Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Sevti Devi Memorial Senior Secondary Vidya Mandir v. Sanjay Goel

10 Sep 2018 · Siddharth Mridul · 2018:DHC:5826-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition after the petitioner complied with court directions to furnish documentary proof regarding staff salaries, finding no willful disobedience.

administrative petition_dismissed Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Delhi School Education Act, 1973 Compliance with court orders Contempt petition

Ramesh @ Guddu v. State

10 Sep 2018 · S. Muralidhar; Vinod Goel · 2018:DHC:5800-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder based on complete circumstantial evidence including tenancy, call records, last seen testimony, and recovery, rejecting the alibi and acquitting arguments.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC Section 106 Evidence Act

Sumita Wadhwa v. Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences

10 Sep 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:5835-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging limited maternity leave on the ground that the writ petition was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay invoking the doctrine of laches.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant maternity leave doctrine of laches delay and equity Article 226

DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. v. RAMA CONSTRUCTION CO

10 Sep 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:5833

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award except for restricting the escalation claim to the amount supported by prior calculations, affirming principles on contract commencement, escalation, and incentive claims under arbitration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Escalation Clause 10CC Incentive Clause 2A

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Dev Raj Singh

10 Sep 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:5834-DB

The Delhi High Court held that authorized leave without pay cannot be treated as misconduct to justify termination, dismissing the appeal by Delhi Transport Corporation against reinstatement of an employee.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Leave Without Pay Misconduct Standing Orders Unauthorized Absence

Manjula & Ors. v. Kishore Kumar & Anr.

10 Sep 2018 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2018:DHC:5836

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding the decree for recovery of possession in favor of the purchaser under valid documents, holding that possession claims under prior agreements without valid title are insufficient.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant recovery of possession General Power of Attorney Agreement to Sell Section 100 CPC

M/S PCI LTD. v. PARAGON CABLE INDIA

10 Sep 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:5830

The Delhi High Court partially set aside an arbitral award for lack of evidence on certain claims and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, holding that failure to file a statement of defence does not amount to admission of all claims.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 25(b) Arbitral award

State v. Shamshuddin

10 Sep 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:5831

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a child sexual assault and kidnapping case due to lack of evidence proving essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed POCSO Act Section 363 IPC Section 354A IPC kidnapping

Surender Singh v. Sanjeev Kumar Thakur

10 Sep 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:5832

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to insufficient evidence and credible defence of coercion and non-receipt of demand notice.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Cheque dishonour Legal demand notice Burden of proof

Jubilant Energy Pvt. Ltd v. UOI

10 Sep 2018 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2018:DHC:9262-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by Jubilant Energy entities in default due to non-appearance of petitioners or their counsel.

other petition_dismissed dismissal in default non-appearance writ petition non-prosecution

Kawatra Tent and Caterers Pvt Ltd v. The Director (R P Cell) Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Anr

10 Sep 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:9244

The Delhi High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by Kawatra Tent and Caterers Pvt Ltd as withdrawn upon the petitioner's request.

administrative petition_dismissed Procedural writ petition withdrawal dismissal Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Sanjana Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

10 Sep 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:8359

The Delhi High Court held that a person who resigned as Director prior to issuance and dishonour of cheques and service of demand notices cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Director resignation Dishonour of cheque Demand notice

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.

10 Sep 2018 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chandershekhar · 2018:DHC:8335-DB

The Delhi High Court condoned delay and disposed of income tax appeals without adjudicating substantive issues as the tax effect was below Rs. 50,00,000, leaving the issues open in accordance with Circular No. 3/2018.

tax appeal_dismissed Procedural condonation of delay income tax appeals tax effect threshold Circular No. 3/2018

Darshan Singh Namdhari & Anr v. State

10 Sep 2018 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2018:DHC:8189

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail applications of accused involved in multiple fraudulent property sale agreements and criminal trespass, emphasizing the gravity of offences and their conduct.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail cheating multiple agreements to sell criminal trespass

Nazruddin v. National Insurance Co Ltd.

10 Sep 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:5822

The Delhi High Court held that a party must be allowed to file a formal application to amend pleadings and the tribunal erred in refusing amendment without permitting such an application.

civil appeal_allowed Significant amendment of pleadings Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Motor Accident Claims Tribunal written statement

M/S AKASHGANGA INFRADEVELOPERS PVT LTD. v. RAJENDER SINGH DABAS & ANR.

10 Sep 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:5823

The High Court held that the petitioner must first seek recall of the impugned order before the Financial Commissioner under Section 151 CPC and granted interim status quo on the property pending such application.

civil petition_dismissed Section 151 CPC Financial Commissioner stay order status quo

Raghubir Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

10 Sep 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:5824

The Delhi High Court directed police to protect the petitioner’s lawful possession and allow construction on disputed land after finding no stay or trespass, despite a civil court judgment in favor of another party.

civil petition_allowed Significant status quo order police protection ownership dispute civil court judgment

CMD GLOBAL v. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

10 Sep 2018 · Siddharth Mridul · 2018:DHC:5825

The Delhi High Court directed AICTE to expeditiously decide the petitioner’s application for closure of the PGDM programme and refund the deposited amount, ensuring timely administrative action.

administrative other writ petition Article 226 AICTE closure of programme

M/S TOMMY HILFIGER LICENCING LLC v. M/S IMPORTEXPORT & ORS

10 Sep 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:5802

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and costs to Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC against defendants selling counterfeit products bearing its registered trademarks, proceeding ex-parte against non-appearing defendants.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Permanent injunction Counterfeit goods Trade Marks Act, 1999

Daily Bread Bakers v. Monitoring Committee & Anr.

10 Sep 2018 · Siddharth Mridul · 2018:DHC:5818

The Delhi High Court held that challenges to sealing orders passed by the Supreme Court-appointed Monitoring Committee lie exclusively before the Supreme Court, and dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition for lack of jurisdiction.

administrative petition_dismissed Monitoring Committee Sealing order Jurisdiction Article 226