Delhi High Court

65,687 judgments

Year:

Mangal v. North Municipal Corporation of Delhi

31 Jan 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:728

The Delhi High Court held that claims for retiral benefits of municipal corporation employees fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.

service petition_dismissed retiral benefits service matter Central Administrative Tribunal Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

P.P.S Kapoor v. Food Corporation of India

31 Jan 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:735

The Delhi High Court quashed an unreasoned order denying enhanced gratuity to CDA employees of FCI and directed reconsideration with due regard to parity with IDA employees and relevant pay commission recommendations.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 gratuity ceiling Central Dearness Allowance Industrial Dearness Allowance

Taher Hussain v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

31 Jan 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:734

The Delhi High Court stayed notifications dispensing with interviews in JNU recruitment, directing the university to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order before implementation.

administrative other Recruitment Rules Jawaharlal Nehru University Visitor assent Non-Teaching Posts

M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED v. SURBHI GUPTA

31 Jan 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:733
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the bank's appeal in a loan recovery suit, holding that non-production of the original loan recall notice is not fatal when other original loan documents and certified electronic evidence are on record.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loan recovery original documents loan recall notice Section 65B Indian Evidence Act

M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED v. SUNIL SHARMA

31 Jan 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:731
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the bank's appeal in a loan recovery suit, holding that certified electronic bank statements and copies of loan documents suffice as evidence without insisting on original loan recall notice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loan recovery suit original documents electronic evidence Section 65B Indian Evidence Act

M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED v. VINOD

31 Jan 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:732
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court allowed the bank's appeal, holding that non-production of the original loan recall notice held by the defendant is not a ground to dismiss a recovery suit when other original loan documents and certified electronic evidence are produced.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loan recovery suit original documents loan recall notice Section 65B Indian Evidence Act

M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED v. KAPIL DEV SHARMA

31 Jan 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:730
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the bank's appeal in a loan recovery suit, holding that certified electronic records and non-production of the original loan recall notice do not justify dismissal when the loan and default are otherwise proved.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loan recovery suit original documents electronic evidence Section 65B Indian Evidence Act

Sanjeev Sharma v. Avinash Rastogi

31 Jan 2018 · JAYANT NATH · 2018:DHC:727

The Delhi High Court held that failure to comply with security deposit conditions under Order 37 CPC mandates passing of a decree in favor of the plaintiff without examining the merits.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 37 CPC summary suit conditional leave to defend security deposit

M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED v. GURDEV SINGH

31 Jan 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:720

The Delhi High Court allowed ICICI Bank's appeal, holding that a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC is maintainable without proof of dispatch of legal notice and that certified statements under Section 65B and the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act suffice to establish the debt.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXXVII CPC Section 65B Indian Evidence Act Bankers’ Books Evidence Act legal notice

M/S ICICI BANK LIMITED v. KAMINI SHARMA & ANR

31 Jan 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:721
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the bank's appeal in a loan recovery suit, holding that certified electronic records and copies of documents suffice when originals are not in possession, and technical non-production of the original loan recall notice cannot defeat substantive justice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loan recovery suit original documents loan recall notice Section 65B Indian Evidence Act

Albin Baby v. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.

31 Jan 2018 · Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:722

The Delhi High Court allowed correction of a typographical error in a student's examination certificate despite limitation rules, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural bars.

administrative petition_allowed Significant examination certificate correction clerical error limitation period examination bye-laws

Sanatan Dharam Mewat Educational Society v. All India Council for Technical Education

31 Jan 2018 · Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:725

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner institute liberty to apply afresh for AICTE approval after complying with prescribed procedures for course closure, setting aside the withdrawal of approval order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant AICTE approval course closure procedure educational institute regulation infrastructure norms

Prabhjot Singh Kohli v. Raghbir Singh & Ors.

31 Jan 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:726

A subsequent Will revokes an earlier Will only in respect of properties it covers, and does not revoke the earlier Will as to other properties not mentioned.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Will revocation of Will subsequent Will partition suit

Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority

31 Jan 2018 · Vipin Sanghi; Deepa Sharma · 2018:DHC:724-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction orders under the Public Premises Act against occupants of government land leased to cooperative societies, ruling that state tenancy laws do not protect occupants after lease expiry.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Public Premises Act Punjab Tenancy Act Punjab Tenants Security of Tenure Act Delhi Development Authority

Harbhajan Singh Bagga v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors

31 Jan 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:723
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that a Jeevan Shree policyholder who defaults on the last premium is not entitled to guaranteed additions accruing after default, upholding LIC's reduced paid-up settlement in line with policy terms.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Jeevan Shree policy guaranteed additions reduced paid-up value non-payment of premium

M/S Ram Krishan Associates v. Commissioner of Income Tax

31 Jan 2018 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2018:DHC:768-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a licensee with exclusive rights under a license agreement is not an owner under the Income Tax Act, and sub-license fees received by such licensee are taxable under 'income from other sources' and not under 'income from house property.'

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 22 Section 27 Section 269UA

M/S Ram Krishan Associates v. Commissioner of Income Tax

31 Jan 2018 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2018:DHC:766-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a licensee with exclusive rights under a license agreement is not an owner under the Income Tax Act, and income from sub-licensing is taxable under 'Income from other sources', not 'Income from house property'.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 22 Section 27 Section 269UA

M/S Ram Krishan Associates v. Commissioner of Income Tax

31 Jan 2018 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2018:DHC:767-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a licensee with exclusive rights under a license agreement is not an owner under the Income Tax Act, and income from sub-licensing is taxable under 'Income from other sources' rather than 'Income from house property'.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 22 Section 27 Section 269UA

Indian Optometry Federation v. Union of India

31 Jan 2018 · Gita Mittal; C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:765-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging online sale of optical lenses without prescriptions, holding that such sales against confirmed prescriptions do not violate public interest and that regulatory responsibility does not lie with the respondent.

administrative petition_dismissed online sale of optical lenses medical prescription National Programme for Control of Blindness Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidya Devi & Ors.

31 Jan 2018 · J.R. Midha · 2018:DHC:762

The Delhi High Court modified the motor accident compensation award by adding future prospects, adjusting non-pecuniary damages, and directing payment to the deceased's mother despite the widow's remarriage and prior settlement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation loss of dependency future prospects