Delhi High Court

48,408 judgments

Year:

Alok Gupta & Ors. v. State of NCT Delhi & Ors.

22 Jul 2019 · D. N. Patel; C. Hari Shankar · 2019:DHC:3532-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the construction of a wall adjacent to shops, holding that the road width and access gates were sufficient and no interference was warranted.

civil appeal_dismissed condonation of delay Limitation Act writ petition road width

Ayesha @ Asha & Ors. v. Hirawati

22 Jul 2019 · Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:3519

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's discretionary order allowing the plaintiff to pay deficient court fees under Section 149 CPC, dismissing the defendants' plea to reject the plaint for insufficient court fees.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant court fees Section 149 CPC Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC discretionary power

Chuckles Kohli & Ors. v. Ravinder Singh

22 Jul 2019 · Vipin Sanghi; Rajnish Bhatnagar · 2019:DHC:3531-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld injunction enforcement orders and dismissed appellants' challenge to directions requiring their personal appearance for alleged breach of status quo by consenting to lease of disputed property.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant injunction status quo Order 39 Rule 2A CPC specific performance

Tomorrowland Technologies Exports Limited v. Mercantile Ventures Ltd.

22 Jul 2019 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2019:DHC:3530

An ex-parte arbitration award passed without leave of the court during winding up proceedings is unenforceable and a nullity under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.

civil execution_denied Significant arbitration award winding up official liquidator Section 446 Companies Act

M/S Naveen Vidya Bharti Public Higher Secondary School v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhopal

22 Jul 2019 · J.R. Midha · 2019:DHC:3529
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that persons employed through contractors and those drawing wages, including the Chairman, qualify as employees under the EPF Act, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to provident fund liability from April 2008.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Employees’ Provident Fund Act Section 2(f) employee definition contractor employment

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 v. Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd.

22 Jul 2019 · S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh · 2019:DHC:3515-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that the limitation period for penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act begins when any Commissioner of Income Tax receives the ITAT order, rendering penalty orders beyond this period invalid.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant limitation period penalty proceedings Section 271(1)(c) Section 275(1)(a)

Amit v. State

22 Jul 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:3514

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of attempted murder and arms offences, subject to furnishing bail bonds and conditions ensuring trial integrity and attendance.

criminal appeal_allowed bail regular bail Section 307 IPC Arms Act

Gaurav Aggarwal v. State

22 Jul 2019 · R. K. Gauba · 2019:DHC:3516

The Delhi High Court set aside a conviction based on an unauthorized plea of guilty entered by counsel during ongoing trial, emphasizing strict adherence to criminal procedure and directing retrial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant plea of guilty Section 251 Cr.P.C. compounding offence criminal trial procedure

Ramwati v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

22 Jul 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:3518

The Delhi High Court confirmed the petitioner’s conviction under Sections 356/34 and 379/34 IPC but granted release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act considering her reformation and family circumstances.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Probation of Offenders Act Section 356 IPC Section 379 IPC conviction

Corsan Corviam Construccion S.A.- Sadhbhav Engineering Ltd. JV v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

22 Jul 2019 · S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh · 2019:DHC:3517-DB

The Delhi High Court held that interest on delayed VAT refund is payable from two months after filing the refund claim until actual receipt of the refund amount, rejecting the respondent's contention that the limitation period starts from the next working day.

tax petition_allowed Significant refund claim interest on refund Delhi Value Added Tax Act limitation period

Sarla Gupta & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement

22 Jul 2019 · A.K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:3509

The Delhi High Court held that under PMLA proceedings, at the pre-charge stage, the accused is entitled only to documents relied upon by the prosecution, and provisions of Sections 207 and 208 CrPC do not apply mutatis mutandis.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act Section 207 CrPC Section 208 CrPC supply of documents

Sarla Gupta & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement

22 Jul 2019 · A.K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:3510

The Delhi High Court held that under PMLA proceedings, accused are entitled only to documents relied upon by prosecution at pre-charge stage, dismissing petitions seeking all investigation documents.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act Section 207 CrPC Section 208 CrPC charge-sheet

M/S BLUE BIRD PURE PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA

22 Jul 2019 · S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh · 2019:DHC:3511-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed a petitioner to rectify an inadvertent error in the GST TRAN-1 Form post-deadline, directing authorities to accept corrections and waive penalties to enable lawful input tax credit claims.

tax petition_allowed Significant GST TRAN-1 Form input tax credit CENVAT credit rectification of tax returns

Shashank Bhagat & Anr. v. Shefali Varma & Ors.

22 Jul 2019 · Vibhu Bahkru · 2019:DHC:3512

The court held that the arbitration agreement is binding only between the petitioners and Ms Shefali Varma, not the respondent Companies, due to lack of authorization and inapplicability of the doctrine of indoor management, and appointed an arbitrator accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration agreement Doctrine of indoor management Authority of director Family settlement

PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Meroform India Pvt. Ltd.

22 Jul 2019 · S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh · 2019:DHC:7417-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT order dismissing Revenue's appeals, holding that reopening assessments under Section 153A without incriminating material is unjustified and that additions based on uncorroborated statements were rightly deleted.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 153A Income Tax Act reopening of assessment incriminating material Section 133A statement

HAWKERS JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE v. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

22 Jul 2019 · Hima Kohli; Asha Menon · 2019:DHC:7487-DB

The Delhi High Court declined to continue monitoring the implementation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, emphasizing that statutory bodies are in place and that reliefs against illegal removals require specific evidence.

administrative petition_dismissed Street Vendors Act 2014 Town Vending Committees local authorities judicial monitoring

Management of M/s Ikon Residency v. Naveen Chand Joshi & Ors.

22 Jul 2019 · J. R. Midha

The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by respondents against M/s Ikon Residency management on the basis of an amicable settlement duly recorded and complied with by the parties.

civil appeal_dismissed amicable settlement writ petition disposal of petition settlement amount

Kohli One Housing & Development Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Rockman Projects Ltd.

22 Jul 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:3525

The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to expedite and conclude within six months the delayed trial proceedings relating to dishonour of cheques following jurisdictional transfer under the 2015 Ordinance.

criminal other dishonour of cheque Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance 2015 expeditious trial delay in trial

Irshad & Ors. v. State & Anr.

22 Jul 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:3524

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 354, 509, and 34 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement and resolved misunderstanding between related parties, applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction settlement between parties

Rohit Sharma v. State & Anr.

22 Jul 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:3523

The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC based on a mediated settlement, applying inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC as per Supreme Court precedent.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC matrimonial dispute mediated settlement