Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

31 Mar 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1188

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of unauthorized occupants from Kalkaji Mandir premises for redevelopment, mandated procedural fairness via an Administrator, and permitted temporary shop allotments during Navratras without conferring permanent rights.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant eviction unauthorized occupants dharamshala jhuggis

M/S GRAND REALITY PVT. LTD. v. SHRI NANAK MEHTA

31 Mar 2022 · Sanjeev Narula · 2022:DHC:1308

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award dismissing the petitioner's challenge except clarifying interest is payable from contract termination date, affirming arbitrator's discretion to award interest at bank rate despite contractual stipulation of higher rate.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Development Agreement Breach of contract

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

31 Mar 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1195

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of unauthorized occupants from Kalkaji Mandir premises for redevelopment, directing regulated allotment of temporary shops and ensuring occupants' representations are considered.

property appeal_dismissed Significant eviction unauthorized occupants dharamshala jhuggis

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

31 Mar 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1196

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of unauthorized occupants from Kalkaji Mandir premises and authorized temporary shop allotments during redevelopment, emphasizing procedural fairness and coordinated administration.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant eviction unauthorized occupants dharamshala jhuggis

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

31 Mar 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1194

The Delhi High Court upheld lawful eviction of unauthorized occupants from Kalkaji Mandir premises for redevelopment, directing due process and temporary shop allotments during Navratras.

property appeal_dismissed Significant eviction unauthorized occupation dharamshala jhuggis

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

31 Mar 2022 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:1154
Cites 1 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court held that forfeiture of bid security without explicit contractual provision and proof of loss is illegal and quashed the forfeiture imposed on the petitioner.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant bid security forfeiture Request for Proposal e-auction

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

31 Mar 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1190

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of unauthorized occupants from Kalkaji Mandir premises for redevelopment, mandated consideration of representations by the Administrator, and approved temporary shop allotments during Navratras.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant eviction unauthorized occupants dharamshalas jhuggis

TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD v. ABHIJIT MISHRA

31 Mar 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2022:DHC:1160

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate financial disputes between Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. and Abhijit Mishra, dismissing interlocutory criminal allegations as premature.

civil appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 340 Cr.P.C. Appointment of arbitrator

Himmatsingh Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi)

31 Mar 2022 · Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2022:DHC:5967

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of molestation, considering his cooperation with investigation, advanced age, and possible ulterior motive behind the FIR.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 CrPC Section 354 IPC molestation

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd.

31 Mar 2022 · Manmohan; Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:1159-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the ITAT's order allowing capitalization of interest earned on temporarily parked ECB funds as part of the cost of the capital asset.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capitalization of interest ECB funds Fixed Deposit Receipts RBI guidelines

M/S ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. SANJEEV KAKKAR & ORS

30 Mar 2022 · SURESH KUMAR KAIT; SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN · 2022:DHC:1180-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of a civil appeal by allowing the parties' joint settlement application, binding them to the terms of the compromise.

civil appeal_dismissed settlement compromise disposal of appeal civil procedure

Mankind Pharma Limited v. Tata Medical and Diagnostics Limited

30 Mar 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1157

The Delhi High Court refused interim injunction against the use of 'OMISURE' for Covid-19 test kits, holding no trademark infringement with 'OMIPURE' pharmaceutical mark due to distinct goods and lack of confusion.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Likelihood of confusion Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 29(2)

Mansi Gupta v. Prem Amar & Anr.

30 Mar 2022 · Asha Menon · 2022:DHC:1144

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendants' application to reject the plaint in a defamation suit, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and factual defences cannot be considered at the stage of rejection.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint cause of action jurisdiction

Dr. Sanjiv Gupta & Anr. v. Sh. S.S. Verma

30 Mar 2022 · Najmi Waziri, J. · 2022:DHC:1556
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed eviction of a tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that the landlord's bona fide requirement and suitability of alternate accommodation are paramount and the tenant failed to raise a triable issue.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) bona fide requirement leave to defend

Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India

30 Mar 2022 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:1133

The Delhi High Court held that in the absence of a formal signed resolution by the Supreme Court Collegium, no disclosure of meeting minutes under the Right to Information Act can be compelled.

administrative petition_dismissed Supreme Court Collegium Right to Information disclosure resolution

M/S SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS LTD v. M/S UNIPOWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

30 Mar 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2022:DHC:1145

The Delhi High Court held that email exchanges constituting acceptance of a work order containing an arbitration clause satisfy the 'in writing' requirement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, allowing appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5).

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration agreement Section 7 Arbitration Act Section 11(5) Arbitration Act Written agreement

Sanjay Chugh v. Ram Kishan

30 Mar 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:1165

The court held that a plaintiff without ownership or possession of land can still seek injunction against nuisance affecting their adjoining premises, interpreting 'personal interest' under Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act broadly to uphold the suit's maintainability.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 41(j) Specific Relief Act injunction personal interest Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC

Cadence Real Estates Private Limited v. ACIT/DCIT & Ors.

30 Mar 2022 · Manmohan; Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:1156-DB

The Delhi High Court clarified that its earlier judgment quashing reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act applies only to notices issued on or after 1st April 2021, excluding those issued prior to that date.

tax other Significant Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Finance Act, 2021 reassessment notice procedural requirements

Richie Rich Exim Solutions v. Commissioner of CGST Delhi South

30 Mar 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Poonam A. Bamba · 2022:DHC:1216-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST refund rejection order for failure to grant personal hearing as mandated under Rule 92 of CGST Rules, directing the revenue to provide hearing and pass a speaking order.

tax appeal_allowed Significant refund rejection personal hearing Rule 92 CGST Rules natural justice

Principal Commissioner, GST, Delhi South v. M/S. Indraprastha Gas Limited

30 Mar 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Poonam A. Bamba · 2022:DHC:1291-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for condonation of over four years' delay in filing an appeal against a CESTAT order, holding that government departments must diligently monitor appeal status and cannot claim delay due to organizational restructuring.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant condonation of delay limitation GST regime CENVAT Credit Rules