Delhi High Court

48,936 judgments

Year:

United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Sombir & Ors.

01 Apr 2019 · A.K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:1866

The Delhi High Court held that absence of a driving licence alone does not constitute contributory negligence to reduce compensation in a motor accident claim caused by the insurer's vehicle.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant contributory negligence driving licence motor accident claim rash and negligent driving

L & T Finance Limited v. DM South India Hospitality Private Limited and Ors.

01 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2021:DHC:3483
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral tribunal's interim order balancing equities by directing installment payments and partial release of pledged securities, emphasizing limited judicial interference in discretionary interlocutory arbitration orders.

commercial_arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 interim relief Section 37(2)(b) appellate jurisdiction pledge agreements

Janak Raj v. Delhi Development Authority

01 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:855-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that disciplinary proceedings under CCS (Pension) Rules are not barred by limitation if instituted within four years of discovering misconduct and should not be quashed prematurely on arguable limitation grounds.

administrative other Significant disciplinary proceedings limitation period Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Rule 9(2)(b)(ii)

J.B.C.G. Advisory Services Private Limited & Ors. v. Sammaan Capital Limited Formerly Known As Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited & Anr.

30 Mar 2019 · C. Hari Shankar

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Tripartite and Loan Agreements and referred the related application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for expeditious resolution.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 application Appointment of arbitrator Tripartite Agreement

Rohit @ Jayant v. State

29 Mar 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:1832

Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on credible alibi evidence and possibility of false implication in a Section 326/34 IPC assault case.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 326 IPC Section 34 IPC false implication

Sanjaykumar Singh v. CB I

29 Mar 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:7857
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of an official under criminal conspiracy and corruption charges due to inadmissibility of electronic evidence lacking Section 65B certification and failure to prove demand or acceptance of bribe.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act Section 65B Indian Evidence Act Electronic evidence admissibility Criminal conspiracy

Ram Brjj Sagar & Anr v. The State & Anr

29 Mar 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:7536

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under the Trade Marks and Copyright Acts based on a settlement between parties, applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent oppressive criminal proceedings arising from a commercial dispute.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC Trade Marks Act, 1999 Copyright Act, 1957

Fagun Gaur v. State

29 Mar 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:7535

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 279 and 337 IPC arising from a road accident on the ground of settlement and bona fide error of judgment, applying inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC bona fide error of judgment compensation

Dildar Singh v. State

29 Mar 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:7533

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 354, 506, and 34 IPC on the ground of settlement between parties related to each other, applying inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SURESH MITTAL

29 Mar 2019 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:7387-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed Income Tax appeals as not pressed because the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold limit under relevant notifications.

tax appeal_dismissed Income Tax Appeal tax effect threshold Commissioner of Income Tax appeal dismissed

SUPREME AGROFOODS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA

29 Mar 2019 · J. R. Midha · 2019:DHC:1843

The Delhi High Court directed the Trademark Registry to consider the petitioner's trademark renewal application upon submission of the renewal request with restoration fee, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.

intellectual_property petition_allowed trademark renewal trademark restoration Trade Marks Act, 1999 Trademark Registry

Ved Ram v. New Delhi Municipal Council

29 Mar 2019 · J. R. Midha · 2019:DHC:1842

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the Labour Court award upholding his termination for concealing a criminal case, citing delay and finality of the earlier award.

labor petition_dismissed industrial dispute termination of service concealment of criminal case finality of award

Mahender Kehar v. Skyland Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

29 Mar 2019 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2019:DHC:1840
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit to cancel a registered Sale Deed on grounds of limitation, absence of fraud particulars, and abuse of court process, affirming that parties cannot contradict registered documents or benefit from their own illegal acts.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Sale Deed Fraud Limitation Indian Evidence Act Section 92

TIME INC. v. MR. ANAND NADAR & ANR.

29 Mar 2019 · Manmohan J · 2019:DHC:1839

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions and domain name transfer in favor of TIME INC. against defendants for infringement and passing off of the registered trademark FORTUNE.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement passing off unfair competition permanent injunction

The Executive Engineer(C) DR-VI v. M/S Bhasin Associates

29 Mar 2019 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2019:DHC:1848

The Delhi High Court upheld most parts of an arbitral award favoring the contractor in a construction dispute, modifying interest awards and setting aside claims based solely on the Hudson formula without evidence.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge technical arbitrator delay in construction contract

ACE DESIGN LTD. v. GAURAV SARUP SHARMA

29 Mar 2019 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2019:DHC:1847

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for initiation of contempt proceedings as barred by limitation and lacking merit, holding that contempt cannot be initiated prematurely before adjudication of the underlying suit.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Article 227 Constitution of India limitation contempt proceedings

Sterlite Technologies Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

29 Mar 2019 · Navin Chawla · 2019:DHC:1846

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award, holding that discrepancies in claims and lack of valid receipts justified rejection of the petitioner’s claims and that the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Arbitral Award Price Variation

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Vishal

29 Mar 2019 · Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:1853

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused under the POCSO Act and IPC due to contradictions in victim testimonies, non-examination of vital witnesses, and evidence of prior enmity suggesting false implication.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act child witness testimony contradictions in victim testimony false implication

Shobha Jain v. South Municipal Corporation Delhi West Zone and Ors.

29 Mar 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:1854-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition protecting a handicapped licensee from arbitrary dispossession of her allotted kiosk, emphasizing fair administrative action and fundamental rights amid traffic congestion concerns.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Tehbazari site handicapped quota traffic congestion illegal encroachments

Jasvinder Singh v. Municipal Corporation

29 Mar 2019 · G.S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:1844-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Town Vending Committee to consider the application of a 100% disabled street vendor for allotment of vending sites, while holding that eviction from military land is beyond the MCD’s jurisdiction.

administrative other street vendor disability preferential allotment military land