Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023 - Part IV (Citations 1101 - 1357)

1/7/24, 6:45 PM Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023: Part IV [Citations 1101- 1357]
(/)
 
Account
Search on LiveLaw 
Home (/) / Top Stories (/top-stories) / Delhi High Court Annual Digest...
Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023: Part IV [Citations 1101- 1357]
Nupur Thapliyal
(/nupur)
31 Dec 2023 12:32 PM
Share this

Listen to this Article
0:00 / 4:05:21
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1357
NOMINAL INDEX
DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1101
Shreyash Retail Private Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax TDS Circle 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1102
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/delhi-high-court-annual-digest-2023-part-iv-citations-1101-1357-245571 1/106
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHAHJAHANABAD REDEVLOPMENT CORPORATION (SRDC), GNCTD &
ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1103
VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1104
Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1105
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1106
SAKH ALAM @ SHEKH ALAM v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1107
Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education
through its Chairman & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1109
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1110
GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1111
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCTD AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1112
Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115
Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1116
Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117
Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw
(Del) 1118
Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1119
Union of India & Anr. v. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1120
SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax LiveLaw (Del) 1122
Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1123
RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1124
DR ZAHEER AHMED v. PREETI SUDAN SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1125
PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126
ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1127
Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1128
MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1130
Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1131
AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132
MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023
LiveLaw (Del) 1133
MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134
Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1135
Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1136
Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1137
INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1138
ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters 2023
LiveLaw (Del) 1139
MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1140
BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR 2023
LiveLaw (Del) 1141
Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1142
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1143
Court on its own motion v. M/s Obssiobn Naaz & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1144
PCIT Versus M/S Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1145
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VICKY AGGARWAL AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1146
Rihan v. The State (GNCTD) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1147
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1148
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1149
Trusted Info Systems Private Limited v. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team & Anr. 2023
LiveLaw (Del) 1150
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1151
M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CONCESSIONAIRE OF DELHI METRO RAIL

CORPORATION) v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1152
Scrum Alliance, Inc v. Mr. Prem Kumar S. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1153
SHRI NARESH KUMAR V/s THE WIRE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1154
Prasanta Karmakar v. Paralympic Committee of India through its Chariman & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1155
SANJAY KUMAR VALMIKI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1156
Neelu Kumari & Ors v. Om & Anr (Bajaj Alliance Gen Ins Co Ltd) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1157
Aman Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. Orient Lites 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1158
Varun v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1159
Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1160
AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1161
SUJAAT ALI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS v. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw
(Del) 1162
CHHAYA TYAGI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1163
MAJIBULLAH MOHAMMAD HANEEF v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1164
TARUN KUMAR v. PARMANAND GARG 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1165
BDR Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1166
Metal Engineering and Forging Company v. Central Warehousing Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1167
Italian Thai Development v. NTPC Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1168
LAXMI KOHLU GHAR THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH ARUN KUMAR v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF
PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw
(Del) 1169
RAJINDER SINGH CHADHA v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1170
Mis Deco Industries India v. JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd through its AO Kumar
Gaurav & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1171
Preeti v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1172
Mohit Kumar and Anr. v. Office of the Insurance Ombudsman and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1173
Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1174
Universal City Studios LLC. & Ors. v. Fztvseries.Mobi & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1175
Ms SK Educations Pvt Ltd v. Sripathi Bhushan Srichandan & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1176
AERO CLUB v. M/S SAHARA BELTS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1177
Resorts Consortium India Limited Versus ITAT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1178
Muneer Ahmad v. Registrar of Trade Marks 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1179
Upinder Kaur Malhotra v. Capt Teghjeet Singh Malhotra and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1180
Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1181
BABY ADIRA JATIA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
FAHIM v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1183
Shubham Chopra v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1184
Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd v. ATS Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1185
RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MADHURI JAIN GROVER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1186
AVTAR SINGH KOCCHAR @ DOLLY v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1187
H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1188
Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited and Ors v. Uem India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1189
JATIN KHURANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1190
Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1191
ACHLA DHAWAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1192
MOHD. TASLIM ALI v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1193
BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1194
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and Other Connected Matters 2023 LiveLaw
(Del) 1195
Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1196
Pooja Menghani v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1197
ANJURI KUMARI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1198
Rahul Bhardwaj and Anr v. The Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1199
Nikhil Rana v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
M 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1200
MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1201
Mr. Maahi Neil Jaipal (Minor) v. University of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1202
Shri Chintan Bindra Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1203
SOMDUTT SINGH @ SHIVAM v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1204
MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. DIALMYTRIP TECH PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1205
Vishnu Das Through Peherokar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1206
N.K. Sharma v. The General Manager Northern Railways 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1207
Taqa India Power Ventures v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1208
Maj Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagale v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1209
Sri Ganesh Engineering Works v. Northern Railways 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210
Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1211
KIRAN JUNEJA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1212
NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD. v. THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS RIGHTS
AUTHORITY AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1213
CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1214
S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1215
N v. The Union of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1216
S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1217
Citius Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1218
ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220
Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1221
PCIT Versus M/S Inductis India Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1222
Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1223
SAIL v Uniper Global Commodities 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1224
Ravi Gupta v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1225
CASTROL LIMITED & ANR. v. VOLTRANIC INDIA LUBRICANTS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1226
SMT. VIMMI CHAWLA v. DEEPAK SETHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1227
SHARIQ v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1228
Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1229
MASTER SINGHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1230
Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1231
Arpit Bhargava and Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1232
KOHLI SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHI SPORTS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1233
NARENDER JAIN & ANR v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS and Other Connected
Matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1234
Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v. LDD Bioscience Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1235
New Delhi NatureSociety v. Director Horticulture DDA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1236
THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS LAW FIRM (REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATE
ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1237
CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. CITY NEWS NETWORK & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1238
SMT. RUBINA & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1240
VICKY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1241
Divender v. LG of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1242
Vikas Malhotra v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1243
CIT Versus Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1244
FAIZY KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
KESHAV PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1246
MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1247
VINEET JHAVAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1248
Defsys Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India, LPA 672/2023 (and connected matter) 2023 LiveLaw
(Del) 1249
J.S.R. Constructions v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1250
Sanjiv Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1251
AWADHESH YADAV v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1252
Kanta v. Gurvinder Kapoor & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1253
BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1254
Shourya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1255
LAMBODER JHA v. GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1256
CIT Versus Cairnhill Cipef Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1257
SHARAD VASHISHT GENERAL SECRETARY W ONE DESU ROAD MEHRAULI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF
DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1258
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. BRIJESH SHUKLA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1259
House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. House of Pathology Labs Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1260
Umaxe Projects Pvt Ltd v. AIR Force Naval Housing Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1261
Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262
Havells India Limited v. Polycab India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263
DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1264
Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1265
PCIT Versus Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1266
Subhajit Dutta v. Principal District and Sessions Judge (South Delhi), Saket Courts Complex, and Ors
ATT SYS India Pvt Ltd Estex Tele Private Limited Consortium Versus The Commissioner Goods And
Services Tax Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1268
Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax Act
& Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1269
Neeraj Paper Marketing Ltd. Versus Special Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, Gnctd &
Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1270
AMAZON WHOLESALE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING,
NEW DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1271
PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL
DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1272
ovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
Dr Suman Gupta v. Ravinder Pratap & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1274
SHANKAR @ GORI SHANKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1275
Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276
Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National
Faceless Assessment Centre 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1277
PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1278
IOCL Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1279
BINEET SINGH BISHT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1280
Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Agro Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi- East
Indusind Bank Limited Versus Department Of Trade & Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi 2023
LiveLaw (Del) 1282
VIREN SINGH v. MADHUP VYAS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1283
TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1284
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1285
VISHAL YADAV v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1286
Court in its own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1287
GOOGLE LLC v. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1288
INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS v. WORLDDEVCORP TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD &
ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1290
MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1291
Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1292
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL & ANR. v. ARYAN KUMAR THROUGH FATHER
RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1293
DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1294
PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1295
HUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH AND CO. KG. v. SANDEEP ARORA TRADING AS
ARRAS THE BOSS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1296
U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1297
NARENDRA TYAGI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1298
Usha Bansal v. Genesis Finance Co. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1299
INDIWAR PARIJAT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS and other connected matter 2023
LiveLaw (Del) 1300
PCIT Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1301
ARIF v. STATE and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1302
MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1303
PCIT Versus M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1304
CIT Versus Hersh Washesher Chadha 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1305
M/S KUEHNE + NAGEL PVT. LTD. v. MR. PREM SINGHEE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1306
THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v. SHEELA ABHAY LODHA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw
(Del) 1307
KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1308
DR. ARUN MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1309
Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1310
ATMARAM SARAOGI v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1311
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other
connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1312
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1313
NITIN GARG v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1314
V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v. MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES AND ANR. & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1316
AMRIT LAL WADHERA & ANR. v. SAROJ SUNEJA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1317
SHISHIR CHAND v. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1318
KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1319
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1320
BHARAT NAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1321
Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1322
JASPREET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1324
WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. BAJAAR LLC AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1325
PCIT Versus B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1326
Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1327
Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1328
VINOD KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1329
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CRIME-III, DELHI v. SHADAB
MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023
LiveLaw (Del) 1332
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1333
TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. KABIR SHANKAR BOSE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1334
KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1335
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1336
NCLT BAR ASSOCIATION THR ITS SECRETARY GENERAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw
(Del) 1338
R.K. GUPTA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR. 2023
LiveLaw (Del) 1339
Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1340
The Hershey Company v. Atul Jalan trading as Akshat Online Traders 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1341
TV Today Network Limited v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1342
QUANTUM UNIVERSITY v. INTERNATIONAL QUANTUM UNIVERSITY FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INC

HARISH CHANDER @ SURAJ BHATT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1344
AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1345
RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED v. STATE BANK OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1346
SMAAASH LEISURE LTD V. AMBIENCE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1347
BIKRAMJEET SINGH BHULLAR v. YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1348
CHANDNI CHOWK SARV VYAPAR MANDAL (REGD.) v. DELHI POLICE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1349
PARAMEDICAL TECHNICAL STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF MCD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
M/S Sethi Sons (India) Versus Assistant Commissioner And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1351
Triveni Enterprises Limited Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1352
Eden Castle School and Anr. v. Govt. Of Nct of Delhi and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1353
Indus Towers Limited v. Sistema Shyam Teleserivices Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1354
M/S Aaira Batteries Versus Principal Commissioner Of Department Of Trade Taxes, Government Of NCT
Of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1355
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Anr v. M/s Hosmac Projects 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1356
NEC CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S PLUS91 SECURITY SOLUTION 2023 LiveLaw (Del)
1357
DDA Demolitions | Ambit Of Writ Court Does Not Extend To Resolving Intricate Disputes Over Boundary
Delineations: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-writ-
jurisdiction-property-dispute-boundary-delineations-dda-demolition-241941)
Title: DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the ambit of a writ court does not extend to resolving intricate
disputes over boundary delineations which require thorough examination of documents, surveys, maps,
an assessment of their validity and ground study of areas.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that such
tasks squarely fall within the expertise and jurisdiction of the statutory authorities which are constituted
under relevant land statutes enacted by the State legislature.
Delhi High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The Grant Of An LDC Permitting Deduction Of
0.01% TDS (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-non-speaking-order-ldc-
deduction-001-tds-241964)
Case Title: Shreyash Retail Private Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax TDS Circle
The Delhi High Court has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the grant of a lower deduction of tax
certificate (LDC) permitting the deduction of 0.01% TDS.
The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the
reasons furnished by the Respondent/department qua the Application i.e., as to why the Petitioners'
request that TDS should not be deducted at a rate of 0.01%, hinges on broad generalisations in relation to
the propriety of projected estimations of revenue and tax liability and accordingly has been had been
issued mechanically reflecting non-application of mind.
Chandni Chowk Re-Development Work Should Continue And Be Maintained: High Court To Delhi Govt
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-re-development-chandni-chowk-delhi-
government-241976)
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHAHJAHANABAD REDEVLOPMENT CORPORATION (SRDC),

GNCTD & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has requested the Delhi Government to ensure that the re-development work of
city's Chandni Chowk is continued and maintained.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a
suo motu PIL registered last year on the basis of a newspaper report concerning various stages of
Chandni Chowk's development and the delay which occurred in its implementation.
Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Alleging Irregularities In 'Special Olympics Bharat', Directs Compliance Of
National Sports Code In Elections (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
national-sports-code-elections-office-bearers-special-olympics-bharat-241986)
Title: VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court has asked Special Olympics Bharat to ensure strict compliance with National Sports
Development Code, 2011, for all upcoming elections of office-bearers at national and state level.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also asked the
national sports federation to comply with the Code for the selection of sportspersons and national
coaches for upcoming Special Olympic World Games, 2025.
Throwing On Another Person Any Liquid Or Substance Other Than 'Acid' Not An Offence U/S 326B IPC:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-
court/Throwing%20On%20Another%20Person%20Any%20Liquid%20Or%20Substance%20Other%20Than%20'
Case Title: Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr.
"...under Section 326-B of the IPC, an offence is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw
'acid' on another person, and not any other liquid or substance,” the Delhi High Court has held.
It thus quashed an FIR registered on allegations of a woman throwing acid on her sister-in-law, observing
that the substance thrown was not found to be 'acid' and the allegation appeared to be motivated by an
ongoing property dispute between the parties.
School Safety Standards: Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Inspections By Child Safety Monitoring
Committee (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-school-safety-standards-
child-safety-monitoring-committee-242049)
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to be followed by the court-appointed Child Safety
Monitoring Committee during the course of its inspections of schools in the national capital, in respect of
minimum standards of school safety.
A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Court) and
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered that no member will be allowed to inspect the schools independently
and that the three member Committee as a whole headed by the Chairperson will inspect the schools.
Merely Because Complainant Married Accused Does Not Entail Quashing Of Rape, POCSO FIR: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-complainant-marriage-
accused-quashing-of-fir-rape-pocso-act-242051)
Title: SAKH ALAM @ SHEKH ALAM v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the complainant married the accused does not entail
quashing of an FIR registered for the offence of rape and under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain refused to quash an FIR registered under the POCSO Act after the accused
and complainant sought its quashing on the ground that they had settled their disputes, got married and
were blessed with a son.
Can't Permit All Cases Against CBSE To Be Filed In Delhi When Most Vital Part Of Cause
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-dismisses-appeal-against-cbse-
doctrine-of-forum-conveniens-242057)Of Action Arose Elsewhere: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-dismisses-appeal-against-cbse-
doctrine-of-forum-conveniens-242057)
Case Title: Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary
Education through its Chairman & Ors
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently dismissed an LPA seeking relief against CBSE, holding
that though the Board has its HQs in Delhi, the appellant's grievance was not directly attributable to it.
Speaking of forum conveniens, the Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela,
observed:
“…the doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication
of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the
interest of justice”.
Finalize Proposal On Establishing Specialized Training Academy For Public Prosecutors Within Four
Weeks: High Court To Delhi Govt (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
proposal-specialized-training-academy-public-prosecutors-delhi-government-242059)
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to finalize within four weeks its proposal
regarding the establishment of a specialised training academy for public prosecutors.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the public prosecutors shoulder weighty responsibilities in the
discharge of their duties and directed the Delhi Government to file an affidavit outlining the steps taken
by it.
Delhi High Court Directs DCP Legal To Convene Meeting Regarding SOP On Security Measures During
College Fests (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-police-dcp-legal-
meeting-sop-m-security-measures-college-fests-242079)
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Police's DCP (Legal) to convene a meeting to put in place the
standard operating procedure (SOP) regarding the security measures to be followed during college fests
that are organised by colleges or Universities in the national capital.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the
representatives of IIT Delhi, Delhi Universities and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University shall also
be called in the meeting.
Delhi High Court Seeks DDA's Stand On CBI Probe Into Allotment Of Properties Based On Forged
Recommendation Letters (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-dda-cbi-
probe-allotment-of-properties-forged-recommendation-letters-242103)
Title: GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court has sought stand of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as to whether the
matter of allotment of 128 properties, on prime locations in the national capital, based on “forged
recommendation letters” by Land and Building Department be referred for further investigation to Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the value of the properties, even at an average price, would be in
thousands of crores, and that the total value even by conservative estimates could be over Rs. 2000
crores.
Conduct Security And Social Audit Of DUSIB Shelter Homes: High Court To Delhi Govt's Chief Secretary
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-security-and-social-audit-dusib-
shelter-homes-delhi-government-chief-secretary-242127)
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCTD AND ORS
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government's Chief Secretary to undertake a security and
social audit of all the shelter homes under the supervision of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
(DUSIB) to ensure that they are occupied by eligible persons.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme
Court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the exercise be done positively within six weeks.
Court Exercising Powers Under Section 34 Of A&C Act Cannot Allow Claims Rejected By Arbitral Tribunal:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/court-exercising-powers-under-
section-34-of-the-ac-act-cannot-allow-claims-rejected-by-the-arbitral-tribunal-delhi-high-court-242130)
Case Title: Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot
allow claims which were disallowed/rejected by the arbitral tribunal.
The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that Section 34 of the A&C Act
does not permit the Court to rewrite an arbitral award and the Court can either set aside or upheld the
arbitral award.
Once Granted Bail, Accused Must Not Only 'Join' Investigation But Also 'Participate' In It: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-bail-accused-join-investigation-
participation-242132)
Title: VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has said that an accused, once granted bail, is always expected to not only join the
investigation but also participate in it, while underscoring that there is a palpable difference between
“joining” and “participating” in probe.
“In any event, this Court wishes to take note of the fact that in numerous cases pending trial,
unfortunately, there is a recent growing trend wherein an accused, despite either making a statement
through counsel in the Court or despite conditions being imposed by the Court, merely chooses to
'physically' join investigation on paper, without any actual participation,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.
Continuing To Contest The Suit Does Not Waive The Right To Arbitration When A Section 8 Objection Was
Raised In Written Submissions And Arguments: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-
high-court/continuing-to-contest-the-suit-does-not-waive-the-right-to-arbitration-when-a-section-8-
objection-was-raised-in-written-submissions-and-arguments-delhi-high-court-242174)
Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd
The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot be deemed to have waived off its right to arbitration
merely because it continued to contest the suit when it had specifically raised objection to the
maintainability of the suit due to the presence of the arbitration agreement.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that when a party takes a specific objection predicated on
Section 8 in the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) seeking leave to defend the suit and that
objection, thereafter, is reiterated in the written statement and arguments. It cannot be said that the party
has waived the right to arbitration.
Before Issuing Summons U/S 138 NI Act, Only Prima Facie View On Presence Of Basic Ingredients Of
The Offence Necessary: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-upholds-summons-in-section-138-ni-act-case-section-202-crpc-242172)
Case Title: Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary
Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently upheld summoning orders passed in a complaint
case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that evidence need not be gone into by the MM while
conducting inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of NI Act.
“At the stage of issuance of summons, for the purpose of Section 202 of the CrPC read with section 145
of the NI Act, the learned MM is only required to examine whether the basic ingredients of an offence
under Section 138 of the NI Act have been prima facie made out by the complainant and supported by
the pre-summoning evidence led on behalf of the complainant.”
No Separate Application Under Section 8 Of The A&C Act Is Required When The Objection Is Duly Raised
In The Written Submissions: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/no-
separate-application-under-section-8-of-the-ac-act-is-required-when-the-objection-is-duly-raised-in-the-
written-submissions-delhi-high-court-242177)
Case Title: Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd
The Delhi High Court has held that once a party has duly taken objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to
entertain the suit due to the presence of the arbitration clause between the parties in its written
statement, it would be sufficient compliance of Section 8 of the A&C Act and there is no need for a
separate application.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that once an arbitration clause has been extracted by a party
in its written submission to object to the jurisdiction of the Court, the mere fact that the party did not
separately request that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration, would be of little
consequence.
Interested Party Cannot Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally, Award Passed By An Ineligible Arbitrator A Nullity:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ruling-unilateral-
appointment-of-arbitrator-interested-party-section-11-arbitration-act-242189)
Case Title: Babu Lal and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Anr.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party interested in the dispute cannot
unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, and if any Award is passed as a result of such unilateral appointment,
the same would be a nullity.
The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain, noted that the respondents'
nomination of the Arbitrator was without reference to the court in terms of Section 11 of A&C Act.
Interpretation Of Contract Primarily A Matter For Arbitrator To Determine, Scope Of Section 34 Arbitration
Act Limited: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-allows-
restoration-of-arbitral-award-single-judge-authority-section-34-of-ac-act-242190)
Case Title: Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Anant Raj Limited
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently allowed restoration of an arbitral award, noting that it
was not within the scope of the Single Judge u/s 34 of A&C Act to re-interpret the contract between the
parties and substitute the finding of the Arbitrator's despite it being plausible and well-reasoned.
The court referred to Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI and said:
“…a change that has been brought in by the Amendment Act, 2015 is that the construction of the terms of
a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a manner
that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in short that the arbitrator's view is not even a possible
view to take”.
Govt Can Only 'Monitor' MRP Of Non-Scheduled Formulations Under Drugs (Price Control) Order, Not Fix
Or Revise It: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ruling-
government-cannot-revise-mrp-of-nonscheduled-formulations-drugs-price-control-order-242197)
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently held that the government only has power to “monitor”
the maximum retail price (MRP) of non-scheduled formulations, and not to fix or revise it. It was added
that in case there is an increase in the MRP beyond this limit, the consequences are prescribed in Para 20
itself.
The judgment came to be passed in a batch of LPAs filed by pharmaceutical companies, bringing into
question interpretation of Para 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 (DPCO 2013), which deals with
monitoring of non-scheduled formulations' MRP.
Delhi High Court Rejects Interim Plea To Reopen Roshanara Club Sealed By DDA
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-opening-roshanara-club-sealed-dda-
242256)
Title: SH. MANISH AGGARWAL v. THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has rejected an application seeking opening of city's 100-year-old Roshanara Club,
which was sealed and locked by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in September.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the interim application filed in the petition moved by a member of
the club Manish Aggarwal.
Wrongful Application Of Foreign Contribution By Trust Not In Accordance With Trust's Objective: Delhi
High Court Upholds Reassessment (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/wrongful-
application-foreign-contribution-trust-objective-delhi-high-court-reassessment-242304)
Case Title: Enviornics Trust Versus The Dept. Commissioner Of Income Tax
The Delhi High Court has upheld the reassessment proceedings against a trust for wrongful application
of foreign contribution, which was against the objective of the trust.
The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the
AO based its opinion on tangible and concrete information in the form of the petitioner's trust deed and
the statement of the managing trustee that certain identified foreign contributions received by the
petitioner were utilized for a purpose divergent from its object as disclosed in the trust deed. The
wrongful application of the exemption availed under Section 11 or Section 12 of the Income Tax Act in
relation to such funds would undoubtedly result in the AO forming the subjective satisfaction that the
wrongly availed exemption vis-à-vis foreign contributions escaped income for the purpose of assessment
under the Income Tax Act.
Court Won't Insist For Bank Guarantee If Enforcement Of Award Is Not Frustrated In Section 9 Petition:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ruling-bank-
guarantee-not-mandated-section-9-arbitration-act-arbitral-award-enforcement-242334)
Case Title: Skypower Solar India Pvt Ltd v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE
The Delhi High Court held that the Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act would not
order furnishing of Bank Guarantee (BG) to secure the claims of a party pending the arbitration
proceedings, unless it shown that the order party is alienating its assets or acting in a manner that would
frustrate the enforcement of the Arbitral Award.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that an order under Section 9 directing
furnishing bank guarantee to secure the claims is akin to an order of attachment before judgment as
provided under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. It held that the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act is not
unduly bound by texts of CPC, however, it cannot pass any order in disregard to the principles of CPC.
Pendency Of Vigilance Inquiry No Impediment To Travel Abroad: Delhi High Court

(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-vigilance-inquiry-travel-abroad-
242343)
Title: RUHI ARORA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court has observed that pendency of a vigilance inquiry cannot be an impediment for an
individual to travel abroad.
Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while granting relief to a woman, accused in a
corruption case, to travel abroad from November 29 to December 14 for her honeymoon.
Frame Policy On Online Sale Of Drugs Within Eight Weeks, Else Joint Secretary Should Appear: Delhi High
Court To Centre (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-policy-online-sale-
drugs-centre-242358)
Title: DR ZAHEER AHMED v. PREETI SUDAN SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected
matters
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Union Government to frame within eight weeks the policy
to regulate online sale of drugs or medicines.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that if
the policy is not framed within the stipulated time, the concerned Joint Secretary dealing with the subject
shall remain present in court on the next date of hearing.
Yemen Supreme Court Dismissed Malayali Nurse's Appeal Against Death Sentence : Centre Informs Delhi
High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-nimisha-priya-mother-
representation-travel-permission-death-row-242372)
Title: PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that the Supreme Court in Yemen on
November 13 had dismissed the appeal of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya against the death sentence
imposed on her for murdering a Yemeni national. The final decision now lies with the President of the
Yemen, the Centre added.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the mother of Nimisha Priya seeking permission to travel to
Yemen to negotiate with the victim's family by paying blood money.
Delhi High Court Directs Acko General Insurance To Take Down Social Media Posts Using St+art India's
'Humanity' Mural (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-acko-general-
insurance-social-media-posts-start-indias-humanity-mural-242388)
Title: ST+ART INDIA FOUNDATION & ANR. v. ACKO GENERAL INSURANCE
The Delhi High Court has directed insurance company Acko General Insurance to take down its social
media posts using a mural titled “Humanity” in a copyright infringement suit filed by St+art India, an
organization that works on art projects in public spaces.
As the insurance company agreed to take down the social media posts and other online postings using
the mural, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:
“…accordingly, it is directed that the Defendant shall take down the said listings within 72 hours. Specific
URLs displaying the said mural on the Defendant's posts, if any, may also be communicated to the
Defendant by the Plaintiffs. The above order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
both parties.”
Delhi HC Accepts Litigant's Apology For Non-Disclosure Of Order Before Lower Court, Sets Aside Order
Imposing Cost Noting There Was No Malice (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-accepts-unconditional-apology-litigant-bonafide-mistake-no-malice-242396)
Case Title: Maps Creation Private Limited v. M/s English Premium & Ors.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court recently accepted a litigant's unconditional apology for
failing to produce the court's stay order before the District Judge at the time of listing for final arguments.
“…the mistake is definitely a serious one since order of the higher Court ought to have been necessarily
communicated to the Court upon which the said order would have been binding,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Pulls Up MCD For Not Taking Possession Of Public Park Alleged To Be Illegally
Occupied By Jama Masjid Authorities (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-mcd-possession-public-park-jama-masjid-242420)
Title: MOHD ARSLAN V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
The Delhi High Court on Friday pulled up the Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to take
possession of a public park near city's Jama Masjid, observing that a statutory authority cannot lose
possession of a public park.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by MCD's
counsel that the Shahi Imam or Jama Masjid authorities are allegedly in illegal possession and have
locked the park in question.
Arbitration | Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Steel Manufacturer-Arcelormittal In Section 9
Petition Against GAIL, Says Prima Facie Case Not Made Out (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-
high-court/delhi-high-court-arcelormittal-nippon-steel-india-limited-vs-gail-interim-relief-section-9-petition-
arbitration-act-242421)
Case Title: ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited
The Delhi High Court recently denied urgent interim relief to leading steel manufacturer-ArcelorMittal
Nippon Steel (petitioner) in a claim against GAIL India Ltd., observing that the scope of enquiry u/s 9 of
A&C Act was limited to prima facie examination of the issue, which was not established in the petitioner's
favour.
The petitioner had approached the court seeking stay over a Notice issued by GAIL, statedly to terminate
the LNG Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA) entered by the two. It further sought directions for GAIL to
deliver LNG in accordance with the LSPA.
TRU Can't Issue Clarification Regarding Classification Of Polypropylene Woven And Non-Woven Bags
Under Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/tru-
clarification-classification-polypropylene-woven-non-woven-bags-customs-tariff-act-delhi-high-court-
242426)
Case Title: Association Of Technical Textiles Manufacturers And Processors & Anr. Versus UOI
The Delhi High Court has held that the Tax Research Unit (TRU) cannot issue clarification regarding the
classification of polypropylene woven and non-woven bags under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the department
could not point out any provision of the CGST Act, in terms of which the TRU could be said to have been
clothed with the authority or jurisdiction to render a clarification with respect to the classification of
goods and articles. The Board appears to be the sole recipient of the authority. There is no authority
vested in the TRU to issue the clarification.
Excise Policy: Delhi High Court Allows PMLA Accused To Interact With Daughter Suffering From Paranoid
Schizophrenia Through VC, Denies Interim Bail (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-excise-policy-pmla-interim-bail-daughter-paranoid-schizophrenia-through-vc-242443)
Title: AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
The Delhi High Court on Friday allowed businessman Amit Arora, accused in the PMLA case related to
the excise policy scam, to interact with her 16 years old daughter suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia
through video-conferencing for half an hour twice a week and wished her “complete psychological
recovery” as well as a “life time of positive mental health.”
While Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the interim bail plea moved by Arora on the ground of his
daughter's mental health condition, the court made arrangement for VC meetings and said that the
psychological injury that some children may suffer in such cases need healing.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Extend Hospital Stay Of Amandeep Singh Dhall In Excise Policy Case, Asks
Jail Authorities To Ensure Treatment (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
medical-treatment-amandeep-singh-dhall-excise-policy-case-242444)
Title: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter
The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the duration of medical treatment of businessman and
director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, Amandeep Singh Dhall, who is an accused in the excise policy
scam case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the pleas moved by Dhall in both the cases registered by
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking extension of duration of
his medical examination and treatment at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, pursuant to order passed by the
court.
Coal Scam: Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash ED Summons To West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-coal-scam-enforcement-directorate-
summons-ecir-moloy-ghatak-242446)
Title: MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from summoning
West Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak in future in connection with the coal smuggling case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that it was rather surprising that Ghatak himself had not
appeared before the ED on 11 occasions out of 12 to give the information that was being sought by the
probe agency.
Concealment Of Income Above Rs.50 Lakhs, Extended Period Of Limitation Would Apply: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/concealment-income-extended-period-
limitation-delhi-high-court-242473)
Case Title: Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO
The Delhi High Court has held that an extended period of 10 years would apply in serious tax evasion
cases where there was evidence of concealment of income above Rs. 50 lakhs.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that, as per the
Memorandum, in “normal cases”, no notice was intended to be issued if 3 years had elapsed from the
end of the relevant AY. Notice, beyond the prescribed 3 years from the end of the relevant AY, could be
issued only in a few specific cases. One such example, which is given in the bill, is where the AO was in
possession of evidence that escaped income amounted to Rs. 50 lakhs or more.
Delhi Gymkhana Club Exigible To Tax Under Delhi Tax On Luxuries Act, 1996: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-gymkhana-club-tax-delhi-tax-luxuries-act-delhi-
high-court-242474)
Case Title: Delhi Gymkhana Club Versus Commissioner (Luxury Tax), New Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has held that Delhi Gymkhana Club is exigible to tax under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries
Act, 1996.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the Delhi Tax on
Luxuries Act, 1996, as it stood during the assessment period in question, extended its application also to
the provision of residential accommodation in a club and, in any case, did not at the relevant time exclude
the provisioning of accommodation to members of a club from the expression “luxury”. In fact, the word
“luxury” did not even exist in the statute book prior to its insertion by virtue of the 2012 Amendment Act.
AO Lacked Tangible Material To Form A Belief That Income, Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped
Assessment: Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-
high-court/ao-tangible-material-belief-income-chargeable-tax-escaped-assessment-delhi-high-court-
reassessment-notice-242475)
Case Title: Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer
The Delhi High Court has held that AO did not have the tangible material on record that could have
persuaded him to form the belief that income, otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia, the AO, did not employ diligence while
triggering the reassessment proceedings against the petitioner or assessee. Because AO realized that
the information received by him from ITO (Nahan) concerned the preceding period, he attempted to
commence reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act by simply
comparing the “source of funds” reflected under various heads in the balance sheets for the preceding
AY and the AY in issue.
Delhi High Court Restrains Kerala Based Furniture Store From Using 'IKEA' Mark In Trademark
Infringement Suit (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-kerala-based-
furniture-store-ikea-trademark-infringement-suit-242499)
Title: INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. IKEA LUXURY FURNITURE
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Kerala based furniture store “Ikea Luxury Furniture” from using the
mark “Ikea” either as a trademark or trade name on hoardings, including stationery, banners, handbills,
and promotional materials.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational furniture
company, Inter IKEA Systems BV. It sought protection of its mark 'IKEA'.
Constitute Committee To Supervise Implementation Of Pay Commission Recommendations On School

Staff : High Court To Delhi Govt (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-high-
powered-committee-pay-commissions-salaries-school-staff-delhi-government-242503)
Title: ANJALI VAID AND ORS v. ADARSH WORLD SCHOOL AND ORS and other connected matters
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to constitute a High Powered Committee to
supervise implementation of recommendations prescribed in 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC)
regarding payment of salaries and arrears to staff of private unaided schools and recognized private
unaided minority schools in the national capital.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ordered that the Committee shall be constituted at Central and Zonal levels.
Will Can Be Suspected Only When Substantial Changes Are Introduced By Cuttings And Overwriting: Delhi
High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-will-substantial-changes-
cuttings-overwriting-242508)
Title: MR. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS v. STATE & OTHERS
The Delhi High Court has observed that only where it is found that there are substantial changes sought
to be introduced to a Will by cuttings and overwriting on it, it can be open for the Court to conclude that
the Will is suspect and has to be rejected.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that the effect of cuttings and overwriting in a Will would always depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case.
IPD Rules Do Not Bar Taking Additional Documents On Record After Filing Of Reply Or Counter-Statement
To Rectification Petition: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-ipd-rules-additional-documents-reply-counter-statement-rectification-petition-242518)
Title: BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR
The Delhi High Court has ruled that its Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, do not contain
any provision which bars taking additional documents on record after reply or counter-statement is filed
by the respondent to the rectification petition.
“The IPD Rules do not contain any provision which proscribes taking of additional documents on record,
unlike the Original Side Rules, which does contain such a provision, in Rule 147 in Chapter VII,” Justice C
Hari Shankar held.
Can A Patent Office Assign A Patent Application Filed Before It To Another Patent Office? Delhi High
Court Asks (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-patent-application-
transfer-patent-office-filo-edtech-inc-vs-union-of-india-patents-act-242525)
Case Title: Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr.
Hearing a case where an application seeking grant of patent, filed before the Bombay Patent Office, was
assigned to the Delhi Patent Office, the Delhi High Court on Thursday posed two interesting questions –
(i) whether such practice was permissible, and (ii) if permissible, whether it precluded an unsuccessful
applicant from filing an appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Statedly, after the appellant's patent application was assigned to the Delhi Patent Office, not only did the
examination took place at Delhi, but also the First Examination Report (FER) was issued at Delhi.
Can't Expect Every Doctor To Know Distinction Between 'Aziwok' And 'Aziwake': Delhi High Court Grants
Injunction In Favour Of Dr. Reddy's (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
grants-injunction-aziwok-vs-aziwake-trademark-infringement-case-242558)
Case Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Finding a prima facie case of infringement, the Delhi High Court recently granted injunction in favour of
Dr. Reddy's-AZIWOK against defendant's AZIWAKE, noting that the minuscule difference between the two
words was too slight to detract from the overall phonetic similarity between them.
“To the ear of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, it is, therefore, clear that
the words “AZIWOK” and “AZIWAKE” are phonetically deceptively similar,” the court said.
Delhi High Court Says Contempt Action For Attack On Local Commissioners Maintainable As They Are
Extension Of Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-says-contempt-
action-for-attack-on-local-commissioners-maintainable-as-they-are-an-extension-of-court-242604)
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. M/s Obssiobn Naaz & Ors.
During the hearing of a criminal contempt case initiated in respect of a violent attack on Local
Commissioners (LCs) out for inspection in 2014, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court opined that LCs
are an extension of the court, and as such, it had jurisdiction to initiate/continue contempt proceedings.
Reassessment Notice Severed At Old Address Despite Knowing Assessee's New Address: Delhi High
Court Quashes Assessment Order (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/reassessment-
notice-old-address-assessee-new-address-delhi-high-court-assessment-order-242632)
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order as the notice under Section 148 was improperly
served as it was sent to the old address, despite the fact that the department was aware of the new
address.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that no notice, under
Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, was issued to the respondent or assessee before framing the
assessment order. Thus, the assessment order, which has been framed without a notice being issued to
the respondent or assessee under Section 143(2), is unsustainable in law.
Delhi High Court Directs BCD To Take Action Against Lawyer If Found Guilty Of 'Manufacturing' Order
Purportedly Passed By IPAB (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-bcd-
action-lawyer-manufacturing-ipab-order-242639)
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VICKY AGGARWAL AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to take action against a lawyer if he is found
guilty of "manufacturing" an order purportedly passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)
in 2016.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur however discharged the
clients who engaged the lawyer to represent their case before the Board after an unconditional apology
was tendered for any inconvenience caused to the court, with an undertaking that they shall be careful
while filing any document in judicial proceedings in future.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Murdering Wife, Reiterates Ligature Marks In Case Of
Hanging Different From Strangulation (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-grants-bail-wife-murder-section-306-ipc-suicide-vs-homicide-242670)
Case Title: Rihan v. The State (GNCTD)
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man being prosecuted under Sections 302 (murder), 498A
(cruelty) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) IPC, in relation to his wife's death.
“In view of the categoric opinion of the doctor that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of
antemortem hanging, it prima facie, appears that the medical evidence is not in accord with the
prosecution version”, it said.
Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Conduct Exercise For Improving Infrastructure Of Its Hospitals
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-central-government-exercise-
infrastructure-hospitals-242686)
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to undertake an exercise for improvement of
infrastructure of the hospitals being controlled and run by it in the national capital.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna also directed the Delhi
Government to file an action taken report stating as to whether the recommendations of the expert
committee, which was constituted to enhance operational standards and treatment methodologies
within government hospitals, are being implemented.
Seized Cash Should Be Treated As Advance Tax As Per Law, There Was No Default In Payment Of
Advance: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/seized-cash-advance-tax-
default-payment-advance-delhi-high-court-242680)
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Versus ACIT
The Delhi High Court has held that the seized cash was offered by the assessee, under the regime that
was prevailing then, to be treated as the advance tax, and thus there was no default in payment of the
advance. Although its payment or adjustment was triggered due to a search action,
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the petitioner had
offered Rs. 50 lakhs seized in search to be treated as advance tax. This endorsement is found both in the
return on investment (ROI) as well as in the computation sheet accompanying the ROI.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To CERT-IN's Empanelment Procedure, Reiterates That Courts
Ought Not Sit In Appeal Over Expert Decisions (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-rejects-plea-against-indian-computer-emergency-response-team-empanelment-procedure-
cybersecurity-firms-242700)
Case Title: Trusted Info Systems Private Limited v. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team & Anr.
Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court recently dismissed a litigant's challenge to the
procedure adopted by Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) w.r.t. empanelment of
cyber-security firms as IT security auditing organizations.
It was observed that, “…the process of empanelment adopted by the Respondents is extremely technical.
The Court cannot be expected to sit on appeal over decisions taken by experts and substitute its own
conclusion with one arrived at by the experts.”
Maintenance Provision Under Hindu Marriage Act Is Gender Neutral: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-maintenance-hindu-marriage-act-
gender-neutral-242713)
Title: X v. Y
The Delhi High Court has said that the provision for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation
expenses to a spouse under the Hindu Marriage Act is gender neutral.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the spouse
having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any
sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle
the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Municipal Corporation Order Directing Pacific Mall Not To Charge Parking
Fee From Visitors (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-mall-parking-fees-
visitors-242749)
Title: M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CONCESSIONAIRE OF DELHI METRO RAIL
CORPORATION) v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order issued by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) in
2018 directing city's Pacific Mall not to charge parking fee from the visitors.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the charging of
parking fee by the mall does not violate the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016, or the Master Plan
for Delhi, 2021.
S.76(3) Trademarks Act Does Not Require Both Rival Marks To Be Registered CTMs, Targeted Client Base
Relevant To Infringement: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-scrum-master-certification-trade-marks-infringement-242762)
Case Title: Scrum Alliance, Inc v. Mr. Prem Kumar S. & Ors.
In an application filed by a leading Scrum certification organization, the Delhi High Court yesterday
granted interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's mark “CERTIFIED
SCRUM MASTER” as well as its logo.
The plaintiff, being registered proprietor of Certification Trade Marks (CTMs) “CERTIFIED
SCRUMMASTER”, “CSM” and certain device marks, had filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
CPC, claiming that defendants were using marks and logo deceptively similar to that of its own.
Delhi Chief Secretary Gets Interim Relief, High Court Directs 'The Wire' To Take Down Alleged Defamatory
Article Over Bamnoli Land Acquisition (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-nresh-kumar-the-wire-defamation-take-down-article-242765)
Title: SHRI NARESH KUMAR V/s THE WIRE & ORS
The Delhi High Court has directed news portal 'The Wire' to take down its article on city's Chief Secretary
Naresh Kumar casting aspersions on him in relation to his involvement in an alleged land acquisition
case.
The suit has been filed against the news report titled “Links of Son of Delhi Chief Secretary to
Beneficiary's Family in Land Over-Valuation Case Raise Questions”. The story was published on
November 09 by reporter Meetu Jain.
Suspension Of Para Swimmer Prasanta Karmakar Accused Of Recording Videos Of Female Swimmers
Upheld By Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-prasanta-
karmakar-paralympic-swimmer-suspension-upheld-242775)
Case Title: Prasanta Karmakar v. Paralympic Committee of India through its Chariman & Ors.
Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court on Monday upheld the 3-year suspension order
passed by Paralympic Committee of India in respect of Arjuna Awardee Paralympic Swimmer Prasanta
Karmakar, observing that he failed to showcase how the decision of the Disciplinary Committee was
unfair.
Reiterating that the scope of judicial review over administrative decisions was limited, the court said,
“It is well settled that when a statute/law/bye-law gives a discretion to an administration to take a
decision, the scope of judicial review remains limited and it is not permissible, unless the decision is
contrary to law or has been taken without considering the relevant factors or where irrelevant factors
have been considered or the decision is one which a prudent man would not have arrived at.”
Depriving Furlough To Convict Undergoing Long Term Imprisonment Is Counterproductive To Reformative

Approach: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-furlough-
convict-long-term-imprisonment-reformative-approach-242777)
Title: SANJAY KUMAR VALMIKI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has observed that depriving furlough to a convict, who is undergoing long term
imprisonment, would be counterproductive to the reformative approach and would also take away the
motivation to maintain good conduct inside the jail.
Justice Amit Bansal said that only on the basis that the convict has committed a gruesome crime many
years ago, it cannot be said that the individual's temporary release on furlough would be against the
interest of the society.
Murder Of Employee Doesn't Disentitle Legal Heirs From Claiming Compensation Under Employees'
Compensation Act: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
compensation-claim-when-employee-murdered-during-employment-valid-242779)
Case Title: Neelu Kumari & Ors v. Om & Anr (Bajaj Alliance Gen Ins Co Ltd)
In an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation (EC) Act, the Delhi High Court has
reiterated that the fact of an employee being murdered during the course of employment does not
disentitle his legal heirs from seeking compensation under the Act.
“…the finding by the Commissioner that murder of an employee during the course of performance of his
duties would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 2(1)(n) of the E.C. Act, is flawed. For which
reliance can be placed on decision in Rita Devi Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd., as also decision
by this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munesh Devi.”
Party Cannot Contest Arbitral Award For Exceeding Reference Scope If It Failed To Object When Alleged
Breach Initially Occurred: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-arbitral-award-exceeding-reference-scope-failed-object-alleged-breach-initially-occurred-242790)
Case Title: Aman Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. Orient Lites
The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot challenge an arbitral award on the ground that the
tribunal went beyond the scope of reference when it admittedly did not raise any objection when the
alleged breach was first committed by the tribunal.
The bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that the tribunal's decision to include certain invoices in the
claim cannot be challenged under Section 34 as being beyond the reference to arbitration when no such
objection was raised before the arbitral tribunal.
Delhi HC Denies Interim Bail To Murder-Accused For Attending PhD Classes, Says Options Available In
Judicial Custody To Pursue Educational Goals (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-murder-accused-no-bail-for-phd-classes-242822)
Case Title: Varun v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has denied prayer of a murder-accused for interim bail to pursue regular PhD
classes, noting the gravity of the stated offence and allegations that the complainant had been
threatened.
“Undoubtedly, every individual has the right to pursue the education but in the present case the petitioner
is an accused of a serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has to be dealt accordingly
looking into the gravity of offence.”
Delhi High Court Orders Release Of ₹1 Crore Ex-Gratia Compensation To Kin Of Constable Amit Kumar
Who Died On COVID-19 Duty (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-covid-
death-compensation-delhi-govt-constable-amit-kumar-242846)
Title: Pooja vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi & Ors
The Delhi High Court recently ordered release of Rs. 1 crore ex-gratia compensation to the wife and
father of 31-year-old constable Amit Kumar who passed away during the first wave of COVID-19
pandemic while performing his duties.
Noting that the Delhi Government has agreed to release the ex gratia payment, Justice Prathiba M Singh
directed:
“The amount in terms of the Cabinet Decision dated 3rd November, 2023 shall now be released to the
Petitioner and the father of the deceased within four weeks.”
Delhi High Court Grants Last Opportunity To Govt To Constitute Delhi Pharmacy Council
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-government-delhi-pharmacy-
council-242850)
Title: AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to constitute Delhi Pharmacy Council within two
weeks, as a last and final opportunity.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a plea moved by members of the Delhi Pharmacy Council.
concerning notifying the results of election of the Council held on November 02, 2021.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Motor Accident Tribunal's Order To Exhume Deceased's Body For DNA Test
To Verify Legal Heirs (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-motor-accident-
claim-tribunal-exhumation-deceased-grave-dna-test-legal-heirs-242883)
Title: SUJAAT ALI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS v. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal directing that the
grave of a deceased man be dug up to conduct a DNA test for verifying the claim of compensation by
various individuals asserting to be his legal heirs.
Justice Navin Chawla allowed the petition moved by persons claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased
Sujaat Ali, who passed away in a motor vehicle accident. They challenged the Tribunal's order dated
December 12, 2022.
High Court Rejects Judge's Plea Seeking Transfer From DU's 2-Yr LLM Course To 3-Yrs Course Owing To
Her Employment (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-judicial-officer-
transfer-delhi-university-year-llm-course-242886)
Title: CHHAYA TYAGI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition moved by a judge seeking her transfer from two-year LLM to
the three-year course offered by the Delhi University in order to complete her ongoing studies on account
of her employment as a judicial officer.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the three year LL.M. course offered by the varsity is
specially designed for people who are employed but it does not stipulate that if any student attains
employment in the middle of two year course, he or she can take the advantage of three year course to
continue the studies alongwith the employment.
Delhi High Court Upholds Extradition Of Man Charged With Murder Of Family In Oman
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-extradition-murder-family-oman-
242920)
Title: MAJIBULLAH MOHAMMAD HANEEF v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Union Government's decision to extradite a man charged with
murder of a family, including three minor children, in Oman.
Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the petition moved by the accused, Majibullah Mohammad Haneef,
challenging a trial court order recommending his extradition to Oman for facing murder trial.
When Tenant Is Evicted For Bonafide Use, Courts Should Refrain From Prescribing Guidelines For
Landlord's Residential Choices: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-
court/delhi-high-court-tenant-eviction-landlord-bonafide-use-residential-choices-242933)
Title: TARUN KUMAR v. PARMANAND GARG
Granting relief to a landlord who evicted a tenant from his shop for setting up a business for his wife
which constitutes as a “bona fide requirement”, the Delhi High Court has said that courts should refrain
from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the residential choices of a landlord.
Emphasizing that the tenant cannot dictate as to how the landlord must utilize the property, Justice
Jasmeet Singh said:
“The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full
autonomy in this regard. It is not within the purview of the courts to impose directives on the landlord
regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises. Essentially, the courts
should refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord's residential choices.”
No Recovery Towards TAS Can Be Made Towards Deductee Even If Deductor Is Undergoing CIRP: Delhi
High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/recovery-tas-towards-deductee-deductor-
cirp-delhi-high-court-242946)
Case Title: BDR Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT
The Delhi High Court has held that no recovery towards Tax at Source (TAS) can be made towards the
deductee even if the deductor is undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Loss Of Goodwill Is Difficult To Prove, Cannot Be Proved With Mathematical Precision: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/loss-of-goodwill-is-difficult-to-prove-cannot-be-
proved-with-mathematical-precision-delhi-high-court-242958)
Case Title: Metal Engineering and Forging Company v. Central Warehousing Corporation
The Delhi High Court has held that it would be difficult for any party claiming loss of goodwill to prove or
establish the same with any mathematical precision.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld an arbitral award wherein the
arbitrator allowed a party to retain certain amount as penalty, being the genuine pre-estimate of the loss
of goodwill without any proof of quantum of actual loss suffered by it.
Court Can't Grant Unconditional Stay Of Arbitral Award Unless Prima Facie Case Of Fraud: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/court-cant-grant-unconditional-stay-of-award-
under-section-363-unless-a-prima-facie-case-of-fraud-delhi-high-court-242959)
Cas Title: Italian Thai Development v. NTPC Ltd
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court cannot grant unconditional stay on an arbitration award
under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, unless a prima facie case is made out that
making of the award is marred by fraud.
'Brief Order' Of Advertisement Before Acceptance Of Mark Must Be Available On Trade Mark Registry's
Portal For Litigants' Reference: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-trade-mark-registry-litigants-242965)
Title: LAXMI KOHLU GHAR THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH ARUN KUMAR v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF
PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS AND REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has observed that a brief order which has to be passed at the time of directing
advertisement before acceptance of a mark should be made available on the online portal of the Trade
Marks Registry for reference of the litigants.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that in case such a brief order is not uploaded for all the trademark
applications, a copy of the same should still be made available upon litigant's request via email.
'Scheduled Offence' Cannot Exist After Quashing Of FIR: Delhi High Court Quashes PMLA Proceedings
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-scheduled-offence-quashing-of-fir-
pmla-proceedings-242981)
Title: RAJINDER SINGH CHADHA v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has quashed PMLA proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED)
against an accused, on the basis of two FIRs registered against him- that were later quashed and
compounded after settlement between the parties.
Justice Amit Sharma said that a scheduled offence, after an FIR has been quashed, cannot exist and
therefore, if there is no scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering with respect to
the same.
Debt Recovery | Extension Of Interim Relief At The Time Of Remand Subject To Prima Facie Finding In
Petitioner's Favor: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
prima-facie-finding-essential-if-interim-relief-continued-while-remanding-243032)
Case Title: Mis Deco Industries India v. JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd through its AO
Kumar Gaurav & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recently held that an interim order granted by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
("DRAT") during the pendency of appeal was not required to be extended in pursuance of remand, without
a prima facie finding on the need for such an order.
Delhi High Court Allows Plea Of Manual Scavenger's Widow For Increase In Compensation From 10 To 30
Lacs (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-allows-30-lacs-compensation-
to-manual-scavengers-widow-243045)
Case Title: Preeti v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has allowed plea of a sanitation worker's widow for enhancement of compensation
from Rs.10 lacs to 30 lacs, based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Balram Singh v. Union of India &
Ors., whereby directions were issued w.r.t. compensation of dependents of victims who have lost their
lives in manual scavenging.
The petitioner had approached the court assailing grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs.
Besides enhancement in compensation, she had sought a direction to concerned agencies to provide her
full rehabilitation including employment, as well as education to her children and skill training in terms of
the decision in Balram Singh.
Writ Petition Maintainable If Insurer Disallows Claim De Hors Specific Policy Terms: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-allows-writ-petition-against-insurer-
who-denied-claim-de-hors-policy-terms-243065)
Case Title: Mohit Kumar and Anr. v. Office of the Insurance Ombudsman and Ors.
Allowing a couple's insurance claim in respect of travel bookings cancelled due to Covid-19 onset, the
Delhi High Court recently held that a writ petition would be maintainable if the court finds that insurer has
illegally repudiated the claim de hors specific terms of the policy.
Observing that the court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce a life
insurance claim, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said,
“The determination of the question depends on consideration of several factors i.e., whether a writ
petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her contractual rights or the case raises important
questions of law and constitutional issues, the nature of the dispute raised, the nature of inquiry
necessary for determination of the dispute etc.”
Situs Of High Court For Appeal U/S 117A Of Patents Act Determined By “Appropriate Office” Under Patent
Rules: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-situs-for-
appeal-under-section-117a-patents-act-determined-by-patent-rules-243073)
Case Title: Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr.
Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently held that the situs of the High Court which would
hear an appeal u/s 117A of the Patents Act would be determined by the location of the “appropriate
office” in terms of Rule 4 of the Patent Rules.
The observation came to be made pursuant to raising of an objection to territorial jurisdiction in an

appeal filed u/s 117A(2) of the Patents Act, whereby rejection of a patent application filed before the
Mumbai Patent Office was assailed before the Delhi High Court.
Delhi High Court Grants 'Dynamic+ Injunction' Restraining 45 Rogue Websites From Distributing
Copyrighted Content Of Disney, Netflix & Others (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-restrains-rogue-websites-disseminating-universal-netflix-copyrighted-content-243088)
Case Title: Universal City Studios LLC. & Ors. v. Fztvseries.Mobi & Ors
Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in
favor of content creators Universal, Warner Bros, Netflix, Paramount Pictures and Disney in a suit filed
against rogue websites disseminating their copyrighted content.
Taking cue from its earlier judgment in Universal City Studios LLC. & Ors. v. Dotmovies.baby & Ors., the
court issued a “Dynamic+ injunction”, protecting not only the plaintiffs' existing content but also future
works.
Delhi High Court Restrains Former 'Bachpan' Playschool Franchisee From Continuing Use Of Its
Trademarks, Logo (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-injuncts-former-
franchisee-using-bachpan-trademarks-logo-243105)
Case Title: Ms SK Educations Pvt Ltd v. Sripathi Bhushan Srichandan & Anr.
Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently restrained a former franchisee of playschool
'Bachpan' from continuing to use its registered word and device marks, noting that the Franchisee
Agreement between the parties expired in 2021.
“The use, by the defendants, of the plaintiff's mark, for running play schools, holding itself out to be a
franchisee of the plaintiff, clearly results in likelihood of confusion and association, as envisaged by
Section 29(2)(c) read with Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999”, the court said.
Sale Of Counterfeit Goods Goes Against Public Interest, May Render Brand Completely Useless: Delhi HC
Grants ₹11 Lakh Damages To Woodland (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-woodland-sale-of-counterfeit-goods-public-interest-243107)
Title: AERO CLUB v. M/S SAHARA BELTS
The Delhi High Court has observed that sale of counterfeit goods goes against public interest and may
render a trademark or brand completely useless.
Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while awarding Rs. 11 lakhs to Woodland as damages
and costs in a trademark infringement suit against an entity selling counterfeit products using its
registered trademark “Woodland.”
Appellant Was Pursuing Review Petition In Good Faith, Delhi High Court Condones Delay In Filing Appeal
Against ITAT Order (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/appellant-review-petition-good-
faith-delhi-high-court-condones-delay-filing-appeal-itat-order-243122)
Case Title: Resorts Consortium India Limited Versus ITAT
The Delhi High Court has condoned a 79-day delay in filing an appeal as a review petition was filed before
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the time spent by the
applicant while pursuing the review proceedings deserves to be excluded even under principles
analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act because the applicant, in good faith, was prosecuting the
challenge to the impugned order before the Tribunal with due diligence, but the Tribunal was unable to
entertain the review on account of a defect of jurisdiction.
Trademarks | When Examining For Registrability U/s 9 Or 11, Marks Ought To Be Viewed As A Whole:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-holds-marks-be-
viewed-as-whole-when-examining-registrability-243166)
Case Title: Muneer Ahmad v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently held the mark “BHARAT with the device of brush”
entitled to registration, observing that the Senior Examiner erred in invoking Section 9(1) of the Trade
Marks Act (“TMA”) to refuse registration to the mark.
“In invoking each of the clauses of Section 9(1), therefore, the Senior Examiner has erred in viewing
merely individual parts of the mark, ignoring others. In examining the registrability of the mark, whether
under Section 9 or Section 11, the mark has to be viewed as a whole," the court said.
Plea To Transfer Case To Another Court Must Be Based On Reason, Not Apprehension Of An Over
Sensitive Mind: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
apprehension-underlying-transfer-plea-must-be-founded-on-reason-243209)
Case Title: Upinder Kaur Malhotra v. Capt Teghjeet Singh Malhotra and Anr
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea for transfer of matters pending before the Family Judge,
Patiala House Courts to another court of competent jurisdiction, observing that apprehension underlying
such pleas ought to be founded on reason and not merely an over sensitive mind.
“While there is absolutely no doubt in the legal proposition that Justice must not only be done, but also
appear to be done, and where a party has a reasonable doubt that such a party may not get justice in a
particular Court, the same may be a ground to transfer the proceedings to another Court, at the same tim
Call Meeting Of All Cyber Crime Cells For Coordination In Dealing With Fraudulent Transaction Cases:
Delhi High Court To MHA (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ministry-of-
home-affairs-cyber-crime-cells-meeting-fraudulent-transactions-243222)
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar and Ors
The Delhi High Court has directed the concerned Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs ("MHA")
to call a meeting of Cyber Crime Cells in various states to ensure coordination while dealing with cases
involving fraudulent transactions.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there needs to be some coordination between Cyber Crime Cells of all
police authorities in the country and ordered that the meeting be held on December 20.
Unauthorised Constructions | Delhi High Court Flags Influx Of Cases Against MCD Inaction, Calls For
More Transparency (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-mcd-complaints-
unauthorised-constructions-243225)
Title: BABY ADIRA JATIA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has observed that a mechanism needs to be evolved, if not already in place, to
ensure that the action taken by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on the complaints received about
unauthorised constructions in the national capital is “systematic, transparent and even-handed.”
Justice Prateek Jalan said that several cases are filed in the court every week alleging that the MCD has
taken no action despite several complaints having been submitted regarding unauthorised construction.
Trial Courts Should Not Issue Non-Bailable Warrants On First Call, Except In Cases Of Genuine
Apprehension Of Absconding: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-trial-courts-non-bailable-warrants-243239)
Title: FAHIM v. STATE
The Delhi High Court has said that the trial courts in the national capital should not issue non-bailable
warrants (NBWs) against an individual on first call in the pre-lunch hours, except when there are genuine
apprehensions that such person would abscond if not taken into custody.
The court said that there is a growing trend of the Trial Courts going against the settled judgments as
well as the established Rules and dismissing genuine reasons of non-appearance of the parties and
issuing warrants against them.
Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Against Mandatory Requirement Of CLAT-PG Score For Induction In Indian
Army's JAG (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-pil-challenging-clat-pg-
score-requirement-for-indian-army-jag-243241)
Case Title: Shubham Chopra v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court has rejected a public interest litigation ("PIL") challenging the mandatory
requirement of CLAT-PG 2023 score as an eligibility criteria for induction of law graduates in Indian
Army's Judge Advocate General ("JAG") branch.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that it was not a fit
case for a PIL and prescribing educational qualifications was not within the court's domain.
Arbitral Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Create Security Over A Property Which Has A Third Party Charge:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/arbitral-tribunal-has-no-jurisdiction-
to-create-security-over-a-property-which-has-a-third-party-charge-delhi-high-court-243229)
Case Title: Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd v. ATS Infrastructure Limited
The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to create security on a
property over which a charge is created in favour of a third party.
The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna modified an interim order of the arbitral tribunal passed under
Section 17 of the A&C Act to the extent to which the order created security on the property on which a
charge was already created in favour of a third party which was not present before the arbitral tribunal.
Ashneer Grover Apologises For 'Defamatory' Posts Against BharatPe, Delhi High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakhs
Costs For Violating Orders (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ashneer-
grover-defamation-social-media-posts-bharatpe-apology-243270)
Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MADHURI JAIN GROVER & ORS.
Former Managing Director of BharatPe, Ashneer Grover, yesterday tendered an apology before the Delhi
High Court for posting allegedly defamatory posts against the fintech company on social media and also
gave an undertaking not to post similar posts in the future.
Justice Rekha Palli bound Grover to the undertaking filed by him by way of an affidavit, subject to
payment of costs of Rs.2 lakhs payable by to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk's Association.
Sukesh Chandrashekhar Extortion Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To 69-Yr-Old Accused In MCOCA,
PMLA Cases (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-sukesh-
chandrashekhar-extortion-bail-mcoca-pmla-243287)
Title: AVTAR SINGH KOCCHAR @ DOLLY v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to one Avtar Singh Kocchar, a senior citizen aged about
69 years, accused in the cases registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in connection with the Rs. 200 crore extortion
case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma granted relief to Kocchar noting that he is a senior citizen suffering from
various health ailments.
Arbitration | Decree Holder Cannot Seek An Unquantified Claim In Execution Proceedings: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-arbitration-decree-holder-
cannot-seek-unquantified-claim-in-execution-243293)
Case Title: H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
While dismissing a second execution petition filed in respect of “unsatisfied” claims in an Arbitral Award,
the Delhi High Court has held that a court cannot go behind the Award in execution proceedings and
enable decree holder to fill gaps in producing evidence.
Considering that the cost statement in question was made subject to certification by the Arbitral Tribunal
but no proof of payment was forthcoming from the decree holder, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed,
“…the decree holder cannot, under the garb of this execution petition, seek a claim that was not
quantified in the award due to failure of the parties to furnish proof”.
Negotiable Instruments Act | Arbitration Proceedings And Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Can Continue
Simultaneously: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
arbitration-and-ni-act-proceedings-can-continue-simultaneously-243292)
Case Title: Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited and Ors v. Uem India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled that arbitration proceedings and proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (“NI Act”) arise from separate causes of action and pendency of one does
not affect the other.
Dismissing the petition, which sought quashing of a complaint u/s 138, Justice Amit Bansal observed,
“There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act
is not maintainable in view of the ongoing arbitration proceedings between the parties.”
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against CBIC Circulars Mandating Compulsory Disposal And Sale Of
Seized Gold To RBI (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-pil-cbic-circulars-
compulsory-disposal-sale-seized-gold-rbi-243302)
Title: JATIN KHURANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging two circulars issued by the
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) mandating compulsory disposal and sale of all
seized gold ornaments or jewellery to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) within three months from the date of
seizure.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed the plea
moved by one Jatin Khurana as being non-maintainable, observing that he was a stranger who was not
adversely affected by the circulars as none of his ornaments or articles or jewellery items had been
seized.
Welfare Of Child Prime Consideration In Guardianship Cases: Delhi High Court Declines Father's Plea To
Move Child To A “Better” School (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
child-welfare-prime-consideration-in-guardianship-cases-243352)
Case Title: Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur
In a father's plea seeking direction to his child's mother for transfer of the child to a “better” school, the
Delhi High Court has observed that welfare of the child is of prime consideration in guardianship cases.
While dismissing the plea, the Bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh
Arora, noted that the child was residing in Pitampura with his mother, and the school suggested by the
father was in Dwarka (20 kms away).
Court Rooms In Delhi District Courts Not Commensurate With Sanctioned Strength Of Judicial Officers:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/court-rooms-in-delhi-district-courts-
not-commensurate-with-sanctioned-strength-of-judicial-officers-delhi-high-court-243399)
Title: ACHLA DHAWAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Taking judicial notice of the fact that there is a shortage of space and budget in all district courts in the
city, the Delhi High Court has said that the number of court rooms available is not commensurate with
the sanctioned strength of judicial officers.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that several new
judicial infrastructure projects have been awaiting administrative approval and expenditure sanction of
the Delhi Government.
Delhi HC Flags Rising Kidnapping Cases Of Minor Girls Subjected To Sexual Assault Under Guise Of
Marriage, Forced To Abandon Studies (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-kidnapping-minor-girls-sexual-assault-marriage-243410)
Case Title: MOHD. TASLIM ALI v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has flagged rising incidents of kidnapping of minor girls, who are subjected to
sexual assault under the guise of marriage, as a result of which they are forced to abandon studies and
denied opportunity to pursue careers.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that when a girl is forced to abandon her education due to such
incidents, it causes a profound setback not only to an individual but to the society as a whole.
Mere Global Reputation, Asserted Goodwill Of Trademark Not Sufficient To Answer Claim Of Trans-border
Reputation: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-global-
reputation-trademark-goodwill-transborder-reputation-243412)
Case Title: BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere global reputation or asserted goodwill of a trademark is not
sufficient to answer claim of trans-border reputation.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that it is imperative for
the claimant/plaintiff, who seeks protection of a trademark, to prove and establish the existence of a
significant and substantial reputation and goodwill of the mark in the concerned territory.
'Leave It To Law Commission Of India': Delhi High Court Closes Pleas Seeking Uniform Civil Code
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-law-commission-of-india-uniform-
civil-code-243432)
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and Other Connected Matters
The Delhi High Court has closed a batch of petitions seeking introduction and implementation of the
Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the country, observing that the Law Commission of India is already seized of
the matter.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna referred to an order
passed by the Supreme Court of India in April wherein it was held that enactment of law lies exclusively
within the domain of legislature and that a mandamus cannot be issued to the legislative to enact law.
Enhanced Therapeutic Efficacy Be Shown 'Precisely' By Patent Applicant, Clinical Data Acceptable Only
To Support Specification Claims: Delhi HC (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-ruling-therapeutic-efficacy-enhancement-must-be-shown-precisely-243433)
Case Title: Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents
The Delhi High Court recently held that when a patent applicant wishes to demonstrate enhancement in
therapeutic efficacy in terms of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, the same must be done 'precisely'
by filing data before the Patent Office during prosecution of the application.
“The Applicant must ensure that comparative tables, and a clear explanation as to the manner in which
the new form of the known substance has significant enhancement in therapeutic efficacy is placed
before the Patent Office during prosecution of the application. The same could be in the form of
comparative tables, in-vitro and in-vivo data as also clinical trial data,” the court said.
IBBI Has Discretion To Decide Fitness For Appointment As Insolvency Professional, Immediate Past
Being Clean No Clean-Chit: Delhi HC (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
ruling-ibbi-insolvency-professional-appointment-ibbi-regulations-243434)
Case Title: Pooja Menghani v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a banker's challenge to IBBI's rejection of her application to be
registered as a Resolution Professional ("RP"), observing that a person's past actions could not be
ignored when judging if they are fit and proper for appointment as an Insolvency Professional ("IP").
“The Petitioner has been found guilty of fraudulent practices of violating market integrity and the decision
of the Respondent Board to refuse the registration of the Petitioner as an Insolvency Professional on the
basis of the decision of the Apex Court cannot be said to be so perverse or irrational warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Magistrate Can't Direct Investigation Mechanically, Application Of Mind Must: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-magistrate-directing-investigation-
application-of-mind-243445)
Case Title: ANJURI KUMARI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court has said that direction for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be issued by a Magistrate mechanically and must be given only after
application of mind.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed that a Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by the police
even if all allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence.
Delhi HC Closes PIL Against Delhi Tree Authority's Functioning, Says It's For The Authority To Decide If
Saplings Should Be Provided To All (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
pil-against-tree-authority-functioning-closed-243456)
Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj and Anr v. The Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently closed a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) relating to
functioning of the Delhi Tree Authority, noting that a Single Judge Bench of the court was already in
seisin of the matter.
The PIL was filed seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondents to perform their duties in a time-bound
manner, inasmuch as under Section 4 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, the Delhi Tree
Authority must hold a meeting once every 3 months.
Delhi HC Sets Aside Admission Cancellation of Jaat Community Med Student Based On Non-Recognition
Of Caste Status Per Central OBC List (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
sets-aside-jaat-med-student-admission-cancellation-caste-status-243459)
Case Title: Nikhil Rana v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a medical
student whose admission was cancelled by Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Science on the basis that
OBC status of his caste was not recognized in view of the central OBC list.
The petitioner, who had filed the petition assailing cancellation of his admission to four-year BDS course,
urged that the aspect underlying the notice was not raised by the Institute at the time of counselling and
certificate verification.
Muslim Mahapanchayat Meeting Can Be Held At Ramlila Ground On Dec 18: Delhi Police To High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-muslim-mahapanchayat-meeting-
ramlila-ground-dec-18-delhi-police-243473)
Title: MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that it has granted permission to an organization,
Save India Constitution, to hold a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) at the Ramlila
Ground on December 18.
Taking note of city police's stand, Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of the organisation's plea
seeking no-objection certificate (NOC) to organize the public meeting.
Try Including Admission Quota For Foreign Nationals In 5-Yr LLB Courses From Upcoming Academic
Session: High Court To Delhi University (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-admission-quota-foreign-nationals-five-year-llb-courses-delhi-university-243483)
Case Title: Mr. Maahi Neil Jaipal (Minor) v. University of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi University to endeavor to include admission quota for foreign
nationals in its newly introduced five-year integrated law courses from the upcoming academic session,
as per the varsity's extant regulations.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav however rejected a foreign national's plea seeking admission in the
five-year law courses, under the foreign student quota, for the current academic session (2023-2024).
Employee Can't Be Penalised For Non-Deposit Of TDS By Employer: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/employee-penalised-non-deposit-tds-employer-delhi-
high-court-243504)
Case Title: Shri Chintan Bindra Versus DCIT
The Delhi High Court has held that the employer of the petitioner or assessee, having failed to perform
his duty to deposit the deducted tax with the department, cannot be penalized. It would always be open
for revenue to proceed against the employer of the petitioner for recovery of the deducted tax.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the petitioner, having
accepted the salary after deduction of income tax at source, had no further control over it in the sense
that it was the duty of his employer acting as tax collecting agent of the revenue under Chapter XVII of
the Income Tax Act to pay the deducted tax amount to the Central Government in accordance with law.
Mere Delayed Compliance Of Section 52A NDPS Act No Ground For Bail: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-bail-delayed-compliance-section-52a-
ndps-act-243512)
Case Title: SOMDUTT SINGH @ SHIVAM v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
The Delhi High Court has said that though it is desirable that the procedure contemplated in Section 52A
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, must be complied with at the earliest,
mere delayed compliance of the same cannot be a ground for grant of bail.
“The applicant will have to show the prejudice caused on account of delayed compliance of Section 52-A
of the NDPS Act,” Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Delhi High Court Restrains Travel Booking Company From Using 'Dialmytrip' Mark In Trademark
Infringement Suit By MakeMyTrip (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
dialmytrip-trademark-infringement-suit-makemytrip-243519)
Case Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. DIALMYTRIP TECH PRIVATE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court has restrained a travel and hotel booking company from using “Dialmytrip” mark in
respect of tour, travel, hospitality and other services in a trademark infringement suit filed by online travel
company MakeMyTrip.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the marks "MakeMyTrip" and "Dialmytrip" are confusingly similar with
each other and granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of MakeMyTrip.
Can't Expect Sexual Assault Victim To Recount Facts Verbatim Every Time, Ignoring Trauma Of Delivering
Accused's Child Unacceptable: Delhi HC (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-sexual-assault-victim-verbatim-testimony-trauma-delivering-child-243532)
Case Title: Vishnu Das Through Peherokar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
While dismissing a man's appeal against conviction for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl, the Delhi
High Court has observed that courts cannot expect witnesses in sexual assault cases to recount case
details in same words every time.
“…the statements of such minor victims have to be examined from the lens of delivering justice in
accordance with principles of fair criminal trial to accused and victim, and not on the yardstick of strict
factual accuracy of words. It is the substance of the testimony which is to be appreciated”.
Once Agreed To Constitute An Arbitral Tribunal, A Party Cannot Turn Around And Insist On Fulfilment Of
Pre-Arbitral Steps: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/once-agreed-to-
constitute-an-arbitral-tribunal-a-party-cannot-turn-around-and-insist-on-fulfilment-of-pre-arbitral-steps-
delhi-high-court-243538)
Case Title: N.K. Sharma v. The General Manager Northern Railways
The Delhi High Court has held that once a party has agreed to constitute an arbitral tribunal, it cannot
turn around and resist appointment of arbitrator on the ground of non-fulfilment of pre-arbitral steps.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta also held that issue of 'excepted matters' requires in-depth
examination of the factual matrix, therefore, the same can only be done by the arbitral tribunal and goes
beyond the scope of examination permissible under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
A Written-Off Debt Is An Asset, Award Holder Can Enforce At The Location Of Asset: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-written-off-debt-asset-award-holder-
can-enforce-at-the-location-of-asset-243540)
Case Title: Taqa India Power Ventures v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings
The Delhi High Court ruled that a written-off debt constitutes a recoverable asset, affirming the award
holder's right to enforce the award at the location of the debt/asset.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a debt written off by the award debtor remains a
recoverable asset. This pivotal decision solidifies the award holder's entitlement to initiate enforcement
proceedings at the location where the debt is owed or the asset is situated, establishing a robust legal
precedent in favor of the award holder's enforcement rights.
Peaceful Protests Allowed Near Central Vista, Jantar Mantar But Subject To Guidelines Framed Under
Standing Order: Delhi Govt To High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-peaceful-protest-central-vista-jantar-mantar-follow-standing-order-243572)
Case Title: Maj Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagale v. Union of India & Ors.
Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court recently allowed a petitioner's plea for permission
to carry out a dharna/protest at Jantar Mantar, in exercise of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b)
of the Constitution of India.
The petition was filed assailing the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police's rejection of the
petitioner's application to conduct a protest at Jantar Mantar from October 25-30, 2023 between 10:00
AM and 06:00 AM.
Right Of A Party To Nominate 2/3rd Of The Arbitral Tribunal Violates Counter-Balancing: Delhi High Court
Reiterates (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/right-of-a-party-to-nominate-23rd-of-the-
arbitral-tribunal-violates-counter-balancing-delhi-high-court-reiterates-243581)
Case Title: Sri Ganesh Engineering Works v. Northern Railways, ARB.P 609/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration clause that confers on a party the right to nominate
2/3rd of arbitral tribunal violates the principles of 'counter-balancing' as sought to be achieved by the
Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in Perkins.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that a party cannot have the right to nominate the majority of the
arbitral tribunal and such an exercises casts doubts on the neutrality and impartiality of the arbitral
tribunal.
Court Cannot Admit An Application To Modify The Final Order Passed Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/court-cannot-admit-an-application-
to-modify-the-final-order-passed-under-section-34-of-the-ac-act-delhi-high-court-243585)
Case Title: Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD, FAO(OS) (COMM) 315 of 2019.
The Delhi High Court of Delhi has held that once a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act has been
disposed of by a final order, the Court cannot admit an application seeking to modify such an order.
The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja set aside an order of the Court wherein the
Court had, upon the application of the respondent, modified its earlier order passed under Section 34 of
the A&C Act.
Principles Of Natural Justice Not 'Mantras' But Foundational Precepts Concerning Fairness Of Procedure:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-principles-natural-
justice-fairness-procedure-243599)
Title: KIRAN JUNEJA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has observed that the principles of natural justice are not “mantras” but
foundational precepts concerned with fairness of procedure and the right of a person to respond to the
allegations made.
“Ultimately, whether the asserted violation of some facet of natural justice has tainted the procedure
adopted by the respondent is an issue of fact and which would ultimately guide courts to consider
whether interference is warranted,” a division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Shailender
Kaur said.
Farmers Must Be Given Full Opportunity To Oppose Any Monopoly Created By Registering Plant Varieties
Under PPV Act: Delhi HC (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-farmers-
plant-varieties-protection-of-plant-varieties-and-farmers-rights-act-243607)
Title: NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD. v. THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS RIGHTS
AUTHORITY AND ORS and other connected matters
The Delhi High Court has observed that the farmers are to be given full opportunity to oppose any
monopoly which may be created by registering of plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Varieties
and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, as new plant varieties.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that farmers' rights are a pre-eminent consideration that has to guide the
approach of the court while administering the provisions of the enactment.
Declaration Of Rural Areas As Urban In Furtherance Of Pre-Eminent Purpose Of Delhi's Planned

Development: High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-rural-areas-
urban-planned-development-243619)
Case Title: CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING v. UNION OF INDIA &
ANR
The Delhi High Court has observed that the declaration of rural areas as urban areas is done in
furtherance of the pre-eminent purpose of planned development of the national capital.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a public
interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of a notification issued on May 16, 2017 by Delhi
Government's Department of Urban Development, declaring that certain villages which were part of rural
areas shall be deemed as urban areas.
Court Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act Can Sever Offending Part Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/court-under-section-11-of-the-ac-act-can-sever-
offending-part-of-arbitration-clause-243605)
Case Title: S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India, ARB. P. 737 of 202
The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 11 of the A&C Act can
sever an illegal/offending portion of the arbitration clause.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an arbitration clause does not become illegal by mere
illegality of the appointment procedure provided therein, therefore, the Court u/s 11 can sever the illegal
portion of the award and refer the dispute to arbitration.
Medical Termination of Pregnancy | Delhi High Court Permits Woman To Terminate Pregnancy After
Expiry Of Period Prescribed Under MTP Act (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-permits-pregnancy-termination-beyond-prescribed-period-mtp-act-243635)
Case Title: N v. The Union of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court has permitted a 21-year-old unmarried woman to terminate an ongoing unwanted
pregnancy, despite expiry of the period prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act
(“MTP Act”).
Entire Arbitration Not Invalid By Illegality Of Appointment Procedure: Delhi High Court Reiterates
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-reiterates-entire-arbitration-not-
invalid-by-illegality-of-appointment-procedure-243606)
Case Title: S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India, ARB. P. 737 of 2023
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause does not become illegal by mere illegality of
the appointment procedure provided therein.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator is clearly
distinct and separable from the agreement to refer disputes to arbitration, even if these are contained in
the same arbitration clause.
Applicant Can Seek Refund For Unused Stamp Paper Post 6 Months, If Unaware During Such Time That It
Won't Be Of 'Immediate Use': Delhi HC (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-stamp-duty-refund-beyond-6-months-unused-stamp-paper-243660)
Case Title: Citius Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.
Taking note of a lacuna in the express provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (“Act”), the Delhi High
Court has held that Section 54(c) of the Act must be interpreted as being inapplicable to cases where an
applicant seeks refund of stamp duty because he was not aware that the stamp paper would be of no
“immediate use” within 6 months of its purchase.
Merely Because Wife Is Earning Isn't An Absolute Bar To Receiving Maintenance From Husband: Delhi
High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-wife-earning-not-absolute-
bar-maintenance-husband-243678)
Title: X v. Y
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is earning does not automatically operate as
an absolute bar for awarding maintenance by the husband.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also observed that
the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is on a higher pedestal than the wife, since the
provision for grant of maintenance or interim maintenance for women and children in various statutes is
keeping in perspective the underlying principle under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.
Person Can't Be Summoned For Non-Compliance Of Maintenance Order Under Section 31 Of Domestic
Violence Act: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
summon-non-compliance-maintenance-order-section-31-of-domestic-violence-act-243702)
Title: ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for non-compliance of an order for payment of maintenance.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the focus of the enactment is on providing immediate and
effective relief to victims of domestic violence by way of maintenance or interim maintenance orders,
and that the idea is ot to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against the aggressor for non-
payment of maintenance and to send such person to prison.
Same Argument Cannot Be An Obstacle Every Time In Granting Furlough, Personal Freedom A
Fundamental Right: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
grants-furlough-personal-freedom-a-fundamental-right-243718)
Case Title: Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar of the Delhi High Court has granted furlough to a prisoner, while observing that
personal freedom is a priceless fundamental right, which should only be restricted when necessary in
light of unique facts and circumstances of the case.
Assessee Being A Debt Free Company, No Need To Impute Notional Interest On Outstanding Receivables:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/debt-free-company-impute-notional-
interest-outstanding-receivables-delhi-high-court-243730)
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Inductis India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee was a debt-free company and there was no need to
impute notional interest on outstanding receivables.
Delhi High Court Extends The Arbitration Period Despite Significant Delays, Considering The Advanced
Stage Of Proceedings. (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-extends-the-
arbitration-period-despite-significant-delays-considering-the-advanced-stage-of-proceedings-243741)
Case Title: Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar, OMP(MISC.) 15 of 2023
The High Court of Delhi has extended the time period for the completion of arbitral proceedings, despite
observing that there was inordinate delay in the completion of arbitral proceedings, on the ground that
the proceedings, though protracted, has reached advance stage.
Court Exercising Powers Under Section 27 Of The A&C Act Cannot Examine The Admissibility Or
Relevancy Of The Evidence: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/court-
exercising-powers-under-section-27-of-the-ac-act-cannot-examine-the-admissibility-or-relevancy-of-the-
evidence-delhi-high-court-243740)
Case Title: SAIL v Uniper Global Commodities, OMP(E)(COMM.) 22 of 2023
The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 27 of the A&C Act
cannot form an opinion on the relevancy or the admissibility of the evidence for which the assistance of
the Court is sought.
Crucial To Distinguish Between Citizens' Legitimate Expectations And Unreasonable Demands From
State: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-citizens-
legitimate-expectations-unreasonable-demands-state-243746)
Case Title: Ravi Gupta v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court recently observed that it is crucial to distinguish between legitimate or reasonable
expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands made by citizens from the State.
“…undoubtedly the citizens' expectation of protection of their life and liberty by the State is a fundamental
aspect of governance in any society. Citizens look to their government to provide safety, security, and a
legal framework that safeguards their rights and well-being. However, it's crucial to distinguish between
legitimate and reasonable expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands when it comes to the
role of the State,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma opined.
Delhi HC Rules In Favor Of Castrol In Trademark Infringement Suit, Says Compromise In Product Quality
Can Adversely Affect Customers (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
ruling-castrol-trademark-infringement-suit-243751)
Case Title: CASTROL LIMITED & ANR. v. VOLTRANIC INDIA LUBRICANTS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has awarded costs of Rs. 1 lakh in favor of Castrol India Limited in a trademark
infringement suit filed by it against manufacturing of identical products by the defendant-entity using its
registered trademarks.
MBBS Seats At AIIMS Not For Sale, Securing Them Through Unlawful Means Opposed To Public Policy:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-mbbs-seats-aiims-
integrity-education-system-243752)
Title: SMT. VIMMI CHAWLA v. DEEPAK SETHI
The Delhi High Court has observed that the seats in MBBS course at All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (AIIMS) are not for sale and securing them through unlawful means is immoral and opposed to
public policy.
Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld a trial court order dismissing the suit filed by a mother seeking recovery of
Rs. 30 lakhs given to an individual to secure admission of her daughter for MBBS course at AIIMS.
Delhi HC Imposes Rs. 10K Costs On Litigant For Filing Petition Alleging Unauthorized Construction With
Incorrect Description Of Property (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
costs-litigant-unauthorised-construction-incorrect-description-243754)
Case Title: SHARIQ v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
The Delhi High Court recently imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on a litigant for filing a petition alleging
unauthorized construction with incorrect description of the property.
Justice Prateek Jalan observed that due care must be taken while filing a writ petition to ensure that the
details incorporated in it are correct.
Delhi High Court Allows Death Claim Filed By Building Worker's Widow, Says Board Secretary Can
Condone Delay In Annual Contribution Payment (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-building-worker-widow-death-claim-board-secretary-condone-delay-243759)
Case Title: Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board
The Delhi High Court has allowed a plea for death benefits and funeral claims filed by a building worker's
widow, observing that Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (“Act”) is a beneficial
legislation aimed at benefit of construction workers who do not have any form of security.
Delhi High Court Orders To Increase Income Threshold For EWS Admissions In Schools From Rs. 1 Lakh
To Rs. 5 Lakh Till Amendment (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
income-threshold-ews-admissions-schools-rs-5-lakh-amendment-reservation-scheme-243761)
Title: MASTER SINGHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the existing income threshold of Rs. 1 lakh per annum, for
admissions under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in schools in the city, be increased to Rs.
5 lakhs, till an amendment is made by Delhi Government in the 2011 reservation scheme.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the Delhi Government to take a decision as expeditiously as
possible to increase the existing threshold income of Rs. 1 lakh per annum to a “commensurate amount”
which corresponds to the living standards of the intended beneficiaries of the scheme in the city.
Dishonor Of Cheque Given As Security Attracts Section 138 NI Act, Cases of 'Account Closed' And
'Payment Stopped' Also Covered: Delhi HC (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-security-cheque-dishonor-attracts-section-138-negotiable-instruments-act-243794)
Case Title: Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand
The Delhi High Court recently observed that dishonor of a cheque given as security attracts Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“NI Act”) and cases where cheques are dishonored for reasons
“payment stopped” or “account closed” also fall within the ambit of the provision.
Conduct Structural Audit Of Hospital, School Buildings To Check Stability During Earthquakes: Delhi High
Court To Authorities (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-structural-audit-
hospital-school-buildings-stability-earthquakes-243798)
Title: Arpit Bhargava and Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to conduct a structural audit of buildings of all
hospitals, schools and colleges in the national capital to check their stability during earthquakes.
Delhi High Court Appoints Justice Nageswara Rao As Mediator In 'Shape Mark' Infringement Suit By
Cricket Helmets Manufacturer (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
justice-nageswara-rao-mediator-suit-cricket-players-helmets-design-243799)
Title: KOHLI SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHI SPORTS
The Delhi High Court has appointed former judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Nageswara Rao,
as a mediator in a suit filed by manufacturer of cricket helmets alleging infringement of its shape mark by
a Meerut based entity selling identical products.
Delhi High Court Orders Fresh Valuation Of Salman Rushdie's Ancestral Property, Requests Single Judge
To Conclude Proceedings Expeditiously (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-fresh-valuation-market-price-salman-rushdie-ancestral-property-single-judge-243832)
Title: NARENDER JAIN & ANR v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS and Other
Connected Matters
The Delhi High Court has ordered fresh valuation of the market price of an ancestral property of Indian-
born British-American writer Salman Rushdie in city's Civil Lines area which was valued by a single judge
at Rs. 130 Crores in 2019.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the 2019 order and
remanded the matter back to the single judge to determine the value of the property afresh, in terms of
the directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2012.
Invalidity Of Trademark Registration Not A Defense To Infringement, But May Be Relevant When Deciding
The Question Of Relief: Delhi HC (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
invalid-trademark-defense-infringement-interim-relief-243845)
Case Title: Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v. LDD Bioscience Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Bhargava Phytolab to protect its mark “TUMORIN” against
defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark “TUMOTIN”, the Delhi High Court recently granted relief of
interim injunction, holding that plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case of infringement.
Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo On Translocation Of Deer From Deer Park At Hauz Khas
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-status-quo-translocation-deer-deer-
park-hauz-khas-243850)
Title: New Delhi NatureSociety v. Director Horticulture DDA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has ordered status quo on the translocation of deer from city's Deer Park at Hauz
Khas, till further orders.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order in a
PIL moved by New Delhi Nature Society against translocation of about 600 animals, including deer, from
the park to city's Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary, without compliance of legal provisions and guidelines.
Decide Plea To Ban License For Keeping 'Dangerous Dogs' Within Three Months: Delhi High Court To
Centre (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-representation-ban-license-
dangerous-dogs-centre-243872)
Title: THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS LAW FIRM (REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATE
ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to decided expeditiously and preferably within
three months a representation seeking to cancel and ban the license for keeping dogs like Pitbull,
American Bulldog, Rottweiler etc. and their cross breeds which are dangerous to public at large.
Delhi HC Rules In Favour Of CNN News Channel In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Lucknow Based
Entity, Awards ₹7 Lakh Costs (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-cnn-
news-channel-trademark-infringement-suit-243874)
Title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. CITY NEWS NETWORK & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Lucknow based news website from using the marks “CNN City
News Network” or “CNN” in a trademark infringement suit filed by CNN news channel.
Cases Involving Kidnapping Of Minors Can't Be Quashed By Settlement, Involves Practice Of Children
Being Treated As Commodity: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-kidnapping-minors-quashing-of-fir-settlement-243880)
Title: SMT. RUBINA & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal proceedings in cases involving children cannot be
quashed on the basis of settlement between parties as it could contribute to the perpetuation of a culture
where rights and dignity of minors are subjugated to negotiation and compromise.
Persons Not Affected By Order Challenged In Revision Petition Not Necessary Parties, Cannot Seek
Recourse To Section 401(2) CrPC: Delhi HC (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-revision-petition-unaffected-person-not-necessary-party-crpc-243885)
Case Title: M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
While dealing with a plea filed by M/s Bennett Coleman, Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court
recently observed that the words “other persons” under Section 401(2) CrPC cannot be construed as
wide enough to include persons not affected by the order challenged in the revision petition.
Judges May Often Stay Aloof From Public, But Don't Remain Aloof From Societal Expectations: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-judges-judiciary-pocso-act-
minor-victim-aggravated-penetrative-sexual-assault-conviction-243888)
Title: VICKY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has observed that the judges may often stay aloof from the public, but they do not
remain aloof from the societal expectations that offenders of criminal offences should be punished for
their wrong doings.
“By maintaining a vigilant approach, the Courts ensure that the pursuit of truth remains paramount,
undeterred by outside influences or attempts to compromise the integrity of the legal process,” Justice
Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
Delhi High Court Restrains Forest Department From Conducting Proposed 'Walkathon' Inside Asola Bhati
Wildlife Sanctuary (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-forest-department-
proposed-walkathon-asola-bhati-wildlife-sanctuary-243900)
Title: Divender v. LG of Delhi
The Delhi High Court has restrained the city forest department from conducting a “Walkathon” event
proposed to be held inside the city's Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary, till further orders.
Objections In Contested Testamentary Cases Must Not Be Rejected On Technical Grounds, Delay
Condonable Unless Inordinate: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-objection-testamentary-petition-rejection-technical-grounds-delay-condonable-243907)
Case Title: Vikas Malhotra v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
While dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay, the Delhi High Court has held that
objections in a contested testamentary petition should not be rejected on technical grounds, unless there
has been an inordinate delay.
Explanations 6 & 7 Appended To Section 9(1)(i) Income Tax Act To Be Given Retrospective Effect: Delhi
High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/explanations-6-7-section-91i-income-tax-
act-1961-retrospective-effect-delhi-high-court-243949)
Case Title: CIT Versus Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that Explanations 6 and 7 appended to section 9(1)(i) Of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 to be given retrospective effect.
Delhi High Court Cautions Its Registry To Keep In Mind Judgments, Practice Directions On Ensuring
Confidentiality Of Sexual Offences Victims In Filings (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-
court/delhi-high-court-cautions-registry-judgments-practice-directions-confidentiality-sexual-offences-
victims-filings-243956)
Title: FAIZY KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
The Delhi High Court has recently cautioned its Registry to “keep in mind” the judgments and its practice
directions for ensuring that anonymity and confidentiality of the prosecutrix or victim of sexual offences
is maintained in judicial filings.
Filing Of Chargesheet Not Sole Criteria While Considering Grant Of Bail, Has To Be Coupled With Facts
And Circumstances: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-chargesheet-bail-facts-and-circumstances-gang-rape-243944)
Title: KESHAV PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has observed that filing of chargesheet in a criminal case is not the sole criteria to
be taken into consideration while considering the grant of bail to an accused as it has to be coupled with
facts and circumstance involved.
Woman Can Be 'Karta' Of Hindu Undivided Family; Hindu Law Doesn't Limit Women's Right To Be HUF
Karta : Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-woman-
karta-hindu-undivided-family-243968)
Title: MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu Law, in any way, limits
the right of a woman to be a Karta of an Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “societal
perceptions” cannot be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the Legislature.
Cyber Crimes Erode People's Trust In Online Transactions, Against Aspirations Of Advanced 'Digital
Bharat': Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-cyber-
crimes-online-transactions-digital-bharat-243978)
Titled VINEET JHAVAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has observed that crime-enables crimes erode trust of the people in online financial
transactions platforms which is against the aspirations of an advanced “Digital Bharat.”
No Entity's Suspension Can Be Indefinitely Continued, Investigation Of Ex-Director Not Attributable To

Company: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-indefinite-
suspension-without-show-cause-notice-augusta-westland-243981)
Case Title: Defsys Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India, LPA 672/2023 (and connected matter)
In connection with Union of India's suspension of business dealings with Defsys Solutions Private
Limited (“Defsys”), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that no suspension can continue
indefinitely without show cause notice, especially because even at the time of review, principles of
fairness/natural justice are not to be adhered to.
A Party Cannot Unilaterally Appoint The Presiding Arbitrator Upon The Failure Of The Nominee Arbitrators
To Reach A Consensus: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-ruling-unilateral-appointment-presiding-arbitrator-not-allowed-arbitration-act-244005)
Case Title: J.S.R. Constructions v. NHAI, ARB.P. 753 of 2023
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot unilaterally appoint the presiding arbitrator upon the
failure of the nominee arbitrators to reach a consensus.
Courts Can Authorize Investigating Agency To Obtain Voice Samples of Accused, But Compliance With
Telegraph Act Provisions Must: Delhi HC (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-obtaining-accused-voice-samples-must-comply-telegraph-act-244030)
Case Title: Sanjiv Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
While dealing with the issue of interception of calls, Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently
held that in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,
courts can authorize an investigating agency to obtain voice samples of accused. However, there must
be compliance with provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
Investigations Often Half-Hearted, Provisions Of NDPS Act Must Be Implemented Effectively: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-investigations-half-hearted-
provisions-ndps-act-244049)
Title: AWADHESH YADAV v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has said that the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985, must be implemented effectively, observing that investigations in narcotics cases are often half-
hearted for various reasons.
Delhi HC Allows Claim Of Widow Whose Husband Died Helping Road Accident Victim, Says Law Must
Stand With Good Samaritans (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
compensation-good-samaritan-truck-driver-death-helping-roadside-victim-244053)
Case Title: Kanta v. Gurvinder Kapoor & Anr.
The Delhi High Court recently allowed appeal of a truck driver's widow, observing that denial of her
compensation claim on the ground that the driver added peril himself by getting down his vehicle to help
another, was “unconscionable” and “patently erroneous”, as well as opposed to purposes of the
Employees' Compensation (EC) Act.
Delhi High Court Declares 'Burger King' As A Well-Known Trademark (https://www.livelaw.in/high-

court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-burger-king-well-known-trademark-244058)
Title: BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has declared “Burger King” as a well known trademark, considering the long period
during which the mark and its variations have been used for fast foods, especially burgers.
Reassessment Proceedings, Senior Officers Like ACIT, PCIT Expected To Apply Mind; Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/reassessment-proceedings-senior-officers-acit-pcit-
expected-apply-mind-delhi-high-court-244063)
Case Title: Shourya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO
The Delhi High Court has held that senior officers like ACIT and PCIT are expected to apply their minds to
such requests and, only after that, approve the initiation of reassessment proceedings.
Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Missing Children Cases, Calls For User Friendly Ready To Use
Handbook In Police Stations (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
directions-missing-children-cases-user-friendly-ready-to-use-handbook-police-stations-244088)
Title: LAMBODER JHA v. GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has called for a user-friendly ready-to-use handbook in every Police Station across
the national capital for accessibility to aid investigations concerning cases of missing children.
Issuing various directions concerning cases related to missing children, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
said that a standardized checklist must be formulated and maintained at all police stations, providing a
comprehensive guide for investigating officers when handling such cases.
Delhi High Court Quashes Order In Revision In Respect Of Rs.1,000 Cr. LTCG Exemption Passed Against
Buyer Of Non-Existing Seller (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-revision-
order-ltcg-exemption-buyer-non-existing-seller-244094)
Case Title: CIT Versus Cairnhill Cipef Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that a revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not
be passed against a non-existing seller entity by invoking Section 163 against the buyer.
Explore Possibility Of Developing Parking Spaces In Mehrauli's Vicinity To Tackle Traffic: Delhi High Court
To MCD (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-parking-space-mehrauli-
traffic-mcd-244122)
Title: SHARAD VASHISHT GENERAL SECRETARY W ONE DESU ROAD MEHRAULI v. GOVERNMENT OF
NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to explore the possibility of
developing parking spaces in the vicinity of Mehrauli area to tackle the problem of traffic jam there.
High Court Accepts Litigant's Apology For Calling Delhi Judiciary Corrupt 'Out Of Sheer Frustration',
Discharges Him Of Criminal Contempt (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-litigant-apology-delhi-judiciary-corrupt-discharge-criminal-contempt-244143)
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. BRIJESH SHUKLA
The Delhi High Court has discharged a litigant of criminal contempt proceedings initiated against him for
calling the Delhi judiciary corrupt, levelling allegations against a judicial officer and using abusive
language against him.
Advance Service On Defendant Must Under IPD Rules, Unless Plaintiff Demonstrates Likelihood Of
Irreparable Injury: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
house-of-diagnostics-advance-service-ipd-suit-must-unless-irreparable-injury-244155)
Case Title: House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. House of Pathology Labs Private Limited
In response to a plea raised by plaintiffs/House of Diagnostics for exemption from advance service of
the suit papers on the defendant, the Delhi High Court recently ruled that advance service of suit papers
on a defendant, as mandated by Rule 22 of the IPD Rules, is must, unless plaintiff demonstrates that
compliance with the requirement would cause irreparable prejudice or irreversibly alter the status quo.
Participation In Arbitration And Filing Section 29(A) Application Not To Preclude Challenge To Arbitrator's
Eligibility: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ruling-
arbitrator-eligibility-section-29a-application-arbitration-act-244161)
Case Title: Umaxe Projects Pvt Ltd v. AIR Force Naval Housing Board, OMP(COMM) 469/2023
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere participation of a party in the arbitration proceeding cannot be
deemed to be a waiver under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
Technical Deficiencies, Including Pagination And Affidavit Attestation, Do Not Render Section 34 Under
A&C Act Non-Est: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
ruling-technical-deficiencies-dont-invalidate-petitions-section-34-arbitration-act-244162)
Case Title: Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 302 of 2019
The High Court of Delhi has held that technical deficiencies, including pagination and affidavit
attestation, do not invalidate petitions under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Design Piracy | Overall Impression Of Design Is What Matters, Trade Variants And Miniscule Differences
Can Be Ignored: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
design-piracy-overall-impression-matters-ignore-miniscule-differences-244221)
Case Title: Havells India Limited v. Polycab India Limited
In a design infringement suit by Havells, the Delhi High Court has observed that when examining the
aspect of design piracy from the point of view of visual appeal, it is the overall impression of the design
of the defendant's product, vis-à-vis the suit design, that matters.
“…it is the overall shape and configuration which matters. The Court is not supposed to fragment the
shape or configuration of the suit design into minor individual elements and start measuring lengths and
breadths in order to arrive at a finding regarding imitation/similarity.”
Lawyer Tenders Apology For Filing PIL To Ban Anti-Tobacco Imagery In Ads, Delhi High Court Expunges
Single Judge's Remarks (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-lawyer-
apology-pil-to-anti-tobacco-imagery-ads-244224)
Title: DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has expunged the remarks made by a single judge against a lawyer while
dismissing his PIL seeking prohibition on the display of anti-tobacco advertisements containing “graphic
or gross images” during films in cinemas, TV or OTT platforms.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna last week accepted the
unconditional apology tendered by the lawyer who said that his endeavour was never to promote or
support consumption of tobacco in any manner and that he is himself against use of tobacco in any
form.
Ensure Public Toilets Are Clean, Hygienic And In Order: Delhi High Court To Authorities
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-public-toilets-clean-hygienic-mcd-
dda-244241)
Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Development
Authority (DDA) to ensure that the public urinals and toilets in the national capital are clean, hygienic and
in order.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing a public
interest litigation filed by Jan Sewa Welfare Society to ensure availability of hygienic public urinals with
clean water and electricity supply in the city.
No Incriminating Material Was Found During Search: Delhi High Court Quashes S. 153A Proceedings
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/incriminating-material-search-delhi-high-court-
proceedings-244246)
Case Title: PCIT Versus Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessment for the assessment year 2011–12 was finalized on
January 20, 2012, and no notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued. As such, no
assessment was pending on the date of the search action, i.e., October 29, 2013.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that during the search
action against the respondent or assessee, no incriminating material was found, and the material in the
form of a statement now sought to be relied upon by the appellant or department was recorded
subsequent to the search action.
Delhi HC Rejects Special Status Claim Of Litigant Who Impleaded District Judge In Person, Directs
Periodic Visit By SHO Saying He May Need 'Care' (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-
court/delhi-high-court-rejects-special-status-claim-litigant-impleaded-district-judge-244253)
Case Title: Subhajit Dutta v. Principal District and Sessions Judge (South Delhi), Saket Courts Complex,
and Ors
While dealing with an appeal impleading District Court Judges, the Delhi High Court recently observed
that the appellant was not entitled to any special privileges based on his claim of being a “Special
Constitutional Functionary with the Union of India”, and instead, appeared to be in need of care and
protection.
SCN Lacked Time Or Date For Personal Hearing: Delhi High Court Directs Restoration Of GST Registration
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/scn-lacked-time-date-personal-hearing-delhi-high-
court-restoration-gst-registration-244249)
Case Title: ATT SYS India Pvt Ltd Estex Tele Private Limited Consortium Versus The Commissioner
Goods And Services Tax Delhi
The Delhi High Court has directed the restoration of GST registration as no opportunity for a hearing was
accorded to the petitioner or assessee.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the show cause notice
(SCN) does not mention any time or date for a personal hearing. Thus, the petitioner was not afforded a
hearing to contest the SCN. The order cancelling the petitioner's registration is void as it has been passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice.
ITC Reversal During Late Night Search Involuntarily: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Reverse ITC In
Assessee's ECL (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/itc-reversal-night-search-involuntarily-
delhi-high-court-reverse-itc-ecl-244251)
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And
Services Tax Act & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to reverse the input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs.
22,14,226 in the petitioner's electronic credit ledger (ECL).
“We do not find it difficult to accept that the petitioner may have found the circumstances intimidating
and had, accordingly, agreed to reverse the ITC. We are unable to accept that the reversal of ITC was
made voluntarily without any suggestion or encouragement by the officers,” the bench of Justice Vibhu
Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed.
Assessee Coerced To Deposit GST During Search: Delhi High Court Orders Refund
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/assessee-coerced-deposit-gst-search-delhi-high-
court-refund-244252)
Case Title: Neeraj Paper Marketing Ltd. Versus Special Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes,
Gnctd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner by
making a payment of Rs. 23,70,000 in cash along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that payments aggregating
to Rs. 28,20,000 were made at 11:49 PM and at 12:38 PM during the search operations. The payments
made by it were not voluntary but under compelling circumstances.
Delhi High Court Allows Exemptions Claim Of Amazon On Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation Under
Customs Notification (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-exemptions-
amazon-echo-show-echo-dot-generation-customs-notification-244266)
Case Title: AMAZON WHOLESALE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE
RULING, NEW DELHI & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has held that Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation, and Echo Dot 4th Generation
with Clock are eligible to claim exemptions in accordance with SI. No. 20 of the Notification dated June
30, 2017.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that merely because
these devices could, if so chosen by the user, also be used as mere speakers, the same would not justify
recognizing their primordial attribute to be that of a speaker alone.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Newsclick's Plea Seeking Stay Of Demand During Pendency Of Appeal Before
Commissioner Of Income Tax (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
newsclick-stay-of-demand-commissioner-of-income-tax-244271)
Title: PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL DELHI AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by news portal Newsclick seeking stay of
demand, as per the assessment order of income tax department passed last year, during the pendency of
its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna upheld two orders
passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax which dismissed the news portal's
application for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal.
GST Officers Should Not Pressurise Taxpayers To Pay Tax Not Following Procedure: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/impermissible-gst-officers-pressurize-taxpayers-pay-
tax-requisite-procedure-delhi-high-court-244244)
Case Title: Lovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax
& Ors.
The Delhi High Court has held that it is impermissible for the officers to pressurize the taxpayers to pay
tax without following the requisite procedure, notwithstanding that it may be apparent that such tax is
due and payable.
Delhi High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Former GGSIPU Dean, Says Accusations Were Made
To Authorized Person In Good Faith (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
ggsipu-former-dean-defamation-complaint-quashed-244280)
Case Title: Dr Suman Gupta v. Ravinder Pratap & Ors
The Delhi High Court has quashed a defamation case filed against Dr Suman Gupta, former Professor
and Dean, University School of Law and Legal Studies (USLLS), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University (GGSIPU), noting that the case fell under exception 8 (accusation preferred in good faith to
authorized person) to Section 499 IPC.
Trial Has To Begin De Novo When Case Is Committed By Magistrate To Sessions Court: Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-de-novo-trial-case-committed-
magistrate-sessions-court-244282)
Title: SHANKAR @ GORI SHANKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that when a case is committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session,
the trial would have to begin de novo.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the Sessions Court would first frame charges and then proceed with
the examination of the witnesses.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Divorce To Omar Abdullah From Estranged Wife Payal Abdullah
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-refuses-to-grant-divorce-to-omar-
abdullah-from-estranged-wife-payal-abdullah-244294)
Title: Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar
Abdullah seeking divorce from his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan rejected the petition moved by
Omar Abdullah challenging a family court order passed on August 30, 2016, dismissing his plea for
divorce.
Delhi High Court Quashes Final Assessment Order Passed By AO Without Waiting For DRP's Directions
Mandated U/s 144C (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-quashes-final-
assessment-order-ao-drp-244316)
Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department
National Faceless Assessment Centre
The Delhi High Court has set aside the final assessment order and the consequent notices and
computations that were passed without waiting for the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel
(DRP) as per the mandate of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court Permits Nimisha Priya's Mother To Travel To Yemen At Her Own Risk To Save Daughter
On Death Row (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-nimisha-priya-mother-
travel-yemen-save-daughter-death-row-244346)
Title: PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
The Delhi High Court has permitted mother of a Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, an Indian who is on death
row in Yemen, to travel there along with another individual working there, at her own personal risk without
any liability of the Union Government or concerned State Government.
Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Pay GST ITC To IOCL (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-
court/delhi-high-court-gst-itc-iocl-244354)
Case Title: IOCL Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has allowed the refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to the inverted
duty structure to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL).
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the rate of tax
chargeable on inputs other than LPG, which are higher than the rate of GST chargeable on bottled LPG.
The ITC has accumulated on account of the rate of tax on such inputs being higher than the output
supply – bottled LPG.
No Room For One Who Tries To Seek Employment In Disciplined Forces By Concealing Material Fact
About Criminal Antecedents: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-employment-disciplined-forces-concealing-material-fact-criminal-antecedents-244419)
Title: BINEET SINGH BISHT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no room for an individual who endeavours to seek
employment in disciplined forces by concealing material fact about his or her criminal antecedents.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain observed that there has to be strict
obedience towards disclosure about criminal antecedents by anyone seeking employment in disciplined
forces.
Roving Inquiry As Per Order Of Special Judge (PC Act) By GST Dept. Delhi High Court Quashes Order
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/roving-inquiry-order-special-judge-gst-dept-delhi-high-
court-quashes-order-244450)
Case Title: Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Agro Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Tax Gst
Delhi- East
The Delhi High Court has quashed the special judge's directions for conducting a roving inquiry by the
GST department in the absence of any statutory provisions.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that apart from the
directions issued in terms of the order dated April 5, 2023, there were no reasons for the respondent to
initiate the search against the petitioners under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act.
VAT Applicable On Sale Of Repossessed Vehicles: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-
court/delhi-high-court/vat-sale-repossessed-vehicles-delhi-high-court-244451)
Case Title: Indusind Bank Limited Versus Department Of Trade & Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi
The Delhi High Court has held that the sale of repossessed vehicles is subject to the charge of value-
added tax (VAT).
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that notices have been
issued to the petitioner demanding VAT on the sale of repossessed vehicles and not on the transaction of
financing the vehicles at the initial purchase.
Not Oblivious Of Ground Situation Of Rampant Unauthorised Construction Allowed By MCD Officials
Under Their Noses: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
ground-situation-unauthorised-construction-mcd-officials-244462)
Title: VIREN SINGH v. MADHUP VYAS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not oblivious of the ground situation regarding the rampant
unauthorized construction allowed by officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in the city
“under their very noses” and the “ill motivated selective application of laws”, thereby harassing and
tormenting innocent people.
Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice Issued Prior To Date Of Approval Of Resolution Plan
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-income-tax-notice-issued-prior-
approval-resolution-plan-244463)
Case Title: TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI
The Delhi High Court has quashed the income tax notices and orders issued prior to the date of approval
of the resolution plan.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed the notices and orders
pertaining to the income tax claims of the respondents or department pertaining to the period much prior
to the date of approval of the resolution plan.
Overlapping Jurisdiction To Grant Maintenance Under Different Legislations Leads To Conflicting Orders,
'Forum Shopping': Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
overlapping-jurisdiction-maintenance-laws-forum-shopping-244473)
Title: ABC v. XYZ
The Delhi High Court has recently said that there is an overlapping of jurisdiction to grant interim
maintenance under various enactments which leads to conflicting judgments or orders at different
stages between the parties.
“Such conflicting Orders, in the similar facts and without any change in circumstances, under overlapping
jurisdiction of different Acts, creates a sense of judicial impropriety and forum shopping, which may not
be conducive to the majesty of the Courts,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice
Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Postponement Of Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary
Examination 2023 (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-pil-postponement-
delhi-judicial-services-preliminary-examination-2023-244484)
Title: VISHAL YADAV v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking postponement of the Delhi Judicial Services
Preliminary Examination, 2023, which is scheduled to be held on December 17.
Refusing to postpone the examination date, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and
Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a public interest litigation moved by one Vishal Yadav.
Delhi High Court Transfers Probe Into Attack On Advocates In 2018 To CBI (https://www.livelaw.in/high-
court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-transfers-probe-attack-advocates-cbi-244569)
Title: Court in its own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
The Delhi High Court has transferred the probe into the attack on three advocates and members of the
Delhi High Court Bar Association in 2018 from Delhi Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna ordered the probe
agency to take action in the matter in accordance with law and directed that the entire investigation
report be transferred to it within 10 days.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Restraining Booking.com From Using 'MakeMyTrip' Mark
As Keyword On Google Ads Program (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
bookingcom-makemytrip-trademark-keyword-google-ads-program-244570)
Title: GOOGLE LLC v. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge's order which restrained Google and online travel
agency Booking.com from using 'MakeMyTrip' mark, with or without spaces, as a keyword on the Google
Ads Program.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Booking.com is a well-
known and popular platform offering travel services and that prima facie, it cannot accept that an
internet user is likely to be misled into believing that the services offered by it are those of Make My Trip.
Children Room In District Courts Must Be Kept Open On Every Second Saturday And Sunday For
Visitation: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-children-
room-district-courts-every-second-saturday-sunday-visitation-244571)
Title: X v. Y
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the children room in all District Courts in the national capital must
be kept open on every Sundays and second Saturdays between 10 AM to 5 PM, so that visitation with
children can also be directed on those days.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that it is a matter
of record that District Courts in Delhi are closed on Sundays and Second Saturday and no order for
visitation can be passed on those days.
Words Of Common English Usage Can't Be Registered As Trademark, No Monopoly Can Be Claimed By
Anyone: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-words-
common-english-trademark-monopoly-244573)
Title: INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS v. WORLDDEVCORP TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
& ORS.
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that words of common English usage cannot be registered as a
trademark and no monopoly can be claimed by the registrant of such a mark.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that words of ordinary English usage cannot be monopolised or else, the
entire language would be appropriated by a few, which cannot be permitted.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Urgent Implementation Of Women's Reservation Bill
In Upcoming 2024 General Polls (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
womens-reservation-bill-upcoming-2024-general-polls-244611)
Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking direction on the Union Government and
the Election Commission of India to urgently implement the Women's Reservation Bill, 2023, to ensure the
reservation of 33% seats for women in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain Ashneer Grover From Creating Third Party Rights In 'Unpaid Shares'
Of BharatPe Co-Founder Shashvat Nakrani (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-ashneer-grover-third-party-rights-unpaid-shares-bharatpe-co-founder-shashvat-nakrani-244628)
Title: Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover
The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain BharatPe's former Managing Director Ashneer Grover from
creating any third party rights in the “unpaid shares” which he bought from fintech company's co-founder
Shashvat Nakrani.
CBSE Examination Bye-Laws In Nature Of Central Bye-Laws, Not Akin To Local State Acts Or Regulations:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-cbse-examination-
bye-laws-centre-bye-laws-local-state-acts-regulations-244619)
Title: KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL & ANR. v. ARYAN KUMAR THROUGH FATHER
RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has said that the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws are in the nature of Central Bye-Laws
and are not akin to Local State Acts or Regulations.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that when
there is contradiction and conflict in the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws and KVS Education Code, the
former would prevail.
2017 Haryana Judicial Paper Leak: Delhi High Court Upholds Charges Framed Against Former P&H HC
Registrar (Recruitment) (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-2017-
haryana-judicial-paper-leak-charges-former-ph-hc-registrar-recruitment-244679)
Title: DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH
The Delhi High Court has upheld the charges framed against former Registrar (Recruitment) of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, in connection with the paper leak of
Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that as per the record, Sharma was in possession of the question
paper immediately before the alleged leak.
Patent Office Expected To Pass Final Orders Within Reasonable Period Not Exceeding 3 To 6 Months:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-patent-office-final-
orders-reasonable-period-244684)
Title: PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Patent Office is expected to pass final orders after
concluding oral hearings within a reasonable period, which cannot be beyond three to six months,
depending on the complexity of the case.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there are strict timelines prescribed in the Patents Act, 1970, and its
Rules right from the filing of the request of examination, preparation of examination report by the
examiner of patent, consideration of the report by the Controller, issuance of the statement of objections,
reply to the statement of objections and the time for putting the application for grant of patent.
Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright Registration Of 'Arras The Boss' In Suit By Perfume Brand 'Hugo Boss'
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-copyright-registration-arras-the-boss-
suit-perfume-brand-hugo-boss-244700)
Title: HUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH AND CO. KG. v. SANDEEP ARORA TRADING AS
ARRAS THE BOSS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the copyright registration of 'Arras The Boss', obtained by an
individual selling perfumes, in a suit filed by German perfumery brand 'Hugo Boss'.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that 'Arras The Boss' is an imitative mark and artistic work and not an
original artistic work.
Petition U/S 34 Of The A&C Act Dismissed Twice For Non-Prosecution, Delhi High Court Denies Benefit Of
Section 14 Of Limitation Act Citing Lack Of Diligent Prosecution (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-
high-court/petition-us-34-of-the-ac-act-dismissed-twice-for-non-prosecution-delhi-high-court-denies-
benefit-of-section-14-of-limitation-act-citing-lack-of-diligent-prosecution-244730)
Case Title: U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not available to a
petitioner who, through lack of diligence, allowed its Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act to be dismissed twice for non-prosecution.
Correctness Of Information Provided Can't Be Adjudicated In Proceedings Under RTI Act: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-correctness-information-
proceedings-rti-act-244740)
Title: NARENDRA TYAGI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO)
The Delhi High Court has observed that the correctness of information provided under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under
the enactment.
Bare Plea Of Fraud, Coercion Not Enough To Challenge Settlement Agreement U/S 34 Of The A&C Act:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/bare-plea-of-fraud-coercion-not-
enough-to-challenge-settlement-agreement-us-34-of-the-ac-act-delhi-high-court-244731)
Case Title: Usha Bansal v. Genesis Finance Co. Ltd
The High Court of Delhi has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify challenge to
the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify
challenge to the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Insurance Company Has No Contractual Or Other Relationship With Transferee Of Offending Vehicle:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-insurance-company-
contractual-relationship-transferee-offending-vehicle-244773)
Title: INDIWAR PARIJAT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS and other connected matter
The Delhi High Court has observed that an Insurance Company has no contractual or other relationship
with transferee of the offending vehicle in a road accident.
“The registered owner cannot absolve himself of the liability by contending that he had transferred the
offending vehicle to a third person prior to the date of the accident,” Justice Navin Chawla said.
High-End KPO Services Provider Can't Be Compared With ITeS, Which Is BPO Services Provider: Delhi
High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/high-end-kpo-services-provider-compared-
ites-bpo-services-provider-delhi-high-court-244769)
Case Title: PCIT Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that the high-end knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) services provider
cannot be compared with the information technology-enabled services (ITeS), which fall under the
category of BPO services provider.
Delhi Riots: High Court Grants Bail To Two Men, Denies Bail To One In Rahul Solanki Murder Case
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-riots-bail-rahul-solanki-murder-
case-244786)
Title: ARIF v. STATE and other connected matters
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men and denied bail to one in a 2020 North-East Delhi riots
case where a bystander, Rahul Solanki, lost his life due to a gunshot injury.
Justice Amit Bansal granted bail to Arif and Anish Qureshi, who have been in custody since March 09,
2020, observing that the trial is likely to take a long time and they cannot be kept under incarceration for
an indefinite period.
2024 Lok Sabha Polls: Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Urgent Implementation Of
'Women's Reservation Bill' (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-2024-lok-
sabha-polls-pil-urgent-implementation-womens-reservation-bill-244790)
Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking urgent implementation
of the “Women's Reservation Bill, 2023” to ensure the reservation of 33% seats for women in the
upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted liberty to the
petitioner, a lawyer, Yogamaya MG, who withdrew the plea after some arguments, to approach the
Supreme Court before which a similar petition has been filed.
No Upward Adjustment Required To Be Carried Out For Amount Received By Sony India From Its AE: Delhi
High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/upward-adjustment-sony-india-ae-delhi-
high-court-244770)
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court has held that no upward adjustment concerning advertising, marketing, and
promotion expenses (AMP) ought to have been made as the comparables chosen by the Transfer Pricing
Officer (TPO) had a net margin lower than that registered by the assessee, Sony India.
S. 69A Of Income Tax Act Can Only Be Invoked Where Books Of Account Are Maintained: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/s-69a-income-tax-act-invoked-books-account-
maintained-delhi-high-court-244810)
Case Title: CIT Versus Hersh Washesher Chadha
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked where books
of account are maintained.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the assessee is a
non-resident Indian, and his source of income in India is interest on bank accounts and interest on
income tax refunds. He is not obliged to maintain any books of account in India.
'Wilful' Disobedience For Contempt Excludes Casual, Bona Fide Acts, Does Not Encompass Negligent
Actions: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-wilful-
disobedience-contempt-casual-acts-negligent-actions-244832)
Title: M/S KUEHNE + NAGEL PVT. LTD. v. MR. PREM SINGHEE
The Delhi High Court has observed that “wilful” disobedience of a judicial order by a contemnor excludes
casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.
“Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with malice or
without a justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. The deliberate conduct of a person
means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same,” Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.
Judicial System Can't Function If Parties Are Allowed To Resile From Their Undertaking Without Any
Reasons: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-judicial-
system-parties-undertaking-contempt-244862)
Title: THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v. SHEELA ABHAY LODHA & ORS
The Delhi High Court has observed that the judicial system cannot function if the parties are permitted to
resile from the undertaking given by them without any reasons.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that there is solemnity and seriousness attached to court proceedings and
parties cannot give undertakings without intending to honour them, or at least, they must make sincere
and conscious efforts to comply with the same.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10K Costs On Litigant Claiming Ownership Of Territory Between Ganga &
Yamuna From Agra To Gurugram (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
10k-costs-litigant-claiming-ownership-territory-ganga-yamuna-agra-gurugram-244892)
Title: KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on one Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh
who claimed property rights on the territory of Agra, running between rivers Yamuna and Ganga, to
Meerut and other places including 65 revenue estates of Delhi, Gurugram and Uttarakhand.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed Singh's plea seeking a direction on the Union Government to
adopt the process of merger, accession or enter into treaty with him for his claimed territory and pay the
due compensation to him.
Insolvency Resolution Professional Not 'Public Servant' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-insolvency-resolution-
professional-public-servant-prevention-of-corruption-act-244911)
Title: DR. ARUN MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) does not fall within the
meaning of “public servant” under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that it is not necessary that all duties which are broadly defined as
“public duty” would encompass within itself “public character”.
Decision To Cancel GST Registration With Retrospective Effect Must Be Based On Some Objective
Criteria: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/cancel-gst-registration-
retrospective-effect-delhi-high-court-244910)
Case Title: Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST
The Delhi High Court has held that the decision to cancel the GST registration with retrospective effect
must be based on some objective criteria.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner's GST
registration was cancelled on account of non-filing of returns for a period of six months.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To Replace Term 'Central Government' With 'Union Government' In Laws,
Notifications (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-pil-replace-central-
government-union-government-laws-notifications-244930)
Case Title: ATMARAM SARAOGI v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation for using the expression "Union
Government" instead of "Central Government" in all legislations, orders, notifications, Rules, executive
actions and circulars.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the
two terms can be used interchangeably and it was not a case of PIL.
Look Into Allegations Of Over-Invoicing By Power Firms Including Adani, Essar Groups: Delhi High Court
To CBI, DRI (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-allegations-over-
invoicing-power-firms-adani-group-essar-group-cbi-dri-244931)
Title: CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other
connected matter
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to “meticulously and expeditiously” look into the allegations of
over invoicing of coal imports and equipments by several power companies, including those of Adani
Group and Essar Group.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the authorities
to “unearth the actual factual position” and take appropriate actions against the erring companies, if any,
as per law.
Delhi High Court Constitutes Monitoring Committee To Periodically Review Recruitment Of Public
Prosecutors (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-monitoring-committee-
periodic-review-recruitment-public-prosecutors-244940)
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters
The Delhi High Court has constituted a monitoring committee to periodically review the recruitment of
public prosecutors for trial courts here.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that
cases are piling up in the trial courts due to lack of public prosecutors.
Vivo Money Laundering Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas Of Three Accused Alleging Illegal
Detention In Jail Sans Judicial Order (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
vivo-money-laundering-case-habeas-corpus-petitions-accused-illegal-detention-jail-judicial-custody-
244944)
Title: NITIN GARG v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas filed by three accused, in a money laundering case
registered against smartphone manufacturer Vivo, alleging illegal custody in Tihar jail for want of judicial
order remanding them to judicial custody.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur rejected the habeas corpus
pleas moved by Nitin Garg, Pranay Rai and a Chinese national Guangwen Kuang alias Andrew.
Time For Filing Written Statement Can Be Extended By Family Courts If Exceptional Circumstances
Shown: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-time-written-
statement-extended-family-courts-exceptional-circumstances-244951)
Title: X v. Y
The Delhi High Court had said that the time period of filing written statement, being in the realm of
procedural law, can be extended under the Family Courts Act, 1984, if the applicant spells out exceptional
circumstances or disability faced by him or her in filing the same.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta however underscored
that ordinarily, the time schedule for filing the written statement needs to be followed to deal with family
disputes in an expeditious manner.
Is Plaintiff Entitled To Complete Refund Of Court Fees Where Dispute Settled Privately Without ADR
Mechanism? Delhi High Court To Decide (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-plaintiff-refund-of-court-fees-dispute-settled-privately-adr-mechanism-244952)
Title: V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v. MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES AND ANR. & ANR.
The Delhi High Court is set to decide as to whether a plaintiff in a civil suit would be entitled to complete
refund of court fees or only to half of it, where the dispute is settled with the defendant privately, without
intervention of any ADR mechanism.
Justice C Hari Shankar referred the question to a division bench, observing that the issue may have to be
decided in the light of Sections 16 and Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, as well as different judgments
of the Supreme Court and division benches on the issue.
When Tenant Is Absent From Tenanted Premises, Summons Must Be Served At Alternative Address:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-tenant-tenanted-
premises-summons-alternative-address-244955)
Title: AMRIT LAL WADHERA & ANR. v. SAROJ SUNEJA
The Delhi High Court has said that where the tenant is undeniably absent from the address of tenanted
premises, temporarily or permanently, court should make every sincere endeavour to serve summons
upon the tenant at an alternate address.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that summoning by way of publication should only be resorted to
when the circumstances are such that it leaves no scope for any other course of action.
Increasing Abuse Of RTI Act Has Led To Paralysis And Fear Among Government Officials: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-abuse-rti-act-paralysis-fear-
government-officials-244979)
Title: SHISHIR CHAND v. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has said that it has been coming across various cases where the abuse of Right to
Information Act, 2005, has led to “paralysis and fear” among Government officials.
“The Act was brought into to provide for secure access to information to every citizen, and to prevent
corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable. However, this Court is now
seeing increasing abuse/misuse of the RTI Act…,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Delhi High Court Directs CISF To Amend Rules To Allow Recruitment Of Women As Drivers Within Six
Months (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-cisf-amend-rules-allow-
recruitment-women-drivers-245047)
Title: KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to amend its recruitment
Rules to allow recruitment of women as drivers in the force, within six months.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by Union
Government's counsel that it was not possible to give a definite timeline to the court within which the
Recruitment Rules for CISF shall be amended.
Decide Plea To Link Properties With Aadhaar Within Three Months: Delhi High Court To Centre, Delhi Govt
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-decide-plea-link-properties-aadhaar-
centre-delhi-govt-245079)
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre and the Delhi Government to decide within three months a
public interest litigation seeking linking of property documents with Aadhaar by treating it as a
representation.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia disposed of the plea moved by
BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, observing that it is a policy issue which has to be
decided by the concerned authorities.
'Not In Good Taste': Delhi High Court On Rahul Gandhi's Speech Against Prime Minister Narendra Modi,
Directs ECI To Take Action (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/not-in-good-taste-delhi-
high-court-on-rahul-gandhis-speech-against-prime-minister-narendra-modi-directs-eci-to-take-action-
within-eight-weeks-245103)
Title: BHARAT NAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has said that the speech made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on November 22 in
Rajasthan's Nadbai against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and calling him, along with Home Minister
Amit Shah and Gautam Adami as “pick pocketors”, was “not in good taste.”
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by
Advocate Suruchi Suri, the counsel representing Election Commission of India (ECI), that a show cause
notice was issued to Gandhi on November 23.
Delhi High Court Constitutes Committee Headed By Retired Judge To Examine Issues Regarding Forests
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-committee-retired-judge-examine-
issues-forests-245112)
Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has constituted an inter-departmental committee headed by a retired judge of the
court to examine the issues regarding forests in the national capital.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that for effective discharge of its responsibilities, the Committee may call for
any documents from any persons, government or any other official.
Having Different Religious Beliefs And Not Performing Religious Duties Per Se Not Cruelty: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-religious-beliefs-religious-
duties-cruelty-245128)
Title: X v. Y
While dealing with a divorce case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that having different religious beliefs
and not performing certain religious duties per se would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient
to severe a marital tie.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that fasting or not
fasting on “Karwachauth” may be an individual choice and if dispassionately considered, may not be
termed as an act of cruelty.
FIRs In Rape Cases With Minors Not Mere Printed Papers But Reflection Of Trauma Suffered By Victim:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-firs-rape-pocso-act-
minors-printed-papers-reflection-trauma-victim-245130)
Title: JASPREET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has said that the FIRs in cases involving sexual assault and rape committed upon
minors are not mere printed papers, but a trauma writ large, experienced by a living human being, which
is difficult to be portrayed on a piece of paper.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in cases of sexual assault of minor victims, the extreme
stressful situation and life-turning experience faced by a victim should not be dealt with in mechanical
manner by courts.
Delhi High Court Restrains US Based Company From Using 'Winzo Games' Mark, Orders Deactivation Of
'Winzos' Google Chrome Extension (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
us-based-company-winzo-games-mark-winzos-google-chrome-extension-245153)
Title: WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. BAJAAR LLC AND ORS
The Delhi High Court has restrained a US based company, offering an application “Winzos!” on Apple and
Google App Stores and an associated website, from using “Winzo” or “Winzo Games” mark.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also ordered deactivation of www.winzos.com extension on Google Chrome
Webstore.
Power To Extend Time For Submitting Audit Reports U/S 142(2c) Belongs Exclusively To AO And Can't Be
Exercised By CIT: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/power-extend-
time-submitting-audit-reports-ao-cit-delhi-high-court-245161)
Case Title: PCIT Versus B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that the power to extend the time for submitting audit reports under
Section 142(2c) belongs exclusively to the AO and cannot be exercised by CIT.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the Assessing
Officer alone has the jurisdiction to extend the deadline for filing audit reports under Section 142(2C); a
higher authority, such as the CIT, is not permitted to do so.
Limitation Period To Pass Fresh Assessment Order Expired: Delhi High Court Accepts Returned Income
For 12 Years (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/limitation-period-fresh-assessment-
order-expired-delhi-high-court-returned-income-12-years-245167)
Case Title: Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Versus PCIT
The Delhi High Court has accepted the returned income for 12 years as the limitation period to pass a
fresh assessment order has expired.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the time limit fixed
as per Section 153(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act or the time limit fixed by the amended provision, i.e.,
Section 153(3), as of today, the AO is bereft of jurisdiction and hence would have no legal locus to pass
an assessment order.
Family Courts Must Ordinarily Be Lenient In Matrimonial Disputes And Not Apply Rules Of Procedure
Strictly: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ruling-
procedural-rules-not-to-be-applied-stringently-in-matrimonial-disputes-245195)
Case Title: Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover
The Delhi High Court has allowed a wife's petition against closure of her right to cross-examine her
husband in divorce proceedings, observing that Family Courts must strike a delicate balance between
need for expeditious disposal and giving of fair opportunity to a party to present case.
Recording of Prosecutrix's Testimony Through Two-Way Video Conferencing Not Adverse, No Denial Of
Right To Fair Trial Of Accused: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-
high-court-recording-prosecutrix-testimony-two-way-video-conferencing-right-to-fair-trial-245199)
Title: VINOD KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has observed that recording of testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual assault cases
through “two-way video conferencing facility” is not adverse nor does it amount to denial of accused's
right to fair trial or effective cross-examination.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that recording of the victim's testimony will still have to be subjected
to the “tradition parameters of reliability” and will be tested on the touchstone of credibility on the basis
of cross-examination.
Delhi High Court Pulls Up Special NDPS Judge For Repeatedly Summoning Senior Cops, Sends Matter To
Inspection Committee (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-special-ndps-
judge-repeatedly-summoning-senior-cops-inspection-committee-245202)
Title: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CRIME-III, DELHI v.
SHADAB
The Delhi High Court has pulled up a Special NDPS judge in the national capital for repeatedly
summoning senior police officials and even issuing bailable warrants against a Deputy Commissioner of
Police, observing that there was a “complete breach of judicial discipline.”
Justice Amit Bansal said that the judge has been repeatedly passing orders that are in “teeth of a
detailed judgment” delivered by a Coordinate Bench where adverse remarks made by the same judge
against high-ranking police officials were expunged.
Delhi High Court Order Deputing One Clinical Child Psychologist In Each Family Court Complex
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-clinical-child-psychologist-family-
court-complex-245203)
Title: X v. Y
The Delhi High Court directed its Registrar General to take necessary steps for deputing at least one
Clinical Child Psychologist in each Family Court Complex, who would be in a better position to provide
counselling sessions to minor children as and when required or as directed in respective cases.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the report
submitted by the Clinical Child Psychologist on evaluation or counselling can be shared with the
concerned Family Court in a sealed cover, which would enable such court to form an appropriate opinion
for custody or visitation rights in custody cases.
Delhi High Court Forms Committee For Improving Healthcare Facilities In Prisons, Says Every Inmate Has
Inherent Right To Humane Treatment (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
committee-healthcare-facilities-prisons-inmate-inherent-right-to-humane-treatment-245204)
Title: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter
The Delhi High Court has formed a Committee for giving suggestions to improve the health care facilities
in prisons in the national capital, observing that every prison inmate has an inherent right to life and
humane treatment.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the committee will also inform the court as to whether facilities
are available in the jail hospital to deal with emergency situations such as cardiac arrest and
hemorrhages, “as the first few minutes in such eventuality are crucial to save life of a person.”
Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Expeditious Disposal Of Criminal Cases Against MPs, MLAs
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-directions-expeditious-disposal-
criminal-cases-against-mps-mlas-245223)
Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court has issued directions for expeditious and effective disposal of criminal cases
pending in the designated courts against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the
Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue Court to ensure almost equal pendency of the
criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the designated courts, at the same level.
Information On Interception Or Phone Tapping Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-information-interception-
phone-tapping-exempted-disclosure-rti-act-245230)
Title: TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. KABIR SHANKAR BOSE & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the information in relation to interception or tapping or tracking of a
phone is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that any order passed by the
Government in relation to interception or phone tapping is passed when an authorized officer is satisfied
that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of
the State, friendly relations with the foreign states or public order, and information on the same would be
exempted under RTI Act.
Convict Has Fundamental Right To Parenthood And Procreation, Incarceration Does Not Make Him
Lesser Citizen: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
convict-fundamental-right-to-parenthood-procreation-245234)
Title: KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a convict has the right to parenthood and procreation and such an
individual does not become a lesser citizen only due to the incarceration.
“While, Judiciary in Bharat, has always stubbornly refused to hold that prisoners have no fundamental
rights, this Court following the same tradition as handed over by judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court and
this Court respectfully takes the intent to interpret the constitutional rights in favour of upholding and
including new situations and challenges holds that right to parenthood and procreation is fundamental
right of a convict in peculiar circumstances of a case,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Solicitor General Of India's Opinion To Government Fiduciary In Nature, Exempted From Disclosure Under
RTI Act: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-solicitor-
general-of-india-opinion-government-fiduciary-exempted-disclosure-rti-act-245247)
Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
The Delhi High Court has accepted a submission that the advice tendered by the Solicitor General of
India to the Union Government and government departments is done in the nature of fiduciary, and hence,
the disclosure of such information would fall under the exception of Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
Justice Subramonium Prasad found no infirmity with Union Government's submission and said and that
the relationship between the Solicitor General of India and Government of India is that of a fiduciary and a
beneficiary.
Harassing Husband Publicly, Portraying Him As 'Womanizer' Extreme Cruelty: Delhi High Court Upholds
Divorce (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-harassing-husband-publicly-
extreme-cruelty-divorce-245248)
Title: X v. Y
The Delhi High Court recently upheld divorce granted to a married couple on the ground of cruelty by the
wife, observing that her act of harassing and humiliating the husband publicly and portraying him as a
“womanizer” in his office is an act of extreme cruelty to him.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that reckless,
defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which has the impact of publicly
tarnishing the image of the other, is nothing but acts of extreme cruelty.
Consider Proposal For Installing Biometric Machine To Facilitate Access Of Lawyers To NCLT: Delhi High
Court To Centre (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-consider-proposal-
installing-biometric-machine-lawyers-nclt-centre-245249)
Case Title: NCLT BAR ASSOCIATION THR ITS SECRETARY GENERAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to consider on priority basis the proposal for
installation of a biometric machine to facilitate the access of lawyers to the National Company Law
Tribunal (NCLT) premises.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna also directed the Land
and Development Office (L&DO) to process the proposal within eight weeks.
SFIO Not Barred From Investigating IPC Offences, Conducting 'Further Probe': Delhi High Court
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-sfio-not-barred-investigating-ipc-
offences-245250)
Title: R.K. GUPTA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is not barred from
investigating offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or conducting further investigation in
accordance with law after the Investigation Report has been submitted.
“From a conjoint and harmonious reading of the relevant provisions of the CrPC and the present Act, as
quoted hereinabove, it cannot be said that the SFIO is barred from investigating an offence under the IPC.
SFIO is not barred from conducting a ̳further investigation' in accordance with law,” Justice Amit Sharma
observed.
Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Freebit's 'Improved Earpiece', Imposes Cost Of 5 Lakhs For
Suppressing Material Facts (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-freebit-
denied-interim-relief-cost-imposed-for-suppression-of-material-facts-245264)
Case Title: Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by leading supplier of
in-ear products “Freebit AS”, observing that it had suppressed material facts and the suit patent was
vulnerable to revocation.
Referring to the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022, Justice Prathiba M Singh
explicated that, “it is necessary, to the extent possible, for a plaint to include details of corresponding
foreign patent applications, as well as information relating to any orders passed by a Court or Tribunal
concerning the same or substantially similar invention as asserted in the suit.”
Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief To Freebit's 'Improved Earpiece', Imposes Cost Of 5 Lakhs For
Suppressing Material Facts (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-freebit-
denied-interim-relief-cost-imposed-for-suppression-of-material-facts-245264)
Case Title: The Hershey Company v. Atul Jalan trading as Akshat Online Traders
Taking strict view of the food safety and public health concerns highlighted, the Delhi High Court recently
directed detailed investigation into the re-packaging and sale of expired food products in Delhi, including
counterfeit chocolates of leading brand Hershey's.
Going through the material brought on record, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the way in which
expired products were being reintroduced into markets appeared to be coordinated and systematic.
Delhi HC Dismisses TV Today Network's Plea Against Orders To Run Apology Scroll For Broadcasting
Advertisements Promoting Liquor Brand Names (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-
court/delhi-high-court-tv-today-denied-relief-against-orders-to-run-apology-scroll-245270)
Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 9556/2022
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with orders passed by Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, whereby TV Today Network, operator/owner of India Today and Aaj Tak, was directed to
run an apology scroll for broadcasting advertisements promoting brand names associated with alcohol
produces.
Domain Name Infringement, S.34 Restrains Judicial Interference In Issues Of 'Subjective Satisfaction';
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-clarifies-restriction-
under-section-34-arbitration-act-domain-name-infringement-case-245280)
Case details : QUANTUM UNIVERSITY v. INTERNATIONAL QUANTUM UNIVERSITY FOR INTEGRATIVE

MEDICINE INC O.M.P (COMM) 260/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996
strictly restrained the Court from interfering in issues of interpretation of contractual conventions and
those matters where the arbitrator is required to be “subjectively satisfied” on questions of facts.
Unscrupulous People Using Name Of Judges For Committing Offences Brings Disrepute To Judicial
System, Can't Be Allowed At Any Cost: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-
court/delhi-high-court-unscrupulous-people-name-judges-offences-disrepute-judicial-system-245287)
Title: HARISH CHANDER @ SURAJ BHATT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court has said that the name of any judge or judicial officer used by unscrupulous
persons for blackmailing general public or commission of offences brings disrepute to the judicial
system, which cannot be allowed at any cost.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that general public should not believe such individuals and give
them money, even if they are assured that they will get some work done from within the judicial system
by way of some payment.
Consider Uploading Fresh Copy Of 'Jawan' Movie With Accessibility Features On OTT Platforms: Delhi
High Court To Ministry Of I&B (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-
consider-uploading-copy-jawan-movie-accessibility-features-ott-platforms-ministry-of-ib-245294)
Case Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS
The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to consider
uploading a fresh copy of actor Shah Rukh Khan starrer “Jawan” film with accessibility features on OTT
platforms.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the Ministry to call the producers of the films “Jawan” and “Hi
Papa” (yet to be released on OTT) for consultation and to impress upon them the importance of providing
the accessibility features at least in the OTT release for the two movies.
Delhi High Court Quashes Decision To Declare Religare Finvest's Account As 'Fraud'
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-quashes-sbi-decision-religare-finvest-
account-fraud-245297)
Title: RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED v. STATE BANK OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed the decision of State Bank of India (SBI) declaring Religare
Finvest's account as “fraud” and including it on the Central Fraud Registry of Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that SBI will be at liberty to take an appropriate action in
accordance with law, if so necessitated.
A Party Cannot Be Compelled To Appoint An Arbitrator From A Narrow Panel Consisting Of 3 Persons:
Delhi High Court Reiterates (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/a-party-cannot-be-
compelled-to-appoint-an-arbitrator-from-a-narrow-panel-consisting-of-3-persons-delhi-high-court-
reiterates-245325)
CASE TITLE: SMAAASH LEISURE LTD V. AMBIENCE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel of arbitrators consisting of merely 3 persons is not broad-
based, therefore, a party cannot be compelled to appoint the arbitrator from such a narrow panel.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh also reiterated that mere participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot
be constituted as a waiver to application of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, therefore, a party cannot be
precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal merely on ground of participation in the arbitral
proceedings, if the objection goes to the root of the matter and renders the arbitrator ineligible.
'No Copyright In Ideas Or Themes': Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Broadcasting Of 'Shamshera'
Film (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-no-copyright-ideas-themes-
broadcasting-shamshera-film-245331)
Case Title: BIKRAMJEET SINGH BHULLAR v. YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application seeking interim injunction against the streaming and
broadcasting of “Shamshera” film in a suit filed by one Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar, claiming that the movie
is an infringement of his copyrighted script “Kabu na chhadein Khet.”
Justice Jyoti Singh observed that there can be no copyright in ideas and themes, while clarifying that the
observations will not impact the trial or final adjudication of Bhullar's copyright infringement suit on
merits.
Ensure Strict Vigil, Take Action On Daily Basis For Removing Encroachments In No Vending Zones Of
Chandni Chowk: Delhi HC To Authorities (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-
court-encroachments-no-vending-zones-chandni-chowk-mcd-delhi-police-245350)
Case Title: CHANDNI CHOWK SARV VYAPAR MANDAL (REGD.) v. DELHI POLICE THROUGH
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS
The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to ensure that strict vigil and action on day to day
basis is taken for removal of encroachments in the non-vending zones of Chandni Chowk area.
A division bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela and Justice Ravinder Dudeja ordered that in case the
encroachments are not removed or re-occurs, the Assistant Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (MCD) of the concerned zone and SHO of Lahori Gate and Kotwali police stations shall be held
personally responsible.
Mandatory Marking Of Attendance On MCD Smart App By Paramedical Staff Not Arbitrary, No Privacy
Issue: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-mandatory-
marking-attendance-mcd-smart-app-paramedical-staff-not-arbitrary-245386)
Case Title: PARAMEDICAL TECHNICAL STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF MCD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI & ANR.
The Delhi High Court has recently said that the policy of mandatorily marking of attendance by the
paramedical staff of Municipal Corporation of Delhi on “MCD SMART Mobile Application” is not arbitrary
or unfair.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that purchasing or possession of a smart phone is not a compulsion
for all employees as they have alternate methods to mark their attendance and can opt to mark
themselves present either through the supervisor or any other employee's phone.
Refund Application Could Not Be Uploaded Due To Technical Glitches, Refund Can't Be Denied: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/refund-application-uploaded-technical-glitches-
refund-delhi-high-court-245438)
Case Title: M/S Sethi Sons (India) Versus Assistant Commissioner And Ors.
The Delhi High Court has held that the refund application was filed twice on the GST portal but could not
be uploaded due to technical glitches.
Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Section 115BBE Of Income Tax Act
(https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-constitutional-validity-
section-115bbe-income-tax-act-245441)
Case Title: Triveni Enterprises Limited Versus ITO
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna has observed that Statutory
Acts and their provisions are not to be declared unconstitutional on the fanciful theory that power would
be exercised in an unrealistic fashion or in a vacuum or on the ground that there is an apprehension of
misuse of Statutory Provision or the possibility of abuse of power.
Colony Residents' Convenience Can't Outweigh General Public Interest: Delhi HC In Plea For School
Children To Be Dropped By Parents Outside Colony (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-
court/delhi-high-court-colony-residents-convenience-cannot-outweigh-general-public-interest-245466)
Case Title: Eden Castle School and Anr. v. Govt. Of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
In a petition seeking direction w.r.t. ingress/egress of children from a school located in a colony, the Delhi
High Court recently observed that convenience of colony residents cannot outweigh interest of the
general public at large.
Notably, the review petition had been filed seeking modification of an earlier order passed by the court, so
that parents who brought their child to school in private cars drop them outside the colony, and the
petitioner-school provides security guards/personnel for regulation of traffic jam in the colony.
Arbitration Act | 2G Judgment A 'Change In Law', Court Can't Set Aside Majority Award And Uphold
Minority's: Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ruling-
court-cannot-set-aside-majority-award-and-uphold-minority-view-245496)
Case Title: Indus Towers Limited v. Sistema Shyam Teleserivices Limited
While dismissing a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration Act, the Delhi High Court recently observed
that the 2G judgment, whereby the Supreme Court quashed the First-Come-First-Serve (“FCFS”) policy,
constituted a “change in law” for grant of spectrum/licenses.
Order Cancelling GST Registration Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High
Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/cancelling-gst-registration-violation-principles-
of-natural-justice-delhi-high-court-245509)
Case Title: M/S Aaira Batteries Versus Principal Commissioner Of Department Of Trade Taxes,
Government Of NCT Of Delhi
The Delhi High Court has held that the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice and is, thus, liable to be set aside.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that if the petitioner's GST
registration is restored, the petitioner would be obliged to update its returns for the period after its GST
registration was cancelled.
Signed Arbitral Award Served On Lawyer Or Agent Of The Party Doesn't Constitute A Valid Delivery : Delhi
High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/signed-arbitral-award-served-on-lawyer-or-
agent-of-the-party-doesnt-constitute-a-valid-delivery-delhi-high-court-245518)
Case Title: Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Anr v. M/s Hosmac Projects
The High Court of Delhi has held that a copy of the signed arbitral award served only on the lawyer or the
agent of the party does not constitute a valid delivery in absence of the delivery on the party itself.
Arbitrator Can't Allow Damages, For Breach Of MoU To Enter Into Agreement, With No Liability Clause:
Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/arbitrator-cant-allow-damages-for-
breach-of-mou-to-enter-into-agreement-with-no-liability-clause-delhi-high-court-245528)
Case Title: NEC CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S PLUS91 SECURITY SOLUTIONS
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal lacks the authority to grant damages for a breach
of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), particularly when the MoU serves as a preliminary
agreement to enter into a definitive contract. This is especially significant when the MoU entails no
financial implications and includes a clause explicitly preventing any monetary liability for a breach.
Tags Delhi High Court (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/delhi-high-court)
Annual Digest 2023 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/annual-digest-2023)
delhi high court yearly digest (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/delhi-high-court-yearly-digest)

Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023 - Part IV (Citations 1101 - 1357)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023 - Part IV (Citations 1101 - 1357)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023 - Part IV (Citations 1101 - 1357)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/7/24, 6:45 PM Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023: Part IV [Citations 1101- 1357]

Listen to this Article

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1357

Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1113

Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1115

Madhu Sudan Sharma v. Omaxe Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1117

PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1126

AMIT ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

MOLOY GHATAK v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1134

Ganesh Dass Khanna Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1135

Rihan v. The State (GNCTD) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1147

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1149

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1151

M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CONCESSIONAIRE OF DELHI METRO RAIL

MAJIBULLAH MOHAMMAD HANEEF v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1164

TARUN KUMAR v. PARMANAND GARG 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

Italian Thai Development v. NTPC Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1168

Preeti v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1172

AERO CLUB v. M/S SAHARA BELTS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1177

Muneer Ahmad v. Registrar of Trade Marks 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1179

FAHIM v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1183

Shubham Chopra v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1184

Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1191

Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1196

Nikhil Rana v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

M 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1200

Shri Chintan Bindra Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1203

Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1211

N v. The Union of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1216

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1219

Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1221

Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1223

SAIL v Uniper Global Commodities 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1224

SMT. VIMMI CHAWLA v. DEEPAK SETHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1227

Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1231

VICKY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1241

Divender v. LG of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1242

VINEET JHAVAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1248

J.S.R. Constructions v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1250

Kanta v. Gurvinder Kapoor & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1253

CIT Versus Cairnhill Cipef Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1257

Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276

PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1278

ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1285

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1289

Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1292

DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1294

NARENDRA TYAGI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1298

CIT Versus Hersh Washesher Chadha 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1305

Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1310

ATMARAM SARAOGI v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1311

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1315

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1323

JASPREET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1324

Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1328

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1331

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1337