Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 838
HANZLA IQBAL v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806
VISHV MOHAN v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 807
RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA v. MANJU BHATIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 808
SMT. SHIPALI SHARMA v. State & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 809
VED PRAKASH MANCHANDA v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENTBOARD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 810
SHRI B K PARCHURE v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 811
ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. v. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 812
SGT. NAVNEET KUMAR SINGH (977823-F) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 813
OM PRAKASH v. THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY (REGO.) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 814
BHARTI SAHANI v. STATE (GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 815
Rithala Education Society Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 816
PVR Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 817
Babuddin v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 818
Royal Orchids versus Kulbir Singh Kohli & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 819
ANIL KUMAR & ORS. v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 820
SANJAY SARIN v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 821
NEETU SINGH & ANR. v. TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822
Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 823
BOLT Technology OU v. Ujoy Technology Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 824
MS HNUNPUII v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 825
BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 826
SIKANDER SONI AND ANR v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 827
TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED v. SHENZHEN COLOURSPLENDOUR GIFT CO LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 828
Puri Constructions Ltd v. Shailesh Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 829
SIDDHAST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 830
Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 831
KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 832
SHARAFAT SHEIKH @ MD. AYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 833
BIRPAL SINGH v. NUTAN MARATHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 834
SARVESH MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 835
RATTAN MEHTA & ANR. v. GAYATRI SHAH & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 836
Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar Versus Commissioner of CGST 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 837
Geeta Poddar v. Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 838
1. Person Having Consensual Physical Relationship Not Required To Judicially Scrutinse Other Person’s Date Of Birth: Delhi High Court
Title: HANZLA IQBAL v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 806
“The person, who is in a consensual physical relationship with another person, is not required to judicially scrutinise the date of birth of the other person,” the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting bail to a man accused in a rape case. The complainant had alleged that after becoming friends, in September 2019, the petitioner called her to a hotel and established a physical relationship with her and also made her video, thereby blackmailing her.
The complainant further alleged that the petitioner forced her to have physical relationships with different people under the threat of releasing the video.
It was also alleged that around August, 2021, the complainant managed to escape from the petitioner’s house where she was held captive, after which she met an advocate who helped her lodging the FIR.
On the other hand, it was the petitioner’s case that the date of incident as alleged was September, 2019, whereas the FIR was filed after three years in 2022.
2. Welfare State Expected To Create Conducive Conditions For Disabled Citizens, Provide Avenues For Public Employment: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VISHV MOHAN v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 807
The Delhi High Court has observed that a welfare State is expected to create conditions which are conducive to citizens with disabilities by providing them avenues for public employment.
A division bench comprising of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela was of the view that under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the State is enjoined to create conditions and opportunities for the welfare and betterment of the citizens with disabilities and those who are differently abled.
“The Central Government had enacted the said Act to ensure that the citizens falling in this category are not deprived of their rightful means of livelihood in respect of public employment. It is with a view to give impetus to the beneficial provisions of the said Act, that the Central Government and the State Governments created various avenues for public employment of such differently abled citizens,” the Court said.
3. Plaintiff Cannot Value Suit Differently For Purpose Of Jurisdiction & For Payment Of Court Fees: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA v. MANJU BHATIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 808
The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaintiff cannot adopt a dual policy of valuing the suit at a certain value for the purpose of jurisdiction and payment of court fees.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further added that though it is in the discretion of the plaintiff to value his suit as per his bona fide belief and discretion, but once the suit has been valued in terms of sec. 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, the court fee shall become payable on the same amount in terms of sec. 7 of the Court Fees Act.
The Court made the observation while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed on behalf of defendant in the suit for rejection of the plaint on account of payment of deficient court fees.
4. S.227 CrPC | Judge Cannot Act As Mouthpiece Of Prosecution While Deciding Discharge Application, Must Consider Broad Probabilities Of Case: Delhi HC
Case Title: SMT. SHIPALI SHARMA v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 809
The Delhi High Court has observed that a judge, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227 of CrPC, cannot merely act as the post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before it.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav added that the Judge should not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Section 227 of the Code provides for discharge of an accused. It states that upon consideration of the record of the case, documents submitted and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, if the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused.
5. Mere Possession Of Tehbazari Right Does Not Entitle Occupant To Usurp Govt Land, Raise ‘Pucca’ Construction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VED PRAKASH MANCHANDA v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENTBOARD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 810
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere possession of a Tehbazari right does not entitle the occupant to usurp the Government land or to raise ‘pucca’ construction over it.
Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea filed by one Ved Prakash Manchanda seeking directions on the authorities to regularise his long and continuous occupation in his favour in respect of premises of a property in city’s Madangir, by way of executing a Lease Deed or other document.
It was the petitioner’s case that since 1990-91 he was enjoying this site as a Tehbazari site and the Respondents authorities used to collect License Fee, damages and penalty from time to time. The petitioner also claimed that electricity connection was sanctioned in his favour based on the ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the authorities.
6. Sanction For Prosecution U/S 197 CrPC Can Be Postponed To Later Stage Unless Acts Complained Of Intricately Connected To Official Function: Delhi HC
Case Title: SHRI B K PARCHURE v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 811
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no legal bar to always postpone the requirement of sanction at a later stage of proceedings. If the acts complained of have a connection with the official duty, provision of Section 197 CrPC is attracted for obtaining sanction immediately at the time of taking cognizance.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed:
“….there is no doubt that a question of sanction can arise at any stage of proceedings but the same gets attracted immediately at the time of taking cognizance, if the facts of the case or act of the accused, are so intricately connected to his official function that it cannot be segregated. There is no legal bar to always postpone the requirement of sanction at a later stage…If Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, to any of the acts committed by a public servant as no public servant can be allowed to commit an offence in the discharge of his official duty. The entire legislative intent would be frustrated.”
7. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Requiring ISRO’s Commercial Arm ‘Antrix’ To Pay Over 560 Million USD To Devas Multimedia
Case Title: ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. v. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 812
The Delhi High Court has set aside a 2015 arbitral award directing Antrix Corporation Limited, commercial and marketing arm of ISRO, to pay US$ 562.2 million to Devas Multimedia Private Limited over wrongful repudiation of contract.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that the arbitral award dated September 14, 2015 suffered from patent illegalities and fraud and was also in conflict with the Public Policy of India.
The Court thus allowed the plea filed by Antrix under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
8. Transfer Orders In Armed Forces A Necessary Exigency Of Service, Can’t Be Interfered With Unless Arbitrary/ Malafide: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SGT. NAVNEET KUMAR SINGH (977823-F) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 813
The Delhi High Court has observed that issuance of Posting Order resulting in transfer, especially for all those pertaining to Armed Forces, is a necessary exigency of service which should not be interfered by a Court as the Armed Forces are the best judges to exercise their own discretion.
“Posting Order resulting in transfer, which is in the absence of a violation of any statutory requirements, rules, regulations or like or which is unless vitiated by some sort of bias or malafide or vindictiveness further do not call for any interference from Courts,” a division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee added.
9. No Bar On Trial Courts In Deciding Issues Having No Precedent, Previously Undecided By Any Superior Court: Delhi High Court
Case Title: OM PRAKASH v. THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY (REGO.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 814
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Trial Courts are wholly competent to decide the questions of fact and law which may arise before them, many of which may be res integra and previously undecided by any superior court.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the a Trial Court is well within its authority to decide all such issues and can even be the first judicial authority to take a view on a subject.
The Court also has stressed upon expeditious disposal of proceedings before the District Courts observing that the same has become a pressing necessity in today’s day and age.
10. Not Mandatory To Grant Anticipatory Bail Merely Because Interim Protection Was Granted At Initial Stage Of Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BHARTI SAHANI v. STATE (GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 815
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere enjoyment of the interim benefit granted by it does not, in any manner, lessen the allegations which need to be considered on merits.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that the Court is required to consider the nature of accusations, supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or apprehension of threat to complainants and prima facie satisfaction in support of charge.
11. Re-assessment Order Passed Without Considering Detailed Reply Of The Assessee: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rithala Education Society Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 816
The Delhi High Court held that the significance of issuing a show cause notice prior to issuing a re-assessment notice has been lost because the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act was made without taking into account the detailed reply filed by the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh has observed that the department has not examined the petitioner’s plea that the petitioner-society has included all the transactions carried out by the Citizen Model School in its books of accounts.
12. Delhi High Court Allows Deduction To PVR On Difference Between Market Price & Issue Price Of ESOP
Case Title: PVR Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 817
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal of PVR Ltd. and allowed the deduction on the difference between the price at which stock options were offered to employees of the appellant company under ESOP and ESPS and the prevailing market price of the stock.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Biocon Ltd. and has observed that an assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 37(1) if the expenditure has been incurred. The expression “expenditure” will also include a loss, and therefore, the issuance of shares at a discount where the assessee absorbs the difference between the price at which they are issued and the market value of the shares would also be expenditure incurred for the purposes of Section 37(1).
13. “Not Seen Instigating The Crowd”: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Another Accused In Jahangirpuri Riots Case
Case Title: Babuddin v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 818
The Delhi High Court today granted bail to one Babuddin, an accused in relation to the clashes that broke out in April in city’s Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.
Noting that Babuddin was in custody since April 27, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Yogesh Khanna granted bail after observing that he was no more required for further investigation.
The Court also noted that chargesheet qua the accused has already been filed and that a co-accused was also recently granted bail in the FIR in question.
14. MOU Between Private Parties Cannot Be Specifically Enforced; Party Not Entitled To Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Royal Orchids versus Kulbir Singh Kohli & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 819
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a MOU which is in the nature of a commercial transaction between two private parties is by its very nature determinable and hence, the said MOU can be terminated even in the absence of any termination clause contained in it.
The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that since the MOU was not capable of specific performance due to the statutory bar contained in Section 14 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the party was not entitled to any interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
15. Urgent Need To Prevent Depleting Green Cover: Delhi High Court Orders Parties To Deposit 25K Cost Towards Green Highways Fund
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR & ORS. v. THE STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 820
The Delhi High Court has quashed a cheating FIR of 2017 following a settlement between the parties and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the accused persons as well as the complainant to be utilized for plantation of trees along the national highways.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that the cost be deposited in the Green Highways Fund which is formed pursuant to a project for Greening (Plantation & Its Maintenance) of National Highways, launched by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.
16. Sanction Of Resolution Plan U/S 31 IBC Does Not Discharge Liability Of Guarantor Towards Loan Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SANJAY SARIN v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 821
The Delhi High Court has recently reiterated that where proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the bank for which it has remedy under the Act, no writ petition should be entertained.
Justice Sanjeev Narula further observed that the extent of liability of a personal guarantor would have to be determined in light of the agreement between the borrower, i.e., the corporate debtor and the personal guarantor, for which the appropriate forum would be the Debt Recovery Tribunal and not the High Court.
17. Indian Courts Can Direct ‘Telegram’ To Disclose Info Of Copyright Infringers Using Its Platform, Server Being In Singapore No Defence: Delhi HC
Case Title: NEETU SINGH & ANR. v. TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 822
The Delhi High Court has observed that copyright infringers cannot be permitted to seek shelter under messaging platform Telegram’s policies merely on the ground that its physical server is in Singapore.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that Indian Courts would be perfectly justified in directing Telegram, which runs its massive operations in India, to adhere to Indian law and orders passed by them for disclosure of relevant information relating to infringers.
The bench further observed that the disclosure of personal data for the purpose of any proceedings, which would include proceedings related to infringement of copyright, would be a recognized exception to data privacy under Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 of Singapore.
18. Manufacturer Can’t Claim Exclusivity Over Trade Mark When It Is Derived From Principal Ingredient Of Drug: Delhi HC Dismisses Sun Pharma’s Appeal
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 823
The Delhi High Court recently rejected an appeal by Sun Pharma, claiming that Hetero Healthcare’s drug used to treat advanced breast cancer had infringed its trademark.
A Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan upheld the decision of the Commercial Court. It held that it was apparent that the mark adopted by Sun was nothing but the first six letters of the ingredient, ‘Letrozole,’ which is the international non-proprietary name (INN) of a salt.
The appellant, Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd., challenged an order by the Commercial Court dismissing its application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and filed a suit, alleging infringement of its trademark ‘LETROZ’ and passing off and seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from using the brand ‘LETERO,’ in respect of the pharmaceutical product in question. It is claimed that since 2001 Sun has been using the trademark ‘LETROZ’ for a generic drug for second-line treatment of advanced breast cancer.
19. Refusal Of The Defendant To Amicably Settle The Dispute Satisfies The Requirement Of Pre-Litigation Mediation Under Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BOLT Technology OU v. Ujoy Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 824
The High Court of Delhi has held that when the plaintiff makes an offer to the defendant to amicably settle the dispute and the defendant refuses the offer then in that circumstance, the requirement of pre-litigation meditation stands satisfied.
The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh while reiterating that pre-litigation mediation as provided under Section 12-A of the CCA is a mandatory provision, held that the conduct of the defendant in refusing to amicably settle the dispute violates the spirit of Section 12A of CCA, therefore, he cannot turn around and object on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement.
The Court further reiterated that where the plaintiff is seeking an urgent relief, the requirement of pre-litigation mediation would not be a bar to the maintainability of the suit.
20. Demolition Action Cannot Be Taken Against Allegedly Unauthorised Property Unless Owner/ Resident Is Given Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing: Delhi HC
Case Title: MS HNUNPUII v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 825
The Delhi High Court has observed that a property cannot be demolished on the ground that it is unauthorized, unless the owner or resident is given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that it is no answer to compliance with the principles of natural justice to contend that if an opportunity was granted, the persons affecting would not have had any defense to offer.
“To my mind, there can be no question of demolishing any property on the ground that it is unauthorized, until and unless the person owning the property and/or in possession of/residing in the property, are given an adequate opportunity of hearing and due principles of natural justice are complied with,” the Court observed.
21. Urgent Interim Relief In IPR Cases Extremely Important To Protect Interest Of Parties As Well As Consumers: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 826
The Delhi High Court has observed that urgent interim relief including at ex-parte and ad-interim stage is extremely important in intellectual property rights cases as they not only involve interest of parties to the case but also the consumers of products and services in question.
Justice Pratibha M Singh further added that such reliefs are granted by Courts not merely for protection of statutory and common law rights, but also in order to avoid confusion, deception, unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketplace.
“Intellectual property cases relate to a wide gamut of businesses such as – medicines, FMCG, food products, financial services, technology, creative works such as books, films, music, etc. Recent trends also point towards large scale misuse on the internet. In some cases, due to misuse of known marks and brands, the consumers are being duped into parting with large sums of money. The rights of the parties are affected almost on a daily basis as there is continuous manufacturing, selling, and offering of services or goods to the customers,” the Court added.
22. “Shows Depraved Evil Mentality”: Delhi HC Upholds Gang-Rape & Murder Conviction, Modifies Sentence To Rigorous LI Without Remission
Case Title: SIKANDER SONI AND ANR v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 827
In connection with the gang rape and murder of a woman in 2012 whose body was found in semi-naked condition, the Delhi High Court today modified sentence of two convicts to rigorous imprisonment for life not less than 20 years without remission.
The Court also upheld the Trial Court’s sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life for gang rape and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence of causing disappearance of evidence and giving false information.
A young female’s dead body (aged 24-26 years) was found lying in a semi naked condition, blood oozing out from the mouth, nose and ears of the body and injury marks all around the face. Upon arrest, the two accused had pointed out the place of incident near city’s Nehru Stadium where they had gang raped the woman in a car.
On the basis of the disclosure of one of the convicts, the police team went to his village and recovered two small rings and a car. The TIP of the recovered case property was conducted where the husband of the deceased identified her purse and slippers and confirmed it during his testimony before the Trial Court.
23. Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20 Lakhs Cost On Chinese Online Seller For Infringing Vistara Airlines’ Trademark By Sale Of Identical Baggage Tags
Case Title: TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED v. SHENZHEN COLOURSPLENDOUR GIFT CO LTD & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 828
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 20 lakhs in favour of Vistara Airlines in its trademark infringement suit filed against a company selling identical keychains and baggage tags, in the same aubergine and gold colour combination, on a Chinese e-commerce platform AliExpress.
It was Vistara’s case that despite the e-commerce platform being based mostly in China, the website contained several listings by the seller baggage tags and keychains bearing the ‘VISTARA Marks’ in the identical color combination without its authorisation which were also eligible for shipping to India.
24. CPC | Amendment To Class Action Consumer Complaint Can’t Be Allowed Without Following Order 1 Rule 8(4): Delhi High Court
Case Title: Puri Constructions Ltd v. Shailesh Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 829
The Delhi High Court has recently held that in the case of a Class action Consumer Complaint, the amendments in the complaint cannot be allowed without following the mandate under Order 1 Rule 8(4) of CPC.
Allowing the petition against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), Justice C. Hari Shankar observed:
“If at a later point of time, the complainant/complainants desires to abandon any part of the claim, Order I Rule 8(4) permits such abandonment provided, prior thereto, the Court issues notice, once again, to all persons so interested, i.e. all persons whose interest the original complaints purported to espouse, in the same manner as envisaged by Order I Rule 8 (2) i.e. either individually or, if that were not possible, by public advertisement.”
25. Delhi High Court: Petition Under Article 227 Is Not Maintainable Against An Interim Order Passed By The Arbitrator If It Can Be Challenged U/S 34 Of The A&C Act
Title: SIDDHAST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND AN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 830
In a domestic arbitration between Siddhast Intellectual Property Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (Siddhast) and Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, (CGPDT), while filing its Statement of Defence, CGPDT had also filed its Statement of Counter-claims against Respondent No. 1 – Siddhast along with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead a French company Questel SAS as Respondent No. 2 in its Counter-Claims only on the basis of a “Consortium Agreement” between Siddhast and Questel SAS though there was no written agreement between Questel SAS and CGPDT. Ld.
Sole Arbitrator allowed the application; hence, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed for not being maintainable as the impugned interim order passed by the Arbitrator could be challenged u/s 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 after passing of the award.
26. Attempt By CIT To Exclude Genuine Disputes Under The VSV Act Is Extremely Hyper-Technical: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 831
The Delhi High Court has held that the attempt by the CIT to exclude genuine disputants of tax liability from the possibility of settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act (VSV) is extremely hyper-technical.
The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal has observed that any proceeding challenging a decision by the department in respect of tax, interest, penalty, fee, etc. would come within the purview of a “dispute”, which would enable a party to approach the department for a resolution under the VSV Act.
27. Registrar Should Consider ‘Special Circumstances’ U/S 12 Trade Marks Act Before Declining Applications For Registration: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 832
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Registrar of Trademarks should consider ‘special circumstances’ mentioned under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before rejecting the applications filed with it seeking registration of marks.
Section 12 permits registration of identical or similar trademarks in respect of the same or similar goods or services, by more than one proprietor, in case of “honest concurrent use” or in “other special circumstances” which in the opinion of the Registrar, make it proper so to do.
28. Article 22(5) | Detenu Signing In English Does Not Mean He Has Working Knowledge Of The Language Or Understands Preventive Detention Order: Delhi HC
Case Title: SHARAFAT SHEIKH @ MD. AYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 833
The Delhi High Court has held that simply putting signatures in English language does not “by any stretch of imagination” show that the detenue understands English language and as a consequence understood the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed:
“…the mere signing of documents in English does not automatically translate to the detenue having a working knowledge of English so as to fulfill the mandate of Article 22(5).”
29. Article 30 | Minority Aided Institutions Free To Appoint Qualified Principal From Minority Community, Courts Can’t Interfere: Delhi HC
Case Title: BIRPAL SINGH v. NUTAN MARATHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Delhi High Court today observed that once the management of a Minority Educational Institution makes a “conscious choice” of appointing a qualified person from the “Minority community” to lead the said institution either as a Vice Principal or Principal, then the Court cannot go into merits of such a choice or rationality or propriety of the process of choice.
Adding that the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is absolute in this regard, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further observed:
“Every linguistic minority may have its own social, economic and cultural limitations. It has a constitutional right to conserve such culture and language. Thus, it would also have a right to choose teachers, who possess the eligibility and qualifications, as provided, without really being influenced by the fact of their religion and community and the same can be done by the process defined by the school management.”
30. Delhi High Court Dismisses Ex-CFO’s Plea Against PwC Ltd Seeking Action For Criminal Defamation
Case Title: SARVESH MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 835
The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal liability cannot be fastened on the basis of a person holding a position in any company, with nothing more to specify the role played by such a person in the commission of a crime.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by a former Chief Finance Officer (CFO) of M/s Pricewaterhousecoopers Private Limited, who had sued the company and its Chairperson for defamation, after he was labelled as a “disgruntled ex-employee” by a company Spokesperson in articles published in the Economic Times and Outlook Magazine in 2017-18.
31. Person Answering Interrogatories Has To Be Truthful, Giving False Answers Can Be Visited With Perjury: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RATTAN MEHTA & ANR. v. GAYATRI SHAH & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 836
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is incumbent upon a person answering the interrogatories to be truthful in the answers and if the person is eventually found to have given false answers, they can be visited with consequences like perjury, since the answer given in response to interrogatory can be used in evidence.
“Under Order 11, Rule 22 CPC, the answer given in response to an interrogatory can be used in evidence, and therefore, its correctness and veracity will be established only at trial,” Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed.
32. Intention To Evade Tax Is Absent, Taxpayer Needs To Be Given Another Chance: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar Versus Commissioner of CGST
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 837
The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner/taxpayer needs to be given another chance to establish why the subject goods did not reach their designated designation before the expiry of the e-way bill.
The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has remanded the matter to the respondent to take a fresh decision on the matter, after giving the petitioner due opportunity to produce relevant material and evidence to establish its case.
33. Award Passed By A Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est, It Cannot Be A Bar To The Maintainability Of Petition Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Geeta Poddar v. Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 838
The High Court of Delhi has held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is non-est, therefore, it cannot be a bar to the maintainability of a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Ac.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that passing of an award would not give sanctity to the non-est proceedings and the mere fact that the petitioner did not challenge the unilateral appointment under Section 14 of the Act cannot deprive it of the right to approach the court for appointment of independent arbitrator.