Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
NOMINAL INDEX
MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
Intercontinental Nice Manufacturers LLC v. Parle Product Personal Restricted 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
SUNITA KEJRIWAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
Juniper Motels Personal Restricted v. Delhi Electrical energy Regulatory Fee and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Builders Pvt. Ltd and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
AZAD MARKET RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
Sushant Kaushik v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
SHANTANU v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079
IDFC First Financial institution Restricted v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1080
ANR Worldwide Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081
BT (India) Personal Restricted Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082
Nationwide Initiatives Constructions Company Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083
Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Authorities of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084
ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085
MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED v. MAXI CURE HOSPITALS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1086
Aryan Kumar (Minor) by means of Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087
S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088
NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
Viridian Improvement Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Restricted 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091
VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092
HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy’s Hospitality Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093
GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094
MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095
Tata Metal Restricted Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096
Indian Versatile Intermediate Bulk Container Affiliation v. Director Normal of Overseas Commerce 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097
Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098
ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and different linked issues 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100
DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101
Shreyash Retail Personal Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Earnings Tax TDS Circle 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1102
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 by means of her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Training by means of its Chairman & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and different linked issues 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
Clarify Execs And Cons Of Medical Termination Of Being pregnant To Rape Victims In Mom Tongue: Delhi Excessive Courtroom Directs Police, Medical Board
Title: MINOR L THR GUARDIAN J v. STATE & ANR.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has directed the investigating officers of Delhi Police and medical board to clarify the professionals and cons of medical termination of being pregnant to the rape victims and her guardians (in case of minors) in mom tongue, be it Hindi or English language.
“This Courtroom orders that henceforth, in circumstances of medical termination of being pregnant in rape circumstances, the professionals and cons of the medical termination of being pregnant can be defined in Hindi wherever the sufferer and her guardian in case of a minor sufferer understands Hindi, or English the place they perceive the stated language,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Quashes Suspension Of License, Issued To Customs Home Agent, Discovering Order Unlawful
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs Versus ICS Cargo
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that there was correct verification on the a part of the Customs Home Agent (CHA) with regard to the genuineness of the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) in addition to GSTIN.
Plea For Untimely Launch Of Convicts Undergone Lengthy Incarceration Should Not Be Dealt With Mechanically: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Title: HARI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has stated that the appliance for untimely launch of convicts who’ve undergone lengthy incarceration interval should not be handled in mechanical and clerical method.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee noticed that when the convict has undergone substantial and lengthy interval of incarceration, the eventual function of imprisonment, together with probably the most severe offences, is reformative and never retributive.
ITR-Submitting Date Is Related For Calculating Part 143(2) Limitation And Not Defect-Elimination Date: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: SMC Comtrade Ltd. Versus ACIT
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that when the return has been discovered to be legitimate and solely a defect throughout the that means of Part 139(9) of the Earnings Tax Act has been discovered, curiosity can’t be levied.
[Motor Accident] Insurer Liable To Meet Contractual Legal responsibility If It Undertakes To Compensate Insured Car’s Proprietor: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAVI PRAKASH MISHRA & ANR.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has noticed that an insurance coverage firm is liable to satisfy the contractual legal responsibility the place it undertakes to pay compensation on the loss of life or damage suffered by the proprietor of the insured automobile.
Justice Navin Chawla stated that as a common rule, the Insurance coverage Firm can’t be made liable to pay compensation beneath Part 163A or Part 166 of the Motor Automobiles Act, 1988, for the loss of life or the bodily damage suffered by the proprietor or borrower or the driving force of the insured automobile.
Spouse Making Unsubstantiated Allegations, Waging Authorized Battle Towards Husband And His Household Members Is Excessive Cruelty: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Title: X v. Y
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has stated that the spouse making severe and unsubstantiated allegations towards the husband and waging a authorized struggle towards him by implicating him and his members of the family quantities to excessive cruelty in direction of partner.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna put aside a household court docket order and granted divorce to a husband on the bottom of cruelty by the spouse beneath Part 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
[OREO v. FABIO] Particular Plea Of Invalidity, Tenable Grounds Important To Problem Validity Of Mark U/S 124 Commerce Marks Act: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: Intercontinental Nice Manufacturers LLC v. Parle Product Personal Restricted
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1069
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately rejected an utility filed by “OREO” proprietor beneath Part 124 of the Commerce Marks Act in search of permission to provoke rectification proceedings w.r.t. Parle’s “FABIO” mark registered in Class 30 (biscuits, cookies, and so forth.).
It opined that for Part 124(1) to use in a case the place the plaintiff seeks to problem the validity of the defendant’s mark, “firstly, the defendant should increase a Part 30(2)(e) defence by citing the registration of its mark as a defence to infringement and, if the defendant does so, the plaintiff should plead invalidity of the defendant’s mark”.
Veer Ji Malai Chaap Trademark Go well with: Delhi Excessive Courtroom Holds Restaurant Proprietor Responsible Of ‘Subverting’ Injunction By Tweaking Identify
Title: VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANKIT KUMAR & ORS.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1070
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held a Meerut based mostly restaurant proprietor responsible of disobeying a final court docket order which restrained him from having any on-line itemizing on Zomato or Swiggy utilizing the identify “Veer Ji Malai Chaap Wale” by “subverting” the injunction and utilizing a special identify “Veer Di Malai Chaap Wale.”
“There was a selected course to the defendant to take away the net listings from Zomato and Swiggy utilizing the id VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE. The defendant has, whereas eradicating the stated id, engineered a stratagem by which orders could be positioned on the identical outlet utilizing the brand new id VEER DI MALAI CHAAP WALE although no such outlet bearing the stated identify is current on the deal with,” Justice C Hari Shankar noticed.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Stays Summons Issued To Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s Spouse In Case Alleging She Holds Two Voter IDs
Title: SUNITA KEJRIWAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1071
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has stayed a trial court docket order issuing summons to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s spouse Sunita Kejriwal in a case alleging she holds two voter IDs.
Justice Amit Bansal issued discover on Sunita Kejriwal’s plea and stayed the trial court docket order until February 01, 2024, the subsequent date of listening to.
Electrical energy | Recipient Of Concession With No Vested Proper Can’t Search Continuation Of Waiver: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: Juniper Motels Personal Restricted v. Delhi Electrical energy Regulatory Fee and Anr
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
A Division Bench of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula lately dismissed a problem introduced towards enhance in Renewable Buy Obligations (RPO) of Open Entry Customers and imposition of further surcharges by DERC.
“…the fixation of tariffs by means of subordinate laws is throughout the fee’s purview, and no manifest arbitrariness has been demonstrated to name this choice into query”, it stated.
Arbitration Act | Scope Of Enchantment U/S 37 Restricted, Can’t Be Equated With Regular Appellate Jurisdiction: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: DCM Ltd. v. M/s. Aggarwal Builders Pvt. Ltd and Ors
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
A Division Bench of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom comprising Justices Manmohan and Mini Pushkarna on Tuesday dismissed an enchantment filed by DCM Ltd. u/s 37 of the A&C Act, refusing to re-examine proof in view of the restricted scope of the availability.
The enchantment by DCM Ltd. impugned a judgement by Single Bench of the court docket, whereby its problem to an Arbitral Award u/s 34 A&C Act was dismissed.
Recurrently Monitor Azad Market To Establish Violators Of Hearth Norms: Delhi Excessive Courtroom To MCD
Title: AZAD MARKET RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has directed the Municipal Company of Delhi to conduct common monitoring of Azad Market space within the nationwide capital to make sure that the violators of fireside norms are recognized and referred to the Hearth Prevention Wing.
“On this regard, the MCD shall endeavor to conduct common monitoring of the Topic Space [Azad Market] to make sure that individuals discovered violating the Hearth Norms are promptly recognized and referred to the Hearth Prevention Wing beneath Rule 34 of the Delhi Hearth Guidelines,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Refuses To Entertain Plea Towards Prohibition On Carrying E-Cigarettes On Aircrafts
Title: SUTIRTHA DUTTA v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS AND FAMILY WELFARE & OTHERS
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1075
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has refused to entertain a petition difficult the prohibition on carrying e-cigarettes on aircrafts.
After Justice Subramonium Prasad hinted on dismissing the petition with a “six determine value”, the counsel showing for the petitioner, Sutirtha Dutta, withdrew the plea.
The court docket allowed the withdrawal with a liberty to Dutta to make a illustration to the Union Authorities on the difficulty.
Fill Vacant Posts Of Earnings Tax Commissioner (Appeals), Take into account Growing Sanctioned Energy To 570: Delhi Excessive Courtroom To Centre
Title: ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS v. UOI AND ANR
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1076
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has requested the Union Authorities to take applicable measures for filling up all of the posts of Earnings Tax Commissioner (Appeals) mendacity vacant, observing that it will enormously help in disposals of the pending appeals.
“The Union of India might also contemplate growing the sanctioned power of Commissioner (Appeals) considerably at the least to the extent of 570 of such posts, to attain the goals and objects of the Central Motion Plan which is formulated yearly,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered.
20-Yr-Previous Faculty Scholar Accused Of Raping Professor Granted Anticipatory Bail; Delhi Excessive Courtroom Says Relation Was Out Of Alternative, Not Pressure
Case Title: Sushant Kaushik v. State
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old school scholar accused of raping his professor, noting that the prosecutrix not solely selected to enter a relationship with the applicant on her personal, but in addition to proceed with the identical for over a yr.
“All of the aforesaid present the love, care and affection, the prosecutrix had for the applicant … Prima facie, evidently she was in a relationship with the applicant out of selection and want reasonably out of compulsion or pressure”, the court docket stated.
Easy Contact Not ‘Manipulation’ For Penetrative Sexual Assault Beneath POCSO Act: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Title: SHANTANU v. THE STATE
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has dominated {that a} easy act of contact can’t be thought of as manipulation for the offence of penetrative sexual assault beneath Part 3(c) of the POCSO Act.
Part 3(c) of the POCSO Act states that an individual is claimed to commit “penetrative sexual assault” if he manipulates any a part of the kid’s physique in order to trigger penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or another physique half or makes the kid to take action with him or another individual.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Directs Reinstatement Of Personal Faculty Academics, Says Approval From DoE Essential For Accepting Alleged Resignations
Case Title: Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079
In a aid to academics of Rao Manohar Singh Memorial Sr. Secondary Faculty, a Division Bench of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula as we speak upheld the order of a Single Bench and directed reinstatement in service of the respondent-teachers.
Notably, counting on Kathuria Public Faculty v. Director of Training and Anr., the appellant, a personal unaided faculty, had contended that it was not required to acquire approval from Director of Training for terminating respondents’ providers. The court docket, nevertheless, didn’t agree.
Can Money owed Restoration Tribunal Entertain A Declare For Much less Than Rs.10 Lakhs Beneath SARFAESI Act? Delhi Excessive Courtroom Solutions
Case Title: IDFC First Financial institution Restricted v. Union of India and Ors.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1080
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately held that DRT can’t entertain a declare for an quantity lower than Rs.10 lakhs beneath the SARFAESI Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan added that the SARFAESI Act’s treatment beneath Part 13(10) can’t be availed by a financial institution unbiased of the provisions of the Restoration of Money owed and Chapter Act, 1993 (RDB Act), and the pecuniary restrict set out within the RDB Act additionally applies.
Denial Of Arbitration Clause In Reply To Arbitration Discover Can’t Disentitle A Get together To Invoke Part 8 Of The A&C Act In A Go well with : Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: ANR Worldwide Pvt Ltd v. Mahavir Singhal
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1081
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that Part 8 of the A&C Act is obligatory in nature that means thereby that the Courtroom is certain to refer the dispute to arbitration when there exists a legitimate arbitration settlement between the events and the respondent makes an utility for reference to arbitration earlier than submitting its written assertion earlier than the Courtroom.
The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that the Courtroom can’t refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration merely on the bottom that the defendant had initially, in reply to Part 21 discover, denied the existence of the arbitration settlement.
CENVAT Credit score Refund Can’t Be Denied In Absence Of Self-Assessed Return Having Been Questioned, Reviewed Or Re-Assessed: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: BT (India) Personal Restricted Versus UOI
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1082
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held {that a} CENVAT credit score refund can’t be denied within the absence of the self-assessed return having been questioned, reviewed or re-assessed.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has noticed {that a} self-assessed return additionally quantities to an “evaluation” and except it’s diversified or modified in accordance with the process prescribed beneath the related statute, it can’t presumably be questioned in refund proceedings.
Courtroom Exercising Powers Beneath Part 34 Of The A&C Act Can’t Modify An Arbitral Award: Delhi Excessive Courtroom Reiterates
Case Title: Nationwide Initiatives Constructions Company Ltd v. AAC India Pvt Ltd
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1083
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has reiterated that the Courtroom exercising powers beneath Part 34 of the A&C Act can’t modify an arbitral award. It held that the Courtroom can both uphold the award or put aside any discovering, nevertheless, the Courtroom is powerless to switch the award by permitting a aid that was disallowed by the arbitral tribunal.
The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma additionally held that the place harm or loss is troublesome or unattainable to show, the tribunal is empowered to award liquidated quantity stipulated within the contract, if it’s a real pre-estimate of harm or loss, or affordable compensation for the stated quantity loss or harm. The declare for LD in such circumstances is effectively throughout the purview of Part 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Unlucky That PIL Jurisdiction Abused To Settle Private Scores: Delhi Excessive Courtroom Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Value On Litigant
Case Title: Ms. Sabiha Parveen v. Authorities of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1084
A Division Bench of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela lately dismissed the PIL filed by a celebration whereas suppressing relationship with the personal respondent.
“…this Courtroom is of the agency opinion that the Petitioner has not approached this Courtroom with clear palms… the Petitioner was actually an individual”, the court docket stated.
Excessive Courtroom Directs Delhi Govt To Operationalize Inside One Month On-line Portal For Clearing Its Attorneys’ Payments
Case Title: ANJANA GOSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT AND ANR.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1085
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has directed the Delhi Authorities to quick take steps for operationalizing the On-line Single Window System (OSWS) portal for clearing charge memos of its legal professionals and for inaugurating the identical throughout the one month.
Justice Prathiba M Singh requested the Delhi Authorities to file a report concerning the functioning of the portal and listed the matter for listening to on March 07.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Restrains Telangana Primarily based Hospital Chain From Utilizing ‘Maxi Treatment’ Mark In Trademark Infringement Go well with By Max Healthcare
Title: MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED v. MAXI CURE HOSPITALS & ANR.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1086
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has restrained a Telangana based mostly hospital chain from utilizing the mark “Maxi Treatment” for its healthcare providers in a trademark infringement swimsuit filed by Max Healthcare.
Maintaining in view the truth that since Maxi Treatment Hospital was utilizing the impugned mark for a hospital, Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the injunction shall come into impact solely from February 01, 2024.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Orders KVS Scholar Who Failed In Maths Be Promoted To Class-XII, Considers Marks Obtained In Bodily Training
Case Title: Aryan Kumar (Minor) by means of Father Ravinder Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya & Ors.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1087
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately allowed a scholar of Class-XI to be promoted based mostly on marks obtained by him in Bodily Training, an extra topic, as an alternative of Arithmetic (which he had did not qualify).
The petitioner’s grievance was that he had been denied promotion on the bottom of Article 106 of the KVS Training Code (as amended in 2018), though respondent No.1/faculty was certain by CBSE Examination Bye-Legal guidelines, 1995, which permit for marks in principal topic to be substituted with marks of an extra topic, topic to situations.
Mom Strikes Habeas Corpus Plea In Delhi Excessive Courtroom However Refuses To Take Custody Of Minor Daughter Recovered Pregnant
Case Title: S. v. State of GNCT Delhi & Ors.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1088
A Division Bench of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately disposed of a habeas corpus petition, the place the lacking woman, a minor, was recovered however her mother and father/petitioner refused to take custody in view of her being pregnant.
Notably, the petition was filed by the mom of the woman, in search of instructions for her manufacturing earlier than the court docket. It was alleged {that a} boy had lured the daughter away, established bodily relations together with her and made public sure illicit movies that he had manufactured from her.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Restrains Producers From Utilizing ‘Nilkranti’ Machine Mark In Go well with By ‘Nilkamal’, However Holds No Similarity Between Each Marks
Title: NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTANERS & ANR. v. MS. REENA RAJPAL & ANR.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has restrained two plastic chair producers from utilizing “Nilkranti” system mark or another system mark which is confusingly or deceptively much like the system marks of Nilkamal.
Justice C Hari Shankar nevertheless rejected Nilkamal’s prayer in its trademark infringement swimsuit to restrain the producers from utilizing “Nilkranti” as a phrase mark, both for chairs or for another merchandise manufactured by them.
As soon as Licence Is Revoked, Any Use Of Trademark By Ex-Licensee Would Quantity To Infringement: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: Viridian Improvement Managers Pvt Ltd v. RPS Infrastructure Restricted
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that when the licence is revoked by the licensor, any use of the mark by the ex-licensee would quantity to an infringement of the trademark and would deceive the general public, inasmuch as the general public can be led to consider that the ex-licensee remains to be linked with the licensor.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an ex-licensee can’t be allowed to make use of the mark after termination of license. Additional, the licensor has a proper and responsibility to make sure the consistency of the products or providers being offered and marketed beneath its mark and take motion towards any infringement of the mark.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Dismisses PIL Searching for Judicial Inquiry Into Appointment Of Morarji Desai Nationwide Institute Of Yoga’s Director
Title: DR. AJAY PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1091
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has dismissed a PIL in search of judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of appointment of Dr. Ishwarappa Veerbhadrappa Basavaraddi as Director of the Morarji Desai Nationwide Institute of Yoga, an autonomous establishment beneath the Union Ministry of AYUSH.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by one Dr. Ajay Pal who claimed that in his tenure within the institute as an Assistant Professor, he witnessed quite a few administrative discrepancies occurring beneath the directorship of Dr. Basavaraddi.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Raps Litigant For Pursuing Contempt Towards District Decide, Calls It Unmitigated Assault On Courts’ Majesty
Title: VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has warned a litigant for misusing the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as he sought contempt motion towards a district court docket choose on the bottom that his grievances weren’t duly addressed.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Grants Reduction To “34 Chowringhee Lane” Acquirer, Units Apart Fetters Put By Arbitrator On Opening Of Franchisees
Case Title: HDA Flavours Pvt Ltd v. Daddy’s Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1093
Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately granted aid to “34 Chowringhee Lane” acquirer-HDA Flavours Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the Arbitrator, whereas coping with a Part 17 utility, mustn’t have interdicted it from creating new franchisees.
“A blanket embargo on the appellant from creating any new franchisee or getting into into such enterprise agreements as could also be applicable for the development of enterprise, might lead to denuding the worth of the enterprise on account of stagnation/depletion in market share,” the court docket stated.
Conviction For Committing Sexual Offences No Floor For Denying Profit Of Furlough: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Title: GOPI NISHA MALLAH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1094
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has dominated that conviction for committing sexual offences is not any floor for denying the good thing about furlough to an in any other case eligible prisoner.
“On this Courtroom’s opinion, merely as a result of an individual has been convicted for committing sexual offences, he can’t be denied good thing about furlough, which he’s in any other case eligible for, on such misguided grounds,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated.
Implement Insurance policies On Vocational Coaching To Kids With Particular Wants In Letter And Spirit: Excessive Courtroom To Centre, Delhi Govt
Title: MS. KANIKA GUPTA MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN AND FATHER SHRI AMIT GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1095
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has directed the Centre and the Delhi Authorities to implement their insurance policies on ability studying and vocational coaching to the youngsters with particular wants in letter and spirit with a well timed reassessment to counter any challenges that will come up in future.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL moved by a category XII scholar in search of implementation of a nation-wide coverage to impart ability studying and vocational coaching to kids with particular wants.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Quashes Earnings Tax Demand Of Rs. 257 Crores Towards Tata Metal Ltd.
Case Title: Tata Metal Restricted Versus DCIT
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1096
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has quashed the earnings tax demand of Rs. 257 crore towards Tata Metal Ltd. (TSL).
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has noticed {that a} profitable applicant is, in regulation, supplied with a “clear slate”; subsequently, dues for the interval previous to the date when the RP was authorised can’t be recovered. The courts have acknowledged this precept in a couple of case.
Retrospective Adjustments Seemingly To Devastate Complete Sector, Withdrawal Of Merchandise Exports Scheme Shall Apply Prospectively: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: Indian Versatile Intermediate Bulk Container Affiliation v. Director Normal of Overseas Commerce
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1097
A Division Bench of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately dominated that DGFT’s choice to repeal the MEIS scheme with retrospective impact, mixed with their refusal to honour claims for the legitimate interval, was arbitrary and indefensible, each in precept and regulation.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Refuses To Entertain Plea Towards Prohibition On Chhath Puja Celebration At Yamuna River Banks
Title: Chhath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1098
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has refused to entertain a petition difficult the Delhi Authorities’s choice of prohibiting devotees from performing Chhath Puja on the banks of Yamuna river.
Observing that the prohibition has been imposed with a view to stop air pollution within the river, Justice Subramonium Prasad expressed his inclination to dismiss the plea which was moved by two societies specifically Chath Pooja Sangharsh Samiti and Purwanchal Jagriti Manch.
Part 29A Permits Courtroom To Lengthen Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even When Utility Made After Expiry Of Time Restrict Supplied: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. BSNL
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that the Courtroom exercising powers beneath Part 29A of the A&C Act is empowered to increase the mandate of the arbitrator even in circumstances the place the appliance in search of extension of time will not be made throughout the time restrict mounted for the making of the award.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the purport of Part 29A of the A&C Act is clearly to not tie the palms of the events or the court docket, and stop extension of time even the place warranted, just because the petition beneath Part 29A(4) of the A&C Act got here to be filed a number of days after expiration of the deadline contemplated beneath Part 29A(1) or Part 29A(3) of the A&C Act.
Excessive Courtroom Directs Delhi Govt To Declare Unencroached Forest Land As ‘Reserved’, Warns Chief Secy Of Contempt In Case Of Failure
Case Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. and different linked issues
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1100
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has directed the Delhi Authorities to difficulty inside two weeks a notification declaring all un-encroached forest land within the nationwide capital as reserved beneath Part 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
Justice Jasmeet Singh stated that in case the notification will not be issued throughout the stipulated interval, the Chief Secretary of Delhi Authorities shall be accountable for contempt motion and a discover of contempt can be initiated towards him.
DDA Demolitions | Ambit Of Writ Courtroom Does Not Lengthen To Resolving Intricate Disputes Over Boundary Delineations: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Title: DARGHA NAJEEBUDDIN FIRDOUSI v. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1101
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has dominated that the ambit of a writ court docket doesn’t prolong to resolving intricate disputes over boundary delineations which require thorough examination of paperwork, surveys, maps, an evaluation of their validity and floor research of areas.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that such duties squarely fall throughout the experience and jurisdiction of the statutory authorities that are constituted beneath related land statutes enacted by the State legislature.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Quashes Non-Talking Order Rejecting The Grant Of An LDC Allowing Deduction Of 0.01% TDS
Case Title: Shreyash Retail Personal Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Earnings Tax TDS Circle
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1102
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the grant of a decrease deduction of tax certificates (LDC) allowing the deduction of 0.01% TDS.
The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has noticed that the explanations furnished by the Respondent/division qua the Utility i.e., as to why the Petitioners’ request that TDS shouldn’t be deducted at a charge of 0.01%, hinges on broad generalisations in relation to the propriety of projected estimations of income and tax legal responsibility and accordingly has been had been issued mechanically reflecting non-application of thoughts.
Chandni Chowk Re-Improvement Work Ought to Proceed And Be Maintained: Excessive Courtroom To Delhi Govt
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHAHJAHANABAD REDEVLOPMENT CORPORATION (SRDC), GNCTD & ORS.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1103
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has requested the Delhi Authorities to make sure that the re-development work of metropolis’s Chandni Chowk is sustained and maintained.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a suo motu PIL registered final yr on the premise of a newspaper report regarding varied phases of Chandni Chowk’s growth and the delay which occurred in its implementation.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Disposes PIL Alleging Irregularities In ‘Particular Olympics Bharat’, Directs Compliance Of Nationwide Sports activities Code In Elections
Title: VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1104
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has requested Particular Olympics Bharat to make sure strict compliance with Nationwide Sports activities Improvement Code, 2011, for all upcoming elections of office-bearers at nationwide and state stage.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula additionally requested the nationwide sports activities federation to adjust to the Code for the collection of sportspersons and nationwide coaches for upcoming Particular Olympic World Video games, 2025.
Throwing On One other Individual Any Liquid Or Substance Different Than ‘Acid’ Not An Offence U/S 326B IPC: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1105
“…beneath Part 326-B of the IPC, an offence is made out provided that an individual throws or makes an attempt to throw ‘acid’ on one other individual, and never another liquid or substance,” the Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held.
It thus quashed an FIR registered on allegations of a lady throwing acid on her sister-in-law, observing that the substance thrown was not discovered to be ‘acid’ and the allegation seemed to be motivated by an ongoing property dispute between the events.
Faculty Security Requirements: Delhi Excessive Courtroom Points Instructions For Inspections By Youngster Security Monitoring Committee
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1106
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has issued a slew of instructions to be adopted by the court-appointed Youngster Security Monitoring Committee throughout the course of its inspections of colleges within the nationwide capital, in respect of minimal requirements of college security.
A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Courtroom) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered that no member can be allowed to examine the colleges independently and that the three member Committee as an entire headed by the Chairperson will examine the colleges.
Merely As a result of Complainant Married Accused Does Not Entail Quashing Of Rape, POCSO FIR: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Title: SAKH ALAM @ SHEKH ALAM v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) & ANR.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1107
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has stated that merely as a result of the complainant married the accused doesn’t entail quashing of an FIR registered for the offence of rape and beneath the Safety of Kids from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain refused to quash an FIR registered beneath the POCSO Act after the accused and complainant sought its quashing on the bottom that they’d settled their disputes, bought married and have been blessed with a son.
Cannot Allow All Instances Towards CBSE To Be Filed In Delhi When Most Important Half Of Trigger Of Motion Arose Elsewhere: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: Riddhima Singh by means of her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Training by means of its Chairman & Ors
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108
A Division Bench of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately dismissed an LPA in search of aid towards CBSE, holding that although the Board has its HQs in Delhi, the appellant’s grievance was circuitously attributable to it.
Talking of discussion board conveniens, the Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, noticed:
“…the doctrine of discussion board conveniens is invoked to find out probably the most applicable discussion board for adjudication of a dispute and this train is undertaken not just for the comfort of the events but in addition within the curiosity of justice”.
Finalize Proposal On Establishing Specialised Coaching Academy For Public Prosecutors Inside 4 Weeks: Excessive Courtroom To Delhi Govt
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and different linked issues
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1109
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has directed the Delhi Authorities to finalize inside 4 weeks its proposal concerning the institution of a specialised coaching academy for public prosecutors.
A division bench of then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Courtroom) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the general public prosecutors shoulder weighty duties within the discharge of their duties and directed the Delhi Authorities to file an affidavit outlining the steps taken by it.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Directs DCP Authorized To Convene Assembly Concerning SOP On Safety Measures Throughout Faculty Fests
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1110
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has directed Delhi Police’s DCP (Authorized) to convene a gathering to place in place the usual working process (SOP) concerning the safety measures to be adopted throughout school fests which are organised by faculties or Universities within the nationwide capital.
A division bench of Appearing Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna stated that the representatives of IIT Delhi, Delhi Universities and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha College shall even be referred to as within the assembly.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Seeks DDA’s Stand On CBI Probe Into Allotment Of Properties Primarily based On Solid Advice Letters
Title: GOVIND SARAN SHARMA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1111
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has sought stand of the Delhi Improvement Authority (DDA) as as to if the matter of allotment of 128 properties, on prime places within the nationwide capital, based mostly on “cast suggestion letters” by Land and Constructing Division be referred for additional investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Justice Prathiba M Singh stated that the worth of the properties, even at a mean worth, can be in hundreds of crores, and that the full worth even by conservative estimates may very well be over Rs. 2000 crores.
Conduct Safety And Social Audit Of DUSIB Shelter Houses: Excessive Courtroom To Delhi Govt’s Chief Secretary
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GNCTD AND ORS
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1112
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has directed the Delhi Authorities’s Chief Secretary to undertake a safety and social audit of all of the shelter properties beneath the supervision of Delhi City Shelter Enchancment Board (DUSIB) to make sure that they’re occupied by eligible individuals.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to the Supreme Courtroom) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the train be completed positively inside six weeks.
Courtroom Exercising Powers Beneath Part 34 Of A&C Act Can’t Permit Claims Rejected By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: Bharti Airtel v. Jamshed Khan
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that the Courtroom exercising powers beneath Part 34 of the A&C Act can’t permit claims which have been disallowed/rejected by the arbitral tribunal.
The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that Part 34 of the A&C Act doesn’t allow the Courtroom to rewrite an arbitral award and the Courtroom can both put aside or upheld the arbitral award.
As soon as Granted Bail, Accused Should Not Solely ‘Be a part of’ Investigation However Additionally ‘Take part’ In It: Delhi Excessive Courtroom
Title: VINEET SURELIA v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has stated that an accused, as soon as granted bail, is at all times anticipated to not solely be a part of the investigation but in addition take part in it, whereas underscoring that there’s a palpable distinction between “becoming a member of” and “collaborating” in probe.
“In any occasion, this Courtroom needs to pay attention to the truth that in quite a few circumstances pending trial, sadly, there’s a current rising development whereby an accused, regardless of both making an announcement by means of counsel within the Courtroom or regardless of situations being imposed by the Courtroom, merely chooses to ‘bodily’ be a part of investigation on paper, with none precise participation,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee stated.
