CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213NOMINAL INDEXJIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS….
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
JIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203
SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204
STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 205
SANTOSH TRUST & ANR. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 206
WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 207
ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 208
KINGS FURNISHING AND SAFE CO v. THE COMMISSIONER & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 209
DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 210
Jagdish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 211
LALIT RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 212
MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
ANUPAM & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 214
1. Arbitral Fee Under Fourth Schedule Based On Aggregate Value Of Claim & Counter-Claim : Delhi High Court
Case Title: JIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court has observed that the term “sum in dispute” provided in the 4th Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has to be interpreted so as to include the aggregate value of the claims as well as counter claims.
The High Court disagreed with the Arbitrator’s view that the claims and counter-claims have to be assessed separately for calculation of fee as per the fee scale provided under the 4th Schedule.
“The term “sum in dispute”, would take in its ambit claims as well as counter claims. The said expression “sum in dispute” used in the 4th Schedule to the Act has to be given its ordinary meaning, to include the total amount of claim made by the claimant, and the total amount of counter claim made by the respondent”, a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Amit Bansal observed.
2. Refusal To Fill Consent Form To Obtain Information About Swiss Bank Account, Delhi High Court Upholds Penalty
Case Title: Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court has upheld the penalty issued under the Income Tax ActIncome Tax Act, 1961 upon an assessee who had failed to fill the consent-cum-waiver form to enable the tax authorities to obtain information about the alleged Swiss Bank accounts held by it.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, has held that even if the Assessee had no connection with the alleged Swiss Bank accounts, no prejudice would have been caused to her if she had complied with the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act and had filled the consent form.
The Delhi High Court observed that in the case of Sanjay Dalmia versus PCIT (2018), the Delhi High Court had upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act which had arisen from the same search and bank account under consideration in the present case and for the same reason of not having filled the consent form. Also, the High Court observed that a Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The High Court also observed that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Selvi & Ors had no application to the facts of the present case as the same had only upheld the principle of ‘right of silence’ in the context of criminal proceedings.
3. Nimisha Priya Case | Will Appeal Against Death Penalty In Yemen, Not Participate In Negotiations With Victim’s Family: Centre To Delhi High Court
Case Title: SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that it will take appropriate steps to institute an appeal before the next appellate forum challenging the death penalty awarded to Nimisha Priya, an Indian woman who was convicted by a Yemen court for killing a local in 2017.
Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for the Centre, on instructions, apprised Justice Yashwant Varma that the Government of India shall take all proactive steps to institute an appeal before next appellate forum in accordance with prevalent law in Yemen.
He also apprised the Court that the Councillor present in Yemen shall extend cooperation and facilitate the travel of persons wanting to negotiate with victim’s family in order to pursue their purported aim to settle the dispute.
The Centre also informed the Court that it is providing miscellaneous amounts to Priya for her daily expenses inside prison.
Accordingly, the Court requested the concerned Ministry to duly pursue the remedy of further appeal against order of conviction and the plea was disposed of.
4. IPL 2022: Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of Rogue Websites Illegally Streaming Cricket Matches
Case Title: STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 8 rogue websites alleged to be illegally streaming cricket matches of TATA Indian Premier League (IPL) 2022.
Considering the fact that the match is starting from 26th March, 2022, Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that there was an imminent need to protect the investment of the plaintiffs, Star India Private Limited, as also to ensure that such Rogue Websites do not illegally stream the said cricket matches.
“The Court has perused the plaint as also the documents. The documentary evidence and the screenshots placed on record prima facie show that the following websites have previously streamed pirated content of the cricket matches for which the Plaintiffs hold Exclusive Rights,” the Court noted.
5. Ukraine-Returned Indian Medical Students Have Lost Their Seats: Delhi High Court While Allowing Medical College’s Plea To Increase Seats
Case Title: SANTOSH TRUST & ANR. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has directed increase in the number of seats in various post graduate and under graduate courses in a medical educational institute being run and managed by Santosh Trust, formerly known as the Maharaji Educational Trust in the city.
Taking note of the recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Justice Rekha Palli said that several thousand rescued Indian medical students, who had gone to pursue their medical education in Ukraine, have also lost their seats in medical colleges.
Accordingly, the Court directed the National Medical Commission and other respondent authorities to grant permission to the institute on the basis of the an inspection report and to increase the seats from 4 to 7 in MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), from 3 to 7 in MS (Orthopaedics), and from 100 to 150 in the MBBS course.
6. Armed Forces Tribunal Act Excludes Administrative Supervision Of High Court But Not Judicial Superintendence & Jurisdiction U/A 226: Delhi HC
Case Title: WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has held that while the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 excludes the administrative supervision of the High Court under Article 227(4) of the Constitution but, it does not exclude the judicial superintendence and jurisdiction under Article 226.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a bunch of pleas raising the issue as to whether the power of Judicial Review conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 has been taken away in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Maj. Gen. Shri Kant Sharma and Anr. thereby denying litigants the right to approach High Court in writ jurisdiction against the judgment and orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal.
7. Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction In Favour Of ‘ADOBE’ In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 208
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte injunction in favour of ADOBE in a trademark infringement suit against one Namase Patel, who had registered the domain names www.addobe.com and www.adobee.com in respect of computer software and other IT related services.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant concerned had registered the Infringing Domains thereby engaging in completely illegal conduct for the last several years.
Justice Pratibha M Singh perused the list of domain names of the Defendant and various orders passed by the US National Arbitration Forum and other arbitral institutions and was of the view that the same clearly showed that the Defendant seemed to be a habitual cyber squatter engaged in registering various domain names.
8. State’s Duty To Remove Unauthorised Religious Structures Constructed On Public Land : Delhi High Court
Case Title: KINGS FURNISHING AND SAFE CO v. THE COMMISSIONER & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 209
Emphasizing that the State authorities remain duty bound to remove all unauthorised constructions on public land, the Delhi High Court has said that the mere fact that such encroachments represent religious structures, a place of worship or are given colour of a religious structure cannot detract or dilute the authorities from that obligation.
Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a petition concerning the encroachments made on a public pathway in city’s Rani Jhansi Road.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Government apprised the Court that the Religious Committee, constituted in terms of a Government Circular dated 05 May 2014, had addressed a communication dated 07 December 2021 to the concerned Corporation. It was submitted that further information and inputs in order to assess the steps liable to be taken were awaited.
9. Delhi High Court Allows Reopening Of Four Floors Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz On Shab-e-Barat
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Delhi High Court allowed reopening of four floors, including Ground floor as well as three floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz for offering of prayers on the festival of Shab e-Barat.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri however removed the Delhi Police’s restriction of only permitting 100 people inside Masjid to offer namaz by ordering that the management will ensure that while allowing the devotees on a particular floor, the COVID protocols and social distancing norms will be followed.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020.
10. ‘Completely Frivolous’: Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Probe Into AAP’s Alleged Links With Banned Khalistani Organisation
Case Title: Jagdish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 211
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking a High Level Inquiry against the allegations of links between banned Khalistani organisation ‘Sikhs for Justice’ and Arvind Kejriwal led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
The plea also sought to bar the party from contesting elections until the enquiry is completed and to temporarily suspend its membership from the election commission.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla rejected the plea filed by one Jagdish Sharma, stating that it is “completely frivolous’.
The plea referred to a letter addressed by former Chief Minister of Punjab, Charanjeet Singh Channi, to Home Minister Amit Shah, alleging that the Aam Aadmi Party which is currently leading the Delhi government is taking financial support from the banned khalistani organization.
11. Writ To Compel Police To Conduct Investigation Can Be Denied For Not Exhausting Alternative & Efficacious Remedy Under CrPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: LALIT RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court has observed that a writ to compel police to conduct an investigation can be denied for not exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Chadra Dhari Singh however added that such writ may be denied unless the exceptions enumerated in the decision of Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh are satisfied.
The Supreme Court in the said judgment had said that the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right or when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or in cases where order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or when vires of a legislation is challenged.
With the said observation, the Court dismissed a plea filed under Article 226 & 227 seeking immediate arrest of accused persons and taking appropriate action against the investigation officer for delay in lodging FIR and helping accused persons.
12. FIR & Chargesheet Can Be Quashed If Allegations Or Evidence Do Not Establish Commission Of An Offence: Delhi High Court
Title: MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court has observed that the FIR and chargesheet can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or complaint or the evidence collected, though remaining uncontroverted, do not disclose the commission of an offence.
Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the the decision of the Court to exercise or not to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be predicated on the facts of each case, however, while considering the facts, the court cannot embark on an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 4th December, 2021 emanating from an FIR registered with the Crime Branch, Rohini on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 by way of an email addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
13. Data On Students’ Personal Info Well Protected In ERP Software: Delhi University Tells High Court
Case Title: ANUPAM & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 214
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea filed by final year students of the University in July, 2020 being aggrieved over the conduct of the online Open Book Examinations by the University.
The Petitioners sought quashing and withdrawal of the notifications dated 14th May, 2020, 30th May, 2020 and 27th June, 2020 in respect of undergraduate and postgraduate students, including students of the School of Open Learning and Non-Collegiate Women Education Board. It was pointed out that there were several glitches in the online portal of DU.
The Court was therefore informed and assured that the data relating to the personal information of students is well protected with an ERP software, and that the access to the same is restricted to the designated officers of the Examination Unit, the Admissions Unit and other Administrative Unit of the University.
IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES
1. Class 1 Admissions – Last Date For Application Extended Till April 11 : Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Tells Delhi HC
The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has told the Delhi High Court that the last date for submitting the online application for admission to class I in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the upcoming academic year will be extended from March 21 to April 11, 2022.
Taking note of the aforesaid stand, Justice Rekha Palli deferred passing any interim order in the plea challenging the admission criteria of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to the extent that it prescribed a minimum age criteria of 6 years as on March 31, 2022 for admission to class I in academic year 2022-23.
The plea has been moved by a five year old girl stating that the impugned admission criteria of KVS is violative of fundamental and statutory right to education of petitioner as guaranteed to her under Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
2. Delhi Riots| “Shahrukh Pathan Has Family History Of Criminal Cases, Has No Remorse For Illegal Acts”: Prosecution Opposes Bail Plea In High Court
Opposing the bail plea filed by Shahrukh Pathan, the man who pointed a gun at a policeman during North East Delhi riots, the prosecution has told the High Court that Pathan has family history of criminal cases and that he has no remorse for his illegal actions.
The case relates to rioting, causing injuries to police personnel and gunshot injury sustained by one Rohit Shukla by an armed mob. (FIR 49/2020 registered at Jafrabad Police Station)
In the status report filed in the bail plea, it has been stated that Pathan can influence the witnesses in active and passive way as he has a family history of crime.
The bail plea is opposed on the ground that Pathan has been involved in one other case of riots wherein he had already been denied bail.
3. “Investigate Without Fear Or Influence”: High Court Tells Delhi Police Probing Death Of Man Forced To Sing National Anthem During Riots
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the city police to conduct further investigation without any fear or influence, in the case of 23 year old Faizan, who was forced to sing the national anthem during the Delhi riots that erupted in the year 2020.
The incident relates to a video that had gone viral wherein Faizan could be seen allegedly being beaten by the police while being forced to sing the national anthem and ‘Vande Mataram’.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Kismatun, Faizan’s mother, seeking a SIT probe into her son’s death. Kismatun claims in her plea that the police had illegally detained her son and denied him critical health care as a result of which he succumbed to injuries on February 26, 2020.
4. INX Media Case: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh Of Delhi HC Recuses From ED’s Plea Challenging Order To Provide Documents To P Chidambaram, His Son
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh of the Delhi High Court on Monday recused from hearing a plea by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the INX Media money laundering case challenging a Trial Court order directing supply of copies of all unrelied documents of the case to Former Union Minister P Chidambaram and his son Karti P. Chidambaram.
“I am not hearing this matter. I am transferring it,” said the judge while ordering that the plea will now be listed before some other bench on March 16.
The plea has challenged an order passed by Special Judge of Rouse Avenue Courts dated January 25, 2020 which was passed on the applications moved by the P Chidambaram and his son seeking inspection of the unrelied documents.
It is pertinent to note that the High Court had in November last year dismissed a similar plea by CBI challenging the Special Judge’s order directing it to allow the accused persons to inspect the documents kept in Malkhana room collected by the agency while investigating the INX Media Case.
Subscribe to Live Law now and get unlimited access.
Already have an account? Sign In