Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Kumar Enterprises & Ors.

12 Sep 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:5889

The Delhi High Court held that a decree for recovery secured by equitable mortgage must be treated as a preliminary decree under Order XXXIV CPC, enabling foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property, and upheld the interest granted by the trial court.

civil appeal_allowed Significant equitable mortgage Order XXXIV CPC preliminary decree foreclosure

Vijay Singh Rana v. ICICI Bank Ltd.

12 Sep 2018 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2018:DHC:5890-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that certified bank statements are prima facie evidence, rejected forgery claims without cogent proof, and held the recovery suit not barred by limitation, dismissing the writ petition.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Bankers’ Books Evidence Act prima facie evidence limitation forgery

Aman Nugyal v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Sep 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:5928

The Delhi High Court held that a live-in relationship where one party is married to another does not constitute a 'domestic relationship' under the Domestic Violence Act, quashing proceedings based on such a relationship.

family petition_allowed Significant Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 domestic relationship live-in relationship relationship in the nature of marriage

R.V. Chinoy v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Sep 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:5925

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR and investigation direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., holding that pre-trial quashing is permissible only when allegations are indisputably baseless and the FIR discloses a cognizable offence warranting investigation.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR cognizable offence

Manoj v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

12 Sep 2018 · Anu Malhotra · 2018 DHC 9295

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and 10-year sentence of a security guard for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor under the POCSO Act, affirming the reliability of the child's testimony and corroborative medical evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act aggravated penetrative sexual assault minor witness testimony Section 6 POCSO

Neeraj Malhotra v. State of NCT of Delhi

12 Sep 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:8250

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of quashing petitions pending consideration of a cancellation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., reserving petitioners' rights to raise contentions in future proceedings.

criminal appeal_dismissed Procedural quashing petition cancellation report Section 173 Cr.P.C. withdrawal of petition

The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Israr Ahmad alias Israr Khan

12 Sep 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:5911

The Delhi High Court upheld the insurer's liability to pay compensation for a motor accident injury while setting aside recovery rights against the vehicle owner due to a valid permit, affirming the negligence finding and compensation quantum.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim negligence contributory negligence disability assessment

The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Israr Ahmad alias Israr Khan

12 Sep 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:5913

The Delhi High Court upheld the insurer's liability to pay compensation for a motor accident while setting aside the insurer's recovery rights against the vehicle owner due to a valid permit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim negligence contributory negligence disability assessment

Brijesh Kumar v. Santosh Kumar Singh

12 Sep 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:5892

The Delhi High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the respondent under Section 138 NI Act, holding that the statutory presumption of debt was not rebutted and admissions proved liability.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Presumption of debt

Suresh Kumar Rai v. State; Mukesh Kumar v. State

12 Sep 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:5893

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under the NDPS Act, affirming proper compliance with Section 42, lawful sampling, and chain of custody of narcotics evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 42 NDPS sampling procedure chain of custody

Suresh Kumar Rai v. State; Mukesh Kumar v. State

12 Sep 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:5894

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under Section 20(c) NDPS Act, affirming proper compliance with Section 42, valid sampling, and maintained chain of custody despite minor procedural discrepancies.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 42 NDPS sampling procedure chain of custody

Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi)

12 Sep 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:5895

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC, holding that the victim's age and sexual assault were sufficiently proved by school records, victim testimony, and medical evidence despite inconsistencies in earlier statements.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act sexual assault victim's age school records

Rakesh v. State (GNCTD of Delhi)

12 Sep 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:5887

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act based on credible child victim testimony despite minor procedural lapses and trivial contradictions.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act Section 8 POCSO child sexual offence child victim testimony

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

12 Sep 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A.K. Chawla · 2018:DHC:5886-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that unexplained cash credits under Section 68 cannot be excluded by peak credit accounting and restored tax additions deleted by the ITAT, while upholding the reduction of commission rate.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 68 Income Tax Act unexplained cash credits accommodation entries peak credit

Madan v. M/S ANMOL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD

12 Sep 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:5904

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's finding that the petitioner failed to prove an employer-employee relationship and dismissed the writ petition challenging his termination.

labor petition_dismissed Significant employer-employee relationship industrial dispute Labour Court writ jurisdiction

Saiyed Zegham Murtaza v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat

12 Sep 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:5906

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by a contractual employee seeking renewal of contract, holding that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to contractual appointments without clear assurance or proper selection.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant legitimate expectation contractual employment regularization writ petition

Dalit Picchara Varg Alpsan Kayak Vikas Samiti v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

12 Sep 2018 · Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:5905-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest writ petition seeking possession and removal of encroachments on allotted land due to inordinate delay of over 40 years without reasonable explanation.

property petition_dismissed public interest litigation delay laches possession

V Balasubramanian v. Union of India through CBI

12 Sep 2018 · CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2018:DHC:5907-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking permanent release of a passport retained by the trial court, upholding the arrangement that the petitioner may seek trial court permission for urgent travel.

criminal petition_dismissed passport retention trial court right to travel urgent medical treatment

Tushar Sahdev & Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

12 Sep 2018 · Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:5908-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for police to complete investigations and disciplinary actions, holding that existing guidelines suffice and the Court will not interfere in ongoing private disputes under Article 226.

constitutional petition_dismissed Article 226 of Constitution of India writ of mandamus police investigation disciplinary proceedings

FIITJEE LTD v. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI

12 Sep 2018 · Rajendra Menon; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:5909-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the writ court’s order directing a disclaimer clarifying no association between FIITJEE and IIT Delhi in the naming of a metro station, dismissing appeals challenging the order.

administrative appeal_dismissed Article 226 Constitution of India disclaimer misleading advertisement trade name