Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

Nandos Services India Private Limited v. Janpath Restaurants Private Limited

03 Oct 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:6861-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed a first motion application under the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors for a Composite Scheme of Arrangement based on their written consents.

corporate appeal_allowed Composite Scheme of Arrangement Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391-394

Ravindra Kumar Sharma v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors

03 Oct 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:6844

The High Court held that no police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was warranted where the complainant had knowledge of facts and no exceptional circumstances justified preliminary inquiry, dismissing the petition seeking complaint registration.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. police investigation preliminary inquiry delay in complaint

Smt. Asha Devi & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma

03 Oct 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6842

The Delhi High Court held that the disputed first floor open roof space of adjoining properties purchased from a common predecessor is a common area for joint use, allowing the appellants to construct a staircase with reciprocal rights for the respondent.

civil appeal_allowed Significant sale deed interpretation common area property dispute site plan

Shri Kishore Kumar and Ors. v. Smt. Sheela Devi and Ors.

03 Oct 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6846

The Delhi High Court allowed a second appeal by condoning a 108-day delay in filing the first appeal, emphasizing a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach over technicalities.

civil appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay Section 100 CPC pragmatic approach justice-oriented process

Anju v. Dhanwati

03 Oct 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6843

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the decree for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000 loan based on proved undertaking and expert handwriting evidence.

civil appeal_dismissed loan recovery undertaking handwriting expert evidence thumb impressions

S. K. Sharma v. Gaon Sabha, Mundka & Anr.

03 Oct 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6845

The Delhi High Court upheld that compensation for acquired land vests with the Gaon Sabha as per revenue records under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, dismissing the appellant's claim based on unproven ownership.

property appeal_dismissed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 Section 81 compensation entitlement

Vinod Kumar v. University of Delhi

03 Oct 2016 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:6837

The Delhi High Court held that a provisional certificate remains valid proof of qualification until the degree is issued and directed the University of Delhi to grant admission to the petitioner who was wrongly denied admission on this ground.

administrative petition_allowed Significant provisional certificate degree certificate university admission validity of provisional certificate

SRS Private Investment Powai Ltd v. Supreme Housing and Hospitality Pvt Ltd & Ors.

03 Oct 2016 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2016:DHC:6838

The Delhi High Court affirmed its jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act where the seat of arbitration is Delhi and upheld the petitioner's affirmative rights under the Investment Agreement pending arbitral proceedings.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 interim relief jurisdiction of courts seat of arbitration

Mamta Modern Senior Secondary School v. Directorate of Education

03 Oct 2016 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:6839

The Delhi High Court quashed the withdrawal of a school's nomination from a football tournament, holding that player eligibility rules apply to individuals and not to the entire team.

other petition_allowed Subrato Cup Football Tournament player eligibility school admission administrative order

M/S KVS CARGO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE NEW DELHI

03 Oct 2016 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:6840
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, holding that the notice complied with procedural fairness and did not show premeditation.

administrative petition_dismissed show cause notice premeditation natural justice Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013

HRD Corporation v. GAIL (India) Limited

03 Oct 2016 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:6841

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief directing the respondent to supply Wax at an interim price pending arbitration, upholding the status quo without deciding the substantive disputes.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 Interim relief Contract interpretation

Sharda Rani Chawla & Ors. v. Dr P K Chawla & Ors.

03 Oct 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6835-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a preliminary decree partitioning property among heirs, holding that an unsigned executory agreement requiring payment was unenforceable without proof of tender or specific performance.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant family arrangement partition suit executory agreement specific performance

M/S P K OVERSEAS PVT.LTD. v. M/S BHAGWATI LECTO VEGETARIANS EXPORTS PVT.L.TD

03 Oct 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6836-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the interim injunction restraining defendants from using the trademark 'Al Salaam', holding it deceptively similar to plaintiffs' 'India Salaam' trademark with established goodwill.

civil appeal_allowed Significant passing off trademark infringement deceptive similarity interlocutory injunction

Sanjay Kumar Bhatia v. State

03 Oct 2016 · G. S. Sistani · 2016:DHC:6853

The Delhi High Court granted probate of the last Will under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act to the sole legal heir petitioner in the absence of objections and executor.

civil petition_allowed probate Indian Succession Act Section 276 last Will

Jojo Mathews v. Harmeet Singh Sood

03 Oct 2016 · G. S. Sistani · 2016:DHC:6854

The Delhi High Court decreed a summary suit for Rs. 2.52 crores based on dishonored cheques and MOUs due to the defendant's failure to appear after valid service.

civil appeal_allowed Order XXXVII CPC summary suit dishonor of cheque Memorandum of Understanding

SH VIPIN KUMAR & ORS v. SH NAZMUDDIN KHAN

03 Oct 2016 · G.S. Sistani · 2016:DHC:6852

The Delhi High Court decreed a suit for specific performance based on an amicable settlement recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, directing payment and execution of the Sale Deed.

civil appeal_allowed specific performance Agreement to Sell Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC settlement

Idea Mobile Commerce Services Limited v. Aditya Birla Idea Payments Bank Limited

03 Oct 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:6859

The Delhi High Court allowed the transferor company's application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors for sanctioning a Scheme of Amalgamation, holding that creditor interests were adequately protected and all shareholders had consented.

corporate petition_allowed Significant Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 and 394 dispensation of meetings

Leasemen Fin-invest (India) Private Limited v. Bit Byte Investment Services (Pvt.) Ltd

03 Oct 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:6858

The Delhi High Court allowed the application to dispense with shareholder meetings for approving a Scheme of Amalgamation between two private companies based on sufficient written consents under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 and 394 dispensing with shareholder meetings

M/S V B M ESTATES PVT LTD & ANR v. SIRI BHAGWAN

03 Oct 2016 · JAYANT NATH, J. · 2016:DHC:6857

The Delhi High Court held that issues on limitation and possession must be framed for adjudication in a suit for cancellation and declaration, rejecting preliminary dismissal on limitation grounds without evidence.

civil other Significant limitation Section 34 Specific Relief Act declaration of title possession

HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PRIVATE LIMITED v. GULSHAN RAI THR LRS AND ANR

03 Oct 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:6863-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal to consolidate four simple recovery suits with a complex multi-defendant suit, holding that consolidation requires substantial similarity of parties and issues to avoid prejudice and delay.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant consolidation of suits Section 151 CPC multiplicity of proceedings prejudice and delay