Delhi High Court

47,108 judgments

Year:

J K v. N S

01 Jul 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:3125-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Family Court has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act based on ordinary residence and emphasized the paramount welfare of the child in custody disputes involving trans-national elements.

family appeal_allowed Significant Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Section 9 jurisdiction ordinary residence

North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S S A Builders Ltd

01 Jul 2019 · G.S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:3126-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Supreme Court's ruling allowing compound interest on arbitration awards and directed recalculation of interest payable, dismissing the appellant's challenge to execution proceedings after decree satisfaction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 compound interest post-award interest execution proceedings

Land and Building Department Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Lalit Kumar

01 Jul 2019 · D.N. Patel; C. Hari Shankar · 2019:DHC:3127-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the condonation of a one-day delay in applying for alternate plot allotment under the Rehabilitation Policy, 1961, emphasizing that technical delays should not defeat substantive rights.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Rehabilitation Policy 1961 alternate plot allotment condonation of delay statutory order grounds

Rajesh Oberoi v. Delhi International Airport Ltd.

01 Jul 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:3123-DB

The Delhi High Court held that tribunals have inherent power to grant interim relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, but such relief can be modified by the Court, and acceptance of retiral benefits without prejudice does not waive pending claims.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant interim relief Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inherent powers retiral benefits

Lalit Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors.

01 Jul 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:3121-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal directing the Single Judge to reconsider the interim order after hearing parties on pleadings and documents, emphasizing jurisdiction and maintainability issues.

civil appeal_allowed jurisdiction interim order maintainability prior suit

Atul Kumar Gupta & Ors v. Mitthan Lal Aggarwal & Ors

01 Jul 2019 · Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:3120

The Delhi High Court held that a suit by family members claiming exclusive ownership of property is maintainable in Civil Court despite matrimonial connections and granted ex-parte interim injunction protecting petitioners' possession.

civil petition_allowed Significant Family Courts Act, 1984 exclusive ownership civil court jurisdiction interim injunction

Gurmeet Singh v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

01 Jul 2019 · Vibhu Bahru · 2019:DHC:3109

The Delhi High Court held that illegal occupants without license or tenancy rights are not entitled to relocation benefits under the Delhi MRTS rehabilitation policy and dismissed their writ petitions seeking alternative shops.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Project Affected Persons Relocation and Rehabilitation Policy Delhi Metro Rail Corporation illegal occupation

Pioneer Overseas Corporation v. Chairperson, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights

01 Jul 2019 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2019:DHC:3108

The Delhi High Court held that failure to file a counter-statement to opposition under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 results in deemed abandonment of the application, invalidating subsequent registration despite passing the DUS test.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 DUS test plant variety registration Section 21(4) abandonment

M/S Bharat Tourist Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Ganga Devi & Ors.

01 Jul 2019 · Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:3107

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex parte penalty order under Section 4A of the Employee's Compensation Act for lack of proof of service and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 Section 4A penalty ex parte order service of summons

Dinesh Chandra Mishra v. Dr. Trilochan Mohapatra & Anr

01 Jul 2019 · Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:3106

The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt petition challenging an administrative transfer made pursuant to an internal inquiry, holding no wilful disobedience of its earlier order.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant transfer order civil contempt wilful disobedience internal complaints committee

H K Anand v. S Gurcharan Singh Bhasin & Ors.

01 Jul 2019 · Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:3105

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of the plaint and impleadment of a new defendant, emphasizing liberal judicial discretion in amendments to avoid multiplicity of litigation and leaving limitation issues for trial.

civil petition_dismissed Significant amendment of plaint Order VI Rule 17 CPC Order I Rule 10 CPC impleadment

Ritambhra Chawla v. M/S Vayam Technologies Ltd

01 Jul 2019 · Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:3104

The Delhi High Court set aside the Trial Court’s unconditional leave to defend order in a suit for unpaid dues, directing the defendant to deposit ₹2,00,000 as a condition for defending the suit, applying the Supreme Court’s test in IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXXVII CPC leave to defend full and final settlement substantial defence

Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Anr. v. M/s Padmini Technologies Ltd.

01 Jul 2019 · Anu Malhotra · 2019:DHC:3119
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's award of compensation for illegal termination due to closure without notice, dismissing the employer's challenge to jurisdiction and denying reinstatement given the factory's closure.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Labour Court jurisdiction illegal termination reinstatement

Anand v. State; Rahul v. State

01 Jul 2019 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:3118

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions and sentences of Anand and Rahul for robbery under Section 392/34 IPC based on credible identification and recovery, dismissing their appeals.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery Section 392 IPC recovery of stolen property identification of accused

Anand v. State; Rahul v. State

01 Jul 2019 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:3117

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions and sentences of Anand and Rahul for robbery under Section 392/34 IPC based on credible eyewitness identification and lawful recovery of stolen property, dismissing their appeals.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC recovery of stolen property

Nishant v. State

01 Jul 2019 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:3116

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of two appellants for robbery under Section 392 IPC based on recovery of stolen property despite the complainant's inability to identify them.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery Section 392 IPC recovery of stolen property identification of accused

Nishant v. State

01 Jul 2019 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:3115

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 392/34 IPC based on recovery of stolen property from the appellants despite the complainant's inability to identify them in court.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 392 IPC robbery recovery of stolen property identification of accused

Vivekanand Shastri v. State

01 Jul 2019 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:3114

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant priest under the POCSO Act due to reasonable doubt arising from the presence of others during the alleged offence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant POCSO Act sexual offence benefit of doubt victim testimony

Financial Intelligence Unit-IND v. National Spot Exchange Ltd

01 Jul 2019 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:3113

The Delhi High Court held that appeals under Section 42 of the PMLA must be filed before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the respondent's place of business, and thus the appeal filed in Delhi was not maintainable.

administrative other Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act Section 42 PMLA territorial jurisdiction High Court jurisdiction

CBI v. Dr. AS Narayan Rao

01 Jul 2019 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:3112

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of a public official accused of bribery due to insufficient and inadmissible evidence, emphasizing that appellate courts will not disturb plausible acquittals.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bribery phenolphthalein test trap operation