Delhi High Court

47,108 judgments

Year:

Subhash v. State & Anr

09 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2561

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 354A, 506, and 509 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement and resolved misunderstanding between the parties, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kiran Devi & Ors.

09 May 2019 · Najmi Waziri · 2019:DHC:3216

The Delhi High Court held that the UIDAI Aadhaar card is authoritative for age determination in compensation claims and awarded loss of filial consortium compensation to the deceased's children under the Motor Vehicles Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loss of dependency multiplier age determination UIDAI Aadhaar card

Vickram Bahl v. Siddhartha Bahl

09 May 2019 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2020:DHC:1818
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a joint Will executed by spouses constitutes a mutual Will binding on the survivor, who holds the property in trust for the ultimate beneficiaries, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction against alienation and dispossession during the surviving spouse's lifetime, with Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act not conferring absolute ownership absent a pre-existing right of maintenance.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mutual Will joint Will Hindu Succession Act Section 14 restricted estate

Director-Cum-Secretary, Department of Social Welfare v. Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

08 May 2019 · Sanjeev Narula · 2019:DHC:2539

The Delhi High Court held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act lacking signatures, affidavit, and vakalatnama is not a valid filing to stop limitation, and delay in re-filing beyond the statutory period cannot be condoned.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act limitation period condonation of delay vakalatnama

Parveen Kumar Jain v. Rajan Seth & Ors.

08 May 2019 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2019:DHC:2540

The Delhi High Court held that the expression 'Chur Chur Naan' is generic and descriptive, denying exclusive trademark protection but allowing use with distinctive prefixes to avoid consumer confusion.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 generic trademarks descriptive marks interim injunction

M/S BGN CABLE NETWORK v. MANIK SINGLA

08 May 2019 · G.S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:2550-DB

The Delhi High Court held that mere joint appearances of an arbitrator and counsel do not disqualify the arbitrator and that challenges to arbitrator appointments must be decided by the tribunal first, with objections to be raised post-award under Section 34.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 13 challenge Arbitrator disqualification Fifth Schedule

Raminder v. State (NCT of Delhi)

08 May 2019 · R. K. Gauba · 2019:DHC:2547

The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction from culpable homicide to rash driving causing death, reducing the sentence accordingly due to lack of proof of intention to kill.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant culpable homicide not amounting to murder rash driving Section 304-A IPC intention to kill

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board v. Anil Kumar Nasa & Ors.

08 May 2019 · G.S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:2549-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under the MACP scheme, an employee completing 30 years of service is entitled to the third financial upgradation irrespective of completing 10 years in the current grade pay.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme MACP financial upgradation grade pay

Pushpa Devi Bharti & Ors. v. Harish Arora & Anr.

08 May 2019 · Jayant Nath · 2019:DHC:2537

The Delhi High Court held that a sale deed executed by an unregistered power of attorney holder is invalid and dismissed an application to implead parties claiming title through such deed in a partition suit, passing decree for partition and sale of property as per registered shares.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition suit undivided share unregistered power of attorney transfer of immovable property

M/S PSS Security Solutions v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi

08 May 2019 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2019:DHC:2538

The court held that forfeiture of the entire performance security was unjustified without execution of a definitive agreement and limited forfeiture to the earnest money deposit, ordering release of the balance security to the petitioner.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant performance security earnest money deposit tender contract forfeiture

Ravi Bhola & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

08 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2545

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 406, 498-A, and 34 IPC after parties amicably settled, applying inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent oppression and prejudice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

CP Kochhar v. Chairman, State Bank of India & Ors

08 May 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:7538-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed appeals to set aside dismissal orders and restored a writ petition after accepting the appellant's explanation of unintentional non-appearance.

civil appeal_allowed writ petition restoration non-appearance review petition

Satishkumar Gupta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

08 May 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:7372

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw bail applications and dismissed them as withdrawn, with the petitioner undertaking to surrender before the trial court for regular bail.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail application withdrawal of bail petition surrender regular bail

Tajmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi); Taranjeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)

08 May 2019 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:7365

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in a family dispute case after parties settled amicably before the family court and counselling cell.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 498A IPC family dispute settlement

Shrisumit Saklam v. State

08 May 2019 · A. K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:7359

The Delhi High Court extended interim protection to the petitioners accused of abetting a sexual offence, directing them to cooperate with investigation and seek regular bail from the trial court.

criminal appeal_dismissed anticipatory bail Section 376 IPC POCSO Act interim protection

Ravi Kumar v. State

08 May 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:2529

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a dowry death and cruelty case, finding no material implicating him and noting the investigation was complete without arrest.

criminal petition_allowed anticipatory bail dowry harassment Section 304B IPC Section 498A IPC

Dilip v. State

08 May 2019 · Manmohan; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:2536-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's murder conviction but set aside the life sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, ordering his release after considering time spent in custody.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant juvenile justice ossification test juvenile sentencing Section 302 IPC

Mohd. Arman & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

08 May 2019 · Manmohan; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:2534-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of a minor, holding that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to decide paternity or custody disputes where detention is lawful.

constitutional petition_dismissed habeas corpus custody paternity unlawful detention

Rockwell Industries v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

08 May 2019 · S. Muralidhar; Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:2535-DB

The Delhi High Court held that belated default assessment orders cannot withhold legitimate VAT refund claims beyond the statutory period absent valid grounds, directing immediate refund with interest.

tax petition_allowed Significant Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 refund claim default assessment Section 38(3)(ii)

Aabi Binju v. Union of India and Ors.

08 May 2019 · Vipin Sanghi; Rekha Palli · 2019:DHC:2530-DB

The Delhi High Court remanded the petitioner's Original Applications to the Central Administrative Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits, emphasizing the need for the Tribunal to address each grievance distinctly and apply its mind properly, while upholding that no prior warning is legally required before an 'Average' APAR grading.

administrative other Significant Central Administrative Tribunal APAR grading Original Application remand