Delhi High Court
59,406 judgments
Aas Mohmmad v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Delhi High Court directed the East Delhi Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner's application for removal of goods from sealed premises within two weeks, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.
Ramesh Haldar v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Delhi High Court directed the East Delhi Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner’s application for permission to remove goods from sealed premises within two weeks, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.
Surjan Sarkar v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Delhi High Court directed the East Delhi Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner's application for removal of goods from sealed premises within two weeks, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.
Gita Rani v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Delhi High Court directed the East Delhi Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner’s application for removal of goods from sealed premises within two weeks, ensuring procedural fairness under Article 226.
Mange Ram v. Raj Kumar Yadav
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against summary judgment on dishonoured cheques, holding that a defence based on stolen cheques unsupported by the FIR is frivolous and does not entitle leave to defend.
Hindustan Vidyut Products Ltd. v. Delhi Power Company Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that arbitration was invoked within limitation as the dispute crystallized only upon appropriation of withheld payment in 2001, and ruled that the holding and transmission companies are not liable under the award per Delhi Electricity Reforms rules.
Hindustan Vidyut Products Ltd. v. Delhi Power Company Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that limitation for arbitration starts when the dispute crystallizes by appropriation or denial, not merely on withholding payment, and that liabilities under the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act rest with DISCOMs, not holding or transmission companies.
M/S CROCS INC USA v. M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD & OTHERS
The Delhi High Court held that a plaintiff cannot introduce documents after framing of issues and commencement of trial unless they were not in possession earlier or could not be produced despite due diligence, and set aside the order allowing late filing of most additional documents.
M/S CROCS INC USA v. M/S ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR
The Delhi High Court held that a plaintiff cannot bring on record documents at a late stage of trial if such documents were in its possession prior to filing the suit or framing of issues, unless sufficient justification is shown.
Tata Sons Ltd & Anr v. Krishna Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions and damages to Tata Sons Ltd against defendants for unauthorized use of the well-known 'TATA' trademark and deceptively similar domain name, ordering transfer of the domain and restraining further infringement.
Mohd. Ibrahim v. Naresh Kumar
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's refusal to grant leave to defend in a suit for recovery of loan amount where the defendant's defence was found frivolous and unsupported by evidence.
Vijay Gupta v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation not paid within five years, entitling successors and assignees to claim lapse even without registered title.
Rakesh Kumar v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed land acquisition notifications issued beyond the permissible statutory period after a prior declaration was quashed, holding that no fresh one-year period is available for issuing a new Section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
M/S. TELEECARE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that excess customs duty paid under mistake of law is refundable notwithstanding limitation, affirming the Supreme Court's SRF Limited principle that imported goods are deemed manufactured in India for CVD purposes.
Arijit Haldar v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Delhi High Court directed the East Delhi Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner's application for removal of goods from sealed premises within two weeks, ensuring due process and protection of property rights.
Hari Ram v. Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi and Others
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if neither possession is taken nor compensation tendered, even if the award predates the Act.
M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED v. V SQUARE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Delhi High Court allowed ICICI Bank's appeal and appointed an ex parte receiver to take possession of a hypothecated vehicle upon borrower's default in EMI payments to protect the bank's security interest.
ICICI Bank Limited v. Randhir Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed the bank's appeal and appointed a receiver to take possession of a hypothecated vehicle upon the borrower's default in loan repayment, emphasizing lawful recovery procedures.
ICICI Bank Limited v. Bhajan Lal Solankiya & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed ICICI Bank's appeal and appointed a receiver to take possession of a hypothecated vehicle upon borrower default, emphasizing lawful recovery procedures and protection of the bank's security interest.
ICICI Bank Limited v. Avinash
The Delhi High Court allowed the bank's appeal and appointed a receiver to take possession of a hypothecated vehicle upon borrower's default, emphasizing lawful repossession procedures.