Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

MS Bindu Chaudhary v. Shri Deepak Suga

29 Sep 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6795-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the wife's appeal for enhancement of maintenance, holding that the awarded amount was reasonable considering the parties' incomes, liabilities, and the respondent's foreign employment.

family appeal_dismissed pendent lite maintenance Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 24 maintenance enhancement

FORECH INDIA LIMITED v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR

29 Sep 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:6785

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the CCI's application to modify disclosure obligations during investigation, upholding the petitioner's right to most investigation documents while balancing confidentiality concerns.

administrative other Significant Competition Act, 2002 Section 26(1) investigation confidentiality

M/S VANSHIKA BUILDTECH LTD v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR

29 Sep 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:6784

The Delhi High Court held that NDMC's demand for old electricity arrears raised after ten years is barred by limitation and quashed the demand against the subsequent purchaser of the property.

civil petition_allowed Significant electricity dues limitation period Section 363 NDMC Act arrears recovery

IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD v. MECH MOCHA GAME STUDIOS PVT LTD

29 Sep 2016 · G. S. Sistani · 2016:DHC:6801

The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit based on the defendant's undertaking not to use the disputed mark in the plaintiff's business domain, thereby restraining the defendant from using 'MECH MOCHA' in the food and beverages industry.

civil other trademark infringement passing off registered trademark undertaking

Union of India & Ors. v. Satinder Singh Jat

29 Sep 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6793

The Delhi High Court held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging disciplinary orders under the CISF Act, which must be challenged by writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant CISF Rules 2001 disciplinary authority statutory orders civil court jurisdiction

Krishan Kumar Singhal v. L.C. Goyal & Ors.

28 Sep 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:8693

The Delhi High Court disposed of contempt petitions arising from a stayed order, allowing fresh proceedings after the Supreme Court's decision on special leave petitions.

civil other Procedural contempt petition stay order Supreme Court special leave petition

Beenadevi v. Sheelbansal

28 Sep 2016 · JAYANT NATH · 2016:DHC:8603

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to file a belated written statement subject to costs, emphasizing that procedural grievances should be addressed through proper applications before the trial court.

civil appeal_allowed written statement Order 15-A CPC prejudice costs

Prabhu Dayal Jain v. Bush Foods Overseas Pvt Ltd

28 Sep 2016 · G. S. Sistani · 2016:DHC:6778

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte decree for recovery of Rs.1.25 crore with interest to a grain merchant against a defaulting rice trading company based on invoices, accounts, and dishonoured cheques.

civil appeal_dismissed recovery suit ex parte decree business accounts dishonoured cheque

Taxus Infrastructure and Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd.

28 Sep 2016 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2016:DHC:6772

The Delhi High Court held that arbitral tribunal fees fixed with party consent cannot be challenged to terminate the tribunal and that party-nominated arbitrators validly appointed a substitute presiding arbitrator after resignation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Arbitral tribunal fees Appointment of presiding arbitrator Section 14(2) Arbitration Act

Santosh Kumar Mandal v. State

28 Sep 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:6771

The Delhi High Court held that offences under Section 12 of the POCSO Act are cognizable and non-bailable, dismissing the bail application of the petitioner accused of wrongful confinement and harassment of a minor student.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant bail POCSO Act Section 12 POCSO cognizable offence

Pradeep Dahiya v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

28 Sep 2016 · S. P. Garg · 2016:DHC:6770

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail to a married petitioner accused of harassing and threatening a woman and interfering with her matrimonial life, holding that serious allegations and misuse of interim protection warranted denial.

criminal appeal_dismissed anticipatory bail harassment criminal intimidation Section 354 IPC

Sanjay Mahajan v. Sunil Sharma & Anr.

28 Sep 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6774

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding that a suit against a newly added defendant is barred by limitation unless the court orders otherwise, and the plaintiff failed to prove loan to the original defendant.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Section 21 Limitation Act Article 20 Limitation Act Section 100 CPC

Tenzin Chuki v. Union of India and Anr

28 Sep 2016 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:6769
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that persons born in India between 1950 and 1987 who meet statutory citizenship criteria cannot be denied Indian passports based on administrative resolutions concerning Tibetan refugees.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant Citizenship Act, 1955 Section 3(1)(a) Section 3(2) Section 9(2)

Sh. Mahavir Gupta v. Sh. Shobha Ram Saran

28 Sep 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6773

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding dismissal of leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC where the defendant's defence was found to be illusory and unsupported by evidence.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XXXVII CPC leave to defend dishonoured cheque loan recovery

Raj Pal & Anr. v. Deepak Makwana

28 Sep 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:6775

The court held that reliance on a de-exhibited document to dismiss execution objections is erroneous and restored the objections for trial with directions to lead evidence on the disputed property area.

civil appeal_allowed Significant de-exhibited document Order 21 Rule 58 CPC Section 47 CPC execution objections

M/S SILVER TOUCH ENTERPRISES v. RADHA SHARMA & ANR.

28 Sep 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:6776

The Delhi High Court set aside a compensation award under the Employee’s Compensation Act for non-consideration of resignation and employer-employee relationship, remanding the matter for fresh evidence and decision.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 employer-employee relationship resignation course of employment

Bhupinder Singh v. DRI

28 Sep 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:6777

The High Court held that a voluntary plea of guilt supported by mitigating factors including prolonged trial and serious illness justifies sentencing below the statutory minimum under the Customs Act, restoring the conviction and sentence set aside by the Sessions Judge.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant plea of guilt voluntariness Section 135 Customs Act minimum sentence

SGSIL Geophysical Services Private Limited v. Sowar Private Limited

28 Sep 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:6779-DB

The Delhi High Court approved a Scheme of Amalgamation between two companies under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with formal meetings due to unanimous written consents from shareholders and creditors.

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

Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj Building Operations (NCR) Private Limited v. Homebay Residential Private Limited

28 Sep 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:6780-DB

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 after ensuring statutory approvals and undertakings for liabilities were in place.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Section 391 Section 394

Jaman Lal Kanhaya Lal v. Ram Moorti Devi

28 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath, J. · 2016:DHC:6781

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order on bona fide requirement grounds for office premises of a practicing advocate, dismissing the tenant's revision petition challenging the order.

property appeal_dismissed Significant bona fide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act eviction leave to defend