Who is Justice Vibhu Bakhru?

Justice Vibhu Bakhru was born in 1966 in Nagpur. He did his schooling from Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi. 

How was the Career Journey of Justice Vibhu Bakhru? 

• Justice Vibhu Bakhru completed his LL. B degree in 1990, marking the beginning of his legal education. 
• In September 1990, he enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi, officially starting his legal career. 
• Throughout his early professional years, he practiced law in multiple judicial forums, including the High Court of Delhi, Company Law Board, and various other Tribunals. 
• On 28^th July 2011, the High Court of Delhi recognized his legal expertise by designating him as a Senior Advocate, which is a prestigious recognition in the legal profession. 
• On 17^th April 2013, Justice Bakhru was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Delhi, transitioning from practicing lawyer to a judicial role. 
• He was confirmed as a Permanent Judge of the High Court of Delhi on 18 March 2015, solidifying his position in the judicial system. 
• After the appointment of Justice Manmohan as the Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Vibhu Bakhru was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on 3rd December 2024. 

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Vibhu Bakhru? 

• Ecogreen Energy Gwalior Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior (2022) 
  • Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment regarding arbitration, specifically addressing the determination of the place of arbitration. 
  • The key legal issue was about territorial jurisdiction for appointing an arbitrator, with the respondent arguing that only courts in Gwalior have jurisdiction due to the agreement's specified arbitration place. 
  • Justice Bakhru ruled that when parties expressly agree on a place of arbitration, only the courts at that specific place will have jurisdiction to handle matters arising from the arbitration agreement. 
  • The court emphasized that rules of arbitral institutions are procedural and secondary to the actual arbitration agreement, and do not independently determine the place of arbitration. 
• X v. State (Govt NCT of Delhi) (2020) 
  • The Delhi High Court stated that a promise of marriage cannot be considered an inducement for sexual activity, especially when the relationship continues over a long, indefinite period.  
  • Justice Vibhu Bakhru emphasized that for a rape charge based on a false marriage promise to stand, two conditions must be met:  
    • The marriage promise must be false and made in bad faith 
    • The false promise must be directly linked to the woman's decision to engage in sexual activity 
  • The court noted that continuing an intimate relationship over a significant time cannot be considered involuntary or solely motivated by a marriage promise. 
• Madhu Koda v. State through CBI (2020)  
  • Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which substitutes Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not apply retrospectively to offenses committed before its enactment. 
  • The Court stated that the concept of corruption inherently includes dishonesty and abuse of power, and there was no need to apply the amended Section 13(1)(d) retrospectively.  
• Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. Agility Logistic Pvt Ltd (2022)  
  • The Delhi High Court addressed whether claims raised before an Arbitral Tribunal can be rejected if they were not mentioned in the notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). 
  • The Court held that claims raised before the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be rejected merely because they were not mentioned in the Section 21 notice. 
  • It is not necessary for the notice to quantify the claims; it only needs to outline the disputes between the parties.