Delhi High Court

96,004 judgments

Year:

Aditi Bakht v. Abhishek Ahuja

07 Sep 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:3581
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's refusal to admit an additional affidavit without formal amendment, emphasizing limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and directing the Family Court to decide the guardianship petition on merits.

family petition_dismissed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India Guardians and Wards Act Section 12 Family Court Supervisory jurisdiction

M/S. BALAJI ENTERPRISES v. PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE & ORS

07 Sep 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:3765-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the cancellation of GST registration due to vague show-cause notice and procedural lapses, emphasizing mandatory compliance with natural justice and CGST Rules.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant GST registration cancellation show-cause notice natural justice Rule 25 CGST Rules

Rajiv Sikka & Anr v. Ashok Kumar Jain

07 Sep 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3560
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court upheld the discretionary appointment of a local commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC before evidence was led, dismissing the petition challenging the order under Article 227 as a misuse of jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC local commissioner Article 227 Constitution of India discretionary order

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. MS. PNB Housing Finance Ltd

07 Sep 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:3682-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the ITAT's deletion of disallowances under Sections 36(1)(viii) and 14A of the Income Tax Act, affirming that Section 14A does not apply to exempt income from investments held as stock-in-trade.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 36(1)(viii) Income Tax Act Section 14A Income Tax Act stock-in-trade exempt income

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Nath

07 Sep 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:3536-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Transport Corporation to recognize the respondent under the Employee Pension Scheme, 1995 and complete pension disbursal within six weeks, disposing of the petition accordingly.

labor petition_allowed Employee Pension Scheme, 1995 EPF 1995 Delhi Transport Corporation pension coverage

Mohan Sakpal and Anr. v. Abhay Goyal and Anr.

07 Sep 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3510
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the NCDRC's discretionary order directing company directors to appear personally in execution proceedings, clarifying the limited scope of Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission execution proceedings directors personal appearance

Anita Rai v. State

07 Sep 2022 · Anu Malhotra · 2022:DHC:3491

The Delhi High Court directed police to register an FIR for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, holding that refusal to register FIR in such cases is impermissible and police must investigate the offence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant bigamy Section 494 IPC FIR registration Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Bizibi Infotech Pvt Ltd v. HCL Infosystem Ltd

06 Sep 2022 · Prateek Jalan · 2022:DHC:3477

The Delhi High Court dismissed Bizibi's petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding the claims ex facie barred by limitation and partly outside the arbitration agreement.

arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Limitation Ex facie time-barred Arbitrability

Jasween Sandhu v. State

06 Sep 2022 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2022:DHC:3627

The High Court held that only the drawer and signatory of a cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and quashed the complaint and summons against a non-drawer petitioner.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Drawer liability Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act

Arun Kumar Murarka v. Rajesh Sultania & Anr.

06 Sep 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:3609

The Delhi High Court held that a trademark opposition filed within the pandemic-extended limitation period must be accepted by the Registry, rendering a cancellation petition infructuous and directing the Registry to update the trademark status accordingly.

intellectual_property petition_dismissed Significant Trademark opposition Extension of limitation COVID-19 pandemic Trade Marks Act 1999

M/S P. M. K VASTARA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. v. OFFICE OF THE JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (DISTT.- SOUTH) AND ANR

06 Sep 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:3508

The Delhi High Court directed the petitioner to deposit the awarded amount within eight weeks to set aside the ex-parte Labour Court Award, dismissing the writ petition for delay and non-compliance.

labor appeal_dismissed ex-parte Award Labour Court Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 setting aside ex-parte order

PCIT, Delhi-7 v. M/S PNB Housing Finance Ltd

06 Sep 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:3506-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the income tax appeal challenging ITAT's deletion of disallowance under Section 36(1)(viii), emphasizing the importance of consistency and no substantial question of law arising.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 36(1)(viii) disallowance total business receipts

Cross Fit LLC v. RTB Gym and Fitness Centre

06 Sep 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:3499
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and costs to Cross Fit LLC against RTB Gym for unauthorized use of the 'CROSSFIT' trademark, and initiated contempt proceedings for violation of the injunction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Permanent injunction Contempt of court

Amrit Sandhu Coster v. State & Another

06 Sep 2022 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2022:DHC:3628

The Delhi High Court quashed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act holding that a cheque issued in discharge of a time-barred debt does not attract penal liability.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act time-barred debt legally enforceable debt quashing petition

Vijay Bhushan Gupta v. Union of India

06 Sep 2022 · Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.; The Chief Justice; Mr. Justice... · 2022:DHC:3485-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner, though not entitled to regularization from 1977, must have his case considered for regularization from his ad-hoc appointment date to maintain parity with similarly placed juniors.

labor appeal_allowed Significant regularization of service promotion one-time relaxation identically placed persons

ALLEIMA MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY (JIANGSU) CO LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

06 Sep 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:3507-DB

The Delhi High Court declined interim relief against the petitioner’s categorization as "non-cooperative" in an ongoing anti-dumping investigation, leaving final adjudication to the Designated Authority under the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995.

administrative petition_dismissed Anti-Dumping Duty Designated Authority Non-cooperative exporter Customs Tariff Rules 1995

Bernadette Lakra and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

06 Sep 2022 · Satish Chandra Sharma; Subramonium Prasad · 2022:DHC:3486-DB

The Delhi High Court held that ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights and directed that Promotees receive seniority only from their regular promotion date, placing Direct Recruits above Promotees in the seniority list.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant ad-hoc promotion seniority Delhi Police Promotion Rules regular promotion

Biba Sawhney v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd

06 Sep 2022 · Najmi Waziri; Vikas Mahajan · 2022:DHC:4471-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a guarantor released by the lender and excluded from subsequent credit facilities cannot be held liable for repayment of loans sanctioned thereafter, setting aside recovery orders against her.

civil appeal_allowed Significant guarantee liability release of guarantor novation of contract debt recovery tribunal

Dhani Loans and Services Ltd v. Pansari Developers Limited & Ors.

06 Sep 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3580
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that interlocutory orders under Section 25(B) of the Arbitration Act are not independently challengeable under Article 227 and must be contested only after the final arbitral award.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Article 227 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 25(B) interlocutory order

Richa Arya v. Pawan Arya

06 Sep 2022 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2022:DHC:3611

The Delhi High Court quashed the summoning order under Section 471 IPC against petitioners for lack of prima facie evidence of dishonest use of forged documents, emphasizing the necessity of judicial mind at the cognizance stage.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant summoning order Section 471 IPC forgery pre-summoning evidence