- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Delhi High Court Annual Digest...
Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part IV [Citations 1201 - 1394]
Nupur Thapliyal
19 Jan 2025 10:00 AM IST
![Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part IV [Citations 1201 - 1394]](https://www-livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com/h-upload/2024/12/19/750x450_577393-delhi-high-court-annual-digest-2024.webp "Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part IV [Citations 1201 - 1394]")
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1201 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1394Delhi High Court Restrains 'Rogue App' From Streaming Star's ContentsCase title: Star India Private Limited vs. Tajkir Mohammad Tanvir (King's Pro+) And Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1201In relation to a copyright suit filed by Star Channels, the Delhi High Court has restrained a 'rogue app' and related websites from...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1201 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1394
Delhi High Court Restrains 'Rogue App' From Streaming Star's Contents
Case title: Star India Private Limited vs. Tajkir Mohammad Tanvir (King's Pro+) And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1201
In relation to a copyright suit filed by Star Channels, the Delhi High Court has restrained a 'rogue app' and related websites from streaming, reproducing and making the contents of Star Channels available to the public.
Case title: Benetton India Private Limited vs. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1202
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Trial Court's direction requiring the physical presence of a company's MD/CEO emrely for the purpose of disposing traffic challans was irrational.
Delhi High Court Restrains Alpino Health Foods From Publishing Advertisements 'Disparaging' Oats
Title: MARICO LIMITED v. ALPINO HEALTH FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1203
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained Alpino Health Foods Private Limited, a Bengaluru-based brand, from publishing or sharing its advertisements disparaging “Oats” as a category of foods, either on social media or otherwise.
Case Title: Purvanchal Nav Nirman Sansthan v. GNCTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1204
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to allow the public to perform the festival of Chhath Puja at Geeta Colony Ghats on the Yamuna riverbed in the national capital.
Case Title: VASISHTA MANTENA NH04 JV & ORS. V. BLACKLEAD INFRATECH PVT LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1205
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is for challenging the Award. It cannot be said that a challenge to the Award without the award itself being filed would be a valid filing. Without the Award, the challenge would become meaningless because unless the Award is perused by the Court, it cannot test or adjudicate on the correctness of the Award.
Case Title: Experion Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1206
The Delhi High Court stated that once nature and source of receipts have been satisfactorily proved and AO has not contradicted information given by assessee, there lies no cause for initiating the reassessment action.
Case Title: GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. versus SURENDRA SINGH
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1207
A division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain dismissed a Petition that sought to quash the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the Petitioners to pay the Respondent the interest on interest at the rate of 10 percent. The Court held that the proscription on interest on interest as per Section 3(3)(c) of the Interest Act would not apply as the direction by the Tribunal was not made under Section 3 of the Interest Act.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SANJEEV KUMAR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1208
The Delhi High Court has sentenced a lawyer to four months in jail after finding him guilty of criminal contempt for making derogatory remarks against judges and filing repeatedly frivolous complaints against them as well as the police officers.
Title: SANDIPAN KHAN v. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1209
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a petition challenging the notification purportedly issued by the custom authorities in 1988 banning the import of book “The Satanic Verses” authored by Indian-British novelist Salman Rushdie.
Delhi High Court Protects Dream 11's Trademark From Unknown Entities, Awards ₹1 Lakh Cost
Case title: Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd And Anr. vs. John Doe And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1210
The Delhi High Court has restrained unknown defendants from infringing the registered trademarks of online fantasy sports league platform 'Dream11' including its domain names or content on its websites.
Case title: Ravi Kumar vs. Department Of Space And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1211
The Delhi High Court has reprimanded a practising advocate by imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 in a recruitment matter, who had cast aspersions on a judge which dismissed his earlier plea and had additionally alleged that there was a concerted effort to cover up a "scam" in government service.
Title: PASHMINA EXPORTERS & MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1212
The Delhi High Court has closed a public interest litigation seeking to improve, augment and enhance existing forensic testing infrastructure available to all Forensic Science Labs (FSLs) engaged in analysis of suspected Shahtoosh Shawls.
Case Title: SUBRAT KUMAR PANIGRAHI versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1213
A division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain set aside the Order of a Single Judge Bench wherein a Petition seeking to change the Appellant's Grade from '3' to '1' was dismissed. The Court directed the Respondents to reassess the overall performance of the Appellant in accordance with law considering the entries which specifically mentioned that the Appellant had not only met but had also exceeded certain targets, which was contrary to the comment made by the Reviewing Officer, based on which, the Appellant's Grade was retained at '3'.
Case Title: GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. versus NEERAJ KUMAR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1214
A division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain dismissed a Petition seeking to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had quashed the orders dismissing the Respondent from service on the grounds of being accused of murder and lodgement of FIR against him. The Court observed that the Respondent was not convicted yet and thus could not be dismissed from service on the presumption of conviction against him.
Title: FAIZAN AYUBI & ANR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1215
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Government's Chief Secretary to ensure that marriages solemnized under the Muslim personal law are registered online as mandated by the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014.
Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. BIJENDER SINGH
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1216
The Delhi High Court has recently said that it can never be an approver to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) not paying wages or retiral benefits to its employees.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1217
The Delhi High Court has recently asked the Union Government to take a policy decision as to whether certain guidelines ought to be framed at national level in respect of foreigners against whom criminal cases are lodged and whose Indian visas have expired.
Case Name: Ravinder Mandal v. DLF Universal Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1218
Delhi High Court: Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the writ petition filed by Ravinder Mandal and found no grounds for malafide intent behind the issuance of his transfer order. The High Court concluded that the transfer was a legitimate administrative action aligned with Mandal's contractual obligations as a transferable employee, and his non-compliance with the order constituted misconduct.
Title: Prashant Manchanda v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1219
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University to undertake the process of counting of votes for Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections on or before November 26, provided all the sites which were defaced by the contesting candidates are cleaned up and repainted within a week.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that it is the responsibility of the candidates and the current students of DU to ensure that the next batch get to use the varsity's infrastructure in good and clean condition.
Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1220
The Delhi High Court has closed an appeal filed by Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia platform, against a single judge bench's order directing it to disclose subscriber details of three individuals who edited Asian News International (ANI) Wikipedia page.
Case title: Mankind Pharma Limited vs. Aquakind Land LLP & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1221
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of Mankind Pharma Limited, against the sale of its medical and pharmaceutical goods with the trademark 'MANKIND' and 'KIND' formative marks.
Mankind Pharma (plaintiff) is a pharmaceutical company and it has registered the trademark 'MANKIND' for various goods and services. Mankind Pharma also uses several trademarks with the suffix 'KIND' for its pharmaceutical goods.
Case Title: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. Paramount Communications Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1222
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee affirmed that the Court under section 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision
Case Title: HR BUILDERS THROUGH GPA HOLDER V. DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1223
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing an award from the date of the conclusion of the pleadings can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the award was passed after more than 2 years from the conclusion of the arguments.
Case Title: RUDRA BUILDWELL PVT LTD. v. REALWORTH INDIA PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1224
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that conduct of the parties has to be seen before granting equitable relief for specific performance of the contract. If the conduct of the parties does not demonstrate that the party claiming relief is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract then the relief under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted. The court in this case refused to set aside the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the Arbitrator had taken a plausible view based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Delhi High Court Cancels LOC Against Ashneer Grover, Wife After Quashing Of EOW FIR
Title: ASHNEER GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1225
The Delhi High Court has ordered cancellation of the look out circular (LOC) issued against former BharatPe Managing Director Ashneer Grover and his wife Madhuri Jain Grover after quashing of Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing's (EOW) FIR registered last year.
Case Title: N.S. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1226
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that de jure ineligibility to act as an arbitrator can only be waived, after dispute having arisen, by the parties by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The court further observed that this waiver is different from section 4 of the Act which can be waived even by conduct.
Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Requires Proof Of Actual Loss: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Adani Enterprises Limited vs. Shri Somnath Fabrics Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1227
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has upheld the Arbitral Award wherein the Tribunal had ordered a refund of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) as the petitioner had failed to prove any actual loss. The court, in light of Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, observed that forfeiture of the EMD requires proof of actual loss.
Case Title: MANISH SAINI versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1228
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain set aside the Order of the Screening Committee cancelling the appointment of a candidate based on an FIR lodged against him. Despite acquittal, the Screening Committee had cancelled the Petitioner's appointment to the Post of SI. The Bench held that the Screening Committee ought to have gone through the judgement of the Court that acquitted the Petitioner in order to determine the basis on which the Petitioner was acquitted.
Title: VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1229
The Delhi High Court has ordered release of a murder convict serving life imprisonment 26 years after his incarceration by quashing the decision of Sentence Review Board (SRB) rejecting his plea for premature release by calling it arbitrary, irrational and illogical.
Case Title: M/s Travel2Agent.com & Ors. vs. M/s Spice Jet Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1230
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that any award of damages, on the touch stone of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, must be predicated on actual loss suffered. The court set aside the award for not disclosing the rationale for damages and, on this count, held that the award was ex facie contrary to settled law and in manifest disregard of the material/evidence on record.
Case Title: GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD versus SAW PIPES LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1231
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta affirmed that the explicit terms of a contract are always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties. The multi-clause contract inter se the parties has, thus, to be understood and interpreted in a manner that any view, on a particular clause of the contract, should not do violence to another part of the contract. In this case, the court while hearing appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act upheld the impugned judgment passed by the court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1232
The Delhi High Court has passed directions for guidance of family courts in the national capital while dealing with any petition filed under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act for dissolution of marriage through extra-judicial divorce under the Muslim Personal Law.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed that the Family Court, after issuing notice to the respondent, will record the statements of both parties.
Title: SMT. REENA DEVI v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1233
Presuming a man dead who purportedly went missing during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP Hospital, the Delhi High Court has recently granted Rs. 5 lakh ex-gratia compensation to his wife.
Case Title: SURESH KUMAR KAKKAR & ANR versus M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1234
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that when a non-signatory person or entity is arrayed as a party at Section 8 or Section 11 stage of the Arbitration Act, the referral court should prima facie determine the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement, as the case may be, and complex issue like whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement must be left for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide.
Title: KHALID JAHANGIR QAZI THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MS FARIDA SIDDIQI v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1235
The Delhi High Court has explained the legal protections afforded to Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders against whom backlisting orders are issued in circumstances involving allegations of anti-national activities against them.
Case title: Sanjay Bhandari vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1236
The Delhi High Court has rejected the petition of arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari, accused of tax evasion and money laundering, challenging a Special Court's summoning order in relation to the Enforcement Directorate's declaration of him as a 'Fugitive Economic Offender'.
Case Title: JKR Techno Engineers Pvt Ltd v. JMD Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1237
The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that the petitioner's claim cannot be treated as dead one simply because they spent time on bona fide court proceedings before a court without jurisdiction.
Case title: Inder Pal Singh Gaba vs. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1238
The Delhi High Court has rejected the plea to Inder Pal Singh Gaba, allegedly involved in the protest at the High Commission of India, London, United Kingdom, challenging his arrest by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and seeking his release from custody.
Case Title: BALAJI STEEL TRADE versus FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma affirmed that Section 45 of the Arbitration Act casts a statutory mandate on Courts to refer parties to an arbitration agreement to arbitration. The only limited exception carved in Section 45 is if the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the arbitration agreement is (a) null and void; or (b) in-operative; or (c) incapable of being performed. Unless such grounds are made out, the Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration.
[Confiscation] No Provision For Waiver Of Show Cause Notice U/S 124 Of Customs Act: Delhi High Court
Case title: Ms Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1240
The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of an OCI cardholder whose luxury watch was confiscated by the Customs Department when she landed at IGI Airport, without issuance of any show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Title: SMT. PROMILA RASTOGI & ORS v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1241
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay compensation of over Rs. 11 lakh to a woman and her minor sons, after her husband died after a balcony in their DDA flat collapsed 24 years ago.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma pulled up the DDA for negligence and said that it had a "continuing obligation" to ensure the flat infrastructure's "durability and longevity post-allotment".
Case title: Raffles Education Corporation Ltd vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1242
The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution of cheating unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.
In doing so the high court upheld the sessions court's order which had quashed the summons issued by the magistrate to the Chairman and MD of educational technology company Educomp and its associated persons in alleged case of cheating.
Case Title: SH. R.S. MEENA versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1243
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain dismissed a Petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding that the assignment of 'current duty charge' of the Post of DC would not entitle the Petitioner holding the Post of ADC to the pay scale as that of the DC. The Bench reiterated that the Order conferring additional charge on the Petitioner did not formally appoint him to hold full charge of the duties of DC and thus he would not be entitled to the pay-scale of the post he held the additional charge of.
Case Title: STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. versus AMAN SINGH
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1244
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that directed the Staff Selection Committee to constitute a fresh Medical Board to re-examine the Respondent for determining whether he was fit for duties or not. The Court held that the Respondent was declared fit by the Dermatologist whose opinion was sought by the Review Medical Board and thus ignoring such opinion and declaring the Respondent unfit was not justified.
Case Title: CENTAURUS GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus RAJSHREE EDUCATIONAL TRUST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that pre requirement of conciliation in an arbitration clause before invoking the arbitration cannot be a bar to file an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Directs RSY News To Take Down Original Videos Of ANI In Copyright Infringement Suit
Title: ANI v. RSY News & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1246
The Delhi High Court has directed RSY News to remove or take down from its YouTube channel the original and copyrighted videos of Asian News International (ANI) in the copyright infringement suit filed by the news agency.
Case Title: Kanwar Singh Yadav vs. Delhi Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1247
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the objections as regards the capacity of the party to initiate arbitration is an aspect which is necessarily required to be gone into the arbitration proceedings, however, the same could not preclude the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal. The court held that a party may raise appropriate jurisdictional/preliminary objections before the Arbitral Tribunal as regards the maintainability of the arbitration and/or the arbitrability of the claim.
Title: Gautam Gambhir v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1248
The Delhi High Court has stayed a trial court order which directed fresh investigation into the alleged role of former cricketer and current head coach of the Indian cricket team Gautam Gambhir in a cheating case concerning flat buyers.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri stayed the order passed by Rouse Avenue Courts on October 29 overturning the discharge of Gambhir and several others in the matter.
Title: SHABANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1249
The Delhi High Court has recently asked the Commissioner of Delhi Police to take steps to prepare a handbook that may be utilised by the Investigating Officers (IOs) for timely furnishing of information requested by them from social media platforms.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma noted that in a large number of cases, IOs may not be fully aware of the manner in which information requested can be obtained from the various platforms and sometimes precious time is lost.
Ex-Gratia Payments Discretionary In Nature, Not Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court
Title: SUBATA KHAN v. GNCTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1250
The Delhi High Court has recently held that ex-gratia payments are discretionary in nature and not a matter of right.
“Ex-gratia payments are discretionary and not a matter of right. They are granted as a compassionate gesture in extraordinary circumstances, subject to the specific terms and conditions outlined in the governing policy,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Title: HINA BASHIR BEIGH v. NIA and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1251
The Delhi High Court has ruled that factors such as misuse of social media platforms by terrorists and using journalistic credentials for publishing magazines to incite violence are factors which cannot be ignored while awarding sentence in terrorist activities related cases.
Develop Comprehensive Action Plan To Address Bomb Threats: High Court To Delhi Govt
Title: ARPIT BHARGAVA v. GNCTD & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1252
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to develop a “comprehensive action plan” including a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for addressing bomb threats and related emergencies in the national capital.
Title: Aswhini Upadhyay v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1253
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, seeking adoption of “Indian holistic integrated medicinal system" in India.
It was Upadhyay's case that rather than segregated way of Allopathy, Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy in order to secure medical treatment, medical education and consequently medical treatment granted to patients should be holistic and should encompass courses of all branches.
Sewage Treatment Plants Not Functioning Well, Releasing Raw Sewage In Yamuna: Delhi High Court
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1254
The Delhi High Court has recently observed its prima facie view that the Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) in the national capital are not functioning as per required norms and are releasing raw sewage in Yamuna river.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora suggested that tamper proof meters must be installed to record operational timings of STPs as well as the electricity consumption.
'Adequate Steps Taken For The Present': High Court Closes PIL To Probe Student Suicides At NLU Delhi
Title: ADITYA SINGH TOMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1255
The Delhi High Court has recently closed a public interest litigation petition seeking constitution of an independent inquiry committee comprising of experts to investigate the causes behind student suicides at National Law University (NLU) Delhi.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1256
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Delhi Government to ensure that Jan Aushadhi Kendras are opened inside each hospital in the national capital within four weeks.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora observed that the convenience of having a Jan Aushadhi Kendra in each hospital for the patients and their caregivers requires no reiteration.
Case Title: In-Time Garments Pvt. Ltd. versus HSPS Textile Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1257
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad affirmed that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the Arbitrator even though a different conclusion can be arrived at on re-appreciating evidence
Aircel Maxis Case: Delhi High Court Stays Trial Court Proceedings Against P Chidambaram In ED Case
Title: P Chidambaram v. ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1258
The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court proceedings against senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram in the money laundering case connected to the Aircel Maxis case.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the order while dealing with Chidambaram's plea challenging the trial court order taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against him.
Case title: Aakash Goel vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1259
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL that sought to mandate the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide a database of deceased individuals in the country to the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), so as to enable the family members or nominees of deceased policyholders to claim benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana.
Title: SANJAY AGGARWAL v. ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1260
The Delhi High Court has recently held that it is not necessary for the Special Court under PMLA to record its reasons for taking cognizance of Enforcement Directorate (ED) complaint, unlike a private complaint under CrPC or BNSS.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that an initial complaint can be filed by ED under Section 44 of the PMLA, even if the investigation is not fully completed.
Title: HARI OM RAI v. ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1261
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday remarked that an accused in a money laundering case cannot be equated with those punishable with death, life imprisonment, ten years or more like offences such as murder, rape or dacoity.
Add 'Grounds Of Arrest' Column In Arrest Memo Forms: High Court Directs Delhi Police
Title: PRANAV KUCKREJA (IN POLICE CUSTODY) v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1262
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Police to add a column in the arrest memo forms for recording the 'grounds of arrest' of an accused.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that a revised arrest memo form or some annexures to be added to ensure effective compliance with Section 50 of Cr.P.C. and the corresponding Section 47 of BNSS, 2023.
Case Title: Netaji Subhash Institute Of Technology Versus M/S Surya Engineers & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1263
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that once an arbitrator has taken a plausible view based on the facts of the case, such a view cannot be interfered with under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Title: JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1264
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to demarcate their boundaries and jurisdictions in the national capital with precision (longitude and latitude) as far as possible.
Case title: Himanshu Garg v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-36 (1)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1265
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an ITAT order declining capital gain exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to a property described as “makaan” (house) in the registered sale deed but in actuality having a brick kiln construction.
Title: ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LIMITED v. HTTPS//TUNEINCOM/PODCASTS/ARTS—CULTURE PODCASTS/ BANGLA-SUNDAY-SUSPENSE-P2082186 / AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1266
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction against unauthorized broadcasting and transmission of audio content owned by Entertainment Network (India) Limited, a radio broadcaster, which owns and operates FM radio stations across the country under the trademarks 'Mirchi', 'Radio Mirchi' and 'Sunday Suspense'.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Registration Granted To AIMIM As Political Party
Title: TIRUPATI NARASHIMA MURARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1267
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of the registration granted by Election Commission of India (ECI) to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party.
Justice Prateek Jalan rejected the plea moved by one Tirupati Narashima Murari who also challenged a circular issued by ECI in 2014 granting recognition to AIMIM as a State level party in the State of Telangana.
Title: MATRIX CELLULAR INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED AND ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1268
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against Matrix Cellular, its CEO and others accused of selling defective and substandard oxygen concentrators at inflated prices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings at the stage while investigation is still pending.
Case Title: Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Educational Society versus M/s Intec Capital Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1269
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta affirmed that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction. It is well-settled that that a merit based review of an arbitral award involving reappraisal of factual findings is impermissible. The mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract does not entitle courts to reverse the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case title: Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Customs Authority For Advance Rulings & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1270
The Delhi High Court has held that it is not the technology which is used in the product that decides its HSN classification under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) for the purposes of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Victim Has Right To Participate In Trial But Can't Override Public Prosecutor: Delhi High Court
Title: SACHIN KUMAR AGGARWAL v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1271
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a victim has a right to participate in the criminal proceedings but cannot override the Public Prosecutor who acts as an independent Officer of the Court.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the right of participation would always mean right to be heard but the victim's counsel cannot override an argument taken by the Public Prosecutor nor can the victim argue that the Public Prosecutor has made a wrong submission.
Title: ABC v. State & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1272
Observing that it is important to balance the right to information of public with an individual's right to privacy, the Delhi High Court has said that no public interest can be served by keeping the information alive on the internet after quashing of criminal proceedings.
Case Title: M/S Srinivasa Construction Corporation Pvt Ltd Versus Irrigation Works Circle, Through Superintendent Engineer District, Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1273
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that if there is a neutral location specified in the contract data, that location would be the place of arbitration and the court having supervisory jurisdiction over the place would have jurisdiction. If no such location is specified, the provisions of the CPC from sections 16 to 20 would be attracted for determining the supervisory jurisdiction of the court.
Case Title: Unthinkable Solutions LLP Versus Ejohri Jewels Hub Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1274
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad affirmed that the arbitration clause from another contract can be incorporated into the contract when there is a clear intention that arbitration clause contained in another contract would also be incorporated in the contract by which the disputes would be resolved.
Case title: Sandeep Hooda v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7, Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1275
“Putting together a structure of plywood sheets cannot be construed as constructing a residential house,” the Delhi High Court has held.
It thus upheld an ITAT order which disallowed capital gains exemption to the appellant-assessee under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that a mere 'makeshift' structure was raised in the name of residential house.
Case title: Sequential Technology International India Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Omniglob Information Technologies(India)Pvt.Ltd) v. Addl. CIT, Spcl.Range-7
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1276
The Delhi High Court recently directed a Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine afresh the inclusion of a comparable entity with respect to an assessee, this time taking into consideration the latter's objections on 'functional dissimilarity' of the two.
Case Title: Chandani Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal v. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1277
The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to remove the deficiencies and illegal activities at the Chandni Chowk redevelopment project and surrounding areas.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that prima facie, the illegal activities and deficiencies in the area must be attended to and removed by the MCD and Delhi Police in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The court further asked the concerned DCP as well as DC to remain personally present in court on the next date of hearing.
Case title: Louis Vuitton Malletier v/s Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1278
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the French luxury brand Louis Vuitton, against trademark infringement and passing off of its products bearing the 'LV' trademark by two businessmen.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Delhi v. Naveen Kumar Gupta
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1279
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not by itself preclude an Assessing Officer from reopening assessments under Section 147/148 of the Act, on the basis of information found during a search conducted under Section 132 or requisition made under Section 132A of Act in respect of another person.
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Nucleus Steel Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1280
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once an assessee offers explanation about nature and source of a credit transaction standing in its books, the burden of proof to show that such explanation is unsatisfactory shifts on the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus M/s Fiberfill Engineers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1281
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta has held that awarding damages by Arbitrator in the absence of proven injury or loss qualifies to be a patent illegality under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34.
Well Reasoned Award Cannot Be Interfered With Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aktivortho Private Limited Versus Dilbagh Singh Sachdeva And Other
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1282
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju affirmed that Courts should not customarily interfere with Arbitral Awards that are well reasoned, and contain a plausible view.Judges, by nature, may incline towards using a corrective lens, however, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, this corrective lens is inappropriate especially under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It was held that the error in interpreting a Contract is considered an error within jurisdiction of the tribunal. Therefore, judicial interference should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Case Title: COSLIGHT INFRA COMPANY PVT. LTD v. CONCEPT ENGINEERS & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1283
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that a procedural order given by an Arbitral Tribunal, such as rejecting an application seeking impleadment of a party, does not qualify as an interim award. So, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Title: SH. PRAVESH KUMAR & ANR v. DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1284
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to pay compensation of Rs. 22 lakh over death of nine-year-old boy by falling into a pit in 2016.
Case title: The Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India vs. CA Shri Subhajit Sahoo & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1285
In relation to disciplinary proceedings involving alleged professional misconduct by a chartered accountant in a complaint filed against the latter 19 years ago, the Delhi High Court said that the degree of proof required is higher than the balance of probabilities, but not as high as the criminal standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Case title: NRA Iron And Steel Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Department & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1286
The Delhi High Court has held that a review petition, against the orders passed in SLP by the Supreme Court, is “Disputed Tax” under Section 2(1)(j) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and the review petitioner would be eligible to take benefit of “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of 'MH7' Trademark For Infringement Of MH ONE TV Network's Marks
Case title: M/S M.H. ONE TV NETWORK PVT. LTD. vs. M/S MH 7 NEWS AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1287
The Delhi High Court has directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the “MH7” trademark from its register, ruling that it infringes upon the trademarks owned by MH ONE TV Network Private Limited.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Mankind Pharma, Restrains Use Of 'Mankind Agri Seeds' Mark
Title: MANKIND PHARMA v. MANKIND AGRI SEEDS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1288
Granting relief to pharmaceutical company "Mankind Pharma", the Delhi High Court has recently restrained a Gujarat based agricultural goods manufacturer entity from using "Mankind Agri Seeds'" mark while advertising or selling its products.
Case Title: IMAGING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS INDIA LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1289
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee have held that the Arbitral Award should not be interfered with lightly, the same does not imply that applications filed under Section 34 ought to be rejected only on the grounds that the approach of the Court should be not to interfere with the award.
Case Title: Rohit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1290
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Petition seeking quashing of Displeasure awarded by DG, BSF and the order rejecting the representation of the Petitioner against the advisory remarks in the APAR. The Bench stated that the Petitioner who was in possession of his service weapon in his Government Quarters could not provide an excuse that he was unaware of the instructions prohibiting it.
Case title: Designco v. UoI (and other connected matters)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1291
The Delhi High Court has held that pursuant to an audit in respect of assessment of imported or exported goods under Section 99A of the Cutoms Act, 1962, the proper officer is liable to apprise the auditee of the objections which according to it arise in respect of the assessment.
Case Title: NATIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY v. M S INTERMARC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1292
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee have held that mere liberty to file a fresh application before the competent Court does not amount to a fresh cause of action occurring in the appellant's favour. The relevant date(s) of the Award always remained unchanged, and therefore even after availing the benefit of the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appellant's application was barred by limitation.
Title: X v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1293
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that once the decision of awarding compensation to acid attack victims under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015, has been made, it cannot be arbitrarily reduced below the minimum threshold of Rs. 3 lakh.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Constitution Of 'Sanatan Dharm Raksha Board'
Title: Sanatan Hindu Sewa Sangh Trust v. UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1294
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking constitution of "'Sanatan Dharm Raksha Board."
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the issue fell within the policy domain and that the Court cannot issue a direction for constitution of such a board.
Case Title: Sumana Verma vs. Arti Kapur & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1295
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has held that the striking off of the defence of the Petitioner for non-payment of arbitral fees is a drastic measure that exceeds the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Rongali Naidu & Ors vs. Indian Coast Guard
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1296
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed while allowing a Petition that authorities must look into the accuracy of documents and decide the cases of candidates based on facts and circumstances of each case.
Case Title: Omaxe Ltd v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1297
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a writ petition challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSFEC), has held that invoking the writ jurisdiction to challenge an arbitral award would circumvent the statutory requirement of pre-deposit u/s 19 of the MSMED Act, and would amount to defeating the legislative intent.
Case Title: Monu Singh vs. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1298
A Division Bench of Delhi High court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Petition of a candidate seeking to set aside the rejection of his candidature due to having produced an experience certificate at the stage of document verification.
Case Title: Nongthombam Herojit Meitei vs. UOI & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1299
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while allowing a Petition observed that if two sets of rules lead to promotion to a single post, it would not make sense to allow the Petitioner relaxation as per one rule and deny him the same as per another.
Case Title: W.P.(C) 13577/2024 NO 40634Z LT A K THAPA (RELEASED) vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1300
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed an appeal wherein a Navy Officer sought disability pension based on the claim that his medical condition (Epilepsy) was attributable to his service in the navy.
Title: Court on its own motion v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1301
The Delhi High Court has held that the power of a Magistrate or a Special Court to supervise an investigation does not include the right to question the validity of the FIR.
Case Title: SPML INFRA LIMITED versus POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1302
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has affirmed that Arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their own fees.
Case Title: Union Of India versus Besco Limited (Wagon Division)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1303
The Delhi High Court bench of Ms. Justice Rekha Palli and Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee has affirmed that just because the appellant is government that doesn't mean that a special treatment will be given while condoning the delay in filing the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. SH. SATYA PAL GUPTA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1304
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded the claim for loss of profit for the period the Contract was prolonged without any evidence or material to support the claim. Therefore, the impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality.
Court Having Exclusive Jurisdiction Would Have Juridical Seat Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DELHIVERY LIMITED versus STERNE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1305
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that where exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on a court with respect to matters relating to arbitration, the same shall be construed to be a clear 'contrary indicia' and that the court, upon which exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred, would be the juridical seat of arbitration.
Case title: Panchhi Petha Store vs. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1306
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Regional Director under the Companies Act when deciding an application under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, has no authority to determine the ownership of a trademark.
Case Title: OVINGTON FINANCE PVT. LTD. versus BINDIYA NAGAR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1307
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the term "Court" under Section 29A must mean only to be the Court which has appointed the arbitrator and therefore the Court to extend the time or substitute the arbitrator would only be the Court which has appointed the arbitrator and no other Court.
Case title: HCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Commissioner Of State Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1308
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that neither Section 160 nor Section 87 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 enable the Department to issue notice in the name of an entity which ceased to exist post amalgamation.
Case Title: SHRI KR ANAND v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1309
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the scope of the present proceedings is confined to ascertaining the existence of the arbitration agreement. Also, the objections raised by the respondent regarding the limitation/jurisdiction would be required to be considered by a duly constituted arbitral tribunal.
Case title: Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. vs. Medicine Me & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1310
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction to protect the personality rights of a well-known cardiac surgeon and chairman of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty.
Title: Nadeem Khan v. State and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1311
The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to human rights activist Nadeem Khan who has been booked by the Delhi Police on the charges of promoting enmity and criminal conspiracy after a video went viral on social media.
Title: ARVIND DHAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1312
The Delhi High Court has held that the condition of supplying the “reasons to believe” by ED to a person arrested under PMLA as a separate document as per Supreme Court's ruling in Arvind Kejriwal case ought to be applied prospectively.
"Personal Jewellery" Of Person Coming To India Not Subjected To Customs Duty: Delhi High Court
Case title: Saba Simran vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1313
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a woman whose over 200 gm gold jewellery was confiscated by the Customs on her return from Dubai.
Ambiguity In Court's Order Absolute Defence To Contempt Action: Delhi High Court
Case title: Viterra B.V. vs. Sharp Corp Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1314
The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases of contempt of court, if the court's order or directions are unclear, this can serve as an absolute defence against a contempt action. It stated that the court's directives in relation to which breach or disobedience is alleged should be “clear and unequivocal.”
Title: PARVEZ AHMED v. ED and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1315
The Delhi High Court has held that collection of funds in an illegal way to commit a scheduled offence in future is not an offence of money laundering under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Title: DIVYA RANA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1316
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking comprehensive and scientifically rigorous investigation into the claims of Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu that his wife's Stage 4 cancer was treated through a specific diet plan and Ayurveda.
Expansive Interpretation Of “Last Pay Drawn”; Term Includes CPF Contributions: Delhi High Court
Title: Narinder Paul v. Chief Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1317
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma found the Chief Secretary of GNCTD to be in contempt for not complying with court orders regarding certain Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) contributions. These CPF contributions were for judicial members of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC).
Title: SAIFUL KHAN v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1318
While denying anticipatory bail to a man in a POCSO case, the Delhi High Court has taken note of the “disturbing trend” of exploiting the anonymity and reach of social media platforms to perpetrate sexual crimes against minors.
Title: BALBIR MEENA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1319
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that any compensation received under the SC/ST Rules should be returned when the legal proceedings are discontinued due to a settlement.
Foreign National Wearing Personal Jewellery To India Not Subject To Import Duty: Delhi High Court
Case title: Luvleen Maingi v. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1320
The Delhi High Court has held that the jewellery worn to India by a foreign national is not subject to customs duty.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja thus declared as illegal the action of the Customs Department, confiscating a Thai national's gold chain and kara.
Title: TAHIR HUSSAIN v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1321
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain in connection with the North-East Delhi riots of 2020.
Title: RAMINDER SINGH @ HAPPY v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1322
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that a convict without a permanent residential address in the national capital cannot be barred from being granted furlough.
Unnao Rape Case: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Kuldeep Singh Sengar On Medical Grounds
Title: Kuldeep Singh Senger v. CBI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1323
The Delhi High Court has granted two weeks of interim bail on media grounds to expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Unnao rape case.
Case title: Philip Morris Brands Sarl vs.M/S Rahul Pan Shop & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1324
The Delhi High Court has issued permanent injunction in favour of Philip Morris Brands SARL, an American tobacco company, against trademark and copyright infringement of its cigarette packs.
Title: Rahul Mehra v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1325
The Delhi High Court has allowed the Union Government to disburse funds to the National Sports Federations (NSFs) for participation of Indian sportspersons in international events, conduct of national and international events here, training and preparation of athletes.
Title: NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS INC. v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1326
The Delhi High Court has recently awarded more than Rs. 14 lakh as costs to sports footwear and apparel brand “New Balance” in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against a rogue website selling counterfeit products.
Case title: Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. vs. M/S Manglam Krupa & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1327
In an interim order granted in favour of well known alcohol brand Jack Daniels Properties Inc., the Delhi High Court stayed the registration of the brand's trademark “JACK DANIEL'S” by another entity.
Case Title: R B SETH JESSA RAM HOSPITAL BROS v. R B SETH JESSA RAM HOSPITAL WORKMEN UNION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1328
The Delhi High Court has recently deprecated the conduct of litigants trying to protract proceedings in industrial disputes which involve “extreme disparity of resources available to the rival litigants.”
Case title: Telecommunications Consultants India Limited v. UoI & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1329
The Delhi High Court recently declared that Telecommunications Consultants India Limited, a central public sector undertaking which secured a Project floated by BSNL for laying down Optical Fibre Cable Network, is exempt from service tax since the service is in the nature of setting up a civil infrastructure so as to benefit the defence forces in having a better communication network.
Case title: MEHAK OBEROI v/s BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1330
The Delhi High Court has rejected a challenge to the Bar Council of India's (BCI) 2024 notification requiring Indian citizens with foreign law degrees to take a qualifying examination to be eligible for enrolment in India.
Title: SURAJ PARKASH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1331
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a rape FIR against a man citing misuse of Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, observing that it was a classic example of how an innocent person had faced undue hardships due to misuse of the penal provision.
Case Title: SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1332
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed in a Petition seeking pro rata pension after voluntarily discharging from services in the Indian Air Force.
'Disability Pension Can't Be Denied Merely Because Officer Was Posted At Peace Station Later', Delhi High Court
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus COLONEL BK CHHIMWAL RETIRED IC 390431
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1333
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while dismissing a Petition observed that the disability element of Pension could not be denied to the Respondent merely on the grounds that the Respondent was posted at a peace area.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Claim Of Rs.15 Lakh Awarded By Arbitral Tribunal Due To Lack Of Evidence
Case Title: MOHD AMIN DECEASED THROUGH LRS versus MOHD IQBAL DECEASED THROUGH LRS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1334
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that after persuading the Supreme Court to refer the disputes to arbitration, it is not open for the appellant to now question the validity of the reference.
Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED vs. M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1335
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that the arbitration agreement which contemplated the appointment of the sole Arbitrator to be made out of a panel of three persons chosen by the petitioner was no longer valid in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company.
Case Title: Suresh Shah versus Tata Consultancy Services Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1336
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration Act which defined the International Commercial Arbitration is a non derogable provision and its applicability cannot be excluded even by mutual consent of the parties.
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1337
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (December 10) granted interim bail on medical grounds to expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the custodial death case of Unnao rape victim's father.
Case Title: SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1338
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that while rejecting the appointment of the Petitioner, the Respondents should have conveyed the correct reason i.e., falling in the last priority in the Priority List instead of informing him that he had failed in the written examination.
Case Title: BAIKUNTHA NATH DAS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1339
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that the Petitioner's voluntary retirement could not have been cancelled after it was accepted in the first place.
Title: MOHAMMAD WASIQ NADEEM KHAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1340
Human rights activist Nadeem Khan told the Delhi High Court that he will cooperate and continue to participate in Delhi Police's investigation against him in the case alleging that he promoted enmity and hatred.
The court disposed of the pleas filed by Khan and Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the former on November 30. Khan is the National Secretary of the organisation.
Title: AJEESH KALATHIL GOPI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1341
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) raising allegations of sexual harassment of women in the Indian film industry.
Case title: Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Telegram Fz-Llc & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1342
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of Niva Bupa insurance company, restraining unknown defendants from publishing, distributing or disclosing its customers' personal data in a ransomware extortion threat that sought to leak the confidential data.
Case Title: SULTANA BEGUM v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1343
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by one Sultana Begum, seeking possession of Red Fort, claiming herself to be the widow of the great grandson of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II.
Case Title: ADO INDIA PVT. LTD. versus ATS HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1344
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has held that any error in an order passed by the court in the Arbitration Proceedings can be corrected under sections 152 and 153 of the CPC provided prejudice is not caused to the other party.
Case Title: PROF SACHIDANAND SINHA versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1345
A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Jyoti Singh held that as per the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the Petitioner could not be denied the grant of Leave Encashment under Rule 39(3) of the said Rules.
Delhi High Court Disallows Income Tax Dept From Adjusting Stayed Demand Towards Previous Refund Due To Nokia
Case title: Nokia Solutions And Networks India Pvt. Ltd v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1346
Granting relief to telecom equipment company Nokia, the Delhi High Court disallowed the Income Tax Department from adjusting the outstanding demand raised against the company, towards a previous refund due to it.
Title: SANJAY R HEGDE v. THE MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1347
The Delhi High Court has recently closed the plea filed by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde to restore his suspended twitter account, after it was reinstated in January last year.
Case Title: SEEMA MEHTA versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1348
A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Jyoti Singh held that the Petitioner was entitled to claim medical reimbursement even if the hospital was not the one empanelled under CGHS in case the admission to such hospital was done during an emergency. The Bench held that the Petitioner could not be denied reimbursement as she was severely injured and could not approach the hospitals empanelled under the scheme.
Title: PREETI v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1349
The Delhi High Court has ordered implementation of Avlamban Fund Scheme, 2024 for victims of acid attack who are residents of the national capital or against whom the offence has been committed here, irrespective of their address.
Case title: Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. & ors. vs. M/S. Srmj Business Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1350
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd., which owns and operates the popular Moti Mahal restaurant chains in India and various countries, against trademark and copyright infringement by its ex-franchisee engaged in similar business.
Case Title: M/S GRANDSLAM DEVELOPERS PVT LTD v. AKSHAY GANDHI PROPRIETOR OF PRAXIS DESIGN SOLUTIONS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1351
The Delhi High Court Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the scope of examination in an application under Section 8 of the Act is limited to prima facie examining the validity and existence of the arbitration agreement.
Case title: Forech India Pvt Ltd vs. Shri Inder Pal Singh Bindra Secretary Competition Commission Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1352
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on a company for filing a contempt petition against the Secretary, Competition Commission of India (CCI), which the court described as a 'delaying tactic', to stall an ongoing investigation against the company by the CCI.
Case Title: M/S SATYADHARA COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD v. M/S INDIASIGN PVT Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1353
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any plausible reasons for the delay caused in filing the present appeal.
Take Expeditious Steps To Fill Posts Of Non Official Members Of Delhi Mental Health Authority: High Court To Delhi Govt
Title: AMIT SAHNI v. GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1354
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to take expeditious steps for filling up the posts of non-official members of the Delhi Mental Health Authority.
No Pruning Of Trees Till Forest Department Has SOP On Compliance Under DPTA: Delhi High Court
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1355
The Delhi High Court has directed all the Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCFs) to ensure that no pruning of trees is undertaken till the Department of Forest and Wildlife has guidelines or SOP to ensure that the exercise is done and monitored in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Preservation of Trees Act.
Title: SHABANA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1356
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has recently informed the Delhi High Court that it has developed a portal called “SAHYOG” where authorised agencies of Central Government, States and Union Territories as well as the social media intermediaries will work together to create a safe cyberspace.
Case Title: RAJEEV KUMAR v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (CIC) THROUGH CPIO & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1357
The Delhi High Court has recently held that PhD thesis which does not contain commercially sensitive or proprietary information is not exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of Right to Information Act. 2005.
Title: STATE v. ANAMUL ANSARI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1358
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an order rejecting the application for extension of period of investigation from initial 90 to 180 days under Section 43D(2) of UAPA is an appealable order and not an interlocutory order.
Delhi High Court Quashes ED's Denial Of NOC To Times Of India Group For Overseas Investments
Case title: Times Internet Limited vs. ED & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1359
The Delhi High Court has quashed the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) decision to deny No Objection Certificates (NOC) under Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules, 2022 to media conglomerates Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd and its subsidiary the Times Internet Limited, the digital venture of the Times of India Group.
Case title: M/S Bharti Airtel Limited v. Commissioner, CGST Appeals-1 Delhi (and batch)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1360
The Delhi High Court has held that mobile/ telecommunication towers are movable properties, eligible for availing input tax credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Title: SALIM MALIK @ MUNNA v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1361
The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order framing charges against one Salim Malik booked in a case related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Case title: Just Click Travels Private Limited v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1362
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that service tax is not leviable on amounts claimed by an Assessee as commission or performance linked benefit.
Elections To All Bar Associations Shall Be Held On February 07: Delhi High Court
Title: Nitin Kumar Advocate v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1363
The Delhi High Court has recently ordered that elections to all Bar Associations in the national capital shall be held on February 07, 2025.
Case title: Kshitij Ghildiyal v. Director General Of Gst Intelligence, Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1364
The Delhi High Court has held that grounds of arrest must be furnished to a person arrested under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, 'in writing'.
Title: RAJAT SHARMA & ANR v. TAMARA DOC & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1365
The Delhi High Court has protected the personality rights of senior journalist Rajat Sharma and ordered take down of content generated against him through artificial intelligence and deepfake technology.
Case title: Satya Pal Pathak Through GPA Vijay Kumar Kaushik
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1366
While quashing a Trial Court's order granting leave to defend to a tenant in an eviction petition, the Delhi High Court has observed that when the landlord placed medical records of his various illnesses and the site plan of premises showed lack of alternate accommodation, the Trial Court should not have considered them as triable issues.
Title: DR. RATAN LAL v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1367
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against Ratan Lal, a professor of history at Delhi University, over a social media post in relation to the controversy regarding Gyanvapi Mosque prima facie observing that he had created disturbance of harmony in the society.
Case Title: SATYAVIR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1368
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while dismissing the Petition of an Army Officer held that resignation during the pendency of inquiry or investigation could generally not be accepted regardless of whether the Petitioner was suspended or not.
Case Title: SUBHASH CHANDER BAJAJ (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS v. INDERJIT BAJAJ (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1369
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee has held that the Single Judge has, without interfering with the factual findings arrived at by the learned Arbitrator, correctly applied the settled legal position to the MFS, by holding that the same being a record of prior oral partition of the properties between all the sons of late Mr. Amarnath Bajaj, was only a Memorandum regarding the existing settlement between the parties. Moreover, the court held that the Memorandum of Family Settlement (“MFS”) did not require registration.
Case title: M/S Pawan Hans Limited (Formerly Known As Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited) v. Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1370
The Delhi High Court has held that the supply of helicopters by Pawan Hans Ltd. to the Andaman & Nicobar Islands administration, under an agreement executed in the year 2003, is not exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Case title: Ajit Kumar vs. State Nct Of Delhi and Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1371
While quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against an accused, the Delhi High Court reiterated that if an accused is found innocent in disciplinary proceedings and the same charges are levelled in the criminal case, then there is no justifiable reason to continue the criminal proceedings.
Title: ADITYA SINGH (MINOR) v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1372
The Delhi High Court has held that the law does not commend a total 'hands off' approach for Courts where the answer key is demonstrably wrong, underscoring that injustice caused to a candidate must be undone.
Title: JASDEEP SINGH & ANR v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1373
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that whether a word or sentence outrages a woman's modesty would depend on the background from which she has and the circumstances surrounding her.
Case Title: LAS GROUND FORCE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOLDAIR HANDLING SA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1374
The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that if the respondent is denied participating in any tender process and ultimately, in the arbitration proceedings and then in the award, it is held that the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, then irreparable loss will be caused to the respondent. The court held that restraining the respondent from participating in the bid will actually thwart competition.
Case Title: M/S RCC INFRAVENTURES LTD & ORS v. M/S DMI FINANCE PVT LTD & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1375
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal have invested a lot of time, effort and energy in the arbitral proceedings. The essence of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a litigant-centric process to expedite the disposal of cases and reduce the cost of litigation.
Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Former IAS Puja Khedkar
Case Title: Puja Khedkar v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1376
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by former probationer IAS officer Puja Khedkar who is accused of “misrepresenting and falsifying facts" in her application for Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination, 2022.
Case Title: SV v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1377
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that victims of rape, acid attack and sexual attacks as well as POCSO cases survivors are to be provided free medical treatment in all government and private hospitals and nursing homes.
Title: VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS v. SH SUBHASISH PANDA and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1378
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for demolition and reconstruction of Signature View Apartments in city's Mukherjee Nagar which was found to be unfit for habitation by structural experts and have been declared as dangerous.
Case title: Deep Minor Through Next Friend vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1379
While hearing a minor boy's plea against non-issuance of Scheduled Caste certificate by the State on the ground that the application could only be accepted if the mother is legally divorced or separated, the Delhi High Court said that the terms like 'separated/ divorced/ single women' cannot be restricted to only those women who have a formal divorce or judicial separation decree.
Case Title: M/S. INDURE PVT. LTD v. ANEJA CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1380
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has affirmed that in absence of any positive affirmation on affidavit from the petitioner as to when the award was received, the Court cannot accept the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that as soon as the award was received it was filed by the petitioner.
Case title: HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd vs. Healthcare HCL Reference Laboratories & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1381
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd–one of the promoter companies of HCL Group of companies–while hearing its plea alleging the trademark infringement of its 'HCL' mark by a company providing healthcare services.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1382
The Delhi High Court has recently directed all the Family Courts in the national capital to ensure that the cross-examinations of witnesses are completed as expeditiously as possible, without causing any undue harassment or embarrassment to the parties.
Case title: Rahul Mavai vs. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1383
While hearing a writ petition moved after a delay of six years, the Delhi High Court deprecated the practice of litigants seeking condonation of delay merely on the ground that their counsel was negligent or indolent.
[Arbitration Act] Friendly Consultation Necessary Before Issuing Section 21 Notice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S N. J. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus M/S CAPITALGRAM MARKETING AND TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1384
The Delhi High Court bench of J. C. Hari Shankar has held that in the present case there is no scope for negotiation between the parties, much less friendly negotiations.
Case Title: Pr. CIT vs. International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1385
The Delhi High Court recently accepted that the interest received on borrowed funds, which were temporarily held in interest bearing deposit, is a part of the capital cost and is required to be credited to Capital Work In Progress.
Delhi High Court Bars Non-Advocates From Appearing Before Consumer Courts
Title: ANUJ KUMAR CHAUHAN AND ANR v. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1386
The Delhi High Court has barred the practise of permitting non-Advocates or agents to appear before the Consumer Courts here on the basis of authority letters issued by lawyers, with immediate effect.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1387
The Delhi High Court has recently ordered signing of an MoU between Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Delhi Government by January 05, 2025, for implementing PM- Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (PM-ABHIM) scheme in the national capital.
'Rejection Of Disability Pension Should Be Based On Reasoned Order ': Delhi High Court
Case Title: EX U/NVK (ME) PRAVINDERA SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1388
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that since the Petitioner's disabilities arose while he was in service, the possibility of the disabilities having arisen due to being in service could not be ruled out. The Bench further held that the Respondents did not explain as to why they did not consider the opinion of the Medical Board in not granting the disability element of pension to the petitioner and failed to prove the condition for non-entitlement of the Disability Pension to the petitioner.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1389
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that it is not essential to arrest a person who voluntarily appears before the Court or Magistrate, pursuant to the application filed by the Investigating Officer, for giving specimen signature or handwriting.
Case Title: MS Enterprises vs. Sales Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1390
The Delhi High Court held that the application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration could not have been dismissed, when apart from using the phrase “any supporting documents” and “others”, no further reason was assigned as to why the said application was dismissed.
Case title: Mohd Abdul Rehman vs. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1391
While hearing an appeal against the conviction of a member of Al-Qaida in Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Delhi High Court has observed that contemplation of a terrorist act for years even if it may be carried out to after several years constitutes a terrorist act.
Case title: MS RKSV Securities India Pvt. Ltd. Upstox vs. John Does And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1392
The Delhi High Court has in an interim order restrained unknown entities from infringing on the 'UPSTOX' trademarks, work marks and copyrighted photographs–an online trading application owned by RKSV Securities India Pvt. Ltd which is an Indian broking firm providing stock trading opportunities.
Case Title: Principal CIT vs. M/s Hespera Reality Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1393
The Delhi High Court held that proviso to Sec 10(38) cannot be read in reverse to mean that if gains are not included as book profits u/s 115JB, the same are liable to be included as income for purposes of assessment to tax under the normal provisions.
Title: SHIV KUMAR v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1394
The Delhi High Court has observed that medical negligence cannot be established by mere dissatisfaction or the assertion of an 'expected standard of care', rather it must be demonstrated that the doctor's conduct fell below the level of a reasonably competent practitioner in similar circumstances.