Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Tirath Godar Chettri v. Union of India

07 Mar 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:1621

The court directed the authority to decide the petitioner's pending representation on compassionate appointment within six weeks but declined extension of official accommodation due to petitioner’s lack of diligence.

administrative petition_dismissed compassionate appointment official accommodation speaking order representation

Vinita Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

07 Mar 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:1620

The Delhi High Court directed the government to consider the petitioner's promotion representation and pass a speaking order within a stipulated time, ensuring procedural fairness.

administrative other promotion representation speaking order administrative tribunal jurisdiction

Jag Ram v. The Chief Executive Officer BSES Yamuna Power Ltd

07 Mar 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:1618

The Delhi High Court directed BSES to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's representation for revised pension within six weeks, ensuring procedural compliance and enabling further legal remedies.

administrative other revision of pension representation speaking order public authority

Ram Babu v. Ajay Kumar

07 Mar 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:1632

The Delhi High Court remitted the matter for proper adjudication of a labourer’s claim of exemption from attachment of immovable property under Section 60 CPC in execution proceedings involving a charged property.

civil other Significant Section 60 CPC attachment of property execution proceedings Order XXI Rule 58 CPC

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dinesh Kumar & Ors

07 Mar 2018 · J.R. Midha · 2018:DHC:1630

The Delhi High Court set aside an excessive motor accident compensation award due to lack of proof of income and improper deductions, emphasizing insurers' duty to verify claims and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation future prospects personal expenses deduction

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd v. Upender Kumar Shastri

07 Mar 2018 · J.R. Midha · 2018:DHC:1629

The Delhi High Court adjusted the compensation in a motor accident death claim of a student by reducing the earning capacity to Rs.27,600/- per month with appropriate deductions and multiplier, upholding the total award of Rs.30,05,000/-.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compensation motor accident claim earning capacity notional income

Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd v. Sara International Pvt. Ltd

07 Mar 2018 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2018:DHC:1631

The Delhi High Court upheld enforcement of a Singapore arbitral award on costs, holding that the award did not violate the fundamental policy of Indian law or public policy under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_allowed Significant enforcement of foreign arbitral award public policy Section 48 Arbitration and Conciliation Act apportionment of costs

ICICI Bank Ltd v. Yogesh Grover

07 Mar 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:1614
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a suit for loan recovery can be maintained in a court where any part of the cause of action arises, setting aside dismissal for lack of territorial jurisdiction and decreeing the bank's claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction cause of action loan recovery suit Section 20 CPC

North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

07 Mar 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:1608

The Delhi High Court held that when an alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act exists, the petitioner must approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and interim protection may be granted pending such proceedings.

civil other Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14 Section 17 Debt Recovery Tribunal

Dinesh Lal Tarachandani and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

07 Mar 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:1609

The Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Companies to follow the precedent in Sandeep Singh to allow a disqualified director to regularize his status under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act and the Condonation of Delay Scheme, staying the disqualification pending compliance.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant disqualification of directors Section 248(2) Companies Act 2013 Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018 Registrar of Companies

Upma Sharma and Ors. v. Registrar of Companies and Ors.

07 Mar 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:1610

Delhi High Court directed respondents to apply the Sandeep Singh precedent allowing directors of struck-off companies to avoid disqualification by complying with Section 248(2) and the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

corporate petition_allowed Significant Section 248(2) Companies Act 2013 Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018 disqualification of directors striking off company name

Ramesh Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors.

07 Mar 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:1611

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to apply the Sandeep Singh judgment’s directives to relieve the petitioner from director disqualification due to a struck-off company, allowing statutory compliance and staying the disqualification list operation.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Director disqualification Companies Act 2013 Section 248(2) Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018

Poonam Saxena v. Union of India and Ors.

07 Mar 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:1612

The Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Companies to follow precedent and stay the petitioner’s director disqualification pending compliance with statutory revival procedures under the Companies Act and the Condonation of Delay Scheme.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Director disqualification Companies Act 2013 Section 248(2) Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018

Vanshika Tarachandani and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

07 Mar 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:1607

Delhi High Court directs Registrar of Companies to follow precedent and allow petitioners to apply for striking off companies under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 with benefit of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

corporate petition_allowed Significant Section 248(2) Companies Act 2013 striking off company name Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018 Registrar of Companies

M/s Sawhney Bros. v. Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation & Ors.

07 Mar 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:1613

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove shipment of goods due to forged documents and fraud, holding defendants liable for breach of contract and fraud, and decreed restitution of money paid without delivery of goods.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Partnership Act, 1932 Breach of contract Fraud and conspiracy Commercial Documents Evidence Act, 1939

Shyam Lal v. Sunder Lal & Anr.

07 Mar 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:1605

The Delhi High Court upheld a partition decree based on a registered Will establishing joint ownership among brothers, dismissed contradictory claims of forgery and adverse possession, and directed physical demarcation of the property.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partition suit registered Will joint ownership mutation

State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Deepak Bhatiya

07 Mar 2018 · S.P. Garg · 2018:DHC:1606

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused in a sexual offence case due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and failure to prove the prosecutrix's age beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant acquittal benefit of doubt ossification test age determination

Novex Communication Private Ltd v. National Restaurant Association of India & Ors.

07 Mar 2018 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2018:DHC:1615

Denial of copyright claims by an association to its members does not constitute infringement and does not give rise to a maintainable suit for declaration or injunction against the association.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant copyright infringement declaration injunction association

ICICI Bank Ltd v. Vishal Baisla

07 Mar 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:1616
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a suit for loan recovery is maintainable in a court where even part of the cause of action arises, setting aside dismissal for lack of territorial jurisdiction and decreeing the suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction cause of action Section 20 CPC loan recovery

Sandeep Singh Bhandari & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi)

07 Mar 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:1604-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellants of murder charges due to failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory identification of accused recovery of weapon