- Company Presumed to Operate from Where Principal Office Is Located in Absence Of ‘Exclusion Clause’: Delhi High Court [Bela Goyal Proprietor of Ispat Sangrah (India) v. VIIPL – MIPL JV (Jaipur) & Ors.]
In the present case, where the Defendant-company claimed to operate from Jaipur, Justice Yogesh Khanna further made it clear: “the company has its principal office at Delhi; this Court shall have the jurisdiction. Merely by mentioning on the invoices viz. the disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction at Jaipur would not snatch away the jurisdiction of this Court as there was no exclusion clause in the invoices.”
2.Accused Can’t Use His Power of Attorney Holder to File Petition U/S 482 To Quash Criminal Proceedings: Delhi High Court [Amrinder Singh & Raja Through: Spa Holder Sukhjinder Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi]
The Delhi High Court has held that the accused cannot recourse to a third party, such as a Power of Attorney holder, to represent him in criminal proceedings.
3.Under Maintenance Proceedings Under Sec. 125 CrPC Court May Not Usurp Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: Delhi High Court [MOHD SHAKEEL @ SHAKEEL AHMED v. MST SABIA BEGUM & ORS]
The Delhi High Court has observed that while the task of deciding the marital status of the parties has been conferred with Civil Courts, the Court under maintenance proceedings under sec. 125 of the CrPc, may not usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that in order to preserve the social intent of sec. 125 of the CrPc, the Magistrate can render the prima facie finding about the factum of marriage, which will not be a conclusive finding for any other purpose apart from the order on maintenance.
4.No Bar on Pursuing Criminal Proceedings After Arbitration Has Commenced: Delhi High Court [M/S. Hero Fincorp Limited v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.]
Observing that commencement of arbitration does not bar a party from pursuing criminal proceedings, the Delhi High Court directed the Police to investigate the complaint lodged by a Non-Banking Finance Company against one of its defaulting borrowers. In the instant case, the Bench noted that the facts on the face of it prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. It thus added, “Section 154 CrPc provides for the registration of the First Information Report in respect of cognizable offences, which the police is mandated by law to register in writing and thereafter investigate into it.” The Court found the Police, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), and the Principal District and Sessions (PDS) Judge, Delhi had erred in not allowing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3), CrPC, for a cognizable offense.
5.First Conviction Not Final, Presumption of Innocence Continues till Last Court of Appeal: Arguments for Ansal Brothers in Delhi HC, Order Reserved [Sushil Ansal v. State NCT of Delhi CRL.M.C. 3276/2021, Gopal Ansal v. State, CRL.M.C. 3277/2021, Anoop Singh Karayat v. State CRL.M.C. 3517/2021]
The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in the plea filed by real estate barons, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, seeking suspension of their seven-year jail term in the evidence tampering case in connection with the Uphaar fire tragedy that happened in the year 1997.
6.Do Community Service to Atone for Sins”: Delhi High Court Directs Man Accused of Outraging Woman’s Modesty
The Delhi High Court has recently directed a man, who was accused of forcefully kissing a woman and outraging her modesty, to do one month community service. Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against the man under Sections 354, 506 and 342 of IPC, on the ground that the parties had amicably settled the dispute. “Looking at the facts of the case and the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to do some community service to atone for his sins. He is also warned not to repeat such actions in the future,” the Court said.
7.Filing Affidavits of Personal Assets Not Permitted Under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC: Delhi High Court [GS Sandhu & Anr vs Geeta Aggarwal]
The Delhi High Court has held that Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a judgment debtor (company) or its directors to file their list of assets. Justice Amit Bansal thus set aside the order of the District Judge, Patiala House Courts directing the Directors of the Judgement-Debtor Company (‘Petitioner’) to file affidavits of personal assets. “Just because the petitioners are directors of the judgment debtor company, they cannot be directed to disclose their personal assets.”
8.Street Vendors, Hawkers Can’t Fix Any Place or Erect Permanent/ Temporary Structures: Delhi High Court [SULEMAN ABBAS & ORS. Vs. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.]
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the concept of tehbzaari, street hawking and vending does not envisage that the hawker or vendor would fix himself to any particular place or erect any structure whether permanent or temporary on its own.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also added that there is no question of any hawker or vendor staking a claim to occupy any public space in the name of hawking and vending round the clock by placing a structure, temporary or otherwise, at the site and converting the same into a shop where the hawker or vendor and his goods can permanently remain.
9.Sets back the cause of women empowerment: Delhi High Court on false invocation of sexual harassment laws. [Dr Karunakar Patra v State and Ors].
The filing of such false cases casts a doubt on the veracity of allegations filed by actual victims of sexual harassment, thereby setting back The Delhi High Court recently expressed its anguish at the way cases of sexual harassment are registered “at the drop of a hat”, stating that this effectively hampers the cause of woman empowerment.
10.Disclose information of persons for purpose of investigation: Delhi High court [State, Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) v. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)].
The Delhi High Court last week directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to disclose information pertaining to around 450 persons who were allegedly issued fake Aadhaar cards for the purpose of enrolment in training for civil defence.
11.No single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint arbitrator: Delhi High Court [Envirad Projects Private Limited v. NTPC Limited].
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party is impermissible in law and such appointment has to be made with the consensus of the parties involved or by the Court.
12.Husband has means to pay maintenance; having Virat Kohli as brand ambassador of company proof: Delhi court
A plea by a man claiming he cannot pay interim maintenance to his estranged wife since he was without any income, was rejected by a Delhi court on the ground that the company where he worked as the Director has Indian cricket captain Virat Kohli as its brand ambassador, which showed that the petitioner-husband was a “man of means”.
13.Wife entitled to maintenance from husband even if she lives in matrimonial home: Delhi Court
A Delhi court while allowing a woman’s plea for interim maintenance ruled that a wife is entitled to maintenance from her estranged husband even if she lives in the same household, observing that it was a common scenario in Indian households “where a victim of domestic violence is deprived of basic necessities”.
14.Allowing illegally intercepted telephonic conversations as evidence violation of fundamental rights: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that permitting illegally intercepted messages or audio conversations as evidence would lead to manifest arbitrariness and promote scant regard to the fundamental rights of the citizens. The high court said as per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, an order for interception can be issued on either the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
15.Nature of relationship cannot put same offence on different pedestal: Delhi High Court [RIT Foundation v The Union of India]
The Delhi High Court questioned the rationale in discriminating between married and unmarried women when it comes to non-consensual sex and the impact it has on their dignity.
