Press "Enter" to skip to content

Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: September 2022 [Citations 823 – 925] – Live Law – Indian Legal News

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 823 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 925Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 823BOLT Technology OU v. Ujoy Technology Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 824MS HNUNPUII v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 825BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del)…
NOMINAL INDEX
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 823 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 925
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
SCOUTS AND GUIDES FOR ANIMALS AND BIRDS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 839

LEELA MATHUR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 840
Shivam Pandey v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 841
M/S VERVE HUMAN CARE LABORATORIES v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 842
DR. L. PRAVEEN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 843
Drooshba Fabricators v. Indue Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 844
HATHKARGAH LAGHU PATANG UDYOG SAMITI (REG.) v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 845
JEEVESH SABHARWAL v. ARUNA GUPTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 846
H.S. RAI v UOI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 847
Dr. Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 848
HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 849
CROSS FIT LLC v RTB GYM AND FITNESS CENTRE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 850
State v. Rahul 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 851
VRS Natarajan versus OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 852
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS GUILD (INDIA) v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL CIVIL AVIATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 853
Durga Prasad v. LG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 854
GURJEET SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 855
NARINDER KHANNA v. GOVT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 856
Konika Poddar v. SL Stephen’s College & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 857
NARENDER @ LALA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 858
Punita Bhardwaj versus Rashmi Juneja 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 859
MAYANK GARG v. DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 860
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 861
NIKHIL CHAWLA v. THE COCA COLA COMPANY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 862
OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 863
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 864
BIMAL KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 865
Mujeeb ur Rehman v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 866
EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 867
MOHD SHAKEEL & ORS. v. MOHD ISLAM 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 868
ANEESH GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 869
RAVINDER SURI & ORS. v. DAYAWATI (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 870
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 871
MOHD ERSHAD SOLE PROPRIETOR EK AGENCIES v. REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 872
BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 873
MIZPAH CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 874
M/S MAAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. M/S MINDWAVE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 875
ACCURATE AUCTIONEERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 876
NATURAL FATHER RAVINDER SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 877
MOHD AHSAN v. CUSTOMS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 878
PHULGITA DEVI v. KRISHAN KMAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 879
NEW MILLENNIUM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 880
JAGAT SINGH NAGAR & ORS v. STATE & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 881
M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 882
Title: RAKESH MALHOTRA v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORYOFINDIAAND ORS & other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 883
LOTUS PAY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884
SHREYA BHARDWAJ THROUGH HER GUARDIAN v. SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 885
SANJEEV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 886
SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR GARG v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 887
TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 888
GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 889
Touchstone Holdings Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 890
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT– 4(3) v. XIONGWEI LI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 891
AAKASH CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR and another connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 892
VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. vs KIRAT VINODBHAI JADVANI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 893
AMITA VASHISHT versus TARUN VEDI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 894
VINOD RAWAT v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 895
WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. vs RAAJ COMPUTER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 896
X v. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 897
X v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 898
Court on its own motion v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 899
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 900
R.S BHARGAVA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 901
PANKAJ KUMAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 902
SARVJEET SINGH v. STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 903
RAJESH GIRI v. SUBHASH MITTAL & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 904
Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 905
KAUSHAL KISHOR SINGH v. M/S SITA KUONI WORLD TRAVEL INDIA LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 906
Sharjeel Imam vs. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 907
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 908
RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 909
VINAI KUMAR SAXENA v. AAM AADMI PARTY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 910
Indiabulls Housing and Finance Limited v. Enforcement Directorate 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 911
PCIT Versus Panchmukhi Management Services Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 912
Canara Bank versus The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 913
Facebook India Online Services Private Limited v. CCI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 914
SUGANDHI SNUFF KING PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. COMMISSIONER (FOOD SAFETY) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 915
Chitra Ramakrishna v. CBI, Anand Subramaniam v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 916
RAJESH KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 917
Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 918
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. RUBY & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 919
Paras Khuttan v. GAIL India Ltd. & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 920
Seema Gupta v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 921
UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. GIRBAR SINGH & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 922
KANTI DEVI & ORS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 923
SACHIN SHARMA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 924
AROMATRIX FLORA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 925
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. “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.

6. 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.
7. 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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).”
12. 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.”
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Comply With Law While Transporting Camels For Participation In Republic Day Parade
Title: SCOUTS AND GUIDES FOR ANIMALS AND BIRDS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 839
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to ensure strict compliance of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 as well as the amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (The Transport of Animals) Rules, 2020 while transporting camels to the city for the purpose of their participation in Republic Day Parade.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also directed the Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways as well as the Border Security Force to ensure strict compliance of the SOP read with the Rules governing the field in the matter of transport of camels.
The Court thus disposed of a PIL filed by a trust namely Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds alleging transportation of camels into the city from the State of Rajasthan in violation of the statutory provisions as contained under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
18. Municipal Corporation Constituted For Providing Basic Public Goods Cannot Shirk Off Responsibility By Citing Financial Constraints: Delhi High Court
Title: LEELA MATHUR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 840
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Municipal Corporation constituted for the purpose of providing basic public goods amenities cannot shirk off its responsibility by citing financial constraints.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while pulling up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) after a 80 year old lady’s house had gone down below the road level due to re constructions, thereby causing damage to the property.
Both the lady as well as the MCD had filed cross appeals challenging an order passed by the Single Judge dated February 12, 2020 imposing costs of Rs.3. Lakhs as compensation on the MCD and directing it to hand over a pump to the old lady to avoid water logging in the house.
19. “Right To File Petition Not A Tool For Your Resume”: High Court Dismisses Law Student’s Plea Seeking Compensation In Wake Of Delhi’s Air Pollution
Title: Shivam Pandey v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 841
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed a law student namely Shivam Pandey persuing masters from University of Delhi seeking compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs for the damages suffered to his health due to the cause of air pollution in the city. Apart from compensation, the plea also sought health insurance of Rs. 25 lakhs.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma observed that the law student failed to place on record any material evidence which may “even remotely” establish any personal injury suffered by him on account of air pollution.
Calling the petition as misconceived, the Court dismissed the same and orally told the petitioner, who was appearing in person, thus:
“Sir remember, Court is a serious place. Filing and the right to you to file a petition in this Court, is not merely a tool for your resume and you cv. Next time you have a serious issue to raise, you are most welcome to do so…”
20. Judicial Review Of Govt Contracts Permitted Only If There Is Illegality In Decision Making Process Placing Public Interest At Risk: Delhi HC
Case Title: M/S VERVE HUMAN CARE LABORATORIES v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 842
The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of judicial review in matters of government contracts is limited and can only be exercised if there is patent unreasonableness, irregularity, irrationality or illegality in the decision-making process of the authority which places public interest at large at a risk.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad added that in the absence of the said circumstances, Courts should normally exercise judicial restraint while deliberating upon contractual matters so as to not generate “problematic ramifications” affecting the State’s ability to enter into contracts and trade with private entities.
21. “Alleged Offence Grave But Trial Would Take Ample Time”: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Three Officials Accused In Biocon Bribery Case
Case Title: DR. L. PRAVEEN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 843
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to three officials accused in connection with Biocon bribery case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observing that though the offence alleged is grave, the trial in the matter would take ample time.
A bench of Justice Anu Malhotra noted that chargesheet was already filed and investigation in the matter was completed. It thus granted bail to Dr. S. Eswara Reddy (Joint Drugs Controller), L. Praveen Kumar (Associate Vice President of M/s Biocon Biologics Limited) and Dinesh Dua (Director of M/s Synergy Network India Private Limited).
CBI had filed an FIR in June this year under sec. 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
22. Non-Payment/Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty Cannot Render The Arbitration Agreement Invalid: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Drooshba Fabricators v. Indue Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 844
The High Court of Delhi has held that non-payment or insufficiency of stamp duty on the underlying agreement cannot render the arbitration clause invalid.
The Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited[1] and Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.[2] to hold that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C should impound the unstamped/inadequately agreement and direct the parties to cure the defect before the arbitrator could adjudicate upon such an agreement.
The Court further held that the requirement of pre-arbitral steps in the form of negotiation/conciliation would stand satisfied when the petitioner issues several notices to amicably settle the dispute, however, no response comes from the respondent.
23. Manjha Row | Person Flying Kites Can’t Modify Thread To Sharpen It With Metallic Or Glass Components: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HATHKARGAH LAGHU PATANG UDYOG SAMITI (REG.) v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 845
The Delhi High Court has observed that a person engaged in kite flying cannot modify the kite flying thread to sharpen it by using sharp metallic or glass components and adhesives for the purposes of sparring with fellow sports persons.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan noted the clarification made by the Delhi Government in respect of its notification imposing a complete ban on the sale and production of chinese manjha for kite flying, that the activity will be permitted only from cotton thread, free from any sharp, metallic or glass components.

24. S.284 CrPC | Court Must Prevent Miscarriage Of Justice While Examining Witness On Commission Incapable Of Attending Proceedings: Delhi HC
Title: JEEVESH SABHARWAL v. ARUNA GUPTA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 846
The Delhi High Court has observed that in cases involving question of examining a witness on Commission wherein such a witness is disabled or otherwise not in a position to attend Court, the Court has to exercise its power to examine the witness to see that no miscarriage of justice takes place.
“The question of examining the witness on Commission arises in the case where such a witness is disabled to attend the Court due to old age or hazardous condition of her health, not in a position to move about or the witness is incapable of attending the Court for any other reason. In such cases, the Court has to exercise its power to examine the witness to see that no such miscarriage of justice does takes place,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
The Court added that where it is not possible for a witness to attend the Court, a procedure is prescribed under sec. 284 of CrPC to examine the witness by the Court Commissioner.
25. Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Exercised Only When Either The Person Or Authority To Which Writ Issued, Or Cause Of Action Is Within Its Territory: Delhi HC
Case Title : H.S. RAI v UOI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 847

The Delhi High Court has observed that it can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either when the person or authority to which the writ is to be issued is located within its territory, or the cause of action, in part or whole, arises within its territory.
Thus, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed the plea of H.S. Rai, an aggrieved employee of Projects and Development India Limited (PDIL), who had moved the Court to set aside the penalties imposed on him during a disciplinary enquiry for allegedly misappropriating company funds.
The Court held that since both the original authority and the appellate authority under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA Rules) of the organisation were constituted and made their respective orders in Jharkhand, the petitioner could not have approached the Delhi High Court merely because he was a resident of Delhi.
26. COVID-19: Delhi HC Closes PIL To Implement Safety Protocol During Election Campaigns, Directs ECI To Ensure Strict Compliance
Case Title: Dr. Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 848
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India to ensure strict compliance by political parties of its guidelines concerning COVID-19 norms during elections.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL seeking to debar candidates and campaigners of political parties from campaigning in elections, “either permanently or for a stipulated period of time”, if they repeatedly violate mandatory masking guidelines issued by Election Commission.
27. Delhi High Court Directs Amazon To Remove Listing Of ‘Rooh Afza’ Products Not Originating From Hamdard Group
Case Title: HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ANR. v. AMAZON INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 849
The Delhi High Court has directed Amazon India to remove listing of famous ‘ROOH AFZA’ product not originating from the Hamdard Group, thereby granting an ad-interim injunction in its favour.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that since ‘ROOH AFZA’ is a product which has been consumed by the Indian public for over a century now, the quality standards have to comply with the applicable regulations prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
The suit was filed by Hamdard National Foundation (India) and Hamdard Dawakhana against two companies namely Amazon India Limited and M/s. Golden Leaf, relating to its product and mark of ‘ROOH AFZA’.
28. Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Gym & Fitness Centre From Infringing CrossFit’s Trademark, Imposes ₹10 Lakhs Cost
Case Title : CROSS FIT LLC v RTB GYM AND FITNESS CENTRE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 850
The Delhi High Court recently granted permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of Cross Fit LLC against a gym and fitness centre unauthorizedly using its trademark.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the defendant gym had failed to enter appearance despite service of notice and as such, no ex parte evidence would be required in the matter.
The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant is a gym and fitness centre owned and operated by its proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma and is using the identical mark ‘CROSSFIT’ in respect of identical services relating to gym and fitness. The Plaintiff acquired knowledge of the use of the said mark by the Defendant in September, 2020.
The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has been prominently displaying the mark ‘CROSSFIT’ at its premises, literature, online pages as hashtags since March, 2018.
29. Over 10 Yrs After Acquittal By Trial Court, Delhi HC Convicts Man For Raping 11-Yr-Old; Sentences To 10 Yrs Rigorous Imprisonment
Case Title: State v. Rahul
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 851
More than 10 years after his acquittal in October 2011 by a Trial Court here, the Delhi High Court on Friday convicted a man for raping a 11 year old minor victim in the year 2010 and awarded a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the appeal filed by the prosecution in the year 2014 against the Trial Court order dated October 20, 2011 whereby one Rahul was acquitted in FIR registered under sec. 376 and 377 of Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court had granted him benefit of doubt by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
In April 2010, the minor victim while returning from school, had gone to a public toilet when the man had followed her and forcibly took her to male toilet, removed her clothes and committed rape upon her.
The man was apprehended some days later and was taken to the police station. The matter was reported to the police after seven days of the incident.
30. Interlocutory Order Passed By The Arbitrator, Rejecting Application For Amendment Of Claims; Not Challengeable Under Article 227: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VRS Natarajan versus OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 852
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that all interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal are not amenable to challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that there is no statutory or other legal bar under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), including under the proviso to Section 34 (2A) of the A&C Act, against raising the interlocutory order passed by the Arbitrator rejecting the application for amendment of Statement of Claims, as a ground for challenging the final award. Thus, the Court ruled that the said interlocutory order was not challengeable under Article 227.
The Court observed that it was difficult to envisage a situation in which an order would be amenable to challenge under Article 227, but would not be challengeable under Section 34 of the A&C Act, in view of the bar contained in the proviso to Section 34(2A).
31. Covid-19: Delhi High Court Refuses To Dispense With Rapid Antigen Test For Medicos Doing Breath Analyser Tests On Aviation Personnel
Case Title: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS GUILD (INDIA) v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL CIVIL AVIATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 853
The Delhi High Court has observed that the conduct of Breath Analyser Tests (BAT) for staff of Air Traffic Controllers, commercial pilots, cabin crew and other staff members shall continue depending upon the guidelines issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation in light of the status of COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was considering a clutch of petitions relating to the Breath Analyzer Test which the ATCs and commercial pilots need to undergo before joining their duty at the airports.
The DGCA had moved an application seeking certain modifications in the order dated 11th May, 2021 passed by the Court while issuing a slew of directions for the administration of Breath Analyzer Test at all airports for all ATCs, pilots, cabin crews and other personnel.
32. “Nation Is Still Bleeding”: Delhi HC Asks Disciplinary Authority To Pass Punishment Order Against Cop Charged With Misconduct During 1984 Anti Sikh Riots
Case Title: Durga Prasad v. LG
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 854
Observing that charges against a policeman posted as SHO at Kingsway Camp police station, charged with misconduct during the 1984 anti Sikh riots, were serious in nature, the Delhi High Court on Monday said that the competent disciplinary authority shall be free to pass an order of punishment against the cop Durga Prasad.
Durga Prasad, now retired, was charged for not making any preventive detention, not deploying proper force in the area of posting, not taking any action in dispersing miscreants during the anti Sikh riots.
Terming the riots as the most unfortunate tragedy, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad orally remarked that many innocent lives were lost during the riots.
33. NDPS Act | Violation Of Mandatory Provisions For Seizure Need Not Be Looked Into In Bail Proceedings Unless Glaring Irregularity Emerges: Delhi HC
Case Title: GURJEET SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 855
The Delhi High Court has observed that the effect of non-compliance of any mandatory provision under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Investigating Officer or any irregularity or illegality committed at the time of making of the seizure memo is essentially a matter of trial and cannot be looked into at the stage of bail, unless there is any glaring irregularity which will make the seizure itself illegal.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while denying bail to one Gurjeet Singh in an FIR registered under sec. 18 and 25 of NDPS Act.
Singh was found in possession of two polybags containing black colour material, later found to be “afeem”. The substance was found to be 750 grams (one polybag containing 400 gms and other 350 gms). On search of almirah in Singh’s house, a cash amount of Rs. 2,52,15,350 was found.

34. “Sheer Abuse Of Process”: Delhi HC Dismisses Advocate’s PIL Seeking List Of Private Liquor Vendors Allegedly Harassed By CBI, ED With 1 Lakh Cost
Case Title: NARINDER KHANNA v. GOVT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 856
The Delhi High Court has dismissed with 1 lakh cost a public interest litigation seeking a list of 186 private liquor vendors allegedly harassed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea at admission stage and directed the cost to be paid to the Army War Widows Fund within a period of 30 days.
The plea filed by one Narinder Khanna, an advocate by profession, also sought a direction to be issued to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi to identify those persons who are causing harassment to 186 liquor vendors forcing them to close their shops, thereby depriving them of their right of livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
35. St. Stephen’s College Can’t Conduct Interview For Non-Minority Category Students, CUET Score Enough For Admission: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Konika Poddar v. SL Stephen’s College & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 857
The Delhi High Court on Monday said that St Stephens college must follow the admission policy of the Delhi University for the academic sessions 2022-23 for students belonging to non-minority category applying to undergraduate courses.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that St Stephens college shall follow the directive that 100% weightage must be given to CUET 2022 score for the admission of students belonging to the non minority category applying to such courses.
The Court therefore directed St Stephens college to withdraw its admission prospectus and issue a fresh public notice declaring the amended admission procedure.
The Court also observed that the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of Constitution of India accorded to minority institution cannot be extended to non minority members.
36. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction & Life Sentence Of Man Who Was Unrepresented By Lawyer, Remands Case Back To Trial Court
Case Title: NARENDER @ LALA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 858
Setting aside the orders of conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a man in 2018 who was unrepresented by a lawyer before the Trial Court, the Delhi High Court has remanded the case back to the Trial Court for cross examination of certain prosecution witnesses.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal was of the view that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice to the man as when number of witnesses were examined, he was not represented by a counsel and that the legal aid counsel, who was present before Trial Court, was appointed on the same day and was asked to cross- examine the witnesses.
Narender was convicted for offence of murder punishable under sec. 302 of IPC on March 20, 2018. He was sentenced on 4th May, 2018 by the Trial Court for life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.
37. Rejection Of Belated Application For Amendment Of Claim – Not An Interim Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Punita Bhardwaj versus Rashmi Juneja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 859
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application for amendment of statement of claims on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage, does not constitute an interim award and thus, it is not challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
While observing the distinction between the rejection of application for amendment of claims and counter claims on the ground of limitation vis-à-vis on the ground that the amendment was sought belatedly, the single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that Section 23 (3) of the A&C Act vests discretion in the arbitral tribunal to disallow a party to amend or supplement its pleadings on the ground that the application is filed belatedly.
The Court thus ruled that dismissal of an application for amendment of claims on the ground of delay is an interlocutory order, which is not susceptible to challenge under Section 34.
38. DHJS Exam: High Court Refuses To Re-Evaluate Answer Sheet Of Aspirant Unsuccessful By One Mark
Case Title: MAYANK GARG v. DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 860
The Delhi High Court has observed that in rare and exceptional cases where it is established that there is a manifest error in evaluation of examination papers, the court may exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide appropriate relief.
A division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan added that in cases where it is established that the right of candidates for a fair evaluation in accordance with the specified procedure has been impinged, it may be necessary for the courts to exercise the said power to ensure that the rights of examinees are preserved.
The Court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by a candidate (an advocate) seeking a direction on Delhi High Court to recheck or re-examine his answer-sheets in respect of examination paper, Law-III in respect of Delhi Higher Judiciary Services.
39. No Provision In CPC Which Enables Court To Appoint Guardian For A Missing Party: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 861
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which enables the court to appoint a guardian for a party before it which is missing.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code envisages appointment of guardians only to protect the interests of persons who are adjudged to be of unsound mind or are found, on enquiry by the Court, to be incapable of prosecuting their case by reason of mental infirmity. The provision cannot be applied in case a party is missing.
40. Coke Studio v. Cook Studio: Trademark Suit Settled In Delhi High Court After Mediation
Case Title: NIKHIL CHAWLA v. THE COCA COLA COMPANY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 862
Nikhil Chawla, a man running a popular online platform called ‘COOK STUDIO’ engaged in blogging and production of video relating to cooking, has settled a trademark suit filed by him against ‘The Coca Cola Company’ which is owner of famous music platform Coke Studio.
Chawla, proprietor of the firm trading as “The Chawla Group” had filed a suit against ‘The Coca Cola Company’ seeking declaration of non infringement of the registered trademark ‘COKE STUDIO’, a music platform.
Justice Pratibha M Singh noted that the parties had amicably arrived at a settlement and found the terms of the settlement as lawful.
41. Would Subsequent Agreement Cover Past Transactions ? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court
Case Title: OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 863
The High Court of Delhi has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the High Court cannot examine an issue as to whether the arbitration clause in a subsequent agreement would govern past transactions of similar nature as it requires detailed consideration of clauses and surrounding circumstances.
The Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Act does not permit the High Court to examine issues that would require an interpretation of the contract, therefore, all such issues are to be referred to arbitrator.
42. Delhi High Court Directs Former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy To Hand Over Govt Accommodation Within Six Weeks
Title: Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 864
The Delhi High Court has directed former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy to ensure that possession of his government accommodation, allotted to him in 2016 for a period of five years, is handed over to estate officer within a period of six weeks.
Swamy, who has been provided with Z category protection by the Centre, was allotted government accommodation on 15th January 2016 on a license for a period of five years. The said premises was allotted to him on account of the threat perception which was assessed by the Centre.
Swamy then became a member of the Rajya Sabha which term came to an end on 24th April 2022. While Swamy was serving as a member of the upper house, the government accommodation continued to remain and the allotment ultimately came to an end by efflux of time.
Swamy had then moved High Court arguing that bearing in mind the security arrangements which are required to be made for a Z category protectee, the accommodation which was originally allotted to him must be continued in his favour.
43. Mere Exculpatory Statement To ED Not Ground To Believe That Accused Is Not Guilty Of Money Laundering: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BIMAL KUMAR JAIN v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 865
The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere exculpatory statement made to officials of Enforcement of Directorate (ED) cannot suffice to form a reasonable ground to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence of money laundering.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while denying bail to one Bimal Kumar Jain, who was booked by ED for indulging in money laundering, alleging that he along with other co-accused persons had incorporated and operated 450 Indian entities and 104 foreign entities for routing proceeds of crime and also enabled purchase of offices and properties with untainted funds.
ED had alleged that Jain’s brother had placed funds in his companies and layering was done by routing the proceeds of crime into various companies that had dummy shareholders and Directors.
44. COVID-19: Delhi High Court Closes Plea Seeking Infrastructural Facilities To Handle Dead Bodies In Wake Of Pandemic
Case Title: Mujeeb ur Rehman v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 866
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday disposed of a petition filed last year during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic seeking directions to the Delhi Government to formulate and implement an effective plan with sufficient infrastructure to provide certain facilities pertaining to the dead bodies infected from COVID including mortuary, funeral, transportation and handling facilities.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad closed the PIL filed by lawyer Mujeeb ur Rehman who alleged that during the peak of pandemic last year, city’s population was severely suffering due to the lack of facilities regarding mortuaries and funeral facilities including lack of dead body transportation and handling facilities.
45. Disclosure Of Documents Regarding Grant Of Sanction For Prosecution U/S 45(1) UAPA Can Be Exempted Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 867
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a convict in the Mumbai Twin Blast case (7/11 Bomb Blast case) challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) denying him information regarding the proposal and all documents concerning grant of sanction for prosecution under sec. 45(1) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and National Investigation Act, 2008. He is presently serving his sentence in Nagpur Central Prison since July, 2006.
The CIC, while upholding the view taken by CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs, had found that the disclosures would stand exempted under sec. 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
46. Injunction Order Can Be Stayed Only In Rare Cases Where Restoration Of Status Quo Ante At Interlocutory Stage Is Imperative For Justice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MOHD SHAKEEL & ORS. v. MOHD ISLAM
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 868

The Delhi High Court has observed that a stay order cannot be stayed, except in rare and exceptional cases where restoration of the status quo ante at an interlocutory stage is imperative in the interest of justice.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that where a judgment or decree is injunctive in nature, meaning that where the judgment or decree injuncts either of the parties before the Court from performing any particular act, no stay of such an order can be sought as it would amount to “placing the clock back and restoring the status quo ante.”
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 25th March 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge concerning a suit instituted by one Mohd Islam (respondent) against the petitioners in the petition. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge on 11th January 2022.
47. FIR U/S 377 IPC Can Be Quashed In Matrimonial Cases After Settlement Between Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ANEESH GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 869
The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial cases where settlement has taken place, offence under sec. 377 of Indian Penal Code can be compromised and FIR can be quashed as parties have to move ahead in life.
Justice Talwant Singh thus concurred with the decision of a coordinate bench in Rifakat Ali & Ors v. State & Anr. decided on February 26, 2021 wherein the Court had quashed an FIR under sec. 377 of IPC on the ground that the parties had compromised the matter with each other only because it arose out of a matrimonial dispute.
“So, the view of the co-ordinate bench is that in matrimonial cases, where settlement has taken place, even the offence under Section 377 IPC can be compromised and FIR can be quashed as parties have to move ahead in life. I concur with the said view,” the Court observed in a ruling dated September 6.
48. Relevancy Of Question Asked During Cross-Examination Relates To Pleadings & Rival Stands, Not Merits Of Such Stands: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAVINDER SURI & ORS. v. DAYAWATI (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 870
The Delhi High Court has observed that merits of the rival stands cannot be a material consideration while examining whether a particular question that the party desires to pose to a witness is relevant or irrelevant.
“Relevance or irrelevance is to be decided by juxtaposing the question that is being sought to be put with the pleadings of the parties and their rival stands before the court, and not with respect to the merits of such stands,” Justice C Hari Shankar added.
The proceedings emerged in relation to an Eviction Petition instituted by respondent against the petitioners before the Additional Rent Controller seeking their eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
49. Proliferation Of Impostor Domain Names: Delhi High Court Directs DNRs To Appoint Grievance Officers Under IT Rules 2021
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 871
In connection with a bunch of pleas concerning proliferation of fraudulent domain names resulting in monetary loss to public, the Delhi High Court has directed various domain name registrars (DNRs) to appoint grievance officers in compliance of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 within a period of one week.
In an order passed on September 14, Justice Pratibha M Singh added that if the said compliance is not made, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology will be free to proceed in accordance with law against such DNRs who have been offering their domain name registration, hosting and related services in India, without complying with the local laws.
50. NOC Of Trademark Office Mandatory For Claiming Copyright Registration Of Artistic Work In Respect Of Goods & Services: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MOHD ERSHAD SOLE PROPRIETOR EK AGENCIES v. REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 872
The Delhi High Court has observed that in order for any person to obtain copyright registration of an artistic work which is being used or is capable of being used in respect of any goods and services, the no objection certificate (NOC) is mandatorily to be obtained under the proviso of sec. 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The said proviso states that the application for entering particulars of the copyright work in the Register of Copyrights shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks to the effect that no trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been registered or that no application has been made for such registration.
“The purpose behind this provision is to ensure that there is no conflict between labels, packagings, etc. registered or used by trademark owners and registrations granted under the TM Act. The registration of copyright in respect of artistic works is, thus, founded on the basis of the NOC issued by the Trademark Office,” Justice Pratibha M Singh added.
51. Temporary Official Appointed On Daily Rated Or Work Charge Basis To Do Specific Job Cannot Claim Seniority For Such Service Period: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 873
The Delhi High Court has held that a temporary official who is purely appointed on daily rated or work charge basis for specific period to do a specific job, cannot claim to be a regular employee of an establishment and thus cannot claim seniority for the period of his service rendered on work charge basis.
Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea filed by BSES Yamuna Power Limited challenging an award passed by the Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal whereby the services of a workman, namely Ramji Lal, were regularised to the post of Mason Grade-I.
The workman was initially appointed as a worker on work-charge basis. Later, he was engaged as a Mason w.e.f. March 1975. In March 1976, his services were terminated, thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute which passed an giving relief of reinstatement and continuity in service with full back wages.
52. Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of Centre’s 2013 Notification For Compounding Offences Before Institution Of Prosecution Under FCRA
Case Title: MIZPAH CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 874
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Ministry of Home Affairs’ notification dated April 26, 2013 specifying the officers competent for compounding the offences before institution of any prosecution, issued under sec. 41(1) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.
The said provision states that any offence punishable under the FCRA Act, not being an offence punishable with imprisonment only, may, before the institution of any prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such sums as the Central Government may specify in a notification in the Official Gazette.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan was of the view that the impugned notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under sec. 41 of the FCRA and the same did not fall foul of any provision of the Act.
53. Non-Filing Of Legal Proceedings Certificate Does Not Disentitle Party To File Suit Seeking Injunction In Apprehension Of Trademark Infringement: Delhi HC
Case Title: M/S MAAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. M/S MINDWAVE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 875
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere non-filing of a ‘legal proceedings certificate’ is not concealment of such a material nature so as to disentitle the plaintiff to file a suit seeking an injunction, wherein it apprehends infringement of its trademark.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan was dealing with a plea filed by M/s Maan Pharmaceuticals Limited challenging an order passed by Trial Court dismissing its application filed under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
A suit was filed by M/s Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Maan Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking permanent injunction restraining it from using the trademark “BUPROEX-N”. MINDWAVE claimed to be the registered owner of the said trademark and it alleged unauthorized use of the said trademark by MAAN.
54. Right To Carry On Trade Under Article 19 Does Not Confer Any Right On Individual To Compel Govt To Enter Into A Contract: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ACCURATE AUCTIONEERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 876
The Delhi High Court has observed that neither Article 19 nor any other provision of the Constitution of India recognizes a right inhering in an individual to compel the Government to enter into a contract.
Justice Yashwant Varma added that it is only when the State choses to enter into a contract by inviting bids and offers that it must follow a fair and transparent process of selection and ensure that all eligible parties are placed on an even pedestal.
The Court thus dismissed a plea challenging a 2018 Circular issued by the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance with reference to earlier circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
55. State-Run Schools Can Prescribe Eligibility Criteria For Admission In Different Classes: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NATURAL FATHER RAVINDER SINGH v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 877
The Delhi High Court has observed that every school, including schools under the State Government, has the liberty and autonomy to maintain the standards it has set out for itself.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that laying down an eligibility criteria for admission in different classes cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal and that the said discretion lies with the school or any other authority under which the school lies.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the father of a minor girl challenging the validity of a Circular issued by the Delhi Government dated 27th July 2022 whereby it had mandated minimum 71% marks for admission in Science Stream in Class XI in city’s Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya school for the academic year 2022-23.

56. NDPS Act | Weight Of Neutral Substance Not To Be Ignored While Determining Quantity Of Seized Contraband: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MOHD AHSAN v. CUSTOMS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 878
The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that if the contraband seized falls within the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the weight of the neutral substance would not be ignored while determining the nature of the quantity seized, whether small quantity, commercial quantity or in between.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Amit Sharma was dealing with a plea wherein three questions were referred to it by a single judge bench concerning the issue pertaining to miniscule percentage of a narcotic substance under the Act.
57. Orders Bereft Of Reasoning Liable To Be Set Aside In Revisional Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PHULGITA DEVI v. KRISHAN KMAR & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 879
The Delhi High Court has observed that the orders which are bereft of reasoning cannot be termed as good orders and the same are liable to be set aside in the revisional jurisdiction.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by one Phulgita Devi challenging the order passed by the Trial Court whereby her application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.
Order VII Rule 11 sets out various cases whereby a plaint can be rejected.
In the application, the petitioner had claimed that the suit has was filed after allowing of eviction petition filed by her and dismissal of a revision petition as well as SLP by Supreme Court filed by the plaintiff.
58. Delhi High Court Directs BCI To Constitute Special Teams For Conducting Surprise Visits To Law Colleges, Shut Those Lacking Minimum Infra
Case Title: NEW MILLENNIUM EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 880

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to constitute special expert teams to conduct surprise visits of law colleges that lack minimum infrastructure and adequate facilities.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the inspection reports of the law colleges shall be uploaded on its website, within one month of such inspection.
“If any colleges upon such inspection are found to be lacking minimum infrastructural facilities, then the BCI must take immediate steps to close such colleges. This is a much-needed therapy that ought to be introduced to cure the maladies that legal education is suffering from,” the Court added.
The observations were made while the Court expressed concern over the condition of legal education including the status of infrastructure.
59. Delhi High Court Restores Bail In View Of Disputed Fact About Accused Threatening Complainant
Case Title: JAGAT SINGH NAGAR & ORS v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 881
The Delhi High Court has recently restored bail to three men after the parties lodged counter FIRs against each other, noting unless the investigation in both the cases reaches its logical conclusion, it cannot be assumed that the accused persons had violated any of the conditions of bail granted by the lower court or tried to influence the administration of justice.
The Court also reiterated that once bail is granted, the same should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, adding that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail.
60. EOU Entitled To Claim Deemed Export Drawback On Inputs Which Remained Unutilized With Then-Existing DTA Unit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 882
The Delhi High Court has held that duty drawback for goods should extend to unutilized goods which were available at the time of conversion of the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit into a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU).
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakhdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the restriction against the claim of concession in duties and taxes applied only vis-à-vis plants, machinery and equipment that had already been installed. The petitioner was allowed to carry forward the advance authorization to the convertedunit,t i.e., 100% EOU, and thereafter fulfil the outstanding export commitment.
The issue raised was whether the petitioner is entitled to duty drawback, confined to customs duty component, against deemed exports, even where it has claimed cenvat credit.
61. High Court Expects Delhi Govt’s Health Info Management System Be To Developed Expeditiously, Closes Pleas Concerning COVID-19 Management
Title: RAKESH MALHOTRA v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORYOFINDIAAND ORS & other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 883
The Delhi High Court has said that it expects the Delhi Government’s health information management system, in order to provide an end to end solution for all information related to health institutions, will be developed as expeditiously as possible.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad thus closed a bunch of pleas filed concerning the management of COVID-19 situation in the city.
In a recent status report, the Delhi Government informed Court that a letter of Intent has been issued to M/S NEC corporation Ltd. which has started work and that all the modules of health information management system for the two hospitals namely, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital & Guru Govind Singh Hospital and allied medical institutions will be completed by September 2022.
The Court was also informed a mobile application will also be developed along with the software solution by the agency.
62. Payment Aggregators Fall Within Definition Of Payment System, RBI Can Issue Guidelines For Efficient Management: Delhi High Court
Title: LOTUS PAY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 884
The Delhi High Court has ruled that payment aggregators fall within the definition of designated payment system under Section 23A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has the power to issue guidelines for efficient management for such payment systems.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju passed the ruling while dismissing a plea filed by Lotus Pay Solutions Private Limited, a company engaged in the business of providing recurring payment solutions for businesses through an authorised payment system, challenging Clauses 3, 4 and 8 of the circular dated March 17, 2020 issued by RBI titled “Guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateway”.
63. Sanskriti School Admissions: Delhi HC Says Delhi Judicial Service Cannot Be Included In Civil Services Category For Reservation Benefit
Title: SHREYA BHARDWAJ THROUGH HER GUARDIAN v. SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 885
Dismissing the petition filed by the daughter of a lower court judge for admission under government quota in the Sanskriti School, the Delhi High Court has said Delhi Judicial Service officers cannot be included in the category of Central Officers (Group A) category for the purposes of the reservation scheme in the educational institution.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh passed the verdict on a petition contending that a judicial officer, who is holding a Civil Group A Gazetted Post by virtue of Rule 3(c) of the Delhi Judicial Rules 1970, has to be treated on a par with a government servant holding corresponding post in accordance with Rule 33 of DJS Rules.
60 percent seats in Sanskriti School are reserved for children of officials of Civil Services, Defence Cadre and allied Services like Group-A Civil Service.
The Court in the order said the reservation made by the School for admission was in the nature of welfare measures for a limited category of Government Officers and that the categories included in Quota did not specify the Delhi Judicial Service.

64. COVID-19: Delhi High Court Closes Plea Challenging Centre’s Permission For Clinical Trials Of Covaxin Among 2-18 Yrs Old
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 886
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a plea filed during the second wave of COVID-19 against Centre’s permission for conducting Phase II and III clinical trials of Covaxin in the age group of 2 to 18 years.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Ors. wherein it was held that Centre’s policy on COVID-19 vaccination policy was reasonable.
The Apex Court had rejected the contention that restricted emergency use approvals had been granted to COVISHIELD and COVAXIN in haste, without thorough review of the relevant data. It was also observed that the challenge to the procedures adopted by the expert bodies while granting regulatory approval to the vaccines on the ground of lack of transparency cannot be entertained.
65. Delay In FSL Reports Where Cause Of Death Unknown Makes Victim Family Suffer, May Lead To Degradation Of Samples: Delhi HC
Title: SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR GARG v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 887
The Delhi High Court has said that the delay in getting scientific reports related to investigations not only has a high social cost but leads to extreme suffering of the victim’s family as they remain unaware of the exact cause of death.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the delay for “whatever reason” cannot be countenanced under law and may even lead to “degradation or putrefaction of the samples” negating the very purpose of examination.
The court made the observation while expressing concern over an inordinate delay in forwarding of histopathological examination report of a 14-year-old boy whose family claimed that he had died under suspicious circumstances.
66. Mere Geographical Presence Of Website And Customers’ Ability To Access It Sufficient For Granting Injunction In Trademark Infringement Cases: Delhi HC
Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 888
The Delhi High Court has held that mere looming presence of a website in a geography and ability of the customers to access the same is sufficient while granting relief of injunction in matters pertaining to trademark infringement.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri added that in trademark infringement cases, it is the possibility of confusion and deception in the mind of public due to infringing trademark that is good enough for the court to grant injunction.
“Even if a website is not directed at customers in a particular country, the fact that they are not restricted by the website to have access to it, is enough to characterise it as targeting. Targeting need not be a very aggressive act of marketing aiming at a particular set of customers,” the Court said.
67. Burden Of Proof Lies On Accused When Last Seen Together With Deceased: Delhi High Court
Title: GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 889

The Delhi High Court has said that in a case where the accused is last seen together with the deceased, the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of the incident as the accused himself would have “special knowledge” of the incident. The burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act in such case would be on the accused, said the court
Section 106 provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
“Therefore, last seen together itself is not a conclusive proof but along with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between the accused and the deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused, etc. non- explanation of death of the deceased, may lead to a presumption of guilt,” a division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal observed.
68. Reassessment Notices Issued Between 1st April 2021 To 30th June, 2021 Not Time Barred: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Touchstone Holdings Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 890
The Delhi High Court has held that the reassessment notices issued between 1st April 2021 and 30th June 2021, will be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the re-assessment notice dated 29.06.2021, which has been issued within the extended period of limitation, is not time-barred.
69. Delhi High Court Permits Huawei CEO Xiongwei Li To Travel Abroad Subject To Depositing FDR Of Rs. 5 Crores
Title: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT– 4(3) v. XIONGWEI LI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 891
Upholding a Trial Court order by which look out circular (LOC) issued against Xiongwei Li, CEO of Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited was quashed, the Delhi High Court permitted him to travel abroad subject to depositing of an FDR of Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Anu Malhotra added that the condition so imposed will be forfeited on account of Xiongwei Li’s non-joining of the investigation and non-appearance as and when directed by the Trial Court.
“…further the respondent (Xiongwei Li) shall also adhere to the conditions imposed vide order dated 17.8.2022 in the bail order of the learned Trial Court of informing the complainant seven days prior to leaving India,” the Court directed further.
70. Legal Drafting: Delhi HC Asks Lawyers To Confine To Facts In Bail Pleas, Skip Adding Judgment Extracts
Title: AAKASH CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR and another connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 892
Noting that lawyers add elaborative judgment extracts while drafting bail pleas, the Delhi High Court has requested counsels to adhere to “basic principles of pleading” and mention only facts, legal provisions and grounds on which bail is sought.
Justice Talwant Singh observed that there is no need for the drafting counsels to attach copies of the judgements along with pleadings as it results in making them too bulky.
Stating that the lawyers are at liberty to cite judgements at the time of arguments, the Judge added:
“These citations may be handed over to the Court Master at the time of arguments or they may be filed online just before the petitions are listed for final arguments. I earnestly hope that the learned drafting counsels will bear this in mind in future.”
71. ‘Vasundhra’ A Common Name In India, No Exclusive Right Can Be Granted: Delhi HC on Jewellery Brand’s Case Against Gujarati Businessman

Title: VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. vs KIRAT VINODBHAI JADVANI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 893
Refusing to grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of a known Delhi-based jewellery showroom, the Delhi High Court Wednesday said ‘Vasundhra’ is a common name in India and an exclusive right to use the same cannot be granted.
The court made the observation in an order passed on an application filed by Vasundhra Jewellers, which has a showroom in Pitampura. The company owning the showroom has filed a suit against a Gujarati businessman, who manufactures garments under the name ‘Vasundhra Fashion’, and sought directions to restrain him from using the mark similar to its trademark – ‘Vasundhra Marks’
Justice Navin Chawla at the outset noted that marks of the plaintiff have been duly registered but all of them are ‘device marks’ and it does not hold any registration in the word ‘Vasundhra’.
72. Section 10 CPC ‘Eviscerates’ Litigant’s Right To Expeditious Trial, Must Be Construed Strictly: Delhi HC
Case Title: AMITA VASHISHT versus TARUN VEDI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 894
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure would apply only where the whole subject matter in both the proceedings is identical.
Section 10 CPC prevents the trial of a suit in a matter regarding which there is already a case pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. When the same parties file two or three cases in the same matter, the competent court has the power to stay proceedings of another court.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that since suits, which are pending before different courts, may often have overlapping issues and result of one may influence the outcome of another, the Code contains various provisions to deal with such contingencies.
73. Witness Must Not Be Re-Summoned In Sexual Offence Cases Where Cross Examination Conducted Extensively: Delhi High Court
Title: VINOD RAWAT v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 895
The Delhi High Court has observed that where a cross examination has been conducted extensively, it would be against the mandate of law to re-summon the witness especially in a case of sexual offence.
Observing that the right to fair trial is a constitutional goal and a fundamental right of every individual, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that where evidence sought to be brought on record is essential to issue involved in the matter, the power to summon material witness or examine person in attendance under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure must be invoked.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a man accused in a rape case against a Trial Court order dismissing his application under Section 311 of the Code for recalling of two prosecution witnesses including the victim. The FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.
74. Sale Of Refurbished Hard Disks at Nehru Place: Delhi HC Rules In Favour Of Western Digital On Trademark Infringement
Title: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. vs RAAJ COMPUTER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 896
The Delhi High Court has ruled that passing off old and used hard-disk drives, after tampering with their labels and printed circuit board, as new products is clearly an infringement of the trademark of the original manufacturer.
In its decision on a suit filed by Western Digital Technologies Inc (WD) – a known manufacturer of storage devices, the court said passing off plaintiff’s goods as new and unused leads to deception, loss and injury to an unwary customer and also dilution of trademarks as well as unfair trade practices.
“The plaintiff is held entitled to damages quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), especially keeping in view the recovery made by the Local Commissioner as also the potential loss and injury that the unwary consumer shall suffer on purchasing such counterfeit product from the defendants,” said Justice Navin Chawla in the ruling dated September 21.
75. Minor Son Sexually Abused By Father: Delhi High Court Says Matrimonial Discord Between Parents No Ground To Quash FIR

Title: X v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 897

Dealing with a case where a minor boy was sexually abused by his own father, the Delhi High Court has observed that such cases cannot be treated as cases of matrimonial discord, as the child has his own individual constitutional right to get justice.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added that it will be highly unfair to deny the child victim the right to get justice merely because the accused was his real father and that his parents had matrimonial discord.
The Court thus refused to quash an FIR registered against the father under Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The father was accused of inappropriately touching his minor son and sexually abusing him on multiple occasions over a period of three years. It was alleged that due to the his acts, the minor child started experiencing extreme night mares and emotional disturbances.
76. Delhi High Court Allows 16-Yr-Old To Terminate Pregnancy After Hospitals’ Refusal Over No Police Complaint
Title: X v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 898
Allowing a woman’s prayer for immediate termination of the pregnancy of her minor daughter, the Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to ensure that the procedure is done at the national capital’s All India Institute of Medical Science on government expenses.
The government and private hospitals had earlier refused to terminate the pregnancy since the family of the teenager was unwilling to report the case to the police.
Section 19 of the POCSO Act makes it mandatory for any person apprehending an offence under the Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge about the same, to report such incident to a Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. The medical practitioners also are obliged under law to file a report regarding the pregnancy.
77. [JJ Act] Extracting Confession From Child Is Unconstitutional, Beyond Scope Of Preliminary Assessment Report: Delhi HC
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 899
The Delhi High Court has observed that extracting confession from a child regarding the manner in which the offence was committed by him is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of a preliminary assessment report required to be prepared under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
As per Section 15(1) of the Act, a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is required to make a preliminary assessment regarding the juvenile’s mental and physical capacity to commit an offence and the ability to understand its consequences along with the circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed.
However, there are no guidelines as to how the Board would conduct such a preliminary assessment.
The observations have been made by a division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal while dealing with a criminal reference concerning issuance of guidelines to be followed by Juvenile Justice Boards in conducting preliminary assessment to try a juvenile as an adult.
78. Is Wife Entitled To Maintenance When Decree Of Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Is Against Her? Delhi High Court Answers
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 900
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere presence of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against the wife does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband – when it is due to his own conduct she is not able to stay with him.
Emphasising that every case seeking compensation in matrimonial dispute has to be dealt with according to its facts and circumstances, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that every judgment, though filed under the same provision, cannot be painted and penned with the same stroke of a brush.
“Before parting with this case, this Court wants to observe that the Judges dealing with such cases should keep in mind the objective behind Section 125 Cr.P.C … and the need to give a dignified existence to people … who need to be maintained lawfully by the persons bound by law … to maintain them expeditiously and with sensitivity,” the Court added.
79. COVID-19: Delhi High Court Allows Unvaccinated Teacher To Resume Duties After AIIMS Says ‘At Risk of Allergic Reaction’

Case Title: R.S BHARGAVA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 901
The Delhi High Court has directed a private school in national capital to allow an unvaccinated teacher to re-join duties after AIIMS concluded that he was at a higher risk of developing an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine as compared to others.
Justice Rekha Palli directed Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram, to forthwith permit the teacher to join his duties and also release his balance salary alongwith all allowances after deducting 10% amount payable for the period between the time he was restrained to attend the school (November 2, 2021) till the date of his rejoining duty.
After a medical report was furnished by Board of Doctors at AIIMS in August, an order was issued by Delhi Government and the Centre acceding to the teacher’s request for exemption from COVID-19 vaccination by treating it as a special case. Earlier, due to Delhi government’s orders making it mandatory for all teachers to be 100% vaccinated, he was not allowed to discharge his duties.
The permission to rejoin his duties was subject to a condition that the teacher will observe COVID appropriate behaviour and comply with the guidelines.
80. Delhi High Court Appeals Senior Lawyers To Pay ‘Dignified’ Stipend To Juniors
Title: PANKAJ KUMAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 902
The Delhi High Court has made an appeal to the seniors in legal profession to ensure that stipend paid to their juniors is enough for them to overcome the financial stress and to lead a more dignified life.
“This Court also makes an appeal to seniors in this profession to ensure that the stipend that is paid to their juniors is enough for their juniors to evade the financial stress that accompanies this profession and allows them to lead a more dignified life,” said the court.
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramon Prasad added that senior lawyers must be more mindful about the financial background of their juniors and called for an empathetic approach considering the “virtuosity of legal profession”.
81. Sexual Harassment: Delhi High Court Dismisses Sarvjeet Singh’s Plea Seeking Enquiry Against Jasleen Kaur Over ‘False Testimony’
Title: SARVJEET SINGH v. STATE(NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 903
Almost three years after he was acquitted in a sexual harassment case, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Sarvjeet Singh demanding a criminal enquiry against Jasleen Kaur, the former St. Stephen’s College Student, for allegedly giving false evidence against him during the trial.
Singh, who was acquitted by a trial court in 2019, was accused of harassing and abusing Kaur at a traffic signal in Delhi’s Tilak Nagar.
Before the High Court, he had challenged the two orders passed by the trial court dismissing his application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure for criminal enquiry against Kaur for allegedly giving false information, false evidence and making false charges against him during the trial.
Upholding the orders passed by the trial and appellate courts, Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said it has been rightly held that Singh’s mere acquittal on benefit of doubt does not attract Section 195 IPC and other offences and the preliminary enquiry under section 340 Cr.P.C.
However, the court granted Singh the liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for defamation, allegedly caused by Kaur, by lodging an FIR or by invoking any other legal remedy.
Justice Jain said Singh’s anxiety can be “very well understood” as the complainant had published the incident in the media and that might have caused loss of reputation to him. It added:
“However, the mere loss of reputation is not sufficient to attract the provisions under section 340 Cr.P.C.”
82. Public Entry To Private Temple On Festivals Does Not Convert It Into Public Temple: Delhi High Court
Title: RAJESH GIRI v. SUBHASH MITTAL & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 904
The Delhi High Court has observed that occasional entry of public to a private temple on some festivals does not convert it into a public temple so as to empower a worshipper to maintain a suit with respect to the title rights of the temple.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the issue as to whether a temple is a private temple or a temple open to public can only be decided in a trial.
The Court thus dismissed a plea filed by one Rajesh Giri challenging an order passed by the trial court in a civil suit whereby his application for a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed. The civil suit sought restoration of an Idol and reconversion of a private property into a temple located at Chandni Chowk.
83. Physical Verification Of Business Premises For GST Registration Without Issuing Notice Is Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 905
The Delhi High Court has held that the physical verification of business premises for GST registration without issuing a notice is a violation of the principle of natural justice.
The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Taravitasta Ganju has noted that the proper officer opted to have the petitioner’s business premises inspected, albeit without the presence of its authorised representative. Had notice or intimation been given, the glitch could have been overcome.
84. Mere Emails & Form 16A Not Sufficient To Establish Employer-Employee Relationship: Delhi High Court on Freelancing
Title: KAUSHAL KISHOR SINGH v. M/S SITA KUONI WORLD TRAVEL INDIA LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 906

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no master-servant relationship in freelancing as the freelancer is his own master who has the ability to pick and choose his assignments, thereby enabling him to work for himself as well as multiple employers.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma added that a freelancer is a person who acts independently without being affiliated with or authorized by an organization and is thus distinguishable from part-time, full-time or contractual employees.
“Freelancer or freelancing thus are terms currently used to mean a person who is self-employed or an independent contractor in the business of selling their services and skills to different employers for a specified time period. Etymologically, freelance has derived from the words – “Free‟ a Germanic word which means to “love‟, and “lance‟ which is akin to the French word meaning to “launch‟, or discharge with force,” the Court said.
85. After SC Order on Sedition, Delhi High Court Asks Trial Court To Consider Sharjeel Imam’s Bail Plea Afresh
Title: Sharjeel Imam vs. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 907

Permitting him to withdraw his application for regular bail in a 2019 sedition case, the Delhi High Court has asked the trial court to first consider former JNU student Sharjeel Imam’s application seeking relief under Section 436-A CrPC on the ground that he has remained in custody for 31 months in the FIR.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta in the order passed on September 26 asked the trial court to also take into consideration Supreme Court’s order of keeping the offence of sedition in abeyance, while taking a decision on Imam’s application.
Imam was denied bail by a Saket Court in October 2021, saying that the tone and tenor of his ‘incendiary speech’ had a debilitating effect upon public tranquility, peace and harmony of the society. While his plea seeking bail was pending before High Court, Imam had recently moved an application in trial court under Section 436A.
86. CCI Director General’s Report Not Determinative Or Conclusive, Commission Can Consider All Aspects Before Final Decision: Delhi High Court
Title: BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 908
The Delhi High Court has said a probe report prepared by the Director General of Competition Commission of India (CCI) is neither determinative nor conclusive since it is ultimately for the Commission to take all aspects, including views that may be expressed before it, into consideration before passing final orders.
Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 provides that the Director General will submit a report on his findings after a complaint or a reference is received by it from the Commission.
Justice Yashwant Varma observed that after the report of Director General comes up for consideration before CCI, it is open to any party, person or enterprise having substantial interest in the outcome of proceedings, or who is able to establish that its presence before the Commission is necessary in public interest, to seek a right of audience and present its opinion for the competition regulator’s consideration. 
87. [Comparative Advertising] Cannot Permit Domex’s TV Ad, Disparages Harpic: Delhi High Court
Title: RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 909
Observing that ‘puffery’ and ‘hyperbole’ may have an element of untruthfulness, the Delhi High Court Monday said an advertiser cannot disparage or defame the competitor’s goods while doing comparative advertisement.
Noting that such advertisements would always involve statement that advertiser’s goods are better than that of the competitor, a division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan emphasized that there is a line that an advertiser cannot cross.
88. Aam Aadmi Party Made Statements Against Delhi LG In Reckless Manner, Corruption Allegations Based On Hearsay: High Court
Title: VINAI KUMAR SAXENA v. AAM AADMI PARTY & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 910
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said the tweets and statements by Aam Aadmi Party and its five leaders against Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena, alleging corruption by him, were made in a reckless manner, without any factual verification, to tarnish his image.
Justice Amit Bansal restrained the party and the five leaders from posting any defamatory or factually incorrect tweets, comments, videos of press conferences or interviews and any other online content against Saxena or his daughter, pertaining to the controversy.
“It cannot be gainsaid that reputation of a person is earned after years and the same cannot be tarnished by any other individual in a casual manner. The damage caused to the reputation of an individual is immediate and far- reaching on the internet. So long as the impugned content continues to be in circulation and visible on social media, it is likely to cause continuing damage to the reputation and image of the plaintiff,” the Court said.
89. No PMLA Proceedings After Quashing Of FIR Against Accused: Delhi High Court Set Aside Proceedings Against IHFL And Its Employees
Case Title: Indiabulls Housing and Finance Limited v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 911
The Delhi High Court has set aside the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against Indiabulls Housing and Finance Limited (IHFL) and its employees.
The division bench of Justice Anish Dayal and Justice Mukta Gupta relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
90. Recovery Of Annual Report And Share Certificate From the Assessee’s Premises Are Not Incriminating Documents: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Panchmukhi Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 912
The Delhi High Court has held that the recovery of the annual report and the share certificate of the assessee premises cannot be considered to be incriminating documents.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the genuineness of the share capital has been accepted both by CIT (A) and ITAT and that there is no live link between the seized material and the additions made.
91. Court Cannot Modify Arbitral Award By Awarding Interest Under Section 34 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Canara Bank versus The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 913
The Delhi High Court has ruled that though the claimant is entitled to pre-arbitration interest on the amount of counter-guarantee released in its favour, the Court, in view of the limited scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot award interest to the claimant since it would amount to modification of the award.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that though the Supreme Court, in certain cases, has awarded interest to the relevant parties by modifying the arbitral awards, however, the same was undertaken by the Apex Court in exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
92. [WhatsApp Privacy Policy] There Has To Be Some End To ‘Luxury To Litigate’: Delhi High Court To Facebook’s Indian Subsidiary
Title: Facebook India Online Services Private Limited v. CCI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 914
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Facebook India Online Services Private Limited’s petition challenging the probe initiated by Competition Commission of India (CCI) against it in connection with the national regulator’s investigation into WhatsApp’s privacy policy of 2021.
The Facebook India Online Services Private Limited is the subsidiary of Facebook Inc or Meta, the multinational technological company.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed the plea observing that there has to be some end to “luxury to ligate”.
The subsidiary was “clubbed” in the investigation on the basis of the decision of CCI’s Director General which issued notice designating it as an opposite party after an information was received from Internet Freedom Foundation regarding its relevance in the investigation.

93. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Ban On Manufacture And Sale Of Chewing Tobacco Products In National Capital

Title: SUGANDHI SNUFF KING PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. COMMISSIONER (FOOD SAFETY) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 915
The Delhi High Court has quashed various notifications prohibiting the manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of Gutka, Pan Masala, flavoured tobacco and similar products in the national capital. Since 2015, seven notifications were issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety.
Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that the notifications were issued year after year “in a mechanical manner” without following the general principles laid down under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
“The classification sought to be created between smokeless and smoking tobacco for justifying the issuance of the impugned Notifications is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,” the Court observed.
94. ‘CBI Has Filed A Piecemeal Chargesheet, Only Concluded Part Investigation’: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Chitra Ramkrishna, Anand Subramanian
Case Title: Chitra Ramakrishna v. CBI, Anand Subramaniam v. CBI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 916

Granting statutory bail to former NSE CEO Chitra Ramkrishna and former Group Operating Officer Anand Subramanian in the co-location scam case, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday said the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed a “piece meal charge sheet” and same is not in respect of all the offences that are subject matter of the FIR
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that probe agency is not legally permitted to pick one portion of investigation and thereafter file a piece-meal chargesheet qua few offences, while leaving the investigation open qua other offences.
“This would be complete negation of section 167(2) of the Code. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to fragment or break FIR for the purpose of different charge sheets and this will tantamount to negation of section 167(2) and would against mandate of Article of 21 of the Constitution,” the Court said.
95. ‘Apathy Of Authorities Seeping Through Cracks’: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines For Better Functioning Of Child Care Institutions
Case Title: RAJESH KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 917
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of guidelines for better functioning of child care institutions in the the national capital and said it is unfortunate that the “apathy of authorities” is seeping through the cracks and hampering the development of those at a vulnerable age.
Stressing on the need for improving existing institutions to ensuring that quality standard of care is provided to children, Justice Subramonium Prasad said there is a complete lack of direction and initiative among persons manning these institutions as to how they must guide the children towards a better future
Justice Prasad made the observations and passed guidelines as well as directions in an order in a plea seeking a magisterial enquiry into an incident concerning escape of five minor girls in March last year from a children home in the city and other similar incidents reported in the past.
96. Issuance Of Notice To Unrelated Mail Address Does Not Constitute Due Despatch: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 918

The Delhi High Court has held that the issuance of e-mail-attaching electronic notice to an unrelated e-mail address does not constitute due despatch and, therefore, the notices cannot be said to have been issued on 31st March 2021.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that since an authenticated copy of the notice was placed on the registered account of the assessee on the E-filing portal, as that is how the petitioners learnt about the notices, the notices will be held to have been issued on the date on which the notices were first viewed by the assessees on their e-filing portal.
97. DTC Cannot Unleash Untrained And Incompetent Drivers On Public, Must Check Antecedents Of Employees: Delhi High Court
Title: DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. RUBY & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 919
Observing that Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) is not expected to unleash “untrained and unlicensed drivers” on “unsuspecting innocent public”, the Delhi High Court has observed that the public transport undertaking is required to check the antecedents of its prospective employees, particularly whether they possess a valid driving license.
Justice Gaurang Kanth said that having such license is the basic qualification for employment of drivers by a Government undertaking and it is expected that only after passing the special training, the selected candidates are offered employment.
The exercise of checking the validity of the driving license could be carried out even after offering provisional employment to the successful candidates, the court added.
98. [GAIL Service Rules] Provision On Notice Period Only Applicable In Case Of Employees, Not Probationers: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Paras Khuttan v. GAIL India Ltd. & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 920

The Delhi High Court recently observed that once the employer has a right to terminate the probationer without issuing any notice and without granting any salary in lieu of notice, the same has to be made applicable to the probationer – when he wants to leave the job.
The court made the observation in an judgement allowing an appeal of a probationer. In the decision, the court referred to the GAIL (General Terms and Conditions of Service Rules) that are applicable to the Gas Authority of India Limited employees.
99. GST Not Payable On Renting Of A Residential Dwelling For Personal Use: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Seema Gupta v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 921
The Delhi High Court has held that Goods and Service Tax is not payable on renting a residential dwelling for personal use.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh has observed that the rental of a residential dwelling to a proprietor of a registered proprietorship firm who rents it in his personal capacity for use as his own residence and not for use in the course or furtherance of the business of his proprietorship firm and such renting is on his own account and not that of the proprietorship firm, shall be exempt from tax under Notification No.04/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022.
100. [MACP Scheme] Claimant Cannot Be Denied Benefit Based On Clause Quashed By Tribunal Once Decision Is Upheld By HC: Delhi High Court
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. GIRBAR SINGH & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 922

The Delhi High Court has observed that once a clause of a scheme is quashed by a tribunal and the decision is upheld by a High Court, the said clause ceases to exist in the scheme particularly when the government has decided to accept the ruling and implemented the same.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation while dismissing Centre’s plea challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing it to consider the claim of some individuals for financial upgradation in terms of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP), 2009.
The MACP scheme is a promotional scheme for Central Government employees. The scheme provides additional pay benefits in the form of Financial upgradation when regular promotion is getting delayed.
101. [Motor Accident Death] ‘Parental Consortium’ Available To All Children Irrespective Of Whether They Were Dependent On Deceased Or Not: Delhi High Court
Title: KANTI DEVI & ORS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 923
The Delhi High Court in a recent judgement observed that in cases of motor accident deaths, parental consortium is available to all the children irrespective of the fact that whether they were dependent on the deceased or not.
Parental consortium is granted to the child on the premature death of a parent for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training, explained the court.
Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to four dependents of the deceased, a 44 year old man who had died in an accident.
102. 15 Days After Minor Car Accident, Delhi HC Quashes FIR; Tells Accused To ‘Serve Well Cooked Food In Orphanage’
Title: SACHIN SHARMA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 924
Quashing an FIR against a car driver who had hit a bike in Hari Nagar area on September 13, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused to do some social service by serving hygienic and well cooked food in an orphanage, which has at least a 100 children, on October 5 and October 24.
Justice Jasmeet Singh also directed the accused, who was in custody, to be released forthwith and sought a compliance report from him as well as the investigating officer within a period of six weeks.
The Court quashed the FIR registered on September 13, 2022 at Hari Nagar Police Station under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code – Attempt to commit culpable homicide.
103. FSSAI Must Ensure Expeditious Inspection Of Imported Food Articles For Home Consumption Release : Delhi High Court
Title: AROMATRIX FLORA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 925
The Delhi High Court has observed that the authorities of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) have an obligation to ensure that all imported articles of food are inspected with due expedition and promptitude.
However, Justice Yashwant Varma added, it would not be prudent for the court to prescribe or stipulate a particular timeframe within which such exercise of inspection, taking samples and clearance has to be completed.
“This since it would be impossible for the Court to predict the vagaries of a particular situation as well as the volume of imported articles of food that may be pending for inspection at any particular point of time by FSSAI,” said the court.
Subscribe to Live Law now and get unlimited access.
Already have an account? Sign In

source