Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Hansraj Tiles World v. Commissioner of DGST Delhi & Ors.
Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires objective reasons and opportunity to the taxpayer, modifying cancellation date to the petitioner's application date.
Surinder Kumar Garg v. The Union of India
The Delhi High Court set aside a tax demand order for failing to consider the taxpayer's detailed reply and remitted the matter for re-adjudication with a fresh opportunity of hearing.
Anita Bansal Proprietress of M/s A.B. Enterprises v. The Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order passed without hearing the petitioner who was prevented from responding due to her husband's death, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing.
Rouse Avenue Bar Association v. The Bar Council of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court held that the right to form an association under Article 19(1)(c) does not guarantee recognition as a Court annexed Bar Association, upheld the Bar Council of Delhi's refusal of recognition due to membership irregularities, and recognized the Central Delhi Court Bar Association as the official Bar Association for the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex.
Sadhna Kohli v. Sales Tax Officer Class II, Avato Ward 80 & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) CGST Act requires objective satisfaction and proper notice, and modified the cancellation date to the date of the Show Cause Notice instead of an earlier retrospective date.
Babu Lal v. Ashok Kumar
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, ruling that the landlord's bona fide requirement was established and the tenant failed to raise a triable issue for leave to contest.
Mukesh Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act following an amicable settlement and resumption of cohabitation between the parties.
Subhash Sharma v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the Court's process.
Sukhvidner and Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC in a matrimonial dispute following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of court process.
Mohd. Nasim v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and modified sentences of two accused for robbery under Sections 394/34 and 411 IPC, holding that minor contradictions and non-recovery of weapon do not vitiate the prosecution case when recovery of stolen property and identity are established.
National Highway Authority of India v. M S SSANGYONG ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LIMITED
The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award treating the payment certificate as a final statement, dismissed the petition challenging it, and reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Chander Bhalla v. Rajeev Bhatnagar
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, holding that triable issues regarding the authenticity of the loan agreement and nature of the transaction preclude summary judgment.
Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highway Authority of India
The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition challenging the arbitral award's rejection of interest on delayed payment, noting the award had already been set aside and remanded, leaving the petitioner liberty to raise the issue before the arbitral tribunal.
Grand Prix Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajeev Bhatnagar
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, holding that triable issues regarding the authenticity of the loan agreement and nature of the transaction require a full trial.
Appolo Handloom Manufacturing Co-op. Society Ltd. v. All India Handloom Fabrics Society and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that where the Central Registrar fails to appoint an arbitrator under Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, the court can intervene under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to direct appointment, allowing arbitration of disputes including election challenges.
Appolo Handloom Manufacturing Co-op. Society Ltd. v. All India Handloom Fabrics Society
The Delhi High Court held that it can direct the Central Registrar to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act when the Registrar fails to act under Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, and referred the disputes concerning a cooperative society to arbitration.
Avinash Sachdeva v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an arbitral award holding the appellant liable to indemnify MTNL for penalties imposed by DoT under the contract's indemnity clause.
Rajan Dutta v. The State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR alleging assault and outraging modesty, holding that the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences and are to be tested at trial.
Shefali Kohli v. Neena Chatrath & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and took on record the defendants' written statement and affidavit of admission/denial despite procedural delays, emphasizing adjudication on merits over procedural defaults.
Akhil Gupta v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allowing direct arbitration despite a dispute resolution clause requiring prior Ombudsman intervention, due to the respondent's failure to engage in dispute resolution.