Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd v. National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd

26 Oct 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:6924

The Delhi High Court held that acceptance of a Letter of Award incorporating a Draft Agreement binds parties to its arbitration clause, enabling appointment of an arbitrator despite non-execution of a formal contract.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 7(5) Letter of Award

M/S V2 RETAIL LTD v. M/S S.S ENTERPRISES

26 Oct 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:6923

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award enforcing lease rent and damages where the lessee failed to validly terminate the lease or hand over possession despite delay in statutory permissions.

civil petition_dismissed Significant arbitral award lease termination lock-in period change of user permission

Dharam Singh Rana v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr

26 Oct 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Prateek Jalan · 2018:DHC:6936-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the petitioner’s guilt of misappropriation but modified his removal from service to compulsory retirement on grounds of disproportionate punishment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings embezzlement government servant proportionality of punishment

National Technical Research Organization v. Telecommunications Consultantes India Limited

26 Oct 2018 · Navin Chawla · 2018:DHC:6934
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a belated Section 33 application filed beyond 30 days is not maintainable and cannot extend the limitation period for filing a Section 34 petition to challenge an arbitral award, resulting in dismissal of the petition as time-barred.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 33 application Section 34 petition limitation period

Tripat Chaudhary v. Arundhati Sapru Mehra

26 Oct 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:6910

The Delhi High Court quashed proceedings against the doctor and set aside charges under Sections 315 and 328 IPC against the husband relating to alleged forced abortion, while allowing other criminal charges to proceed, emphasizing the protection under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the need for factual inquiry before quashing criminal cases.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 315 IPC Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 Section 328 IPC Section 482 CrPC

Heena v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi

26 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6916

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's discharge of accused in a dowry and sexual offence case due to lack of prima facie evidence, contradictory statements, and delay in complaint.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant discharge of accused Section 354 IPC Section 376 IPC Dowry Prohibition Act

Tripat Chaudhary v. Arundhati Sapru Mehra

26 Oct 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:6909

The Delhi High Court quashed proceedings against accused for forced abortion under Section 315 IPC based on medical evidence of missed abortion and set aside charges under Section 328 IPC for lack of proof, while allowing other criminal charges to proceed.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 315 IPC Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 Section 328 IPC Section 482 CrPC

Anand Mohan Saran v. CBI

26 Oct 2018 · I. S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:6911

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash corruption trial proceedings, holding that electronic evidence with Section 65-B certification is prima facie admissible and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be sparingly exercised.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 CrPC Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act Prevention of Corruption Act Electronic evidence admissibility

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. DALEL SINGH & ANR

26 Oct 2018 · CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2018:DHC:6914-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Government's appeal and upheld the condonation of a one-day delay in filing an application for allotment of an alternate plot, emphasizing that substantive rights should not be defeated by minimal procedural delays.

property appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay alternate plot allotment procedural delay substantive right

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SH. BHIM SINGH AND ANR.

26 Oct 2018 · THE CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2018:DHC:6913-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the condonation of a one-day delay in filing an application for allotment of an alternate plot, emphasizing protection of substantive rights over procedural delays.

property appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay alternate plot allotment procedural delay substantive right

RRPR Holding Private Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr.

26 Oct 2018 · Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:6921-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging SEBI's show cause notices under Sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act, holding that the petitioner must reply to the notices and avail statutory remedies without interim judicial interference.

administrative petition_dismissed SEBI Act 1992 Section 11 Section 11B show cause notice

National Hawkers Federation (Akshardham) v. Commissioner of Police and Ors.

26 Oct 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2018:DHC:6935-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the removal of unauthorized street vendors near Akshardham Metro Station on security and public order grounds, directing them to seek relief through the Town Vending Committee.

administrative petition_dismissed street vendors removal security Akshardham Temple

ICICI Bank Ltd v. Manjeet Kumar Singh

26 Oct 2018 · The Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:6922-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

Delhi High Court held that DRT-III has territorial jurisdiction to entertain ICICI Bank's recovery application as cause of action arose at the bank's branch in Videocon Tower, setting aside the tribunal's order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction Debt Recovery Tribunal Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 19

Pintu Das v. State of NCT of Delhi

26 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6912

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a gold theft case after investigation completion and absence of direct evidence against him.

criminal appeal_allowed regular bail false implication charge sheet investigation complete

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Amit @ Mintu & Anr.

26 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6920

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's discharge of accused due to lack of material to frame charges, emphasizing that charges require grave suspicion supported by evidence.

criminal petition_dismissed charge framing grave suspicion discharge of accused investigation

MS. X v. State

26 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6919

The Delhi High Court set aside the Juvenile Justice Board's order declaring the accused a juvenile due to lack of foundational evidence and remitted the matter for proper inquiry on age determination.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant juvenile justice age determination school register foundational documents

Krishan Kumar v. State & Anr

26 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6918

The Delhi High Court upheld the Juvenile Justice Board's reliance on the matriculation certificate as conclusive proof of juvenility, dismissing the petitioner's challenge based on medical age tests.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant juvenile justice age determination matriculation certificate ossification test

Heena v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi

26 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6917

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's discharge of accused in a sexual assault and dowry case due to contradictory statements, delay, lack of dowry demand, and settlement between parties.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant discharge of accused Section 354 IPC Section 376 IPC Dowry Prohibition Act

Anup Deb and Anr. v. Pratibha Deb and Anr.

26 Oct 2018 · The Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:6915-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal cannot exercise suo moto powers beyond its statutory jurisdiction and set aside its illegal attachment orders.

civil petition_allowed Significant Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal suo moto powers Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 SARFAESI Act, 2002

Radhakrishna Foodland Private Limited v. Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited

25 Oct 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2018:DHC:6905-DB

The Delhi High Court clarified that objections to the validity of an arbitration agreement remain open for adjudication despite interim orders under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, allowing parties to contest arbitrator appointments under Section 11.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 petition Section 11 appointment of arbitrator Maintainability