Delhi High Court

65,687 judgments

Year:

New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Khayali Ram Chaturvedi & Ors

24 Jan 2017 · Sunil Gaur · 2017:DHC:447

The Delhi High Court modified a motor accident compensation award by rejecting contributory negligence, recalculating housewife's income on minimum wages with deductions, and disallowing future prospects for minimum wage earners, thereby reducing the compensation payable.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim contributory negligence compensation quantum housewife income assessment

Sony India Pvt Ltd v. CIT

24 Jan 2017 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Najmi Waziri
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that depreciation under Section 32 is allowable on a block of assets even if some assets are unused or sold during the year, and Section 50 applies when the entire block ceases to exist.

tax appeal_allowed Significant depreciation block of assets Income Tax Act 1961 Section 32

Ghanshyam Dass v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

23 Jan 2017 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2017:DHC:410

The Delhi High Court disposed of writ petitions by directing the North Delhi Municipal Corporation to pay certified contractor bills on a queue basis with interest payable after three years, binding parties to a prior consent order governing similar disputes.

civil petition_dismissed Significant contractors municipal corporation payment of bills queue basis payment

National Insurance Co. v. Shobha

23 Jan 2017 · Sunil Gaur · 2017:DHC:411

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and upheld compensation under a personal accident cover due to lack of evidence proving violation of policy terms.

civil appeal_dismissed personal accident cover insurance policy terms compensation violation of policy conditions

Malayan Banking Berhad v. Allahabad Bank

20 Jan 2017 · Deepa Sharma · 2017:DHC:390

The Delhi High Court dismissed Allahabad Bank's leave to defend in a summary suit by Malayan Banking Berhad, affirming the absolute liability of issuing banks under irrevocable letters of credit absent proven fraud known at payment.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Letters of Credit UCP-600 Order XXXVII CPC summary suit

M/S J P GUPTA & SONS v. MALTI NARANG & ANR

20 Jan 2017 · Jayant Nath · 2017:DHC:389

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, affirming the landlord's bona fide requirement for the premises to run a business centre despite the tenant's objections.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) bona fide requirement eviction

Shri Ramvir Giri and Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

19 Jan 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7905-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's order rejecting regularisation of Chowkidars for failure to consider relevant documents and remanded the matter for fresh expeditious adjudication.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant regularisation daily wager Chowkidar Central Administrative Tribunal

All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Gopal Chandra Sahoo

17 Jan 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:8949-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of disciplinary proceedings against an AIIMS employee due to lack of credible evidence, emphasizing that charges must be proved on a preponderance of probability with credible corroboration.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings preponderance of probability no evidence corroboration

Narender Kumar Jain v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

11 Jan 2017 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:275

Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner acting as a mere carrier of corrupt money in a political conspiracy case, imposing conditions to ensure investigation cooperation.

criminal petition_allowed anticipatory bail Prevention of Corruption Act IPC Sections 170, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 474, 201 Election Commission

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited v. Union of India; Bard Healthcare India Private Limited v. Union of India

09 Jan 2017 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:3787
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that NPPA cannot freeze prices of non-scheduled formulations beyond Para 20’s mechanism and interest on overcharge is payable only from default in payment, quashing demand notices for overcharging and interest levied from date of overpricing.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs (Price Control) Order 2013 Para 20 Maximum Retail Price overcharging

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited v. Union of India; Bard Healthcare India Private Limited v. Union of India

09 Jan 2017 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:3788
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that NPPA's interpretation of Para 20 of DPCO 2013 imposing price freezes and interest from overcharging date is incorrect, affirming manufacturers' right to periodic price increases and limiting interest to default in payment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs (Price Control) Order 2013 Para 20 Maximum Retail Price overcharging

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited v. Union of India; Bard Healthcare India Private Limited v. Union of India

09 Jan 2017 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:3786
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that NPPA cannot deny manufacturers the right to periodic 10% MRP increases after overcharging violations under Para 20 of DPCO 2013, and interest under Section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act is payable only from default in payment, not from the date of overcharging.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs (Price Control) Order 2013 Para 20 Maximum Retail Price overcharging

Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v. M/S Arora Stationers & Ors.

08 Jan 2017 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:164

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction application, holding that their registered ball point pen design lacked substantial novelty and originality required for protection under the Designs Act, 2000.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Designs Act 2000 Registered design Novelty and originality Interim injunction

M/S HDFC Bank Ltd. v. M/S Prem Power Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

08 Jan 2017 · Sanjiv Khanna; Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:163-DB

The Delhi High Court held that sending winding up notices by registered post to the company's registered office as per official records constitutes valid service under the Companies Act, 1956, and set aside dismissal of the winding up petition for non-service.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant winding up notice Companies Act 1956 service of notice registered post

Feroz v. State NCT of Delhi

08 Jan 2017 · Vipin Sanghi; P. S. Teji · 2018:DHC:147-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the appellant's murder conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicted him under Section 304 Part-I IPC, holding that absence of motive and premeditation reduced the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC Exception IV to Section 300 IPC Section 106 Evidence Act

Lt. Col. Sube Singh Thukrana & Anr. v. Sajamuddin & Ors.

04 Jan 2017 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:89

The Delhi High Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by applying the correct multiplier and future prospects percentage as per Supreme Court precedents and increased the interest rate to 9% per annum.

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

Unnati Welfare Organisation v. M/S Safety Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

01 Jan 2017 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:3890

The Delhi High Court decreed a summary suit for recovery of ₹4.09 crore with interest based on dishonoured cheques and a personal guarantee, granting injunction over secured property.

civil appeal_allowed Significant summary suit Order XXXVII CPC dishonoured cheque deed of personal guarantee

Prof. Sachin Maheshwari v. Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology & Anr.

24 Dec 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2017:DHC:7701

The Delhi High Court held that while NSIT can prescribe higher eligibility criteria linked to higher pay scales for Director, such criteria must be approved by the Board of Governors and not solely by the President (Lt. Governor), quashing the impugned advertisement on procedural grounds.

administrative petition_allowed Significant AICTE Regulations 2010 Director appointment NSIT eligibility criteria higher pay scale

Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi; Mahender Kumar v. State of Delhi

20 Dec 2016 · Gita Mittal; R.K. Gauba · 2017:DHC:7920-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and life sentences of two brothers for murder under Section 302/34 IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony and common intention, rejecting the defence of non-examination of a peripheral witness and challenges to related witnesses' credibility.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention related witnesses

Mahender Kumar v. State of Delhi

20 Dec 2016 · Gita Mittal; R.K. Gauba · 2017:DHC:7919-DB