence To Mandatory Requirement Of Passing Draft Assessment Order Invalidates Final Assessment Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sinogas Management Pte Ltd Versus DCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 996

The Delhi High Court has held that non-adherence to the mandatory requirement of passing a draft assessment order invalidates the final assessment order.

The Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula have observed that the omission to pass a draft assessment order is not merely a procedural oversight but a substantive lapse, which renders the subsequent order devoid of jurisdiction.

Delhi High Court Permits Woman Living Separately From Husband To Terminate 23 Weeks Pregnancy

Title: MRS B. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 997

The Delhi High Court has permitted a woman living separately from her husband and desirous of taking divorce to terminate her 23 weeks pregnancy.

Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the opinion given by the medical board of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) stating that the foetus was normal and that it is safe to terminate the pregnancy.

This was after the court had directed AIIMS to constitute a medical board to examine the woman's condition and to consider if it would be safe for her to undergo the medical termination of pregnancy.

Excise Policy Case: Delhi High Court Denies Regular Bail To Businessman Sameer Mahendru On Medical Grounds

Title: SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 998

The Delhi High Court has denied regular bail to businessman Sameer Mahendru on medical grounds in the money laundering case related to the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that Mahendru is not suffering from any life threatening condition or sickness or infirmity involving danger to his life and for which treatment cannot be provided to him in jail.

Delhi High Court Calls For Complaint Reporting System For Public Toilets, Issues Directions

Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 999

The Delhi High Court has called for implementation of a complaint reporting system for public toilets for ensuring that such conveniences are maintained with proper sanitation standards.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the city civic authorities to prominently display, at conspicuous location at the toilet facility, the name and contact numbers of the agency or contractor responsible for its operation and maintenance.

Providing Email ID In Notice Of Opposition Constitutes 'Address For Service' Under Section 143 Trade Marks Act: Delhi High Court

Title: M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. 9TH KILOMETER, MEX ESTATE, PATHANKOT ROAD, JALANDHAR v. VIKRAM SURI TRADING AS M/S ARMEX AUTO INDUSTRIES

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1000

The Delhi High Court has held that where an applicant or opponent provides an e-mail ID, on which official communication are sent by the Registry of Trade Marks, in the application or notice of opposition constitutes an “address for service” within the meaning of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Registry of Trade Marks is at liberty to effect service of documents by e-mail only where the party being served has provided an e-mail ID in the application or notice of opposition.

Delhi High Court Denies Judicial Officer's Prayer For Expunging Remarks Against His Order, Says Remarks Were Qua Contents Of Order And Not Him

Case Title: Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1001

The Delhi High Court has declined a judicial officer's prayer for expunging/deleting remarks allegedly made against him in a judgment passed by the High Court.

Pithily put, writ petitions were initially filed by an SHO, seeking inter-alia deletion of remarks allegedly made against him by the then ASJ (applicant) in a common order dated September 6, 2022.

The said petitions were allowed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on November 22, 2022, observing that unwarranted remarks had been made by the applicant (judicial officer) against the petitioner (SHO).

Liv.52 Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Himalaya Wellness Company

Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Abony Healthcare Limited through its Directors & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1002

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company, while decreeing a suit against defendants' adoption of its trademarks and trade dress.

The plaintiffs had approached the court against defendants' use of trade names “LIV.55 DS”, “LIVA 55” and “LIV. 999” for liver tonic similar to theirs, which was being marketed using a trade dress also deceptively similar to the plaintiffs'.

Afzal v. Afsal: Delhi High Court Says Consumers Chewing Tobacco Generally Laymen, Can't Discern Difference Between Confusing Marks

Case Title: Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v. Ashraf V

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1003

The Delhi High Court has decreed renowned tobacco exporter-Sopariwala's trademark suit, holding that the defendant had a clear intent to adopt a mark deceptively similar to Sopariwala's and to pass off its own products as the latter's.

The plaintiffs are registered proprietor/licensees of trademark “AFZAL” (word and device), under which tobacco is exported and sold in India. They also hold a copyright in their trade dress and have been recognised as a 'Star Export House' by GoI.

Delhi High Court Grants Protection To Indiamart's Trademark, Criticises Opponent For Misusing Its Promoters' Photos To Mislead Consumers

Case Title: INDIAMART Intermesh Limited v. Mr. Sameer Samim Khan & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1004

Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently granted a permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff-INDIAMART, which had filed a suit seeking restraining of defendant No.1 from using its trademark (or any deceptively similar mark) as well as logos.

The plaintiff pled that it was the holder of various valid and subsisting trademarks as well as domain names comprising “INDIAMART”. As such, defendant No.1's adoption of “INDIAMART” was a clear case of infringement and passing off.

ED Can't Be Expected To Work As Magicians, Will Take Time To Investigate And Reach Truth: Delhi High Court In Sanjay Singh Case

Title: SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1005

While dismissing Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh's plea challenging his arrest and remand in money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has said that the Enforcement Directorate cannot be expected to work as magicians and that it will take time to investigate a case and reach to the truth.

“Even if the investigating agency/ED is premier investigating agency, they cannot be expected to work as magicians and even if with the aid of technology and best investigative skills at their best are to be applied, it will still take time to investigate the case and try to reach the truth,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Rs. 200 Cr Extortion Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Sukesh Chandrashekhar's Close Aide Pinki Irani

Title: PINKI IRANI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1006

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Pinky Irani, a close aide of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, in connection with the Rs. 200 crore extortion case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said there was nothing on the record regarding the criminal antecedents of Irani. The court also noted that she is a woman of 52 years who has been in custody since November 30 last year.

Confusion In Health & Wellness Products Must Be Avoided: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Modicare's “WELL” Marks

Case Title: Modicare Limited v. Maa Adishakti Multi Trade Enterprises & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1007

The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit filed by Modicare Limited against 4 defendants for identically copying their product names and adopting deceptively similar trade dress.

Modicare Ltd. is a part of India's leading conglomerate K.K. Modi Group which includes ventures like 24Seven Convenience Stores. It manufactures, markets and sells various FMCG products, including food processing products, nutraceuticals and health care products.

Chinese Manjha Accidents: High Court Directs Delhi Police To Continue Regular Registration Of Cases To Avoid Injuries & Deaths

Title: ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1008

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to continue its monitoring and regular registration of cases to avoid injuries or deaths due to the sale of banned Chinese manjha in the national capital.

Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a bunch of pleas highlighting the menace of manufacturing and sale Chinese manjha for kite flying in Delhi.

Commercial Courts Can Record Cross-Examination Of Outstation Witnesses Through Video Conferencing: Delhi High Court

Title: INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. QUESS CORP LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1009

The Delhi High Court has said that commercial courts can permit recording of cross-examination of overseas or outstation witnesses, who cannot travel due to any reason, through video conferencing after following the prescribed procedure, if the reason is found to be genuine and bona fide.

“This would ensure that cross-examination of witnesses is not conducted in a never ending manner and such witnesses are not inconvenienced, especially, if they are to travel from foreign countries,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

Delhi High Court Grants Protection To PUMA's 'Leaping Cat' Mark, Awards Rs. 10 Lakh Damages

Case Title: Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1010

The Delhi High Court has decreed a suit in favour of Puma SE, holding that the defendant's large-scale and brazen manufacturing of footwear bearing plaintiff's 'leaping cat' mark/logo called for an injunction.

Plaintiff-Puma SE, a German company dealing in footwear, apparel, accessories, etc., had filed the suit seeking injunction against defendant/Ashok Kumar, alleging that the latter was engaged in manufacturing and sale of counterfeit “PUMA” products.

Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of 'OYKAA' Mark In Trademark Infringement Suit By 'NYKAA', Directs Suspension Of Website

Title: FSN E-COMMERCE VENTURES LTD & ANR. v. PINTU KUMAR YADAV & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1011

The Delhi High Court has restrained owner of an online website selling makeup and skincare products from using the mark “Oykaa” or any other mark similar or identical to “Nykaa” which is an e-commerce company which sells beauty, wellness and fashion products.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed that the website www.oykaa.com and other online listings shall also be taken down immediately.

Delhi High Court Quashes Trade Notice Over Eligibility Restriction For Allocation Of Quota For Export Of Broken Rice, Asks Centre To Reevaluate Criteria

Title: ASFIVE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1012

The Delhi High Court has quashed a trade notice issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade restricting the eligibility for securing allocation of quota for export of broken rice only to those exporters who had exported it to Senegal, Gambia and Indonesia in the three preceding financial years.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that the Union Government failed to produce any material to establish any rational nexus between restricting the export quota to rice exporters that had exported it during the three financial years preceding the prohibition and the object of ensuring capacity and quality.

Delhi High Court Calls 2020 Elections Of Indian Orthopaedic Association A Mockery, Appoints Former HC Judge To Conduct Affairs For Interim

Case Title: Dr. P. V. Vijayaraghavan & Ors v. Nityam Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1013

Taking a view that there had been serious and material irregularities in the conduct of 2020 elections of the Indian Orthopaedic Association (IOA), the Delhi High Court yesterday appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha (former Delhi High Court judge) as Administrator to inter-alia conduct IOA's affairs till the Executive Committee was re-constituted pursuant to elections in November, 2023.

The judgement came to be passed in a suit filed by plaintiffs, aggrieved by the manner in which IOA's 2020 elections were conducted to elect office bearers as well as a venue for hosting IOACON 2023 (an annual conference of members/orthopaedic doctors).

Delhi High Court Rebukes RBI Ombudsman For Passing Unreasoned Order, Says Ombudsman Scheme Can't Be Reduced To A 'Tantalizing Promise'

Title: MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD. v. OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1014

The Delhi High Court has rebuked the RBI Ombudsman for passing an unreasoned order, observing that the Reserve Bank- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, under which the official is appointed, cannot be reduced to a “tantalizing promise.”

“The RBI Ombudsman, appointed by the RBI, is a person who understands the business of banking, the practices involved therein, the duties of the bank and the possible infirmities in the system. It is, therefore, observed that the Ombudsman is entrusted to carry out quasi-judicial functions with utmost diligence in accordance with the extant regulations,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.

Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Release ₹50 Lakhs Under PM Insurance Package To Kin Of Hospital Security Guard Who Died On COVID-19 Duty

Title: SANGEETA WAHI v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1015

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government, Director General of Health Services and Medical Superintendent of Safdarjung Hospital to release Rs.50 lakhs in favour of widow of a security guard who died on duty during COVID-19 pandemic while being deployed in the government hospital.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the widow is entitled to the benefit of “Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19" announced by the Union Government and that it cannot take a “narrow and pedantic stand” that the Scheme would not apply to the deceased as he was not deployed for the care of Covid-19 patients.

Delhi High Court Passes A Decree Against Maharaja Appliances For Patent Infringement, Orders It To Pay Rs.50 Lakh Damages

Case Title: Strix Ltd v. Maharaja Appliances Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1016

The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit against Maharaja Appliances Limited, holding that it had infringed the plaintiff's registered patent for “Liquid Heating Vessel”.

Initially, plaintiff-Strix Ltd., a manufacturer and seller of temperature control systems as well as cordless interfaces for water boiling appliances (like kettles), had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against defendant for infringing its patent i.e. IN 192511/95 for “Liquid heating Vessels” (suit patent).

Case Title: Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

In a challenge brought against improper issuance of medical certificate by 2 doctors, the Delhi High Court recently held that removing their names from the rolls of Medical Council of India's register (MCI rolls) was not the only punishment that could be given.

Interpreting Regulations 7.7 and 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, Justice Subramonium Prasad said that removal of a doctor's name from MCI rolls for issuing improper certificate was only one of the possible punishments, but not the only.

After 26 Yrs Of Struggle, Delhi High Court Puts Son In Possession Of Flat Allotted By DDA To His Father

Case Title: Wills John v. Delhi Development Authority

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

The Delhi High Court recently quashed DDA's cancellation order w.r.t. a flat allotted in 1996 and directed that the same be handed over to the allottee's son (petitioner).

While deciding in favour of the petitioner, Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the Authority's cancellation of the allotment was in violation of principles of natural justice, as no show-cause/termination notice in advance had been served.

IT And Admin Services By Singapore Entity To Its Affiliate In India Can't Be FTS: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi Versus M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

The Delhi High Court has held that information technology and other administrative services provided by the respondent or assessee to its affiliate in India could be construed as fees for technical services (FTS).

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that services offered by the respondent or assessee to its Indian affiliates did not come within the purview of FTS, as reflected in Article 12(4)(b) of the Indo-Singapore DTAA, and concluded that they did not fulfil the criteria of the “make available” principle.

Regrettable That Candidates Resort To Malpractices To Succeed In Competitive Exams, Sincere Students Become Victims: Delhi High Court

Title: KAVI VAIDWAN & ORS. v. DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is regrettable that the candidates appearing for competitive examinations have to resort to malpractices and tampering in order to succeed, as a result of which innocent and sincere students become victims of their colleagues' disorderly conduct.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that such situations do not leave the State or its agencies with any other option but to cancel the examination altogether.

Copyright Infringement: Delhi High Court Restrains Sandoz, Gola Sizzlers From Playing Sound Recordings Of Phonographic Performance Ltd

Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. GOLA SIZZLERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Sandoz and Gola Sizzlers from playing the sound recordings of Phonographic Performance Limited in the latter's suit alleging copyright infringement by the two food outlets.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that a case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction is made out against the two food outlets.

The court also bound another food outlet Tim Hortons by the statement made by its counsel that it is not playing, nor would play, any of the sound recordings forming part of Phonographic Performance Limited's repertoire, without a license.

Can't Assume Graduate Wife Intentionally Not Working To Claim Maintenance From Husband When She Was Never Employed: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1022

The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is holding a graduation degree, it cannot be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband, particularly when she was never employed in the past.

While refusing to reduce interim maintenance granted to a wife, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

“ There is no denial that the wife is a graduate having a degree, but she has never been gainfully employed. No inference can be drawn that merely because the wife is holding a degree of graduation, she must be compelled to work. It can also not be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband.”

Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Telecommunication Services Rendered By Vodafone Idea To Foreign Telecom Operators

Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund IGST on telecommunication services rendered by Vodafone Idea to foreign telecom operators (FTO).

The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the predecessor of the petitioner (Vodafone India Ltd.) had prevailed before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on the question of whether the services qualified for export services.

“Can Have Communal Overtones': Delhi High Court Refuses Permission For Muslim Mahapanchayat Meeting On Oct 29

Title: MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1024

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant permission to an organization to hold a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) at the Ramlila Ground on October 29.

Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Delhi Police's decision which revoked the permission granted to the organization for holding the meeting, observing that it cannot be held to be arbitrary. It was the police's stand that the proposed event was "communal".

The petition was moved by Mission Save Constitution, an organization which is found by Advocate Mehmood Pracha. It claims to work for creating awareness among the masses, especially the depressed classes, about their constitutional rights.

Right To Marry Person Of Choice Protected Under Constitution, Not Even Family Members Can Object: Delhi High Court

Title: SMT. DEEPALI & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

While granting police protection to a couple who got married against the wishes of their parents, the Delhi High Court has said that where the parties are major, their right to marry a person of choice is protected under the Constitution of India and even their family members cannot object to such relationship.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the couple's right to marry cannot be diluted in any manner and that the State is under a constitutional obligation to provide protection to its citizens.

Delhi High Court Restrains Flavoured Tea Brand From Making Fresh Manufacture In Chaayos' Trade Dress, Orders Take Down Of Listings From Amazon

Title: SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT LTD v. GREY MANTRA SOLUTIONS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

The Delhi High Court has restrained a flavoured tea brand, selling its products under the brand name “Teacurry” and “Just Vedic”, from making any fresh manufacture under the trade dress and packaging of the tea café “Chaayos.”

Regarding the products that have already been manufactured under Chaayos' packaging, Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the flavoured tea manufacturer to place on record the details of the inventory along with the monetary value.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of IAS Nidhi Chibber As CBSE Chairman By Way Of 'Bureaucratic Reshuffle'

Title: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ANR. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Senior IAS officer Nidhi Chibber as the chairman of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by way of a “bureaucratic reshuffle.”

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh rejected the plea moved by Independent School Federation of India alleging that Chibber did not fulfil the requisite terms and conditions for appointment to the position of CBSE Chairman.

Delhi HC Upholds Notification Of Armed Forces Medical Service Refusing Allotment To Candidates Admitted/ Allocated Seat In MCC 3rd Counselling

Case Title: Sakshi Rathore and Ors v. Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain an appeal challenging “last minute” notification of the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS) preventing candidates from participating in subsequent rounds of counselling, should they commence attendance at an institution or be allotted seats by the Medical Counselling Committee in the third round of counselling.

Delhi HC Overrules Boehringer Decision, Says Divisional Application Under Patents Act Maintainable If Plurality Of Invention Disclosed In Specifications

Case Title: Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

While answering a reference, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma recently overruled the judgment passed by a Single Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents.

The decision came to be rendered in the context of Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. This provision allows filing of a further (divisional) application w.r.t. an invention disclosed in the specifications of a preceding patent application, suo motu or consequent to an objection raised by the Controller.

Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order Passed Before Expiry Of Time To File A Reply To The Show Cause Notice

Case Title: WONDER BRICKS Versus PCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed before the time to file a reply to the show cause notice expired.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the show cause notice was issued on March 31, 2023, giving time to the petitioner or assessee to file its reply by May 5, 2023 (15:49 hours). The impugned order was passed on April 13, 2023.

Delhi High Court Grants Assessee An Opportunity To Adduce Evidence On Qualification, Experience, Work Profile Of Employees To Avoid Section 40A(2) Disallowance

Case Title: Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

The Delhi High Court has granted the assessee an opportunity to adduce appropriate evidence—documentary or otherwise—before the Assessing Officer in order to establish its claim regarding educational qualification, experience, work profile, and in particular the duties discharged by the concerned persons to justify the claim of the appellant or assessee qua payment of salary to the persons concerned.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that as per the provision under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, before recording disallowance, the Assessing Officer has to form an opinion. The opinion has to have regard to, inter alia, the legitimate needs of the business, the benefit derived, or even the fair payment outgoing for services rendered.

Relief To 'Prestige', Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturers From Infringing Its Pressure Cookers Design

Title: TTK PRESTIGE LTD v. ARJUN RAM & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained two manufacturers from selling or advertising “Paristone” pressure cookers bearing a design which is prima facie identical and infringes that of “Prestige” Svachh range of pressure cookers.

Justice C Hari Shankar also restrained the manufacturers from using the trade dress “Paristone” for its mark which is almost identical to the trade dress used by Prestige.

S.427 CrPC | Delhi High Court Directs Sentence Of Man Convicted For Rape And Abetment Of Suicide To Run Concurrently, Not Consecutively

Case Title: Ajay Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. to a man convicted of rape (S. 376 IPC) and abetment of suicide (S. 306 IPC), holding that the causal facts giving rise to the two offences were intrinsically intertwined and could not be segregated into two distinct sets.

The judgment came to be passed in response to an oral application made by the appellant-accused to the effect that his two sentences (RI for 10 years u/s 376 IPC and RI for 7 years u/s 306 IPC) be directed to run 'concurrently' instead of 'consecutively'.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Recruitment: Delhi High Court Directs KVS To Provide 4% Reservation To Disabled Persons Including 1% To Hearing Impaired

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

The Delhi High Court has directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to provide 4% reservation to the disabled persons in respect of the total vacancies, including 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons.

“The exercise of appointing disabled persons, including deaf and hard of hearing persons be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Transfer Pricing | Delhi High Court Excludes Comparables On The Basis Of Functional Dissimilarity

Case Title: PCIT Versus Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

The Delhi High Court has excluded the comparables on the basis of functional dissimilarity in the transfer pricing case.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia excluded three comparables, namely Infobeans Technologies Ltd., Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd., citing clear reasons for their exclusion.

Delhi High Court Allows Income Tax Deduction On Upfront Loan Processing Fee To Indus Towers

Case Title: PCIT Versus Indus Towers Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

The Delhi High Court has allowed income tax deduction on the upfront loan processing fee to the assessee, Indus Towers.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that merely because the loan processing charges were paid upfront but amortized over a period of five years, solely to be in consonance with the mercantile system of accounting, the deduction of the entire charges in a lump sum in the year in which they were paid could not be denied to the respondent or assessee.

'Indian Stag' Liquor Deceptively Similar To 'Royal Stag' But No Case Of Passing Off Since Former Only Exported: Delhi High Court

Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. A B SUGARS LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

The Delhi High Court has confirmed an interim order passed in 2019 restraining two manufacturers/sellers from dealing in liquor and alcoholic beverages under the mark “Indian Stag” in a trademark infringement suit filed by Indian whiskey brand “Royal Stag”.

Justice C. Hari Shankar said that the interim order passed by a co-ordinate bench on July 25, 2019 shall remain confirmed pending the disposal of the trademark infringement suit.

Failed Relationship No Ground For Lodging Rape FIR: Delhi High Court

Title: SUSHANT KUMAR v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

The Delhi High Court has observed that if a romantic relationship does not work out, it cannot be a ground of lodging a rape case.

“It is a settled law that if a relationship does not work out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed.

The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a government employee accusing of making physical relations with a woman on the false pretext of marrying her.

Competent Court Can Examine Valuation Of IPR Suit Below ₹3 Lakhs, Transfer To Commercial Courts Not Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: PANKAJ RAVJIBHAI PATEL TRADING AS RAKESH PHARMACEUTICALS v. SSS PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that it would be open for the competent court to examine the “declared specified value” and the value ascribed to the reliefs claimed in an IPR suit if it is pegged below Rs. 3 lakhs, adding that its undervaluation would have to be evaluated based on the facts of each case.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that the exercise can be legally undertaken by the competent court itself and that such matters need not be transferred to commercial courts for the purpose of value evaluation.

Appointment Of Local Commissioner Cannot Be Sought By One Party To Marshal Better Evidence Against Another: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. Dabico Airport Solutions Private Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

In an application seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner (LC), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that such appointments cannot be sought by parties to equip themselves with 'best evidence' in their case against others.

Speaking of Order 26 Rule 10A CPC which empowers a court to issue commissions, Justice C. Hari Shankar said that the provision was invocable only where the court believed that (i) determination of issue(s) in the suit involved scientific investigation, (ii) such scientific investigation could not be conveniently conducted before the court and, (iii) it was necessary or expedient in the interests of justice to issue the commission to conduct the scientific investigation.

Can't Let Economic Circumstances Of Parents Become 'Death Warrants' For Their Daughters In Matrimonial Homes: Delhi High Court On Dowry Death

Title: SATPAL SINGH v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

The judicial system cannot stand by and allow the economic circumstances of a girl's parents to become death warrants and sentences for their daughters in their matrimonial homes, the Delhi High Court has observed while dealing with a dowry death case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that to subject a woman to a life akin to a slave merely because of her marital status is an egregious injustice.

Designation Of Venue Of Arbitration Tantamount To Seat Of Arbitration In Absence Of A Significant Contrary Indicia: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Vasudev Garg v. Embassay Commercial Project

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

The Delhi High Court has held that the venue of arbitration would actually be the seat of arbitration when the agreement does not contain any contrary indicia. It held that clause proving for venue of arbitration would have a superseding effect over a clause providing for exclusive jurisdiction on any other Court if the parties have expressly made the latter subject to the former.

Decide Hindu Sena President's Representation On 'Wrong Historical Facts' About Taj Mahal: Delhi High Court To ASI

Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1050

The Delhi High Court has asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to decide a representation submitted by the President of NGO Hindu Sena alleging that there are “wrong historical facts” in public domain regarding construction of Taj Mahal by Shahajahan.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL filed by President Surjit Singh Yadav seeking removal of allegedly “wrong historical facts” on the monument's construction by Shahjahan from the history books in schools and colleges.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Award Passed In Defiance Of Supreme Court Order

Case Title: Unison Hotel v. Value Line Interiors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1051

The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award for having been passed in defiance of the order of the Supreme Court. It held that such an award would be against the public policy and that if the arbitral tribunal is allowed to defy the order of the Supreme Court, it would violate principle of Judicial discipline.

Delhi High Court Upholds ITAT's Decision On Selection Of Comparables For Determination Of Arm's Length Price Of An International Transaction

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

The Delhi High Court had upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the selection of comparables for the determination of the arm's length price of an international transaction.

The Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the Tribunal not only followed the previous orders mentioned above to maintain consistency but also examined the entire material on record to ascertain the comparability of each of the comparables with the case of the respondent or assessee pertaining to AY 2007–08.

Child Sexual Abuse Serious Issue, Perpetrators Should Be Adequately Punished Irrespective Of Background, Domestic Responsibilities: Delhi High Court

Title: AJEET SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1053

The Delhi High Court has observed that the child sexual abuse is a serious issue, being “pervasive and disturbing”, which deserves adequate attention of every stakeholder directly or indirectly connected with administration of justice and judicial process.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that the issue requires to be addressed with lot of sensitivity and sensibility, adding that it is the solemn duty of the court to award adequate punishment to the accused, irrespective of his social, economic background or other domestic responsibilities.

High Court Directs Delhi Govt, MCD To Strictly Comply With Recent Supreme Court Ruling On Manual Scavenging

Title: ASHOK AGARWAL v. UOI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other civic authorities in the national capital to strictly comply with a recent Supreme Court ruling which called for a complete eradication of the practice of manual scavenging.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the authorities to comply with a last month judgment in Balram Singh v. Union of India and Others wherein the Apex Court directed that the compensation in cases of sewer deaths must be increased to Rs.30 lakhs.

Delhi HC Expresses Displeasure With Police, Hospitals For Not Ensuring Prompt Medical Examination Of Rape Victim Seeking To Terminate Pregnancy

Title: MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1055

The Delhi High Court has expressed strong displeasure over non-compliance of its directions regarding medical termination of pregnancy of rape victims by the Delhi Police and hospitals in the national capital, observing that it is being complied with only on paper but not in spirit.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the directions were passed in January keeping in mind that every day, every hour, every minute of pregnancy which is a result of sexual assault, is not only traumatic and affects the psychological health of a victim and her family, but also is critical for her physical health and welfare, in case its termination is to take place.

Delhi High Court Refuses To "Throttle" ED Probe At Summons Stage Against Man Who Transacted With Lalu Yadav's Family

Title: AMIT KATYAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

While denying relief to a man seeking copy of ECIR in a money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has said that it cannot throttle the investigative process of the Enforcement Directorate at the stage of issuance of summons under PMLA.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea moved by one Amit Katyal, who was not named as an accused in the land for job scam case, seeking quashing of ECIR and a summon issued by ED.

'Lackadaisical Approach': Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20K Cost On Centre For Failing To Pay Pension To 96 -Yr-Old Freedom Fighter

Title: UTTIM LAL SINGH UOI & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1057

The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 20,000 cost on the Union Government for its lackadaisical approach and failure to pay “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension” to a 96 years old freedom fighter, who participated in Quit India Movement and other movements associated with the country's independence.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the inaction of the Central Government is an insult to the freedom fighter Uttim Lal Singh, who was declared as a proclaimed offender, and that his entire land would have been attached in the proceedings initiated by the British Government.

RTI Act | Penalty Imposed On Public Information Officers For Delay In Reply Depends On 'Malice': Delhi High Court

Title: POOJA V . SHAH v. BANK OF INDIA & Other Connected Matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Right to Information Act, 2005, only specifies the maximum limit of penalty to be imposed on Public Information Officers and the said amount may vary depending on malice and degree of inaction on the officials' part in not providing the information.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though Section 20 of the RTI Act stipulates a maximum penalty of Rs.250 per day to be imposed on the Public Information Officer, however, it does not mean that the maximum penalty has to be imposed on the official.

Road Accident Being 'Unforeseen' No Ground To Let Off Offender For Rash And Negligent Driving: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD NASIM v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1059

The Delhi High Court has observed that happening of a road accident is an unforeseen incident but it cannot be a ground to let off the offender.

“The happening of an accident is an unforeseen incident but it cannot be a ground to let off the offender. The accident may render the entire family of the deceased in state of destitution,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said.

Commence Procurement Of Medicines For Children With Rare Diseases For Whom Evaluations Are Completed: Delhi High Court To AIIMS

Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1060

The Delhi High Court has directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to commence the process of procurement of medicines for children with rare diseases, for whom evaluations have been completed and who are amenable to treatment, as per the fund of Rs. 50 lakhs allocated per patient in terms of the Rare Diseases Policy.

Justice Prathiba M Singh took note of a report submitted by AIIMS stating that out of the total 32 patients, 14 patients were amenable to treatment, 17 patients were not amenable to treatment and one 1 was under evaluation.

Delhi High Court Allows Daughter Longing To See 90-Yrs-Old Mother To Meet For 10 Minutes

Case Title: Seema v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1061

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur on Thursday took a sympathetic view in a daughter's habeas corpus plea in respect of her mother.

The petitioner-daughter had filed the petition stating that her mother was initially residing with her. However, sometime back, her brother had taken their mother to reside with him.

Delhi High Court Declares “New Balance” And “NB” Trademarks Of US-Footwear Apparel Brand As 'Well-Known'

Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. New Balance Immigration Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1062

Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court recently declared footwear and apparel brand New Balance's marks as well-known. It was clarified, however, that there shall be no monopoly in the words “New” and “Balance” if used separately in respect of any other goods or services.

“…the mark “NEW BALANCE” is a unique combination of two distinctive words i.e. “New” and “Balance” which have no connection, allusion or description of the products of the services offered by the Plaintiff. The logo [NB] is also quite distinctive and has been repeatedly enforced by the Court orders against misuse. The global reputation of the Plaintiff's marks have been proved on record”, the court said.

Explain Pros And Cons Of Medical Termination Of Pregnancy To Rape Victims In Mother Tongue: Delhi High Court Directs Police, Medical Board

Title: MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063

The Delhi High Court has directed the investigating officers of Delhi Police and medical board to explain the pros and cons of medical termination of pregnancy to the rape victims and her guardians (in case of minors) in mother tongue, be it Hindi or English language.

“This Court orders that henceforth, in cases of medical termination of pregnancy in rape cases, the pros and cons of the medical termination of pregnancy will be explained in Hindi wherever the victim and her guardian in case of a minor victim understands Hindi, or English where they understand the said language,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Quashes Suspension Of License, Issued To Customs House Agent, Finding Order Illegal

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064

The Delhi High Court has held that there was proper verification on the part of the Customs House Agent (CHA) with regard to the genuineness of the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) as well as GSTIN.

Plea For Premature Release Of Convicts Undergone Long Incarceration Must Not Be Dealt With Mechanically: Delhi High Court

Title: HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065

The Delhi High Court has said that the application for premature release of convicts who have undergone long incarceration period must not be dealt with in mechanical and clerical manner.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that when the convict has undergone substantial and long period of incarceration, the eventual purpose of imprisonment, including the most serious offences, is reformative and not retributive.

ITR-Filing Date Is Relevant For Calculating Section 143(2) Limitation And Not Defect-Removal Date: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066

The Delhi High Court has held that once the return has been found to be valid and only a defect within the meaning of Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act has been found, interest cannot be levied.

[Motor Accident] Insurer Liable To Meet Contractual Liability If It Undertakes To Compensate Insured Vehicle's Owner: Delhi High Court

Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

The Delhi High Court has observed that an insurance company is liable to meet the contractual liability where it undertakes to pay compensation on the death or injury suffered by the owner of the insured vehicle.

Justice Navin Chawla said that as a general rule, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death or the bodily injury suffered by the owner or borrower or the driver of the insured vehicle.

Wife Making Unsubstantiated Allegations, Waging Legal War Against Husband And His Family Members Is Extreme Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1068

The Delhi High Court has said that the wife making serious and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband and waging a legal war against him by implicating him and his family members amounts to extreme cruelty towards spouse.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside a family court order and granted divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

[OREO v. FABIO] Specific Plea Of Invalidity, Tenable Grounds Essential To Challenge Validity Of Mark U/S 124 Trade Marks Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Parle Product Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069

The Delhi High Court recently rejected an application filed by “OREO” proprietor under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act seeking permission to initiate rectification proceedings w.r.t. Parle's “FABIO” mark registered in Class 30 (biscuits, cookies, etc.).

It opined that for Section 124(1) to apply in a case where the plaintiff seeks to challenge the validity of the defendant's mark, “firstly, the defendant must raise a Section 30(2)(e) defence by citing the registration of its mark as a defence to infringement and, if the defendant does so, the plaintiff must plead invalidity of the defendant's mark”.

Veer Ji Malai Chaap Trademark Suit: Delhi High Court Holds Restaurant Owner Guilty Of 'Subverting' Injunction By Tweaking Name

Title: VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070

The Delhi High Court has held a Meerut based restaurant owner guilty of disobeying a last court order which restrained him from having any online listing on Zomato or Swiggy using the name “Veer Ji Malai Chaap Wale” by “subverting” the injunction and using a different name “Veer Di Malai Chaap Wale.”

“There was a specific direction to the defendant to remove the online listings from Zomato and Swiggy using the id VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE. The defendant has, while removing the said id, engineered a stratagem by which orders can be placed on the same outlet using the new id VEER DI MALAI CHAAP WALE though no such outlet bearing the said name is present at the address,” Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

Delhi High Court Stays Summons Issued To Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Wife In Case Alleging She Holds Two Voter IDs

Title: SUNITA KEJRIWAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

The Delhi High Court has stayed a trial court order issuing summons to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's wife Sunita Kejriwal in a case alleging she holds two voter IDs.

Justice Amit Bansal issued notice on Sunita Kejriwal's plea and stayed the trial court order till February 01, 2024, the next date of hearing.

Electricity | Recipient Of Concession With No Vested Right Cannot Seek Continuation Of Waiver: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Juniper Hotels Private Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula recently dismissed a challenge brought against increase in Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO) of Open Access Consumers and imposition of additional surcharges by DERC.

“...the fixation of tariffs through subordinate legislation is within the commission's purview, and no manifest arbitrariness has been demonstrated to call this decision into question”, it said.

Arbitration Act | Scope Of Appeal U/S 37 Limited, Cannot Be Equated With Normal Appellate Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by DCM Ltd. u/s 37 of the A&C Act, refusing to re-examine evidence in view of the limited scope of the provision.

The appeal by DCM Ltd. impugned a judgement by Single Bench of the court, whereby its challenge to an Arbitral Award u/s 34 A&C Act was dismissed.

Regularly Monitor Azad Market To Identify Violators Of Fire Norms: Delhi High Court To MCD

Title: AZAD MARKET RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to conduct regular monitoring of Azad Market area in the national capital to ensure that the violators of fire norms are identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing.

“In this regard, the MCD shall endeavor to conduct regular monitoring of the Subject Area [Azad Market] to ensure that persons found violating the Fire Norms are promptly identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing under Rule 34 of the Delhi Fire Rules,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Prohibition On Carrying E-Cigarettes On Aircrafts

Title: SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the prohibition on carrying e-cigarettes on aircrafts.

After Justice Subramonium Prasad hinted on dismissing the petition with a “six figure cost”, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sutirtha Dutta, withdrew the plea.

The court allowed the withdrawal with a liberty to Dutta to make a representation to the Union Government on the issue.

Fill Vacant Posts Of Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals), Consider Increasing Sanctioned Strength To 570: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076

The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Government to take appropriate measures for filling up all the posts of Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) lying vacant, observing that it would greatly assist in disposals of the pending appeals.

“The Union of India may also consider increasing the sanctioned strength of Commissioner (Appeals) substantially at least to the extent of 570 of such posts, to achieve the aims and objects of the Central Action Plan which is formulated every year,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered.

20-Yr-Old College Student Accused Of Raping Professor Granted Anticipatory Bail; Delhi High Court Says Relation Was Out Of Choice, Not Force

Case Title: Sushant Kaushik v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077

Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old college student accused of raping his professor, noting that the prosecutrix not only chose to enter a relationship with the applicant on her own, but also to continue with the same for over a year.

“All the aforesaid show the love, care and affection, the prosecutrix had for the applicant … Prima facie, it seems that she was in a relationship with the applicant out of choice and desire rather out of compulsion or force”, the court said.

Simple Touch Not 'Manipulation' For Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court

Title: SHANTANU v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a simple act of touch cannot be considered as manipulation for the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act.

Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act states that a person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if he manipulates any part of the child's body so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any other body part or makes the child to do so with him or any other person.

Delhi High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Private School Teachers, Says Approval From DoE Necessary For Accepting Alleged Resignations

Case Title: Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079

In a relief to teachers of Rao Manohar Singh Memorial Sr. Secondary School, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula today upheld the order of a Single Bench and directed reinstatement in service of the respondent-teachers.

Notably, relying on Kathuria Public School v. Director of Education and Anr., the appellant, a private unaided school, had contended that it was not required to obtain approval from Director of Education for terminating respondents' services. The court, however, did not agree.

Can Debts Recovery Tribunal Entertain A Claim For Less Than Rs.10 Lakhs Under SARFAESI Act? Delhi High Court Answers

Case Title: IDFC First Bank Limited v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1080

The Delhi High Court recently held that DRT cannot entertain a claim for an amount less than Rs.10 lakhs under the SARFAESI Act.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan added that the SARFAESI Act's remedy under Section 13(10) cannot be availed by a bank independent of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), and the pecuniary limit set out in the RDB Act also applies.

Denial Of Arbitration Clause In Reply To Arbitration Notice Can't Disentitle A Party To Invoke Section 8 Of The A&C Act In A Suit : Delhi High Court

Case Title: ANR International Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 8 of the A&C Act is mandatory in nature meaning thereby that the Court is bound to refer the dispute to arbitration when there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the respondent makes an application for reference to arbitration before submitting its written statement before the Court.

The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that the Court cannot refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration merely on the ground that the defendant had initially, in reply to Section 21 notice, denied the existence of the arbitration agreement.

CENVAT Credit Refund Can't Be Denied In Absence Of Self-Assessed Return Having Been Questioned, Reviewed Or Re-Assessed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BT (India) Private Limited Versus UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082

The Delhi High Court has held that a CENVAT credit refund cannot be denied in the absence of the self-assessed return having been questioned, reviewed or re-assessed.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that a self-assessed return also amounts to an “assessment” and unless it is varied or modified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute, it cannot possibly be questioned in refund proceedings.

Court Exercising Powers Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Modify An Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot modify an arbitral award. It held that the Court can either uphold the award or set aside any finding, however, the Court is powerless to modify the award by allowing a relief that was disallowed by the arbitral tribunal.

The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma also held that where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove, the tribunal is empowered to award liquidated amount stipulated in the contract, if it is a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, or reasonable compensation for the said amount loss or damage. The claim for LD in such cases is well within the purview of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Unfortunate That PIL Jurisdiction Abused To Settle Personal Scores: Delhi High Court Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Cost On Litigant

Case Title: Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela recently dismissed the PIL filed by a party while suppressing relationship with the private respondent.

“…this Court is of the firm opinion that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands… the Petitioner was certainly an interested person”, the court said.

High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Operationalize Within One Month Online Portal For Clearing Its Lawyers' Bills

Case Title: ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to immediate take steps for operationalizing the Online Single Window System (OSWS) portal for clearing fee memos of its lawyers and for inaugurating the same within the one month.

Justice Prathiba M Singh asked the Delhi Government to file a report regarding the functioning of the portal and listed the matter for hearing on March 07.

Delhi High Court Restrains Telangana Based Hospital Chain From Using 'Maxi Cure' Mark In Trademark Infringement Suit By Max Healthcare

Title: MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED v. MAXI CURE HOSPITALS & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1086

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Telangana based hospital chain from using the mark “Maxi Cure” for its healthcare services in a trademark infringement suit filed by Max Healthcare.

Keeping in view the fact that since Maxi Cure Hospital was using the impugned mark for a hospital, Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the injunction shall come into effect only from February 01, 2024.

Delhi High Court Orders KVS Student Who Failed In Maths Be Promoted To Class-XII, Considers Marks Obtained In Physical Education

Case Title: Aryan Kumar (Minor) through Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court recently allowed a student of Class-XI to be promoted based on marks obtained by him in Physical Education, an additional subject, instead of Mathematics (which he had failed to qualify).

The petitioner's grievance was that he had been denied promotion on the ground of Article 106 of the KVS Education Code (as amended in 2018), even though respondent No.1/school was bound by CBSE Examination Bye-Laws, 1995, which allow for marks in main subject to be substituted with marks of an additional subject, subject to conditions.

Mother Moves Habeas Corpus Plea In Delhi High Court But Refuses To Take Custody Of Minor Daughter Recovered Pregnant

Case Title: S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently disposed of a habeas corpus petition, where the missing girl, a minor, was recovered but her parents/petitioner refused to take custody in view of her pregnancy.

Notably, the petition was filed by the mother of the girl, seeking directions for her production before the court. It was alleged that a boy had lured the daughter away, established physical relations with her and made public certain illicit videos that he had made of her.

Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturers From Using 'Nilkranti' Device Mark In Suit By 'Nilkamal', But Holds No Similarity Between Both Marks

Title: NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089

The Delhi High Court has restrained two plastic chair manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” device mark or any other device mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar to the device marks of Nilkamal.

Justice C Hari Shankar however rejected Nilkamal's prayer in its trademark infringement suit to restrain the manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” as a word mark, either for chairs or for any other item manufactured by them.

Once Licence Is Revoked, Any Use Of Trademark By Ex-Licensee Would Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Viridian Development Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090

The Delhi High Court has held that once the licence is revoked by the licensor, any use of the mark by the ex-licensee would amount to an infringement of the trademark and would deceive the public, inasmuch as the public would be led to believe that the ex-licensee is still connected with the licensor.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an ex-licensee cannot be allowed to use the mark after termination of license. Further, the licensor has a right and duty to ensure the consistency of the goods or services being sold and advertised under its mark and take action against any infringement of the mark.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Judicial Inquiry Into Appointment Of Morarji Desai National Institute Of Yoga's Director

Title: DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of appointment of Dr. Ishwarappa Veerbhadrappa Basavaraddi as Director of the Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga, an autonomous institution under the Union Ministry of AYUSH.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by one Dr. Ajay Pal who claimed that during his tenure in the institute as an Assistant Professor, he witnessed numerous administrative discrepancies occurring under the directorship of Dr. Basavaraddi.

Delhi High Court Raps Litigant For Pursuing Contempt Against District Judge, Calls It Unmitigated Attack On Courts' Majesty

Title: VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

The Delhi High Court has warned a litigant for misusing the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as he sought contempt action against a district court judge on the ground that his grievances were not duly addressed.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To “34 Chowringhee Lane” Acquirer, Sets Aside Fetters Put By Arbitrator On Opening Of Franchisees

Case Title: HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy's Hospitality Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court recently granted relief to “34 Chowringhee Lane” acquirer-HDA Flavours Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the Arbitrator, while dealing with a Section 17 application, should not have interdicted it from creating new franchisees.

“A blanket embargo on the appellant from creating any new franchisee or entering into such business agreements as may be appropriate for the advancement of business, may result in denuding the value of the business on account of stagnation/depletion in market share,” the court said.

Conviction For Committing Sexual Offences No Ground For Denying Benefit Of Furlough: Delhi High Court

Title: GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094

The Delhi High Court has ruled that conviction for committing sexual offences is no ground for denying the benefit of furlough to an otherwise eligible prisoner.

“In this Court's opinion, merely because a person has been convicted for committing sexual offences, he cannot be denied benefit of furlough, which he is otherwise eligible for, on such erroneous grounds,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Implement Policies On Vocational Training To Children With Special Needs In Letter And Spirit: High Court To Centre, Delhi Govt

Title: MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095

The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre and the Delhi Government to implement their policies on skill learning and vocational training to the children with special needs in letter and spirit with a timely reassessment to counter any challenges that may arise in future.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL moved by a class XII student seeking implementation of a nation-wide policy to impart skill learning and vocational training to children with special needs.

Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Demand Of Rs. 257 Crores Against Tata Steel Ltd.

Case Title: Tata Steel Limited Versus DCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096

The Delhi High Court has quashed the income tax demand of Rs. 257 crore against Tata Steel Ltd. (TSL).

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that a successful applicant is, in law, provided with a “clean slate”; therefore, dues for the period prior to the date when the RP was approved cannot be recovered. The courts have recognized this principle in more than one case.

Retrospective Changes Likely To Devastate Entire Sector, Withdrawal Of Merchandise Exports Scheme Shall Apply Prospectively: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indian Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container Association v. Director General of Foreign Trade

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently ruled that DGFT's decision to repeal the MEIS scheme with retrospective effect, combined with their refusal to honour claims for the valid period, was arbitrary and indefensible, both in principle and law.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Prohibition On Chhath Puja Celebration At Yamuna River Banks

Title: Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the Delhi Government's decision of prohibiting devotees from performing Chhath Puja on the banks of Yamuna river.

Observing that the prohibition has been imposed in order to prevent pollution in the river, Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed his inclination to dismiss the plea which was moved by two societies namely Chath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti and Purwanchal Jagriti Manch.

Section 29A Permits Court To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even When Application Made After Expiry Of Time Limit Provided: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 29A of the A&C Act is empowered to extend the mandate of the arbitrator even in cases where the application seeking extension of time is not made within the time limit fixed for the making of the award.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the purport of Section 29A of the A&C Act is clearly not to tie the hands of the parties or the court, and prevent extension of time even where warranted, simply because the petition under Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act came to be filed a few days after expiration of the deadline contemplated under Section 29A(1) or Section 29A(3) of the A&C Act.

High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Declare Unencroached Forest Land As 'Reserved', Warns Chief Secy Of Contempt In Case Of Failure

Case Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to issue within two weeks a notification declaring all un-encroached forest land in the national capital as reserved under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that in case the notification is not issued within the stipulated period, the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government shall be liable for contempt action and a notice of contempt will be initiated against him.