Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Sanjay Arora & Anr. v. Surender Singh & Ors.

01 Nov 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:7093 A

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and granted possession of two flats on the 4th floor to the plaintiffs, holding that illegality of construction does not affect legal ownership rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant possession illegal construction municipal bye-laws collaboration agreement

SHRI SAI CONSTRUCTIONS & ANR. v. PNC. INFRATECH LTD. & ANR.

01 Nov 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:7089

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the recovery suit for unpaid construction work where the defendants failed to file written statement or lead evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Regular First Appeal Section 96 CPC recovery suit construction contract

Sobha Ltd. v. Niho Construction Ltd.

01 Nov 2018 · Manmohan J · 2018:DHC:7090

The Delhi High Court upheld a summary suit for recovery of Rs. 5 crores based on an admitted MoU and balance sheet acknowledgment, dismissing the defendant's leave to defend and awarding interest at 8% per annum.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XXXVII CPC summary suit Refundable Interest Free Advance Memorandum of Understanding

Drager Medical GmbH v. M/S ION BIO MED-I CARE PVT LTD

01 Nov 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:7078

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award from an international commercial arbitration held in India is a domestic award under the Arbitration Act, permitting challenge under Section 34 despite prior mistaken belief it was foreign.

civil other Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 domestic award foreign award Section 34 challenge

Focus Energy Limited v. Reebok International Limited

01 Nov 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:7079
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that where the arbitration agreement is governed by English law and the seat is in London, Part I of the Indian Arbitration Act is excluded, and Indian courts lack jurisdiction to entertain challenges under Section 34.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 foreign seated arbitration law governing arbitration agreement

Union of India v. M/S Delhi Paper Products Pvt Ltd

01 Nov 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:7080

The Delhi High Court upheld a government banning order against a supplier for fraudulent claims, held fraud allegations arbitrable, rejected the supplier's damages claims, and affirmed that limitation does not bar arbitration during the ban period.

civil petition_allowed Significant banning order blacklisting arbitration jurisdiction fraud and forgery

MCD v. M/S. Harcharan Dass Gupta Construction Pvt. Ltd.

01 Nov 2018 · JAYANT NATH · 2018:DHC:7081

The Delhi High Court dismissed MCD's challenge under Section 34 to an arbitral award, holding that findings of fact supported by evidence and distinct issues in arbitration and suit do not warrant setting aside the award.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Arbitral award Public policy

M/S. HARCHARAN DASS GUPTA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. v. MCD & ANR.

01 Nov 2018 · Jayant Nath, J. · 2018:DHC:7082

The Delhi High Court held that compensation for delay cannot be levied on a contractor when the delay is caused by the employer's obstructions and the levy violates natural justice, setting aside the penalty imposed by MCD.

civil appeal_allowed Significant liquidated damages contractual delay principles of natural justice extension of time

Airports Authority of India v. Indian Airports Kamgar Union

01 Nov 2018 · Anu Malhotra · 2018:DHC:7083

The Delhi High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award declaring the Airports Authority of India’s 2003 service regulations and premature retirement circular invalid for non-compliance with statutory procedural requirements and failure to give prior notice to workmen.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 premature retirement service conditions

Ajay v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

01 Nov 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:7084

The Delhi High Court extended the petitioner's interim bail on humanitarian grounds to accommodate his wife's rescheduled gall bladder surgery, subject to surrender conditions.

criminal appeal_allowed interim bail extension of bail humanitarian grounds medical emergency

WO Uday Chandra Shekhar v. Union of India & Ors.

01 Nov 2018 · S. Muralidhar; Sanjeev Narula · 2018:DHC:7085-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the administrative posting order transferring the petitioner prior to completion of tenure due to downsizing, holding that such transfers cannot be interfered with absent mala fide or statutory violation.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant posting order transfer downsizing Army Postal Service

Ravinder v. Addl. Commissioner of Police (Licensing)

01 Nov 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:7101

The Delhi High Court upheld the cancellation of an arms license due to the petitioner’s suppression of material facts and affirmed that adequate hearing was provided, dismissing the writ petition.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant arms license cancellation suppression of material facts Section 17(3)(c) Arms Act, 1959 opportunity of hearing

M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED v. VIKAS KUMAR THAKUR

01 Nov 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:7075
Cites 0 · Cited by 36

The Delhi High Court held that subsequent payments by a defendant do not extinguish the cause of action and set aside the trial court's rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, directing the suit to proceed with adjustment of the claimed amount.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC Order VII Rule 7 CPC cause of action subsequent payments

Anoop Kumar v. State & Anr.

01 Nov 2018 · Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:7074

A Magistrate is not required to allow pre-summoning evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not disclose a cognizable offence, and dismissal of such application without recording evidence is legally valid.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Section 200 Cr.P.C. pre-summoning evidence cognizable offence

Rajinder Kumar @ Ganja v. State

01 Nov 2018 · S. Muralidhar; Vinod Goel · 2018:DHC:7073-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions of appellants for murder and conspiracy based on credible injured eyewitness testimony corroborated by forensic and medical evidence, rejecting claims of false implication and procedural lapses.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant injured eyewitness testimony interested witnesses delay in FIR criminal conspiracy

Raju Khan @ Anish v. State

01 Nov 2018 · S. Muralidhar; Vinod Goel · 2018:DHC:7076-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including motive, forensic reports, CDRs, and CCTV footage.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC murder Call Detail Records

Aldanish Rein v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

01 Nov 2018 · S. Muralidhar; Vinod Goel · 2018:DHC:7077-DB

The Delhi High Court highlighted misuse of preventive detention powers under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC by Executive Magistrates, emphasizing strict procedural safeguards, legal aid, and separation of judiciary and executive to protect personal liberty.

criminal other Significant Section 107 CrPC Section 151 CrPC Special Executive Magistrate Preventive detention

Mukesh Kumar v. State; Somnath v. State Through CBI

01 Nov 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:7099
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants charged under NDPS Act due to unreliable prosecution evidence and non-compliance with mandatory Section 50 safeguards.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 21 NDPS Section 50 NDPS search and seizure

Mukesh Kumar v. State; Somnath v. State Through CBI

01 Nov 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:7100

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants charged under Section 21 NDPS Act due to unreliable prosecution evidence and non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 50.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 21 NDPS Section 50 NDPS search and seizure

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Shamim Ahmed

01 Nov 2018 · Najmi Waziri · 2018:DHC:7105

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent for electricity theft due to procedural lapses and failure to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Electricity theft Section 135 Electricity Act 2003 DERC Regulations 2007 Inspection report