Delhi High Court
103,150 judgments
Through: Mr. Hariom, Ms. Preeti, Mr. Ashu Gupta, Ms. Ruby, Advs v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (THROUGH SHO)
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of the accused involved in a cheating and impersonation case, holding that prima facie evidence and the serious nature of the offence precluded bail at the initial trial stage.
Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon and Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar, Advs v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court directed completion of the street vendor survey within three months, allowed the petitioner to vend as a mobile vendor pending issuance of Certificate of Vending, and held that demolition was not established to have been done by MCD.
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek JSC & Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv v. JINDAL SAW LTD
The Delhi High Court upheld that excise duty subsidy received under a government incentive scheme is a capital receipt not taxable under the Income Tax Act and need not be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation.
Through: Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Mr. Nitish Kant Sharma, Ms. Mehak Khurana and Mr. Shashank Mishra, Advocates v. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD
The Delhi High Court held that interim relief petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act concerning disputes already pending arbitration must be treated as Section 17 applications and referred to the learned Sole Arbitrator for adjudication.
Sharma, Ms. Mehak Khurana, Mr. Shashank Mishra and Ms. Radhika, Advocates v. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD
The Delhi High Court directed that interim relief petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act relating to disputes pending arbitration be treated as Section 17 applications and referred to the same arbitrator for adjudication.
Through: Mr. L.K. Passi & Ms. Ruby, Advs v. RAM DHARI SINGH
The Delhi High Court held that a Labour Court cannot modify a penalty of removal for habitual unauthorized absence solely based on length of service without finding the punishment shockingly disproportionate under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
PARK, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017 v. JUDGMENT
The Delhi High Court quashed a GST demand order against a corporate debtor on the ground that proceedings post moratorium under the IBC must be stayed and the authority failed to consider this statutory protection.
Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman, Adv v. B SRINIVASA RAO & ORS
The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's interim order restraining postings, holding that transfer and posting decisions are administrative matters not ordinarily subject to judicial interference at interlocutory stages absent mala fide or illegality.
Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum and Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocates v. MIRZA AZIZ BEG (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to recall its order and reopen evidence, dismissing the petition for delay caused despite sufficient opportunities to lead evidence.
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra and Ms. Prachi Dutta, Advocates v. SHYAM SETIA AND ORS
The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to expedite disposal of a counter claim suit pending for over 16 years, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Through: Mr. Arvind Vashishtha and Ms. Sakshi Panwar, Advocates v. PAWAN KUMAR
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioner's belated application to summon a witness not included in the original list, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines to prevent trial delays.
Through: Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari and Mr. Radhey Sham, Advocates v. M/S DOON TRADING CO. SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP THROUGH
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement beyond 120 days, affirming that courts have no power to extend this statutory limit under the amended CPC.
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. v.
The Delhi High Court upheld compensation to a cleaner injured in a truck accident, ruling that a cleaner engaged by a driver is an employee under the Employee's Compensation Act and that 26% physical disability can amount to 100% loss of earning capacity.
Ambavat & Mr. Moin Khan, Advs v. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a commercial quantity NDPS case, holding that disclosure statements alone cannot deny bail and emphasizing the impact of prolonged incarceration without trial progress.
Through: Mr. Kshitiz Mahipal and Ms. Khairun Nisa, Advocates v. BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED
The Delhi High Court kept Non-Bailable Warrants in abeyance against the petitioner under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, directing payment of outstanding dues and fresh mediation for amicable settlement.
Through: Mr. Ranbir Singh Kundu, Ms. Suman Saharan, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocates v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court dismissed bail applications of accused in a large quantity NDPS case, holding that procedural lapses without prejudice do not warrant bail and emphasizing the gravity of the offence and prima facie case.
Through: Mr. Dalip Kumar Santoshi, Mr. Mohan Paliwal, Mr. Munish Kumar and Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocates v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Bail was denied to an accused with prior conviction and repeated offences of electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
SMT BHAGWAN DEVI & ANR v. STATE
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for fraudulent second marriage and sexual offences, holding that consent obtained by deception as to marital status is invalid and conspiracy can be inferred from conduct.
M/S SAFETY CONTROLS AND DEVICES LTD v. NTPC RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED AND ORS
The Delhi High Court held that invocation of an unconditional advance bank guarantee cannot be restrained by interim injunction except in cases of egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice, and contractual disputes over termination are to be resolved by arbitration.
Through: Mr. A.M. Nair, Advocate v. RAMESH CHAND BATHEJA
The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, leaving merits and frivolity issues to arbitration.