011- 28034257 [email protected]
Select Page
Home » Research » HMJ J R Midha’s Landmark Judgments

HMJ J R Midha’s Landmark Judgments

Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh

In Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh, Justice Midha framed a Special Scheme on 16th December, 2009 for time bound settlement of Motor Accident Claims within 90 to 120 days which was implemented in Delhi w.e.f. rdApril, 2010. Between 2ndApril, 2010 to August, 2012, about 21,820 accident cases were reported in Delhi out of which the Claims Tribunal granted compensation within 90 to 120 days in 10,762 cases by following the Special Scheme. The Special Scheme revolutionized the Motor Accident Compensation Law in as much as the claimants received the compensation within 120 days of the accident. The Supreme Court approved the aforesaid Scheme and directed all States to implement this Scheme across the country.

On 8th January, 2021, the Justice Midha launched a new improved Scheme in Rajesh Tyagi’s case for expeditious investigation as well as adjudication of all Motor Accident Claims within a period of six months to one year. Justice Midha framed the new Scheme after considering the Best International Practices and conducting extensive research of the Mandatory Formats formulated in developed countries for motor accidents cases to ensure that the procedure for settling the claims of victims of road accident is made hassle free, just and expeditious. Justice Midha also framed a FASTDAR Scheme for payment of compensation within ten days in road accident death cases. The FASTDAR Scheme was launched on 1st May, 2021 and the first case of road accident on 1st May, 2021 was resolved within ten days and the compensation of Rs.32 lakhs was deposited by the Insurance Company on 12th May, 2021.

In Rajesh Tyagi’s case, Justice Midha recommended to the Government to amend the Motor Vehicles Act to incorporate the Special Scheme formulated by the Delhi High Court. Justice Midha also advised the Government to create a Road Accident Fund for providing compulsory insurance coverage to all road users. Justice Midha also recommended to the Central Government to incorporate the new Scheme in Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The Central Government has accepted the above recommendations and has amended the Motor Vehicles Act, by Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019 which came into force on 1St April, 2022. The Central Government has also incorporated the entire Scheme along with the formats annexed to the Judgment dated 8th January, 2021 in Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 which came into force on 1St April, 2022.

Karan v. State NCT of Delhi
In Karan v. State NCT of Delhi, 277 (2021) DLT 195 (FB), the Delhi High Court laid down the guidelines for payment of compensation to the Victims of Crime under Section 357 CrPC. As per the procedure laid down, the accused has to file the affidavit of assets and income within ten days of his conviction and Delhi State Legal Service Authority (DSLSA) shall conduct a Summary Inquiry to compute the loss suffered by the victims, and the paying capacity of the accused and submit a Victim Impact Report (VIR) to the Court whereupon the Court shall consider the VIR and award appropriate compensation to the Victims of Crime.

H.S. Bedi v. NHAI
In H.S. Bedi v. NHAI, Justice Midha laid down the guidelines for prosecution of litigants who raise false claims. The greatest challenge before the judiciary is frivolous litigation. The judicial system in the country is choked with false claims and such litigants are consuming Courts’ time for a wrong cause. False claims are a huge strain on the judicial system.

Amazon.com NV Investment holdings LLC v. Future Coupons Private Limited
In Amazon.com NV Investment holdings LLC v. Future Coupons Private Limited, 2021 SCC Online Del 1279, the Delhi High Court held that award of an emergency arbitrator is enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This view taken has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Juhi Chawla v. Science & Engineering Research Board
In Juhi Chawla v. Science & Engineering Research Board, (2021) 280 DLT 1, the Delhi High Court declined to grant of leave to institute the suit against 5G Technology under Section 91(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure or to sue in representative interest under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the defective suit with cost of Rs.20 Lakhs. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide Order dated 27th January, 2022, reduced the cost from Rs.20 Lakhs to Rs.2 Lakhs in view of the Plaintiffs offer to work with Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to advance the cause of deprived children and women.

Dr. Maya D. Chablani v. Radha Mittal
In Dr. Maya D. Chablani v. Radha Mittal, 2021 SCC Online Del 3599, the Delhi High Court laid down the guidelines for feeding of stray dogs. While recognising the rights of the animals under Article 21 of the Constitution and other Statutes and considering that the animals have to be treated with compassion, respect and dignity, the Court directed the enforcement authorities to ensure that no harassment and hindrance is caused to the feeders of stray dogs. The Court further held that if any Government servant indulges in cruelty to animals, action can be taken under CCS Rules.

Important Judgments of Justice J.R. Midha (Retd.) for study/research by students – The notable judgments/ orders delivered as Judge of Delhi High Court are as under:-

Arbitration and Conciliation Act

  • Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Coupons Private Limited, 2021 SCC Online Del 1279 – The award of an Emergency Arbitrator is an order under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 6th August, 2021. However, by the subsequent judgment dated 1st February, 2022, the Supreme Court remanded back the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits.
  • Ganesh Banzoplast Ltd. v. Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd., 2021 V AD (DELHI) 602 – Scope of the doctrine of the most basic notions of Morality and Justice in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  • KLA Const. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Embassy of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, (2021) 280 DLT 321 – The prior consent of Central Government is not necessary under Section 86(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to enforce an arbitral award against a Foreign State; and a Foreign State cannot claim Sovereign Immunity against enforcement of an arbitral award arising out of commercial transaction.
  • Airports Authority of India v. Hotel Leela Venture Ltd., 231 (2016) DLT 457-Concluded commercial contracts cannot be challenged on the ground of being onerous. Award against Morality and Justice, and based on false claims was set aside.
  • Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. v. Kamal Chauhan., 226 (2016) DLT 410 – Appointment of a Receiver under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to take over the possession of hypothecated equipment/ vehicle by the financer upon default of the borrower to repay the loan amount.
  • Aarka Sports Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Kalsi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2020 (4) ARBLR 117 (Delhi) – Section 20(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act empowers the parties to determine the seat of arbitration. However, if the parties have not determined the seat of arbitration, the Court competent to entertain application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would be the “Court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act read with Section 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Code of Civil Procedure

  • Juhi Chawla v. Science &Engineering Research Board, (2021)280 DLT 1- The Delhi High Court declined to grant of leave to institute the suit against 5G Technology under Section 91(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure or to sue in representative interest under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the defective suit with cost of Rs.20 Lakhs. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide Order dated 27th January, 2022, reduced the cost from Rs.20 Lakhs to Rs.2 Lakhs in view of the Plaintiff’s offer to work with Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to advance the cause of deprived children and women.
  • Maya D. Chablani v. Radha Mittal, 2021 SCC Online Del 3599 -Guidelines on feeding stray dogs.
  • M/s Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors., 2020 (270) DLT582 – Guidelines for expeditious disposal of execution cases. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court partially overruled this Judgment in Delhi Chemical Pharmaceutical Works Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Himgiri Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 222 (2015) DLT 354.
  • Santosh Kumar Jha v. Deputy Labour Commissioner (South), 280 (2021) DLT 299:2021 SCC Online Del 3457- Guidelines for expeditious disposal of execution cases by SDMs/Recovery Officers.
  • Union of India v. Dhyan Singh, 2012 SCC Online Del 5376 – Power of Appellate Court to enhance compensation in the absence of Cross-objections.
  • Kiran Chhabra v. Pawan Kumar Jain, 178 (2011) DLT 462 – Guidelines for drawing up Written Submissions.
  • Milano Impex Private Ltd. v. Egle Footwear Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (124) DRJ 668 – Guidelines for examination of witness(es) through video conference.

Code of Criminal Procedure

  • Karan v. State NCT of Delhi, 227 (2020) DLT 195 (FB) – Issued guidelines for compensation to victims of crime.
  • Satya Prakash v. State,203 (2013) DLT 652
  • Satya Prakash v. State,203 (2015) ACC 876 (Del.) Issued guidelines for compensation to victims of crime.
  • Sunil Tyagi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,2021 SCC Online Del 3479
  • Sunil Tyagi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2021 SCC Online Del 3597 Issued guidelines for action to be taken against Proclaimed Offenders.
  • Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State, 174 (2010) DLT 214 – Scope of Section 340 CrPC.
  • Manjit Singh v. State, 2014 (214) DLT 646 – Issued guidelines for disposal of case properties in custody of Delhi Police.

Evidence Act

  • Ved Parkash Kharbanda v. Vimal Bindal, (2013) 198 DLT 555 – What is Truth and how to discover it. Scope of Sections 3, 114 and 165 of the Indian Evidence Act relating to discovery of truth.

Indian Penal Code

  • H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), 2016 SCC Online Del 432– Principles relating to prosecution for raising false claims before the Court under Section 209 of Indian Penal Code.
  • Nilanjan Gupta v. State, 2018 SCC Online Del 12518- Prosecution for raising false claims before the Court under Section 209 of Indian Penal Code.
  • Kismat Singh v. Piariya Devi, 2019 ACJ 1433-Prosecution for raising false claims before the Court under Section 209 of Indian Penal Code.
  • Hajara v. Government of India, (2021) 281 DLT 185-The High Court took a serious view of the false claims/defences raised by the Government before the Court which causes gross injustice to the litigants; and it puts unnecessary burden on the Court. The Court observed that the guilty officers should be held accountable for raising false claims and the appropriate action should be taken against them. The Court referred to the false claims raised by the Government in three cases. The Single Bench of the High Court directed the matter to the registered as a PIL and referred to the PIL Bench.
  • C.S. Aggarwal v. State, 2019 SCC Online Del 7945 – Forgery of a Will is an Offence under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code punishable with life imprisonment.

Intellectual Property Rights

  • Nishi Gupta v. M/s Cattle Remedies, (2021) 87 PTC 100: (2021) 280 DLT 584-Prosecution for false claims under Section 209 of Indian Penal Code in IPR cases.
  • Ten XC Wireless Inc. v. Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. and Andrew Comm. Scope Inc., 187 (2012) DLT 632- Principles relating to interim injunction in Patent cases and assessment of costs.
  • Suzuki Motor v. Suzuki (India) Ltd.,2019 SCC OnLine Del 9241 – Decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure for infringement of the registered Trade Mark ‘Suzuki’. The vague and evasive denials of the plaint are deemed admissions under Order VIII Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure.
  • Timken Company v. Timken Services Pvt. Ltd., 200 (2013) DLT 453 – Principles relating to interim injunction in cases of infringement of Trade mark, Copyright and Passing off.
  • Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 263 DLT 748: (2019) 79 PTC 397: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9070 – Doctrine of necessity invoked for making IPAB functional.
  • Bharati Rathore v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2601 – The Recruitment for the post of Examiner of Patents & Designs by written test alone is prima facie not in public interest. The Examiner of Patents and Designs is a key entry level post in the Patent Office having quasi-judicial The Single Bench of the High Court examined the law on the subject and directed the matter to be registered as PIL and referred to the PIL Bench.

Matrimonial Laws

  • Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, (2020)271 DLT 232:2020 SCC Online Del 931 – Guidelines for determination of maintenance in matrimonial matters. The Supreme Court formulated a comprehensive affidavit of assets in Rajnesh v. Neha and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324 based upon the affidavit formulated by the Delhi High Court.
  • Swati v. Arvind Mudgal, 2015(218) DLT 729- Conviction of husband for the offence of murder amounts to cruelty to wife and held to be a valid ground for divorce.
  • M v. A, (2018) 248 DLT 466 -The wife filed a divorce petition for dissolution of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, in which the husband raised an objection of maintainability on the ground that the parties performed the Nikah ceremony after marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The High Court rejected the objection and held that parties married under the Special Marriage Acts can maintain the petition for dissolution of marriage only under the Special Marriage Act.
  • R v. J., (2018) 250 DLT 579 – The husband sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The wife levelled serious allegations of illicit relationship between husband and her sister-in-law but could not prove the same. The High Court upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court to the husband on the ground of cruelty.

Contract Act

  • Hardip Kaur v. Kailash, 193 (2012) DLT 168 – Validity of an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed by a seller of an immovable property along with an agreement to sell.
  • New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) v. Prominent Hotels Limited, 222 (2015) DLT 706 – Concluded commercial contracts cannot be challenged on the ground of being onerous.

Transfer of Property Act

  • Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavita P. Lalwani, 191 (2012) DLT 594 – Principles relating to eviction of a tenant upon determination of lease.
  • H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India, 220 (2015) DLT 179- Principles relating to refund of security deposit by landlord upon determination of lease.

Specific Relief Act

  • Ved Parkash Kharbanda v. Vimal Bindal, (2013) 198 DLT 555 – Principles relating to specific performance of an agreement to sell an immovable property.
  • Om Prakash Aggarwal v. Raj Kumar Mittal, (2019) 258 DLT 248:2019 SCC OnLine Del 7486 – Specific performance of an agreement to sell an immovable property.
  • Subhash Chand Aggarwal v. Yashveer Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6935-Specific performance of an agreement to sell an immovable property.
  • Deepak Singla v. Kanta Nagpal, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12201:(2018) 172 DRJ 557-Specific performance of an agreement to sell an immovable property.

Writ Jurisdiction

  • PTI Employees Union v. Press Trust of India Ltd., 2020 V AD (Delhi)217:2020 SCC OnLine Del 1216 – Writ petition to challenge the retrenchment of the employees is not maintainable unless the writ petition discloses exceptional circumstances.
  • P P Vaidya v. IFCI Ltd.,209 (2014) DLT 628 – The erstwhile employees of a public corporation cannot seek review of pay-scale/other benefits after taking VRS under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
  • Hajara v. Govt. of India, 2018ACJ387– Compensation of Rs.18 lakh awarded to the legal representatives of the victim who died when goods train hit the dead end of the boundary wall of the Railway Station which fell on the victim.

Contempt of Courts Act

  • Nidhi Kaushik v. Union of India, 212 (2014) DLT 5 -If an authority does not follow the well settled law, it shall create confusion in the administration of justice and undermine the law laid down by the constitutional Courts. The consequence of an authority not following the well settled law amounts to contempt of Court.

Mental Health Act

  • Bhagwan v. State, AIR 2017 Del 133 – Directions for expeditious enquiry under the Mental Health Act.

Insurance Laws

  • Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 225 (2015) DLT 722 – The Insurance Company cannot insist on a discharge voucher and full and final receipt as a condition to pay the admitted amount to the insured.

Labour Laws

  • State Bank of Travancore v. Prem Singh, 2019 SCC Online Del 8258 -An Employee terminated on the ground of loss of confidence is not entitled to reinstatement but only compensation.

Employee’s Compensation Act

  • New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Puran Lal, (2021) 280 DLT 369:2021 SCC Online Del 3484 – Special Scheme for expeditious disposal of Employees Compensation Cases.
  • Shri Krishan v. Jasoda Devi,2017 SCC OnLine Del 11137 – The principal employer is liable pay compensation in respect of death/injury to a construction worker under Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act.
  • Brijesh Kumar Verma v. Aurangjeb, (2018) 246 DLT 143:2017 SCC OnLine Del 12513 – The owner/principal employer is liable to pay compensation for death/injury of a construction worker in an accident during the construction of a residential property.
  • United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9853 – The murder of an employee/driver was held to be an ‘accident’ for grant of compensation under Employee’s Compensation Act.
  • M/s Star Press v. Meena Devi, (2017) 239 DLT 357 – A ‘murder’ can be an ‘accident’ for award of compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act.
  • Writer Safeguard Ltd. v. Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, Judgment dated 30th April, 2015 in FAO 154/2013 and 262/2013 – The driver of a cash van jumped into a MTNL manhole to save two persons trapped inside and successfully rescued one person but was affected by poisonous gases and collapsed while rescuing the second person. The compensation awarded under the Employee’s Compensation Act was upheld by the High Court. Vide order dated 9th July, 2019, the High Court directed MTNL to pay further compensation of Rs.11,43,500/- to the family of the deceased.On the direction of the High Court, the Central Government framed Guidelines to pay compensation, without the intervention of Courts, to the family of victims carrying out hazardous work. Fifty nine Ministries/ Departments of the Government have adopted their guidelines, which is recorded in the Order dated 16th October, 2015.

Contract Labour

  • Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Patron/ Vice President/ General Secretary, Central Warehousing Corporation Majdoor Union, Orders dated 28th March, 2019 and 1st August, 2019 in W.P.(C) 10165/2017 and 10665/2017 – The contract labour and temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale, on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against sanctioned post. In pursuance to notice dated 28th March, 2019, the Central Government issued OM dated 29th July, 2019, directing all Government Departments/ PSUs/ Corporation to comply with the above directions.

Standards of Weights and Measures Act

  • Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. Weights and Measures Department, (2016) 227 DLT 529:2015SCC Online Del 14040 – Guidelines for investigation of cases under the Weights and Measures Act.

Railway Accident Claims

  • Geeta Devi v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8919 &
  • Geeta Devi v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11279
    Special Scheme for expeditious adjudication of Railways Accident Claims.
  • Union of India v. Kiran Kanojia, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12830 -Compensation to the victim of an untoward incident under Section 124A of the Railways Act.

Motor Accident Claims

  • Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh, 2021 (1) TAC 561 – Special Scheme for expeditious disposal of Motor Accident Claims.
  • Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh, 2021 SCC Online Del 2549 – Fast DAR Scheme for road accident death cases.
  • Mayur Arora v. Amit @ Pange,2016 (4) AD (Delhi) 164, 2010 SCC Online Del 1463 – Scope of Inquiry by Claims Tribunal under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
  • Sobat Singh v. Ramesh Chandra Gupta, II (2010) ACC 818 – Procedure for deposit of award amount in MACT Cases.
  • New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. RakeshAhuja, IV (2010) ACC 34 – Prosecution of holders/forgers of fake driving license.
  • Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2010) ACC 130- Liability of Insurance Company in respect of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler and occupants in a private car under Comprehensive Package Policy.
  • Prakash v. Arun Kumar Saini, 167 (2010) DLT 311- Computation of compensation for death of a foetus.
  • Union of India v. Dr. Rita Pant, 2009 (4) ACC 696 -Computation of compensation for death of a professional.
  • Ramesh Chand Joshi v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., ILR (2010) SUPP. (5) Delhi 423 – Computation of compensation for death of a student pursuing professional course.
  • New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bal Kishan Pawar, 2012 SCC Online Del 3201 – Computation of compensation for death of a student pursuing professional course.
  • New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dilip Kumar, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9263 – Computation of compensation for death of a student pursuing B.Sc. (Nautical Science).
  • National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gaje Singh, 2012 ACJ 2346 – Computation of compensation in cases of no proof of income of deceased.
  • Indrawati v. Ranbir Singh, 2021 SCC Online Del 114 – Parents of unmarried son are entitled to loss of dependency for accident death of their son.
  • Ritu minorthr. her father v. Regional Manager, Uttranchal State Road Transport Corporation, 2012 IndLaw DEL 3578 – Computation of compensation in injury cases.
  • National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munesh Devi,2013 ACJ 919 – Under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurer is liable to pay compensation to the driver of the tanker who climbed over the vehicle to check the tanker and came in contact with the over-head electric wire and died on the spot.
  • National Insurance Co. v. Gita Bindal, 2012 SCC Online Del 5375 – Principles relating to doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
  • Head of Department, Air Force Station, Amla v. Ram Kumar Girithr. LRs., III (2010) ACC 279 – Plea of Sovereign Immunity not sustainable in road accident cases.