Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 286 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 316
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s Sabsons Agencies Private Limited Vs M/s Harihar Polymers & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 286
Godavari Projects (J.V) Vs Union of 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 287
Amanatullah Khan v. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 288
HARISH YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI LiveLaw (Del) 289
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 Versus Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 290
PRASAR BHARTI v. DISH TV INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 291
Indigrid Technology Pvt. Ltd Vs Genestore India Pvt. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 292
Chabbras Associates vs M/s Hscc (India) Ltd & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 293
RAVI RANJAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 294
Rites Ltd Vs Ahuwalia Contract (India) Ltd. & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 295
Aerosource India Pvt Ltd. Vs Geetanjali Aviation Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 296
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-19 & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 297
MANVIR @ MANISH v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 298
GOVT. NCT OF DELHI THROUGH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND ORS v. REHMAT FATIMA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 299
SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 300
KENISHA AGRAWAL MINOR REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MR NITIN AGRAWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 301
SH. CHHATTER PAL & ORS. v. STATE & 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 302
KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 303
MR TALIB HASSAN DARVESH v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 304
BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 305
Commissioner Of Central Excise Versus Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 306
SFDC Ireland Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 307
Navisite India Pvt Ltd vs CIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 308
AAFTAB AMIN POONAWALA v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 309
DOLMA TSERING v. MOHD. AKRAM KHAN AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 310
RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MADHURI JAIN GROVER & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 311
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 312
Sakshi v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 313
BTB MARKETING PVT. LTD. v. DEEPSHIKHA SINGH AND ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 314
MUNTAZMIA COMMITTEE MADARSA BEHRUL ULUM AND KABARSTAN v. DDA AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 315
PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS INDIA LLP & ANR. v. JOHN DOE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 316
Case Title: M/s Sabsons Agencies Private Limited Vs M/s Harihar Polymers & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 286
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that the requirement of pre-litigation meditation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory in nature.
Section 12-A of the Act outlines the mandatory requirement for pre-institution mediation before filing a suit, provided urgent interim relief is not sought.
Case Title: Godavari Projects (J.V) Vs Union of India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 287
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that proceedings contemplated in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) do not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the court or authorities to entertain applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act or other proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor against another party. It held that even if a Joint Venture is undergoing insolvency, the bench held that preclude the corporate debtor from filing an application under Section 11.
Title: Amanatullah Khan v. ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 288
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan in a money laundering case connected to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Waqf Board recruitment during his chairmanship.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied the relief to Khan taking note of his conduct of avoiding the repeated summons issued to him by ED and not joining the investigation.
Delhi High Court Grants Three Weeks Parole To NDPS Convict For Arranging Funds For Payment Of Fine
Title: HARISH YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 289
The Delhi High Court has granted three weeks parole to a man convicted under the NDPS Act on the ground of arranging funds for payment of fine in terms of the sentence awarded to him, as well as for re-establishing social ties with his family.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that there were sufficient reasons for releasing the convict on parole, subject to him furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned jail superintendent.
Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 Versus Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 290
The Delhi High Court has held that the expression “yes” could not be considered to be a valid approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the satisfaction arrived at by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act must be clearly discernible from the expression used at the time of affixing its signature while according approval for reassessment under Section 148.
Title: PRASAR BHARTI v. DISH TV INDIA LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 291
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Dish TV India Limited cannot claim exclusive right to use the word “Dish” as it is generic in nature which refers to dish antenna and it will not be entitled to be protected under Section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, on a standalone basis.
A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the word ‘Dish’ appearing in Dish TV’s trademark is a prominent or essential feature of its trademark, but it is not entitled to any protection.
Case Title: Indigrid Technology Pvt. Ltd Vs Genestore India Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 292
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that fraud alleging regarding the internal management of the company doesn’t go to the root of the contract. Therefore, the bench held that the dispute concerning the lack of authority to enter into a contract are arbitrable.
The bench held that the Court while deciding a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only required to see the existence of an Arbitration Clause.
Case Title: Chabbras Associates vs M/s Hscc (India) Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 293
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma rejected the contention presented by Respondent, that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator made in accordance with the contract cannot be challenged and the only option available to the petitioner is to challenge the mandate of the arbitrator. It emphasized that the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator as stipulated in Clause 25 of the GCC was inherently and blatantly unlawful.
Title: RAVI RANJAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 294
In an interim order, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to no take any coercive action against a Pakistani Hindu Refugee residing in the Pakistani Hindu Refugees Camp at city’s Majnu Ka Tilla.
Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order after considering the Union Government’s statement recorded in another petition in 2013 stating that it shall make endeavour to extend all support to the Hindu Community which entered the country from Pakistan.
Case Title: Rites Ltd Vs Ahuwalia Contract (India) Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 295
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that when parties agree that no interest shall be payable, the Arbitral Tribunal is bound by that agreement. The bench held that that such an agreement is not ultra vires under Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Case Title: Aerosource India Pvt Ltd. Vs Geetanjali Aviation Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 296
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition filed under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, noting that prima facie there was no arbitration agreement between Petitioner and Respondent.
The High Court noted that Section 8(1), as amended in 2015, mandates the referral of parties to arbitration by a judicial authority unless there is prima facie finding that no valid arbitration agreement exists.
Title: INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-19 & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 297
The Delhi High Court has upheld the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on March 08 refusing to stay a demand notice issued to Indian National Congress for recovery of outstanding tax of more than Rs. 100 crores for the assessment year 2018-19.
“..while we find no ground to interfere with the order impugned, we dispose of the writ petition according liberty to the petitioner to approach the ITAT by way of a fresh stay application bringing to its attention the change in circumstances noticed above,” a division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.
Title: MANVIR @ MANISH v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 298
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a stepfather who was convicted in 2015 for sexually assaulting and raping his minor daughter in 2014.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that there were multiple reasons to grant the benefit of the doubt to the convict and that the victim’s testimony did not inspire much confidence.
Title: GOVT. NCT OF DELHI THROUGH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND ORS v. REHMAT FATIMA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 299
The Delhi High Court has expressed surprise over the Delhi Government’s decision to file a “misconceived appeal” challenging a single judge order which granted maternity and medical benefits to a young woman.
A division bench of Justice Rekha Palika and Justice Shalinder Kaur took note of the Delhi Government’s steps to promote the interest of women in the city, including the recently announced Mukhyamanti Samman Yojna Scheme of giving Rs. 1000 to all adult women.
Title: SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 300
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the evidence recorded in the Special Enquiry Team (SET) will not be relied upon in the departmental enquiry proposed to be held against Sameer Wankhede as per law in relation to the Cordelia cruise drugs case.
A division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur disposed of Wankhede’s plea against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on August 21 last year in so far as it refused to quash the findings of SET.
Title: KENISHA AGRAWAL MINOR REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MR NITIN AGRAWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 301
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision to not allow non-citizens or Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) to participate in the International Mathematical Olympiad, observing that it is a policy decision.
“There is, therefore, a justifiable reason for not permitting non-citizens to represent India in International Maths Olympiad, and the decision cannot, therefore, be treated as either arbitrary or taken without proper application of mind,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
Title: SH. CHHATTER PAL & ORS. v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 302
The Delhi High Court has recently expressed displeasure over non-compliance of its last year’s ruling wherein guidelines were framed on drafting of mediation settlement agreements in matrimonial cases, with special reference to clauses dealing with criminal cases.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that failure to effectively communicate and implement the directions poses a significant setback to the progress made in promoting ADR mechanisms.
Title: KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 303
The Delhi High Court has dismissed with Rs. 1 lakh costs the appeal moved by a litigant, 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.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the single judge’s order which dismissed Singh’s plea with Rs. 10,000 costs.
Title: MR TALIB HASSAN DARVESH v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 304
The Delhi High Court has said that the summons issued by Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot be quashed merely because relevant documents required for investigation or confrontation with an accused have not been specified in them.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the summoning, in exercise of statutory powers, cannot be stalled merely on mere apprehension that the accused may be arrested and prosecuted on basis of summons issued after registration of ECIR in the proceedings initiated by ED.
Title: BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 305
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by news and media platform “The Bloomberg” against a trial court order directing it to take down an allegedly defamatory article on Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited.
Justice Shalinder Kaur upheld the trial court order and granted three days time to The Bloomberg to comply with the directions of the Additional District Judge.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise Versus Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 306
The Delhi High Court has held that the charges of clandestine removal and under valuation cannot be sustained merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The absence of direct, credible evidence linking the respondents to the alleged offences necessitate the dismissal of the charges.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the physical verification of the stocks and the absence of discrepancies in the recorded quantity of the raw material as well as the lack of evidence regarding the purchase of significant quantities of raw materials and cash undermine the presumption of unaccounted manufacture.
Case Title: SFDC Ireland Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 307
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order denying Nil or lower TDS certificates and held that the services provided by the assessee, Irish Company, to its Indian counterpart were not technical services.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that though the power to grant a TDS certificate was merely a preliminary examination of the issue of taxability and had no implication on the ultimate assessment that might be made, still due consideration should be accorded to the question of chargeability to tax while examining applications made under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Navisite India Pvt Ltd vs CIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 308
The Delhi High Court allowed assessee’s petition seeking refund of amounts which was deposited towards part payment of demand raised in pursuance of assessment order for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Title: AAFTAB AMIN POONAWALA v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 309
The Delhi High Court has directed the Tihar jail authorities to unlock accused Aaftab Poonawala for 8 hours during the day like other prisoners, and lodge him in the solitary cell during the night.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order in a habeas corpus plea moved by Poonawala.
Delhi High Court Cancels Man’s ‘Dolma’ Trademark In Plea By ‘Dolma Aunty Momos’
Title: DOLMA TSERING v. MOHD. AKRAM KHAN AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 310
The Delhi High Court has cancelled “Dolma” trademark adopted by an individual after the famous “Dolma Aunty Momos” filed a plea against its use.
Justice Anish Dayal directed that the impugned trademark be cancelled and removed from the Trade Marks Register.
Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MADHURI JAIN GROVER & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 311
The Delhi High Court has restrained the Former Managing Director of BharatPe, Ashneer Grover, from making defamatory and derogatory statements against the fintech company or its office bearers or officials.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed Grover to take down his tweets, including the one calling the SBI Chairperson petty, within 48 hours.
The court also directed Economics Times to take down its article published recently based on Ashneer Grover’s letters written to the RBI Chairman.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 312
The Delhi High Court has initiated a suo motu case after a forged and fabricated judicial order was allegedly handed over to a female undertrial prisoner by the jail visiting advocate.
While ordering an inquiry into the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued various directions to the concerned stakeholders, including the general public, to verify the authenticity of judicial orders and to exercise caution and diligence when such orders are handed over to them.
Title: Sakshi v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 313
The Delhi High Court has appointed former Supreme Court judge, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, as an observer to exercise oversight over the activities and functions to be discharged by the Election Committee constituted for elections of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) 2023-24.
Justice Sachin Datta disposed of a plea filed by Sakshi, who has been a student in the varsity since 2021, challenging the process of conducting the elections.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of ‘Be The Beer’ Trademark In Plea By ‘The Beer Cafe’
Title: BTB MARKETING PVT. LTD. v. DEEPSHIKHA SINGH AND ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 314
The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of “Be The Beer” mark from the Register of Trade Marks in a plea filed by food and beverage cafés chain “The Beer Cafe.”
“The impugned mark of respondent No.1 be removed from the register. The website of Registrar of Trade Marks be updated accordingly. The same may be done within a period of four weeks by the Registrar of Trade Marks,” Justice Anish Dayal ordered.
Title: MUNTAZMIA COMMITTEE MADARSA BEHRUL ULUM AND KABARSTAN v. DDA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 315
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking permission to offer Tarawih prayers during the month of Ramzan at the site of the recently demolished 600-year-old mosque, Masjid Akhonji, in the city’s Mehrauli area.
The mosque, along with Madrasa Bahrul Uloom and various graves, were demolished by the DDA on January 30.
Justice Sachin Datta dismissed the application moved in a plea filed by Muntazmia Committee Madarsa Behrul Ulum and Kabarstan.
Title: PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS INDIA LLP & ANR. v. JOHN DOE & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 316
The Delhi High Court has asked WhatsApp LLC to file an affidavit explaining the mechanism followed by it to identify a group by its name and the technical difficulties which it would face for implementing directions to remove or block access to the same.
Justice Sanjeev Narula sought WhatsApp’s response in a suit filed by Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP, formerly Sequoia Capital India & SEA, against various unknown persons (john doe) alleging that a fraudulent online investment and trading scheme was orchestrated by them.
