Read Time: 01 hours
1. [POCSO Case] The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, upheld the conviction of an assailant under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the sexual assault of a 14-year-old boy. The court rejected a settlement reached between the victim's family and the accused. The bench emphasized that in cases of such gravity, courts must ensure that justice prevails, irrespective of any compromises made. The judge opined that it is essential to deal with such cases with a heavy hand. The law has to stand firm with the victim, who cannot stand for himself as a minor, even if his own parents are not standing with him. The court was dealing with a case involving the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 14-year-old boy. The victim's mother had told the trial court that she wanted to close the case as she had arrived at a compromise with the accused.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Vicky v State of NCT of Delhi
Click here to read more
2. [Hindu Undivided Families] In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court asserted that neither legislative provisions nor traditional Hindu law restrict the rights of a woman to be the Karta (head) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The division bench emphasized that societal reluctance to accept this change should not hinder a woman's rightful claim to the position of Karta. “Societal perceptions cannot be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the legislature," it said. The case revolved around the question of Karta's succession within an HUF after the demise of all sons of DR Gupta. Sujata Sharma, a granddaughter of DR Gupta, claimed her right as the eldest to be the next Karta. However, her assertion faced opposition from male relatives, with Manu Gupta declaring himself the Karta.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Manu Gupta v Sujata Sharma & Ors
3. [Human Trafficking Cases] The Delhi High Court emphasized the need for law enforcement agencies to stay technologically updated to efficiently handle cases of missing children and human trafficking in an era of technological advancements. Court highlighted the evolving sophistication of offenders in exploiting cyberspace for criminal activities, urging investigative agencies to invest resources in training and workshops. Justice Sharma proposed the development of a user-friendly handbook condensing key Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) details. This handbook should be readily available in every police station across Delhi to facilitate quick reference during investigations. The court recognized the role of investigating agencies as a hope for relatives and parents of missing children, emphasizing the importance of specialized training for efficient handling of such cases.
Case Title: Lamboder Jha v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
4. [Contempt Case] The Delhi High Court recently concluded the criminal contempt of court proceedings against Brijesh Shukla, a mechanical engineer who had used derogatory language against a judicial officer and alleged corruption within the entire Delhi judiciary. The division bench deemed Shukla's allegations "expressions of sheer frustration and depression." The contempt proceedings were initiated in 2019 when Shukla sent an email complaint to the Vigilance Committee for judicial officers, accusing a judicial officer of power misuse. The complaint contained abusive language directed at the judge. The court acknowledged that Shukla had raised concerns about being cheated by banks and asserted that the judicial officer was handling "fake cases" against him, intending to seize his foreign payment.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Brijesh Shukla
5. [Khasi Woman's Plea Against Delhi Golf Club] The Delhi High Court recently acknowledged recent amendments to the Bye-Laws of the Delhi Golf Club, ensuring compliance with Article 15 of the Constitution of India. The bench was dealing with a petition filed by a woman from the Khasi Tribe who faced denial of entry at the golf club due to her traditional attire. Advocate Vrinda Grover, along with Advocates Soutik Banerjee and Devika Tulsiani, represented the petitioner in court. Grover had earlier presented arguments regarding the affront to the dignity of the petitioner and the prevailing discriminatory attitudes within clubs, particularly against domestic employees. The Delhi Golf Club informed the court of the amendment to its Bye Laws, specifically allowing Members' Domestic Employees to be signed in as guests in the dining area, a practice previously prohibited. This amendment addressed the issue raised in the petition, leading the petitioners to withdraw their plea.
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Kong Tailin Lyngdoh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
6. [Cyber Fraud] The Delhi High Court, while denying bail to a man accused of orchestrating financial fraud through a mobile application, underscored the adverse economic impact of cyber-enabled crimes, stating that financial losses erode people's trust in online transaction platforms. The court noted that such a loss of trust contradicts the vision of an "advanced digital bharat" and discourages new entrants into the digital space, ultimately impacting the nation's economy negatively. The case involved allegations of defrauding individuals of their hard-earned money through financial scams facilitated by a mobile application. The court observed that the conspiracy likely attracted thousands of investors, with the money trail prima facie amounting to approximately Rs 140 crore. The court expressed concern over cyber-enabled crimes in the digital age, where perpetrators entice individuals to download applications through clickbait links, exploiting the cyber illiteracy of common citizens. The accused in the present case allegedly used the allure of obtaining short-term loans to defraud unsuspecting victims.
Case Title: Vineet Jhavar v. State of NCT of Delhi
7. [Plea to travel to Yemen] The Delhi High Court asked the mother of a Kerala woman, who is on death row in Yemen for killing a Yemeni national, to place documents to show that the foreign court gave her the legal option of paying blood money to negotiate with the victim’s family and save her daughter from the gallows. The court was hearing a plea by Nimisha Priya’s mother seeking facilitation of her travel as well as that of three others to Yemen to negotiate with the victim’s family. Blood money refers to the compensation paid by offenders or their kin to the family of a murder victim. On the last hearing, the bench had directed the counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit of the said persons who stay in Yemen, have come to India to visit their families, and are willing to accompany the petitioner's family. "File the affidavits and give a copy to the Center," the court ordered.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Prema Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.
8. [Omar Abdullah] The Delhi High Court has rejected the divorce plea filed by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, seeking separation from his estranged wife, Payal Abdullah. A division bench upheld the family court's decision that dismissed Abdullah's plea. The high court concurred with the family court's findings, asserting that Omar Abdullah's allegations of cruelty against Payal Abdullah were vague and unacceptable. The court stated, "We find no infirmity with the view taken by the family court that the allegations of cruelty were vague and unacceptable, and the appellant failed to prove any act that can be termed cruelty, either physical or mental. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed."
Bench: Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan
Case Title: Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah
9. [NewsClick's Plea For Stay On Income Tax Demand] The Delhi High Court has recently rejected the plea filed by online news portal NewsClick seeking a stay on the income tax demand. In an order issued on November 29, a division bench stated that NewsClick has substantial explanations to provide regarding its financial transactions, as highlighted in the assessing officer's order. The bench concluded that NewsClick failed to establish a prima facie case in its favor. The court's order read, "Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a prima facie case in its favor. To put it mildly, the petitioner has a 'lot to answer' in the appeal… Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed." However, the bench clarified that these observations are specific to the writ proceedings and will not prejudice the parties in the appellate proceedings.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna
Case Title: PPK Newsclick Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central Delhi and Anr.
10. [AAP's Plea For Party Office Land Allocation] The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Central government in response to a plea filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), seeking suitable land in the national capital for the construction of its national and Delhi state unit party offices. The bench directed both the Central government and the Land and Development Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, to respond to the petition within six weeks. The case is scheduled for the next hearing on April 23, 2024. AAP argued that as a national party, it is entitled to a total area of 1,000 square meters for constructing offices for both its national and state units. The party's plea referred to a Memorandum dated July 13, 2006, which prescribes the allotment of land up to 500 square meters to all national parties with up to 15 Members of Parliament in both Houses.
Case Title: Aam Aadmi Party v. Union of India & Anr.
11. [Plea Against Anti-Tobacco Warning] The Delhi High Court has expunged certain remarks made against a lawyer by a single judge, who dismissed his plea challenging the display of anti-tobacco health spots featuring graphic images during film screenings. The bench accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the lawyer petitioner and dismissed the appeal challenging the single judge's decision. The single judge earlier deemed the lawyer's petition a "gross abuse of the process of law". The judge asserted that the purpose of displaying graphic anti-tobacco imagery was to raise awareness about the health risks of tobacco consumption. The petitioner initially argued that the imagery used by the Center was extremely gross and spoiled the movie-watching experience.
Case Title: Divyam Aggarwal V. Union Of India & Anr
12. [Family Court] The Delhi High Court has directed its administrative side to provide details regarding the pendency of cases in family courts within the region. A bench acknowledged the substantial workload in family courts, expressing concern over the burden on judges. The court addressed a petition seeking an acceleration of hearings for pending cases in Delhi's family courts. The plea urged the court to call for amendments to the Delhi Family Court Rules, 1996, and the establishment of effective rules for the expedited resolution of family disputes. The bench concurred with the petitioner's counsel, Ishan Taneja, emphasizing the need to prioritize fresh matters related to family disputes.
Case Title: Ishan Taneja v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
13. [Public Toilets] The Delhi High Court issued directives to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other relevant authorities to ensure the cleanliness, hygiene, and proper maintenance of public toilets and conveniences in the national capital. The bench instructed the civic authorities to appoint an officer in charge of each public toilet to monitor its cleanliness. It emphasized the importance of maintaining public urinals and toilets in a clean and hygienic condition. The court granted a last opportunity for the respondents (civic authorities) to file replies to the petition. The court's directives came in response to a petition filed by Jan Seva Welfare Society, highlighting the unhygienic conditions and poor maintenance, including issues of clean water and electricity, in public toilets across Delhi.
Case Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.
14. [Blood Money Negotiation] In a significant development, a Delhi High Court bench has directed the Central government to ease its travel conditions, allowing the mother of Kerala nurse Nimisha Priya to journey to Yemen and negotiate for her release by offering 'blood money.' Nimisha Priya is currently facing a death sentence in Yemen for the murder of a Yemeni national. Justice Prasad issued the order on Tuesday last week and instructed the Central government to modify its notification concerning travel to Yemen in favor of the petitioner, Prema Kumari, who is Nimisha Priya's mother. However, the court clarified that Prema Kumari will travel to Yemen entirely at her own risk, absolving the Indian government and any state government of liability.
15. [Motor Accident Compensation Claim Case] In a recent judgment related to a motor accident compensation claim case, the Delhi High Court ruled that the multiplier used for computing the claim should be determined based on the age of the deceased rather than the age of the dependent. The decision came in response to a batch of appeals filed by both an insurance company and the parents of the deceased against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's (MACT) judgment. A single bench addressed the appeal and stated, "... this Court finds that the use of multiplier '13' (based on the age of the dependent mother) by the Ld. MACT in the impugned judgement for calculating the loss of dependency is erroneous. Instead, the multiplier in the present case shall be '17' considering that the deceased was 26 years of age. Therefore, the amount payable towards loss of dependency in view of the above discussion stands modified."
Bench: Justice Anish Dayal
Case Title: TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A.K. Tripathi & Ors.
16. [Hybrid System in District Courts] The Delhi High Court expressed concerns over the inadequate infrastructure in district courts and revived a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) aiming for the implementation of a hybrid system of hearing in subordinate judiciary and quasi-judicial bodies. The bench permitted the restoration of the petition, which had been disposed of in January 2022, citing a lack of effective measures by the Delhi government to provide essential infrastructure for hybrid hearings. Acknowledging the challenges faced by district courts, the bench highlighted instances where judges resorted to holding hybrid hearings using the mobile phones of court staff. Justice Manmohan emphasized the significance of the issue, stating, "They (petitioners) have pointed out a very important thing, and we need to look into it."
Case Title: Anil Kumar Hajelay & Ors. v. Honble High Court of Delhi
17. [Plea Against Political Parties Having Names With Caste or Religious Connotations] The Delhi High Court on Thursday last week, in a petition for de-registering political parties with names with "caste, religious, ethnic, or linguistic" connotations and flags that resemble the national tri-color, remarked that "these are policy issues and in the domain of Parliament." A division bench said these issues are policy issues and have to be dealt with by Parliament. "If we decide this...we will be entering the policy domain...Parliament will take a call on this," the bench remarked orally. "You are only talking about the names of these parties. The name is not the clincher. You have to see the policies of the political parties. You will have to see how they are functioning. But all these issues have to be looked into by Parliament. It is their domain. They make the laws, we don't," the Court further remarked.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
18. [One8 Commune] The Delhi High Court recently issued an interim order, restraining the restaurant/café chain One8 Commune, owned by Virat Kohli, from playing songs copyrighted by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL). The bench ruled that the order would be in effect until the next hearing, emphasizing that One8 Commune cannot play PPL's songs without obtaining the necessary license. The court's order stated, "Till the next date of hearing, the defendants as well as all others acting on their behalf shall stand restrained from playing any of the recordings forming the subject matter of the plaintiff’s copyright and figuring on the website https://www.pplindia.org/songs, without obtaining a prior license from the plaintiff."
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Cornerstone Sport and Entertainment Private Limited & Ors.
19. [Amazon Echo Devices] In a recent verdict, the Delhi High Court determined that Amazon's Echo Dot devices are more than mere speakers, and its Echo Show devices are not simply monitors but qualify as convergence devices. The ruling came in Amazon's claim seeking exemptions from customs duty for specific devices. The bench accepted Amazon's argument that eleven devices from its Echo Dot and Show range fall under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8517, encompassing "apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images, or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network." The high court overturned a previous decision by the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), which had rejected Amazon's request to categorize its devices under CTH 8517.
Bench: Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma
Case Title: Amazon Wholesale India Private Limited v. Customs Authority Of Advance Ruling, New Delhi & Anr.
20. [2018 Attack On Advocates] The Delhi High Court on Thursday last week transferred the probe into the attack on three advocates and members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association in 2018 from Delhi Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation. A bench said, “Since the counsel appears for CBI on advance notice, no notice is required to be issued in the matter. The CBI is directed to take action in the matter in accordance with the law." The court was hearing a suo-moto petition pertaining to incidents of the 2018 attacks on lawyers, wherein two vehicles parked in the courtyard of Advocate Ravi Sharma’s residence were deliberately burned on January 3 and 4, 2018. Thereafter, a similar incident took place at the residences of Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), and Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, Designated Senior Member Executive of the DHCBA. “In view of the aforesaid, no further direction is required to be passed in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of", the court ordered.
Case Title: Court in its own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
21. [Women's reservation Bill] The Delhi High Court rejected a plea that sought the immediate implementation of the Women’s Reservation Bill 2023, mandating 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha, ahead of the 2024 general elections. The petitioner, Yogamaya MG, a Delhi-based lawyer, had approached the High Court through Advocates Mamta Ranni, Nandana Menon, and Anjitha Santosh, urging the Central government to provide a definitive and expedited timeline for the implementation of the Women’s Reservation Bill 2023, citing the prolonged uncertainty surrounding the delimitation process. The plea named the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Indian National Congress (INC), and other major political parties as respondents. The court, presiding over the matter, remarked that the reliefs sought in the petition were akin to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Case Title: Ms Yogamaya MG v. Union of India and Ors.
22. [BharatPe Dispute] The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim application on Friday last week filed by BharatPe co-founder Shashvat Nakrani. Nakrani sought to restrain the firm's former Managing Director, Ashneer Grover, from selling or transferring the shares that Nakrani had previously sold to him. The bench while rejecting the application, directed Grover to provide intimation to Nakrani before any sale or transfer of the shares in question. Nakrani's contention revolved around the transfer of his shares to Grover. While Grover claimed to have paid for the shares in cash, Nakrani asserted that he never received the funds. BharatPe, founded in March 2018 by Shashvat Nakrani and Bhavik Koladiya, initially had a 50-50 ownership split between them. Ashneer Grover joined as a third co-founder in July 2018, purchasing 3,192 shares (2,447 from Nakrani and 745 from Koladiya for Rs.10 each).
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case Title: Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover
23. [Coaching Center] A Delhi High Court has issued directives for the city's fire services and civic body to conduct thorough inspections of all coaching centres, examining their adherence to fire safety norms. The bench instructed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Fire Services to identify any "deficiencies" in the coaching centres and issue appropriate directions if they were found susceptible to fire incidents. The court emphasized, "You will point out the deficiencies to individual coaching centres, educational centres…Give them an opportunity to ensure compliance." A joint inspection by both MCD and Delhi Fire Services will be carried out, indicating non-conforming factors to occupants. The coaching centres will be granted time to rectify their shortcomings. The court added that if any centres are deemed hazardous, authorities can issue directions, with the affected parties retaining the right to approach the court.
Bench: Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Please Login or Register
