Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

CIT v. Ashok Mittal

05 Jul 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:2444-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the tax effect for maintainability of appeals must consider all challenged issues, and since the tax effect exceeded Rs. 1 crore, the appeal was maintainable and the respondent's application dismissed.

tax petition_dismissed Significant tax effect CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 Income Tax Act 1961 Section 41(1)

Nikhil Gupta v. Tanu Gupta

05 Jul 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:2452

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's discretion in refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner for recording evidence in a divorce case, emphasizing limited revisional jurisdiction and the necessity of extreme exigencies for such appointment.

civil petition_dismissed Local Commissioner Order XVIII Rule 19 Order XXVI Rule 4A Code of Civil Procedure 1908

M/S K.B.G. Engineers v. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.

05 Jul 2022 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2022:DHC:2476

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, holding that disputed factual issues cannot be decided at this stage and the petitioner complied with the dispute resolution procedure.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) appointment of arbitrator dispute resolution procedure

Philips Lighting Holding B.V. v. Jai Prakash Agarwal & Anr.

05 Jul 2022 · Navin Chawla · 2022:DHC:2445

The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff holding that the registered T-Shaped LED bulb design is prima facie infringed by defendants but also recognized a prima facie case for cancellation of the design on grounds of prior registration and publication.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Design infringement Registered design Designs Act, 2000 Prior registration

Krishna Wadehra & Ors. v. Ram Parsad & Ors.

05 Jul 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:2451
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of the application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by limitation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action limitation sale deed

M/S. Kumar Contractors v. State Bank of India & Anr.

05 Jul 2022 · Sanjeev Narula · 2022:DHC:2508
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging SBI's rejection of an OTS application due to non-fulfillment of mandatory pre-conditions, holding that courts cannot override clear scheme terms absent arbitrariness.

civil petition_dismissed One Time Settlement SBI OTS Scheme 2021 mandatory pre-condition dishonour of cheque

Dr. V.P. Appan v. Secretary (DLSA, South-East)

05 Jul 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:2431-DB

The Delhi High Court remanded the victim compensation claim for fresh consideration in light of a subsequent higher disability certificate, clarifying the maintainability of appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act.

criminal remanded Significant Victim Compensation Disability Certificate Motor Vehicles Act Section 173 Maintainability of Appeal

National Research Development Corporation and Anr. v. Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited

05 Jul 2022 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:2427
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the arbitration clause survives expiry of the principal agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputed royalty claims, rejecting limitation and non-arbitrability pleas at the preliminary stage.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Limitation Act, 1963 Royalty Agreement

Anugya Gupta v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.

05 Jul 2022 · Navin Chawla · 2022:DHC:2448
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction to the prior user of the trademark 'SARKARIRESULT' restraining defendants from using confusingly similar domain names and marks, emphasizing prior use and bad faith in domain name disputes.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off domain name dispute prior user rights

3M Company v. Mr. Vikas Sinha & Anr

05 Jul 2022 · Navin Chawla · 2022:DHC:2447
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of the defendants' belated application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement in a commercial suit, emphasizing strict adherence to the 120-day limit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Commercial Courts Act, 2015 condonation of delay written statement Order VIII Rule 1 CPC

Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors.

04 Jul 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:2386
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The High Court allowed amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to substitute a claim of ownership with a right to use the parking space, holding that such amendment before trial commencement does not alter the nature of the suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint commencement of trial right of user

Khurshid Alam v. State

04 Jul 2022 · Mukta Gupta · 2022:DHC:2398

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a man for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, holding that slight hymenal inflammation corroborates partial penetration despite absence of semen evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sexual assault minor victim POCSO Act penetrative sexual assault

Shri Kant v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

04 Jul 2022 · Mukta Gupta · 2022:DHC:2391

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and 15-year sentence of the appellant for penetrative sexual assault on a minor under the POCSO Act, affirming the reliability of victim testimony supported by medical and forensic evidence despite an intact hymen.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act penetrative sexual assault minor victim testimony medical evidence

SAPPHIRE MEDIA SERVICES v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

04 Jul 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2022:DHC:2498

The Delhi High Court upheld the binding nature of the Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2017, dismissing the petition challenging SDMC's directions to remove advertisements displayed under a concession agreement that violated the policy's mandatory conditions.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Outdoor Advertising Policy 2017 Municipal Corporation Advertisement rights Concession agreement

Executive Engineer National Highway Division v. S&P Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd.

04 Jul 2022 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2022:DHC:2374

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award as barred by limitation and upheld the award on merits, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation and procedural requirements under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 limitation condonation of delay

Nitin Gupta v. Ruchika Gupta

04 Jul 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Jasmeet Singh · 2022:DHC:2380-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's delayed appeal and upheld the Family Court's dismissal of his application to set aside an ex-parte divorce decree on grounds of insufficient explanation for non-appearance and deliberate delay tactics.

family appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay Order IX Rule 13 CPC ex-parte decree divorce on cruelty grounds

SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Surendra Kumar Singh

04 Jul 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2022:DHC:2494

Delhi High Court dismissed insurance company's appeal denying liability in a fatal road accident, enhanced compensation to claimants applying correct multiplier, skilled wages, and loss of consortium.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor vehicle accident contributory negligence insurance liability compensation enhancement

Naresh Kumar Goel v. Syndicate Bank

04 Jul 2022 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2022:DHC:2410
Cites 1 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a pensioner must be instituted within four years of the misconduct event, quashing charges beyond this limitation while permitting action on charges within the period.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings limitation period Regulation 48 pensioner

Satish Kancha v. State

04 Jul 2022 · Mukta Gupta · 2022:DHC:2396

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for sexually assaulting a child under Section 376 IPC read with the POCSO Act, emphasizing the reliability of the child victim's consistent testimony despite minor contradictions.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sexual assault child witness POCSO Act Section 376 IPC

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. REACON ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

04 Jul 2022 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2022:DHC:2373
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as barred by limitation due to invalid initial filing and delayed re-filing without condonation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Limitation Defective filing