Delhi High Court

67,253 judgments

Year:

ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD v. ANURADHA BHATIA

06 Jan 2017 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:75-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration Act do not apply retrospectively to arbitral proceedings commenced before 23.10.2015, entitling petitioners to automatic stay of enforcement upon filing Section 34 petitions under the unamended law.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 Section 34 Section 36

ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD v. ANURADHA BHATIA

06 Jan 2017 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:76-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the amended arbitration provisions do not apply retrospectively to proceedings commenced before 23.10.2015, preserving the automatic stay on enforcement under the unamended Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 36 Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services

04 Jan 2017 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Yogesh Khanna · 2016:DHC:7940-DB

The Delhi High Court held that photocopying of copyrighted works by educational institutions for preparation of course packs falls within the educational exceptions under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and does not constitute copyright infringement.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Copyright Act 1957 Section 52(1)(i) Educational exceptions Course packs

Mohd. Nayeem v. NGT of Delhi & Anr.

04 Jan 2017 · Vipin Sanghi · 2017:DHC:8628

The Delhi High Court quashed a kidnapping FIR where the victim voluntarily married the petitioner, held the arrest wrongful, and directed a recordable warning against the investigating officer for misuse of authority.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 365 IPC voluntary marriage wrongful arrest

Harvinder Singh v. UOI & Ors.

04 Jan 2017 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Najmi Waziri · 2017:DHC:8233-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed re-assessment notices issued on the basis of retrospective amendments to Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, holding such amendments cannot justify reopening completed assessments.

tax petition_allowed Significant retrospective amendment Section 80HHC(3) Income Tax Act, 1961 re-assessment notice

Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC v. RA.1 DULARI GUPTA

04 Jan 2017 · HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA; HON'BLE MR.Jl STICE CHANDE... · 2017:DHC:8391-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging non-compliance with pay-scale orders, directing payment by the government and deferring execution of bailable warrants against an official on child care leave.

administrative petition_dismissed writ petition contempt petition pay-scale grant administrative approval

Ram Singh v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors

04 Jan 2017 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2017:DHC:73-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner cannot maintain a fresh Original Application challenging promotion orders after earlier applications were dismissed as barred by limitation and affirmed by the Court.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant limitation Original Application promotion condonation of delay

Teyma India Private Limited v. JITF Water Infrastructure Private Limited & Anr.

04 Jan 2017 · Indira Banerjee; Anil Kumar Chawla · 2017:DHC:71-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking to restrain invocation of unconditional bank guarantees, holding that such invocation cannot be enjoined except in cases of fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equity.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bank guarantee invocation interim relief fraud

L C Sharma v. Jai Singh

04 Jan 2017 · Jayant Nath · 2017:DHC:68

The Delhi High Court held that a pure question of law can be raised at any stage and directed the trial court to reconsider framing an additional issue under the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

civil other Significant Article 227 Constitution of India Order 14 Rule 5 CPC Delhi Land Reforms Act pure question of law

Amit Arora v. High Court of Delhi & Ors.

04 Jan 2017 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2017:DHC:70-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that seniority between promotee and direct recruit SPAs is governed by the rule applicable on the date of appointment, dismissing the petitioner’s claim based on date of confirmation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant inter se seniority promotee direct recruit rota-quota

Rajbir Singh & Ors. v. State

04 Jan 2017 · P.S. Teji · 2017:DHC:69

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants by permitting compounding of the Section 325 IPC offence following a valid compromise between the parties.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 325 IPC compoundable offence Section 320 Cr.P.C. compounding of offence

K.G. Mohanachandran v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Jan 2017 · G. S. Sistani; Vinod Goel · 2017:DHC:72-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed disciplinary orders against a government servant for violation of natural justice due to non-supply of CVC and UPSC reports and lack of evidence to prove charges.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings natural justice Central Vigilance Commission Union Public Service Commission

M/S HB Stockholdings Ltd. v. The Asst. Commissioner of I.T.

04 Jan 2017 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Najmi Waziri · 2017:DHC:66-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed reassessment notices issued beyond the statutory limitation period and held that reassessment cannot be initiated without fresh tangible material post regular assessments.

tax petition_dismissed Significant reassessment notice limitation period Section 147 Income Tax Act block assessment

Bright Enterprises Private Ltd & Anr v. MJ Bizcraft LLP & Anr

04 Jan 2017 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:67-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a commercial suit cannot be dismissed at admission without summons and that summary judgment under Order XIIIA CPC requires an application after summons, setting aside a dismissal without such procedure.

civil appeal_allowed Significant summary judgment Order XIIIA CPC issuance of summons dismissal at admission stage

Ram Prakash Tripathi v. Rohit Kumar

04 Jan 2017 · Jayant Nath · 2017:DHC:65

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of an application to dismiss a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action based on prior possession.

civil petition_dismissed Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint cause of action possession

D.K. Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

04 Jan 2017 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2017:DHC:74-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the principle of 'no work no pay' denying backwages to an employee who failed to join redeployment during pendency of a service dispute without an interim stay.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant no work no pay backwages redeployment service dispute

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Jai Bhan

04 Jan 2017 · J.R. Midha · 2017:DHC:62

The Delhi High Court partially allowed the writ petition by reducing the back wages payable to a reinstated employee from 50% to Rs.4 lakh, balancing the employee's entitlement with delay and equity considerations.

labor petition_partially_allowed Significant back wages industrial dispute reinstatement Labour Court award

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Braham Chand & Ors.

04 Jan 2017 · J.R. Midha · 2017:DHC:64

The Delhi High Court upheld the addition of 50% inflation in compensation calculation but apportioned 50% negligence to the appellant's stationary truck, granting recovery rights against the other insurer.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation inflation addition negligence apportionment

Rajneesh Trust & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

04 Jan 2017 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:63-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation was not paid to landowners but only deposited in treasury.

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

Arun Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Jan 2017 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:61-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act 1894 compensation non-payment acquisition proceedings lapse