Delhi High Court

65,687 judgments

Year:

Dhawan Creative Prints Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:298-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, affirming the provisional attachment powers with safeguards against arbitrariness under Article 14.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA second proviso provisional attachment

Swastik Cement Products Pvt Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:297-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, affirming that provisional attachment without a charge-sheet is permissible with safeguards and is not arbitrary under Article 14.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA provisional attachment second proviso

J. Sekar v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:294-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA, holding it contains sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness and is essential for urgent provisional attachment of proceeds of crime.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA second proviso provisional attachment

S. Ramachandran v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:295-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, affirming the power of authorized officers to provisionally attach property involved in money-laundering subject to safeguards and judicial review.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA second proviso provisional attachment

Surendra Kumar Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:296-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, affirming the power of provisional attachment without a charge-sheet in urgent cases subject to safeguards against arbitrariness.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA provisional attachment second proviso

J Sekar v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:284-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA, holding it contains sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness and does not violate Article 14.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA second proviso provisional attachment

Inderjeet Kaur Raina v. Harvinder Kaur Anand

11 Jan 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:285

The Delhi High Court held that a party is entitled to refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 upon settlement of dispute, regardless of the mode or stage of settlement, and allowed refund after withdrawal of appeal due to settlement.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 16 Court Fees Act 1870 Section 89 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 refund of court fees settlement of disputes

K. Rethinam v. Union of India and Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:279-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, affirming the legality of provisional attachment orders prior to filing of charge-sheet subject to safeguards and judicial review.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA provisional attachment Article 14

K. Rethinam v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:286-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, affirming the power of provisional attachment with safeguards against arbitrariness under Article 14.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA provisional attachment second proviso

S Ramachandran v. Union of India and Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:287-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, affirming the provisional attachment powers with safeguards against arbitrariness under Article 14.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA second proviso provisional attachment

SRS Mining v. Union of India

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:288-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, affirming provisional attachment powers with safeguards against arbitrariness under Article 14.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA provisional attachment second proviso

T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:289-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA, affirming the scheme of provisional attachment with safeguards against arbitrariness under Article 14.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA provisional attachment Article 14 Constitution of India

K Rethinam v. Union of India

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:290-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA, affirming the provisional attachment powers with safeguards against arbitrariness under Article 14.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA provisional attachment second proviso

S Ramachandran v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:291-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA, affirming the provisional attachment powers with safeguards against arbitrariness under Article 14.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA provisional attachment Article 14 Constitution of India

SRS Mining v. Union of India

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:292-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA, affirming the procedural safeguards against arbitrary provisional attachment of property involved in money-laundering.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA second proviso provisional attachment

Pratibha Singh & Anr. v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate & Anr.

11 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:293-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, affirming its safeguards against arbitrariness and allowing provisional attachment of property involved in money laundering prior to charge-sheet filing.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 5(1) PMLA second proviso provisional attachment

Bharat Deep Sethi v. Sonia Takkar

11 Jan 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:314

The Delhi High Court allowed the tenant's revision petition, holding that leave to defend eviction must be granted where ownership is under judicial challenge, and set aside the eviction order.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) Section 92 CPC leave to defend

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:313

The Delhi High Court modified the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by reducing future prospects to 15% and non-pecuniary damages in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Pranay Sethi.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 loss of dependency future prospects

Shiv Kumar Pandey v. Gulzar Ahmed & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:315

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by awarding additional damages for loss of amenities of life, while upholding the Tribunal's findings on loss of income due to lack of evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation motor accident claim loss of income

Dinesh Prasad Sah v. Yogesh Kaushik & Ors.

11 Jan 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:318

The Delhi High Court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's compensation award of Rs. 6,86,700 to the claimant for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

civil appeal_dismissed Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation