Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Bindra Travel Line Pvt. Ltd. v. Sehwag International School
Delhi High Court partly allowed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of outstanding transportation service charges, holding that the contract was terminated unilaterally by the plaintiff and rejecting claims for increments and damages.
M/S. SOLOMAN ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
The Delhi High Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of undervaluation, forgery allegations, or non-compliance with pre-institution mediation when these are disputed factual issues requiring evidence, and urgent interim relief exempts mediation.
Hem Manohar v. Rachna Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that defendants as tenants forfeited their tenancy rights due to non-payment of rent and that the oral Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney did not confer ownership, granting possession to the plaintiffs.
Rohit Malhotra v. Gurvinder Singh Toor
The Delhi High Court held that the MoU for sale of shares was a binding contract enforceable by specific performance, rejected the defendant's COVID-19 force majeure termination, and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Paminder Gujral; Neelu Chawla; Ranju Sayall v. Kiranjit Gujral; Rohun Gujral; Rahil Gujral
The Delhi High Court held that movable assets of a deceased who died intestate as to such assets devolve equally among legal heirs despite nominations, allowing judgment on admission for partition of movable assets under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Manju Bidhuri v. Jagwant Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a husband's relinquishment of his undivided share in a matrimonial home to his mother is valid and does not affect the wife's right of residence under the DV Act, dismissing the suit challenging the transfer.
Shri R.S. Chhabra v. Shri Gopal Krishan Kapoor and Others
The Delhi High Court held that third-party claims based on a subsequent Agreement to Sell cannot be raised in execution proceedings of a compromise decree and must be pursued through independent suits.
Union of India v. M/S ANS Construction Ltd
The Delhi High Court partly set aside an arbitral award by quashing compensation for idling of resources due to lack of evidence, while upholding other claims including price escalation and extra cement consumption, affirming limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Indira Television Ltd v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
The Delhi High Court held that disconnection of a television channel without mandatory three weeks' prior written notice under TRAI regulations is illegal and directed restoration of the channel's transmission pending TDSAT proceedings.
Rachana Television Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that disconnection of a broadcaster's channel without mandatory prior notice under TRAI regulations and contractual terms is illegal and directed immediate restoration of the channel.
Deepak Duggal v. State
The Delhi High Court granted Probate of a 1985 Will excluding two daughters, holding it validly executed in sound mind without fraud or undue influence, and dismissed objections challenging its genuineness and validity.
Hershey India Private Limited v. Rajendra Prasad
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff to summon the defendant's employee as a witness and dismissed the petition challenging the summons, affirming the procedural and substantive rights to summon relevant evidence under Order XVI CPC.
Rajni Gupta v. Sanjay Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a summary judgment application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that no clear admission existed to deprive respondents of their right to trial on disputed ownership and possession issues.
Sapan Ahlawat & Anr. v. Mohan Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to allow belated production of documents in a commercial suit, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines and pleadings under the Commercial Courts Act and CPC.
Vijay Kumar v. Kaushalya Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal to restore a partition suit dismissed in default due to the appellant's medical incapacity and reliance on counsel, imposing costs to ensure procedural discipline.
Shyamwati Devi & Anr. v. Ashwani Sain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a summary judgment application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that only categorical admissions permit such judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Gursahib Singh Sethi v. Garima Batra
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to file a delayed written statement in a divorce proceeding due to counsel’s negligence and medical issues, setting aside the Family Court’s closure order.
Bharat Agarwal & Ors. v. NMDC Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of petitioners' application to file additional documents in a commercial suit, holding that failure to disclose documents held by a previous advocate does not constitute reasonable cause under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC.
SH DIPANKAR DUTTA AND ANR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
The court directed the petitioner to comply with the Invalid Notice and restrained demolition during the pendency of the regularization application, disposing of the petition challenging the demolition order.
Praveen v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition after the wife and minor child were produced and the wife stated she left voluntarily, finding no unlawful detention.