Delhi High Court

65,687 judgments

Year:

M/S Jivanlal Joitaram Patel v. National Highways Authority of India

23 Jan 2018 · A. A. Isjani; G. S. Sehgal; G. S. Sistani · 2018:DHC:9143-DB

The Delhi High Court held that courts cannot remit an arbitral award back to the tribunal after setting it aside under Section 34(4) without a party's written request, and when fixing arbitral fees under the Fourth Schedule, the aggregate of claims and counterclaims must be considered together.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34(4) Arbitral award Remand of award

M/S MONT BLANC SIMPLO GMBH v. GAURAV BHATIA AND ORS

23 Jan 2018 · V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2018:DHC:598

The Delhi High Court held that contempt proceedings are maintainable despite execution remedies if the violation substantially interferes with justice, and allowed the petitioner’s contempt petition against trademark infringement with appointment of local commissioners for inspection and seizure.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Trademark infringement Permanent injunction Execution remedy

Vipul Gupta v. State

23 Jan 2018 · Vipin Sanghi · 2018:DHC:567
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking quashing of FIRs alleging cheating and forgery, holding that the disputes are not purely civil and the petitioners are abusing the process of court by repeatedly seeking quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR abuse of process civil dispute

Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

23 Jan 2018 · Sanjiv Khanna; Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:566-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of CBDT guidelines prescribing compounding fees under the Income Tax Act and dismissed the petition challenging the quantum of compounding charges as neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.

tax petition_dismissed Significant compounding of offences Income Tax Act 1961 CBDT guidelines compounding fee

Vipul Gupta v. State

23 Jan 2018 · Vipin Sanghi · 2018:DHC:570
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed repeated petitions seeking quashing of FIRs alleging fraud and criminal breach of trust, holding that the disputes are not purely civil and the petitions constitute abuse of process.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR abuse of process civil dispute

Bhuvnesh Kumari v. Government of N.C.T. Delhi

23 Jan 2018 · Hima Kohli; Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:572-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a disciplinary penalty of 'Censure' against a school Head of School for unauthorized absence and dereliction of duty amid student agitation and school deficiencies, dismissing her writ petition.

administrative petition_dismissed government servant disciplinary action censure penalty absence without leave

Pushkar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

23 Jan 2018 · S.P. Garg · 2018:DHC:571

The Delhi High Court acquitted the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act upon amicable settlement and directed payment of costs, disposing of the revision petitions as compounded.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act compounding of offence amicable settlement criminal revision petition

Sanjeev Kumar v. State & Anr.

23 Jan 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:575

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of a theft complaint, holding that mere suspicion without material evidence or witness testimony is insufficient to proceed at the complaint stage.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant complaint stage sufficient grounds theft presummoning evidence

Shri Vinod Kumar Sachdeva & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

23 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:585-DB

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as compensation was neither paid nor possession taken, and deposit in government treasury does not amount to payment.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation payment Section 24(2) 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act 1894

Dewan Chand Pruthi v. Union of India & Ors.

23 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:584-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor possession taken, and deposit in government treasury does not amount to payment.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation payment Section 24(2) 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act 1894

Om Parkash Spall v. Union of India & Ors.

23 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:583-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither tendered nor deposited in court, and mere sending of compensation to Revenue Department does not amount to payment.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 24(2) compensation payment

Bharat Singh & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector East & Anr

23 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:582-DB

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor possession taken, clarifying that deposit in government treasury does not amount to payment.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation payment Section 24(2) 2013 Act Section 31 Land Acquisition Act 1894

Pima Lal v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

23 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:581-DB

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor deposited in court and possession is not taken, relying on the Supreme Court's Pune Municipal Corporation ruling.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) 2013 Act compensation payment possession

Simrin Singh v. Amrit Srinivasan & Anr

23 Jan 2018 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2018:DHC:596

The Delhi High Court held that re-examination under Section 138 of the Evidence Act is limited to explaining cross-examination ambiguities and cannot be used to undo cross-examination effects, thus refusing the plaintiff's request to re-examine a witness to a Will.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant re-examination Section 138 Evidence Act cross-examination witness to Will

Lala Ram and Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

23 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:580-DB

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if neither possession is taken nor compensation is paid or deposited in court, declaring the petitioners' acquisition null and void.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24(2) compensation payment

Manoj Kumar v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

23 Jan 2018 · Indermeet Kaur · 2018:DHC:579

The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction from robbery with a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC to robbery under Section 392 IPC, holding that a kitchen knife is not inherently a deadly weapon without proof of its deadly use.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 397 IPC deadly weapon kitchen knife robbery

Abhinav Pandey v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

23 Jan 2018 · Indermeet Kaur · 2018:DHC:574

The Delhi High Court held that a candidate who misses university exams due to illness and appears subsequently is deemed to have made a 'first attempt' and is entitled to the Gold Medal if he has the highest score.

academic/educational law petition_allowed Significant Gold Medal first attempt examination attempt academic ordinance

Nanni Bai Ahirwar v. New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

23 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:578-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Town Vending Committee to consider the petitioner’s claim under the Street Vendors Act, 2014 on merits without rejecting it solely due to her absence during the survey.

administrative petition_dismissed Street Vendors Act, 2014 licence to vend Town Vending Committee survey of vendors

Ms C v. Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs and Ors.

23 Jan 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:577

The Delhi High Court held that the Internal Complaints Committee's preliminary investigation under the Sexual Harassment Act is not a formal inquiry requiring full disclosure and procedural safeguards until the Disciplinary Authority forms an opinion to proceed.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Internal Complaints Committee Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 preliminary investigation

All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Sakshi Mathur

23 Jan 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:576

The Delhi High Court upheld the CIC order directing AIIMS to disclose MBBS entrance exam question papers and answer keys, holding that such information is not exempt under the RTI Act when the question bank is extensive and disclosure does not harm public interest.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 8(1)(h) question papers disclosure answer key