Delhi High Court

47,108 judgments

Year:

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Central Tax Commissionerate

08 May 2019 · S. Muralidhar; Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:2528-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a service tax show cause notice for failure to conduct mandatory pre-notice consultation as required by the CBEC Master Circular, emphasizing the binding nature of such procedural instructions.

tax appeal_allowed Significant pre-show cause notice consultation CBEC Master Circular service tax show cause notice

Sushila Badola v. Tushar Patni & Anr

08 May 2019 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2019:DHC:2548

A civil suit challenging the validity of a compromise deed filed and acted upon in NI Act criminal proceedings is not maintainable before a civil court and must be challenged before the court which accepted the compromise.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Compromise Deed Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC

Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumari

08 May 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:2531

The Delhi High Court allowed compounding of a Section 138 NI Act offence following a settlement, acquitted the petitioner, and directed release of settlement amounts accordingly.

criminal petition_allowed Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Cheque bounce Compounding of offence Settlement agreement

Abhishek Kumar Sharma v. State & Anr.

08 May 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:2532

Anticipatory bail was granted in a matrimonial dispute case where parties settled amicably and the complainant consented, subject to compliance with the settlement terms.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC Section 406 IPC

Santosh v. State

08 May 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:2533

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner in dowry-related death case due to lack of material implicating him in harassment or dowry demand.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 304 IPC Section 498A IPC Section 34 IPC

Arif Ahmad v. The State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr

08 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2541

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act based on an amicable settlement and No Dues Certificate, applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 135 Indian Electricity Act Section 482 CrPC No Dues Certificate

Rajeev Singh Siddhu & Ors. v. State & Anr.

08 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2542

The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on a mediated settlement, applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Mandeep Singh v. State

08 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2544

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR arising from a matrimonial dispute on the basis of an amicable settlement, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

Haji Ali Mohomad & Anr. v. State & Anr.

08 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2543

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, applying inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Ritu Khaitan

08 May 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:2546-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conditional release of seized jewellery under the PMLA on furnishing security and undertaking, emphasizing mandatory notice and retention period provisions.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 seizure of property conditional release security deposit

AVR ENTERPRISES v. UNION OF INDIA

08 May 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2020:DHC:1880

The Delhi High Court held that the 75% deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act applies only to arbitrations initiated by reference to the Facilitation Council under Section 18, and not to arbitrations conducted independently under the Arbitration Act by party-appointed arbitrators.

civil petition_dismissed Significant MSMED Act Section 18 MSMED Act Section 19 MSMED Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Aabi Binju v. Union of India

08 May 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2025:DHC:1314-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of challenges to adverse Annual Confidential Reports, affirming limited judicial interference absent mala fides and clarifying communication requirements for adverse entries.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Annual Confidential Reports ACR gradings judicial review mala fides

Vinod Popli v. M/S Aartifabricot P. Ltd. & Anr

07 May 2019 · Chander Shekhar · 2019:DHC:7442

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of criminal petitions without prejudice and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.

criminal appeal_dismissed withdrawal of petition without prejudice liberty to file application expeditious disposal

The State of Delhi v. Kuldeep @ Rahul @ Tinku & Ors.

07 May 2019 · Manmohan; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:2502-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a kidnapping and sexual assault case, holding that the prosecutrix's consent and age were relevant and that the benefit of doubt regarding her minor status must go to the accused.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant consent minor kidnapping sexual assault

R. K. Singh v. M/S Kendriya Bhandar (Central Govt. Employees Cooperative Society Ltd.)

07 May 2019 · Suresh Kumar Kait · 2019:DHC:2500

The Delhi High Court directed release of retirement benefits to a retired Managing Director where no disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against him, holding that withholding such dues without valid proceedings is unjustified.

administrative petition_allowed superannuation benefits retirement dues withholding of gratuity disciplinary proceedings

Sunil Kumar v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Another

07 May 2019 · Anu Malhotra · 2019:DHC:2498

The Delhi High Court held that illegal termination of a daily wager without compliance of Section 25F does not automatically entitle reinstatement with back wages after long delay, but compensation can be enhanced as just relief.

labor petition_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25F Section 2(oo)(bb) illegal termination

HIL (India) Ltd. v. M/S Indogulf Cropsciences Ltd

07 May 2019 · Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:2499

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award directing refund of earnest money with interest, holding that a counter-offer not accepted or rejected does not justify forfeiture under tender conditions and limiting judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Earnest money forfeiture Tender conditions

Kuldeep Raj Arora v. Rohtash Kumar Seewal & Ors.

07 May 2019 · Yogesh Khanna · 2019:DHC:2501

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of a tenant lawyer on bona fide need grounds, rejecting ownership claims based on security deposit and unproven alternative accommodation under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) eviction bona fide requirement

Software One India Pvt. Ltd. v. C&S Electric Ltd.

07 May 2019 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2019:DHC:2527

The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit by a software reseller for recovery of license fees for years 2 and 3, holding that without privity under the principal agreement and without pleading specific performance, the remedy lies only in damages for breach of contract.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant software license agreement Enterprise Enrollment Agreement specific performance breach of contract

Netplus Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Cisco Systems Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd.

07 May 2019 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2019:DHC:2526

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding that disputes over faulty leased equipment fall outside the arbitration agreement and must be pursued against the manufacturer.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 petition arbitrability lease agreement