Delhi High Court

69,037 judgments

Year:

Mhaya Buildcon Private Limited & Ors. v. Regional Director, Northern Region

11 Nov 2016 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:7453

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Arrangement involving merger and demerger of multiple companies under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, after requisite approvals and no objections from statutory authorities.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Arrangement Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 and 394 merger

The Bhagat Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd v. Ministry of Textiles Through Development Commissioner for Handlooms

11 Nov 2016 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:7452

The Delhi High Court held that only recommendations from specified State/UT authorities qualify for exhibition participation, and a mere forwarding letter from the Development Commissioner does not suffice, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to the selection list.

administrative petition_dismissed recommendation handloom societies selection list Development Commissioner for Handlooms

M/S TAMILNADU TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD v. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

11 Nov 2016 · Vibhu Bahru · 2016:DHC:7451
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award permitting BSNL to encash performance bank guarantees and levy liquidated damages against TTL for breach of supply contract, holding that liquidated damages do not require proof of actual loss when agreed as genuine pre-estimate.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Indian Contract Act, 1872 Section 56

Union of India v. Om Prakash and Ors.

11 Nov 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:7461

The Delhi High Court upheld the Reference Court's direction to correct a land acquisition Award and file a correct statement under the Land Acquisition Act, holding that timely filed correction applications must be acted upon despite delay by the Collector.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 13A Section 18 Section 19

State v. Jagbir Singh

11 Nov 2016 · Gita Mittal; Anu Malhotra · 2016:DHC:7460-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and suspicious recovery of property.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence benefit of doubt recovery of stolen property identification parade

Satish Saw Mill v. Shambhu Mahto

11 Nov 2016 · J.R. Midha · 2016:DHC:7459

The Delhi High Court upheld a Workmen’s Compensation award for 71% permanent disability to an employee injured in a saw machine accident, dismissing the employer’s appeal challenging the course of employment and disability assessment.

labor appeal_dismissed Workmen’s Compensation permanent disability course of employment judicial belief

Sunil Kumar Jain v. State

10 Nov 2016 · A. K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:8741

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in a criminal case involving property dispute after parties compromised and civil suits were withdrawn.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail compromise memorandum of understanding possession

Reena v. State (Govt of Not Deehi)

10 Nov 2016 · S. P. Garg · 2016:DHC:8740

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a case involving serious IPC offences, emphasizing their cooperation with the investigation and imposing conditions for bail.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. Sections 341, 354B, 326B, 109, 34 IPC interim protection

DRRAGHUBIR VEDALANKAR v. Delhi University & Ors

10 Nov 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:8638

The Delhi High Court directed the University of Delhi to consider petitioners' eligibility for General Provident Fund benefits and pass reasoned orders accordingly, upholding their entitlement if criteria are met.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant General Provident Fund Contributory Provident Fund University of Delhi eligibility criteria

Ravinder Solanki & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

10 Nov 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2016:DHC:7450-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed penalties imposed on teachers for alleged mass cheating due to lack of evidence and procedural flaws, permitting a fresh inquiry to be conducted expeditiously.

administrative petition_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings mass cheating preponderance of probabilities enquiry officer

Vinod Trivedi v. Atul Jain & Ors.

10 Nov 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:7447

The Delhi High Court held that claims for damages cannot be added in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and dismissed the amendment application while allowing limited factual amendments.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 6 Specific Relief Act Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint mesne profits

Niraj Sharma v. State

10 Nov 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:7446

The Delhi High Court held that an accused has no right to file documents or be heard at the stage of taking cognizance on a charge-sheet, setting aside the revisional court's contrary direction.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant cognizance charge-sheet accused rights Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Dr. Rahul Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

10 Nov 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:7444

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging denial of employment on medical grounds, holding that the employer’s prescribed medical fitness standards must be uniformly applied and cannot be overridden by the Court.

administrative petition_dismissed medical fitness standards pre-employment medical examination employer discretion Clause 2.[2] guidelines

Amar Nath Jha v. University of Delhi

10 Nov 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:7445

The Delhi High Court directed the University of Delhi to grant approval for the petitioner’s appointment as Vice-Principal, holding that procedural lapses do not justify refusal when eligibility is undisputed.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Vice-Principal appointment University approval Ordinance XVIII prior approval requirement

LMJ International Ltd. v. Integrated Warehousing Kandla Project Development Pvt Ltd

10 Nov 2016 · S. Muralidhar · 2016:DHC:7443

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award for lack of a valid arbitration agreement, holding that an unsigned LOI and unexecuted format agreements do not confer jurisdiction on the arbitrator.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration agreement Section 7 Arbitration Act jurisdiction of arbitrator Letter of Intent

Rajinder Prasad Jain v. State (GNCTD)

10 Nov 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:7442

The Delhi High Court held that a Magistrate's refusal to order police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is valid when the complainant can produce evidence and the allegations do not warrant police intervention.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. police investigation discretionary power criminal breach of trust

Anita Bhargava v. State & Ors.

10 Nov 2016 · Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:7441

The High Court allowed additional evidence to be led at the appellate stage to prove execution of a Will by examining attesting witnesses, setting aside the dismissal of the probate petition for non-examination of such witnesses.

civil appeal_allowed Significant probate Will attesting witnesses Indian Succession Act

Hari Chand v. State

10 Nov 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:7434

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC due to material inconsistencies and lack of reliable corroboration in the prosecutrix's sole testimony.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape sole testimony prosecutrix Section 376 IPC

Vishal Sharma & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

10 Nov 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:7440

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC matrimonial dispute

Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

10 Nov 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:7439

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498-A IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC matrimonial disputes