Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
T.R. Sawhney Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v. Nagender Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that exclusion of limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act requires prosecution of prior proceedings with due diligence and good faith, and mere wrong legal advice does not justify exclusion, setting aside the Trial Court's order and dismissing the suit as time-barred.
Rajkumar Sukhdevsinhji & Anr. v. IDBI Bank
The Delhi High Court held that banks must provide borrowers an opportunity of hearing and supply forensic audit reports before classifying accounts as fraud, quashing the impugned Show Cause Notices issued without such compliance.
Mangal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioners' claim of lawful possession over agricultural land in the Yamuna floodplains, holding their occupation unauthorized and permitting eviction for ecological restoration and public projects.
Chander Bhan v. Delhi Development Authority
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging DDA's repair of boundary walls on government land in Yamuna floodplains, holding the petitioner lacked title and concealed material facts.
Amrit Kaur & Anr. v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking probate of a disputed Fourth Will, holding it forged and upholding the validity of the earlier registered Will and Codicil.
Jawahar Singh v. Naresh Kumar Thr. Lrs.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to allow belated witness evidence after a five-year delay, holding no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court's order.
Gauri Sharma v. Seema Sharma
The High Court directed the Trial Court to grant the petitioner one effective opportunity to cross-examine seven witnesses, imposing costs for delay, thereby balancing fair trial rights with procedural discipline.
Gauri Sharma v. Seema Sharma
The Delhi High Court granted the petitioner one effective opportunity to lead defendant’s evidence with a cost imposed for delay, leaving procedural details to the Trial Court’s discretion.
Mohd Zamir alias Jamir v. Mohd Islam and Ors
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's order allowing installation of a separate electricity meter in defendants' name in a family property suit but clarified the petitioner shall not be liable for any arrears arising therefrom.
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited v. VKS Infratech Management Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory 120-day limitation for filing written statements in commercial suits, ruling that the period starts from electronic service of summons and soft copy, and dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of the written statement.
Paramount Realtec Pvt. Ltd v. Keltech Infrastructure Ltd
The Delhi High Court extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by six months under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to enable it to pass the award.
Devki Nandan Srivastava & Anr. v. Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the transfer of a civil suit to the court where a related suit involving the same parties and property is pending to ensure judicial economy.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 v. Gomantak Eximis Ltd.
The Delhi High Court held that income from sale of rural agricultural land is taxable capital gains includible in book profits under Section 115JB, and the ITAT erred in refusing to admit the Revenue's legal grounds on this issue.
M/S CRI LIMITED v. PRAN NATH MEHTA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit for possession and rent recovery is maintainable and not barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act or Commercial Courts Act.
LOREAL INDIA PVT LTD v. RAJESH KUMAR TANEJA TRADING AS INNOVATIVE DERMA CARE AND ANR
The Delhi High Court upheld the registration of the trademark 'CLARIWASH', ruling that a procedural error in the examination report does not invalidate registration absent prima facie grounds of deceptive similarity or statutory violation.
Inder Pal & Ors. v. Jagat Pal
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 plaint prima facie discloses a cause of action and factual disputes cannot be decided at this stage.
Anshul Kumar Pal v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 287 and 337 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement and compensation, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.
Gulfam Khan & Anr. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308/34 IPC following an amicable settlement between parties, holding that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process in minor offence disputes.
Tarun Sharma & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the court's process.
Suman Vijay v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act and IPC for minor corporal punishment of a child following an amicable settlement, emphasizing the scope of Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process in such cases.