Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

M/S KIC FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

27 Sep 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:6280

The Delhi High Court held that in eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act, a licensee must be allowed to cross-examine the respondent’s witnesses to fairly contest the issue of license extension and authorized occupation.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 license extension cross-examination summary proceedings

Viraj Kadam v. Medical Council of India

27 Sep 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A.K. Chawla · 2018:DHC:6264-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld MCI's mandate requiring NEET qualification for eligibility certificates to study medicine abroad but granted a one-time exemption to candidates who appeared but failed NEET due to short notice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Medical Council of India NEET eligibility certificate foreign medical institutions

Anil Shere v. Choyang Health Care India Pvt Ltd

27 Sep 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:6285

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that once revision petitions challenging condonation of delay are dismissed, the inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked for a second revisional scrutiny.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act condonation of delay Section 5 Limitation Act Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

Sandeep Kalra & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

27 Sep 2018 · Rajendra Menon; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:6272-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the non-inclusion of appellants in the Para Asian Games contingent, affirming limited judicial interference in expert sports selection decisions absent arbitrariness.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant judicial review sports selection Para Asian Games arbitrariness

Pannalal Rathore & Anr v. M/S W.H. Deeth (Ballabgarh) & Co.

27 Sep 2018 · Rajendra Menon; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:6273-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against closure of the right to lead evidence due to repeated non-compliance and delays, holding the exercise of discretion by the trial court was lawful and not liable to interference.

civil appeal_dismissed closure of evidence discretion of court Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC Section 10 Delhi High Court Act

Ramesh Chand v. Jamia Millia Islamia

27 Sep 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:6271

The Delhi High Court held that an employee compulsorily retired illegally but denied reinstatement and granted compensation is not entitled to pension or gratuity under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

labor petition_dismissed Significant compulsory retirement pension gratuity Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

K.S. Chaudhary & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.

27 Sep 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A. K. Chawla · 2018:DHC:6281-DB

The Delhi High Court held that conveyance and related allowances paid to LIC Development Officers as reimbursements for expenses incurred in performance of duties are exempt under Section 10(14)(i) and Rule 2BB, and directed refund/adjustment of TDS deducted thereon.

tax petition_allowed Significant Tax Deducted at Source Section 10(14)(i) Income Tax Act 1961 Rule 2BB

K.S. Chaudhary & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.

27 Sep 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A. K. Chawla · 2018:DHC:6282-DB

Delhi High Court held that conveyance and related allowances paid to LIC Development Officers are exempt under Section 10(14)(i) and Rule 2BB, directing reversal of TDS deducted on such allowances.

tax petition_allowed Significant Tax Deducted at Source Section 10(14)(i) Income Tax Act Rule 2BB Income Tax Rules conveyance allowance

Shakuntla Devi & Ors. v. Dev Anand & Anr.

27 Sep 2018 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2018:DHC:6286

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Second Appeal for lack of substantial question of law, upholding the trial and appellate courts' findings allowing recovery of possession based on an Agreement to Sell and part performance.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Second Appeal Section 100 CPC Substantial Question of Law Recovery of Possession

Union of India v. Fertilizers Association of India

27 Sep 2018 · Chief Justice Rajendra Menon; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:6275-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal, holding that it cannot deny retrospective subsidy benefits after making unequivocal assurances of compliance before the Court and that unexplained delay in appeal militates against condonation.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant subsidy marketing margin retrospective benefit unequivocal statement

Parul Bhatnagar v. Medical Council of India and Anr.

27 Sep 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A.K. Chawla

The Delhi High Court partially allowed writ petitions filed against the Medical Council of India without costs, referring to a detailed judgment in a connected matter.

administrative petition_allowed Medical Council of India writ petition administrative law Delhi High Court

Rajni Anand v. Cosmic Structures Ltd.

27 Sep 2018 · Jayant Nath · 2018:DHC:6290
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that transfer of winding up proceedings to NCLT under Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 is discretionary and refused to transfer the petition given the advanced stage of winding up and ongoing investigations.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant winding up transfer to NCLT Section 434 Companies Act Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDUSTRIES v. M/S SHRI VISHWAPRABHA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD

27 Sep 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:6277

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction against the defendant's use of 'RAJMOTI RICE' mark, holding it infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark 'RAJMOTI' and constituted passing off for similar goods.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 29(2)(a)

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Gurdev Singh

27 Sep 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:6278

The Delhi High Court modified the compensation awarded for vehicular accident injuries by correctly assessing functional disability, age multiplier, and income, reducing the total compensation from ₹12.72 lakh to ₹10.69 lakh.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation functional disability loss of earning capacity age multiplier

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Gurdev Singh

27 Sep 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:6276

The Delhi High Court modified the compensation awarded for motor accident injuries by correctly assessing functional disability, age multiplier, and income, reducing the award from ₹12.72 lakh to ₹10.69 lakh with interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation functional disability assessment loss of earning capacity age multiplier

M/S Chadha Brothers v. Neeraj & Ors.

27 Sep 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:6279

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation awards in a motor accident case but denied insurer's recovery rights against the vehicle owner due to lack of evidence on driver's authorization to drive hazardous goods vehicle.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation driver's license endorsement hazardous goods vehicle

SH. PURAN MULTIMEDIA LTD v. UNION OF INDIA

27 Sep 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:8626

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking reconstitution of the Copyright Board, holding that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board now exercises its jurisdiction under the amended Copyright Act.

administrative petition_dismissed Copyright Board Intellectual Property Appellate Board Section 11 Copyright Act 1957 Finance Act 2017

M/S NEWFIELDS ADVERTISING (P) LTD. v. BANKING SERVICES RECRUITMENT BOARD

27 Sep 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:6267

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff was entitled only to the lower advertisement rate applicable to the Newsline Section and failed to prove payment at the higher rate claimed.

civil appeal_dismissed advertisement publication rate newspaper advertisement Newsline Section payment proof

Shyam Kumar Srivastava and Ors v. Lt Governor and Ors

27 Sep 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:6288

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken but compensation remains unpaid for over five years, entitling landowners to compensation under the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 possession

Pawan Mehra v. Paras Ram

27 Sep 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:6274

The Delhi High Court held that mere possession without hostile assertion of title does not constitute adverse possession, allowing the co-owner's appeal for possession and mesne profits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant adverse possession mesne profits possession co-ownership