Delhi High Court

94,906 judgments

Year:

Komal Chadha v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office

21 Dec 2022 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2022:DHC:5738

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a woman accused under section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, holding that the proviso to section 212(6) exempts women from stringent bail conditions and that judicial custody requires specific justification absent here.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Companies Act 2013 section 447 section 212(6)

M/S ICICI BANK LTD v. M/S WINNER CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

21 Dec 2022 · Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:5780

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal to set aside an ex parte order by construing Order IX Rule 7 CPC liberally, emphasizing adjudication on merits over technicalities.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order IX Rule 7 CPC ex parte order sufficient cause non-appearance

XERICA WIDENING HORIZONS LLP v. QR PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

21 Dec 2022 · Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:5783

The Delhi High Court directed the competent Commercial Court to consider the petitioner's application expeditiously after the plaint was returned for lack of jurisdiction, disposing of the petition without further orders.

civil other Order VII Rule 10 CPC return of plaint jurisdiction Commercial Courts

Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

21 Dec 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:5863-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment orders and notices issued without granting a mandatory personal hearing under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, remitting the matter for fresh proceedings.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A(d) personal hearing

Bharat Agro Overseas (India) v. ACIT Circle 34(1) & Anr.

21 Dec 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:5871-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment notices issued without furnishing material to the petitioner and directed the Assessing Officer to provide relevant information before proceeding further under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148A(b) Section 148A(d) Section 148

KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. & ANR v. AMUL BRUSH ENTERPRISES & ANR

21 Dec 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:5734

The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit in favor of the plaintiff, restraining defendants from using the AMUL marks, ordering seizure of infringing goods, and awarding actual costs against the defendants.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement well-known trademark injunction seizure of goods

Bijender Mehto v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors.

21 Dec 2022 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2022:DHC:5737

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of sexual offences under POCSO, balancing the presumption of guilt with the accused's right to fair trial and considering the consensual nature of the relationship and victim's stance.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail POCSO Act section 29 POCSO presumption of guilt

Archaeological Survey of India v. Presiding Officer, CGIT & Ors.

21 Dec 2022 · Gaurang Kanth · 2022:DHC:5746
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Archaeological Survey of India is an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that termination of a casual worker without compliance of Section 25-F was illegal, awarding monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 industry definition sovereign functions continuous service

GDR Finance and Leasing Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), New Delhi

21 Dec 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2023:DHC:9-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside tax reassessment notices due to erroneous identification of the entity involved in alleged accommodation entries, emphasizing the necessity of correct naming alongside PAN for valid tax proceedings.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A Accommodation entries

Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar & Ors.

21 Dec 2022 · Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:5784

The Delhi High Court directed revival of execution proceedings for eviction, holding that executing courts must follow Order XXI Rules 35 and 36 CPC and the Supreme Court's ruling in Shreenath (1998) despite restrictive clauses in settlement deeds.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Execution proceedings Eviction Settlement Deed Order XXI Rule 35 CPC

MS BBR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED v. MS ATS HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED

21 Dec 2022 · CHANDRA DHARI SINGH · 2022:DHC:5755

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate payment disputes arising from a construction contract.

civil appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 12(1) sole arbitrator appointment

RK Gupta and Son HUF v. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3) and Anr

21 Dec 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:5867-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside income tax notices and order for lack of clear articulation of escapement of income, directing the AO to issue a fresh notice with proper reasons and material.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A(b) Section 148A(d)

Jeevagan Narayana Swami Nadar v. Union of India & Ors.

20 Dec 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:5490
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

Delhi High Court corrected a typographical error in its earlier order to clarify interim protection against encashment of bank guarantees and modified the subsequent order accordingly.

civil other Procedural typographical error correction of order bank guarantees interim relief

Subhash Bhatia HUF v. Income Tax Officer Ward -47(1)

20 Dec 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2023:DHC:119-DB

The Delhi High Court held that notices and orders issued under the amended Section 148A regime cannot be sustained if the original notice under Section 148 was issued prior to the amendment, quashing the impugned notices and order.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A Assessment Year 2017-18

Supreme Panvel Indapur Tollways Private Limited v. National Highways Authority of India

20 Dec 2022 · Prateek Jalan · 2022:DHC:5679
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the Arbitral Tribunal’s refusal to grant interim relief staying termination of a BOT concession agreement, holding that the Tribunal’s detailed prima facie findings were not arbitrary or perverse and that injunctions in infrastructure projects are restricted under the amended Specific Relief Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 interim relief Section 37 appellate jurisdiction Concession Agreement termination

Sana Herbals Pvt Ltd v. Mohsin Dehlvi

20 Dec 2022 · Amit Bansal · 2022:DHC:5678

The Delhi High Court allowed framing of additional issues on the invalidity of the plaintiff's trademark registrations and Assignment Deed, holding that such issues must be framed if supported by pleadings and can be tried alongside rectification petitions post-abolition of IPAB.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XIV Rule 5 CPC Trade Marks Act, 1999 rectification petition framing of issues

Singh v. Senior Intelligence Officer and Ors

20 Dec 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:5682-DB

The Delhi High Court held that tax payments made during ongoing search proceedings without adherence to statutory safeguards are coerced and ordered refund with interest.

tax petition_allowed Significant voluntary payment coercion CGST Act 2017 search proceedings

Yash Pal Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

20 Dec 2022 · Satish Chandra Sharma; Subramonium Prasad · 2022:DHC:5714-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's claim for DEO pay scale during the period he performed DEO duties without formal promotion, holding that honorarium does not confer substantive pay scale rights.

administrative petition_dismissed back door entrant regularization honorarium equal pay for equal work

JOYVISION ELECTROMEC v. FIRST FEEL INTERNATIONAL; JOYVISION ELECTROMEC v. SALASAR EXIM LTD

20 Dec 2022 · Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:5771

The Delhi High Court allowed restoration of a suit dismissed in default due to mistaken hearing date, emphasizing the right to remedy and ordering the trial court to proceed after restoration subject to costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant restoration of suit Order 9 Rule 4 CPC dismissal in default right to remedy

Brijesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

20 Dec 2022 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2022:DHC:5745

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 363, 366 IPC and POCSO Act where the prosecutrix, a major, voluntarily married the petitioner and the parties settled the dispute, emphasizing the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process in predominantly private matrimonial disputes.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR POCSO Act compromise in criminal cases