Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Quashing termination order of employee on maternity leave] The Delhi High Court has held that an organisation should be empathetic to female employees who are on maternity leave, rather than finding means to dispense with their services. The court was hearing petition by a woman who was terminated from her services on the ground of not performing duties consistently and being absent without information. Court, while allowing the petition and imposing a cost of Rs. 25000 on the respondents as against the loss of livelihood and mental suffering caused to the petitioner, observed, “Keeping the aim and object of the beneficial legislation in mind, which is to regulate employment of women in certain establishments, before and after child birth and to provide maternity benefits including maternity leave, an organization should be empathetic to a woman employee who is pregnant rather than make all kinds of vague and bald allegations and find means and ways to dispense with her services.”
Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh
Case Title: Shachi Gahoi v. Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute
Click here to read more
2. [Defamation Case] The Delhi High Court has asked the counsel for both the parties to sit together and try to work out the issues in Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Kailash Gahlot’s plea seeking deletion of the alleged defamatory tweets by Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) MLA Vijender Gupta against him over procurement of DTC buses. The division bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Kailash Gahlot against a single judge bench order, wherein the judge had refused to grant him temporary injunction in the defamation suit. Last year in November, Gupta challenged the summons issued against him by a trial court in a criminal defamation case filed by Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot. Gahlot's complaint against Gupta alleged that Gupta had falsely accused Gahlot of corruption in the procurement of public buses. Earlier, the trial court had taken the view that Gupta was prima facie guilty of offences under Sections 499, 500, and 501 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and summoned Gupta on November 16, 2021, upon a complaint by Gahlot stating that Gupta, a sitting MLA, had tarnished his reputation with mala fide intentions and for political mileage.
Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth
Case Title: Kailash Gahlot v. Vijender Gupta & Ors.
3. [PM Modi Degree Case] The Delhi High Court has refused an early hearing of a petition filed by Delhi University (DU) challenging the Central Information Commission’s (CIC’s) order directing the varsity to allow inspection of records of all students who had passed the BA exam in 1978, the year Prime Minister Narendra Modi had graduated from there. The bench said, “This matter is listed in October. Take it from me, it will be disposed of then, provided I continue in the roster. It doesn’t impress me why preponing should be done….List on the date already fixed”. The court issued notice to DU on the application seeking early hearing in the case and listed it for further consideration on October 13, the date already fixed in the main petition. The single-judge bench was hearing an early hearing application on a petition moved by DU challenging an order passed by the CIC. The CIC had directed the university to allow inspection of records related to students of BA course of the year 1978.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: University of Delhi v. Neeraj & Anr.
4. [Rulings under MSMED Act] The Delhi High Court recently answered significant legal issues with respect to the disputes arising out of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Hereinafter ‘MSMED Act, 2006’). The court in a series of judgments dealt with various issues.
Bench: Justice Pratibha M. Singh
5. [Leena Paulose] The Delhi High Court has "denied bail" to Sukesh Chandrashekhar's wife, Leena Paulose, in connection with a Rs 200 crore extortion case registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police against her. While denying her bail, the bench said, "This court is of the considered opinion that the case is of very 'sensitive nature' and prima facie the petitioner is involved in the offence of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA)". "This court does not find any infirmity in the order of the trial court, accordingly, the bail application is dismissed", the single-judge bench said. The court also denied bail to two co-accused namely Kamlesh Kothari and B. Mohan Raj.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Leena Paulose v. State of Delhi
6. [Terror Funding Case] The Delhi High Court has posted the bail application filed by Kashmiri separatist leader Naval Kishore Kapoor, an accused in a terror funding case, for hearing on September 5. During the hearing, Advocate Sahil Dutta appearing for Kapoor submitted, “We have filed the compilation report”. He sought an adjournment as Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who is to argue the matter was indisposed at the moment. The division bench said, “At the request of Mr. Sachin Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the ground that Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel who has to address arguments in the present appeal is indisposed. For hearing for the same, adjourn the matter”. The bail application has been filed by Kapoor in connection with Jammu & Kashmir terror funding and secessionist activities case. Recently, in this case, Yasin Malik was awarded life imprisonment. Kapoor has been charged for offences under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Case Title: Naval Kishore Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
7. [Plea against DDCA's to ratify appointment] The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a plea by Secretary of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) against a June 10 notice issued by the Apex Council of DDCA, for convening the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (EGM) of its members at the Arun Jaitley Stadium, Ferozshah Kotla Ground, New Delhi. While disposing of the petition, the bench said, “The Petitioner has not made out a case that it is imperative for this Court to entertain the present Writ Petition even though an ‘equally efficacious alternative remedy/forum’ is available to the Petitioner and that the Ombudsman can pass such orders which are irreversible in nature and cannot be rectified if they are found to be faulty”.The court granted liberty to the petitioner, Siddharth Sahib Singh to approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Case Title: Siddharth Sahib Singh v. Apex Council of DDCA
8. [Role of public prosecutor multi-dimensional] The Delhi High Court recently upheld the conviction of an appellant charged with offences under Section 324, 326 of the Penal Code, 1860, observing that the role of a public prosecutor in a criminal trial is crucial as their duty is not only limited to defending the State but also placing on record the entire material collected by the investigating agency before the Court, so as to arrive at a just and proper decision. Court, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, said, “The reasoning given by the learned Trial Court and the judicial precedents as discussed in para no. 19 and 21 do not persuade this Court to reach a conclusion that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court was erroneous on facts or on law.” The court, while disposing of a criminal appeal recently observed that State has the same right to defend its case and prove the accused guilty by persuasively presenting its case and evidence before the Court through its prosecutors, as the accused does to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Antosh v. State
9. [Satyendar Jain] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking a direction that AAP leader Satyendar Jain, facing prosecution in a money laundering case, be medically examined at any other hospital like AIIMS instead of Delhi government-run Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP) Hospital. The bench said that since the matter was now pending before the Supreme Court, nothing remained to be adjudicated in the high court. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea. Jain is currently out on interim bail till July 24 in pursuance of the order of the apex court. Court was hearing a plea by Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking a direction that AAP leader Satyendar Jain, facing prosecution in a money laundering case, be medically examined at any other hospital like AIIMS instead of Delhi government-run Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP) Hospital.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Satyendar Kumar Jain
10. [PFI Chairman OMA Salam] The Delhi High Court has posted a plea filed by Popular Front of India (PFI) Chairman, O.M.A. Salam seeking direction to quash/set aside Reference Case (RC-14/2022) dated April 13, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for hearing on October 31. During the hearing, the counsel for Salam submitted that the NIA filed the reply yesterday only. He also sought time to respond to NIA's reply. The bench said, "At the joint request of both the parties, let the matter be listed for hearing on October 31". Salam in his plea prayed that NIA should not file a final report under Section 173 (Report of police officer on completion of an investigation) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Title: O.M.A Salam v. National Investigation Agency
11. [Delhi Riots] The Delhi High Court has "granted bail" to former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Councilor Tahir Hussain in five FIRs registered against him at Dayalpur Police Station, in connection with the Delhi Riots 2020 case. The bench said, "Bail is granted in all the five FIRs subject to certain conditions". However, Hussain will remain in judicial custody in other FIRs registered against him for charges under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), in connection with the Delhi Riots 2020.
Bench: Justice Anish Dayal
Case Title: Tahir Hussain v. State
12. [Plea challenging demolition of mosque] The Delhi High Court has recently directed the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to file reply in a plea by the Delhi Waqf Board challenging the notice of demolition of a mosque located at the Sunheri Bagh Road roundabout. The bench also directed the NDMC to conduct another joint inspection of the mosque in the presence of the members of the DWB and submit the report along with NDMC's response. "At this stage, learned counsel for the parties agree that a further inspection may be carried out in the presence of the representatives of the petitioner so that the petitioner’s views can also be taken into account", the single-judge bench observed.
Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
Case Title: Delhi Waqf Board v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.
13. [Stay on streaming of film, Nyay: The Justice] The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the screening of the movie ‘Nyay: The Justice’, based on late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR). The movie was released on the OTT platform Lapalap in June 2021, a year after his demise. The single judge bench said that the actor's publicity and privacy rights were not heritable and had ended with his demise. While dismissing a plea filed by Krishna Kishore Singh, Sushant’s father, the single-judge bench said, “To fasten a legal right, on something as fleeting as a celebrity, appears to be an oxymoron”. “Law cannot allow itself to be a vehicle to promote celebrity culture”, he added. "The information contained, and shown, in the impugned film, is entirely derived from items which featured in the media and, therefore, constitute publicly available information. In making a film on the basis thereof, it could not, therefore, be said that the defendants had violated any right of SSR, much less of the plaintiff, especially as the said information had not been questioned or challenged when it appeared in the media, either by SSR or by the plaintiff. Nor were the defendants required to obtain the consent of the plaintiff before making the movie," the court observed.
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A Saraogi & Ors
14. [1984 Anti-Sikh Riots] The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of nearly 28 years by the State in filing appeal against the acquittal of several accused in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. The division bench said that there was no "justifiable" explanation for the delay. “In the present case, the delay is 27 years and 335 days and there is no explanation for this inordinate delay. Moreover, the grounds taken by the State are not justifiable. Therefore, we find no merit in the present application, and the same is hereby dismissed”, the court said. The accused persons were set free by a trial court in Delhi in 1995. Counsel for the State submitted that a two-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted following a Supreme Court order to look into the riots cases, which were closed for lack of evidence or due to shoddy investigation, recommended in 2019 that an appeal may be filed against the 1995 order of acquittal. It said that due to COVID-19, the appeal could not be finalized as the file had to be passed through various channels, which resulted in further delay.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: State v. Hari Lal & Ors.
15. [Bayer v. Natco] The Delhi High Court recently rejected an application by pharmaceutical giant Bayer Healthcare against Natco Pharma for a suit patent that contained the same chemical compound, “Regorafenib” as found in the genus patent that expired on 12.01.2020. Court, while dismissing the application for interim injunction by the plaintiff, held, “Section 53(4) of the Act specifically provides that on expiry of the term of patent, the subject matter covered by the said patent shall not be entitled to any protection. The plaintiff having admitted that the Suit Patent is covered by genus patent, though qualifying such admission by use of the word ‘technically’, whose term has admittedly expired, at least prima facie is not entitled to an interim order at this stage.” The high court has held that Section 53(4) of the Patent Act specifically provides that on expiry of the term of patent, the subject matter covered by the said patent shall not be entitled to any protection.
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla
Case Title: Bayer Healthcare v. Natco Pharma
16. [Married daughter among dependents of parents for residential or commercial space] The Delhi High Court recently allowed an eviction petition by a landlord seeking space rented on the ground floor, for his daughters to start their business. "There is a certain self-worth which a person acquires by running his or her own business and this aspiration cannot be questioned in a proceeding for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises", court said. Court, while allowing the petition, observed, “A plea of bonafide requirement has to be pivoted on the fact that the landlord had no other suitable alternative accommodation and there was a need for the same, not a mere wish. The landlord was not required to file details of his income tax returns and not filing the same along with the eviction petition would neither whittle away nor cast a doubt on the bonafide need, which is otherwise made out in the eviction petition. The ‘sufficiency’ of income of a landlord or that he was well-off cannot be an issue for examination in eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act. For who can sit in judgment as to what is sufficient finance for a person or his/her family. There can be no check, hindrance or curtailment to aspirations of an individual.”
Bench: Justice Najmi Waziri
Case Title: Nisar Ahmed v. Agya Pal Singh
17. [Online Gaming] The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the Centre's response on a PIL challenging the constitutional and legislative validity of the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023 related to online gaming. The bench asked the central government to file its response to the petition filed by NGO Social Organisation for Creating Humanity (SOCH), and listed the matter for hearing on September 21. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma said that the PIL was not a public interest litigation but a "proxy personalised" litigation. "Please see the writ petition and see the doublespeak...Your lordships must enquire who is the petitioner. These are companies who do not want to be amenable to the regulations, perhaps this individual is a front”, he said.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Social Organization for Creating Humanity (SOCH) v. Union of India
18. [Notification mandating ID Address of Delhi for enrollment] The Delhi High Court has stated that the notification of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) mandating Aadhar Card and Voter ID address of Delhi NCR (National Capital Region) for future enrolments should be struck down immediately. The bench asked counsel for BCD as to how it could bar people, not residing in Delhi to get enrolled. “How can you restrict persons of Delhi alone to register with the BCD? This notification needs to be struck down straightaway. You cannot restrict BCD membership to Delhi only,” the court said. The single-judge bench added, “Suppose I am staying in Ramanathapuram, I stay in Silchar or Kachchh or Mehsana. What will I do? I have to earn my bread, come here and practice”. The bench added that Delhi is a good place to practice law and that is the reason people come here and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Case Title: Shannu Baghel v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr.
19. [BBC Documentary on PM Modi] The Delhi University has moved the Delhi High Court against an order setting aside the debarring of NSUI Secretary Lokesh Chugh for a year for his alleged involvement in screening on the campus a controversial BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots. The division bench issued notice to Lokesh Chugh, a Ph.D. scholar and national secretary of Congress' student wing, on the appeal filed by the varsity against the order passed by a single-judge bench of the high court. The matter will be taken up next on September 14. Notably, in April, Chugh had approached the High Court challenging the university's decision to debar him for a year for his alleged involvement in the screening of the documentary, 'India: The Modi Question', which is related to the 2002 Gujarat riots. The documentary was screened earlier this year.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Najmi Waziri
Case Title: University of Delhi v. Lokesh Chugh
20. [2018 Contempt Case] The Delhi High Court has 'discharged' Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue S Gurumurthy in 2018 Contempt proceedings initiated for his tweet on Justice S Muralidhar for the judgment in INX Media case. The division bench said, "Mr. Tiku, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the association brings our attention to the reply of the show cause notice, brings our attention to Para....Mr. Tiku points out the apology expressed by S. Gurumurthy as well as the statement that he has the highest respect for the judiciary and in all humility is truly sorry for any offence that may have been caused". "Considered in conjunction, with the circumstance that Mr. S. Gurumurthy has since taken down all the allegedly offensive tweets, may constitute sufficient compliance with the directions issued by this court in July 2022. And the same therefore be accepted", the court added. Court was dealing with a contempt plea filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) seeking criminal contempt proceedings against S Gurumurthy over his tweet wherein he had questioned whether Justice Muralidhar was Senior Advocate P Chidambaram’s junior.
Bench: Justice Sidharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth
Case Title: Delhi High Court Bar Association through its Secretary v. S. Gurumurthy
Please Login or Register
