Delhi High Court

70,895 judgments

Year:

Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs

22 Sep 2016 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:6689

The Delhi High Court held that children of Tibetan refugees born in India between 1950 and 1987 are Indian citizens by birth under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and directed issuance of passports without requiring separate citizenship applications.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant Citizenship by birth Section 3 Citizenship Act 1955 Tibetan refugees Indian passport

Raghbir Singh v. State

22 Sep 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:6695

The High Court held that a Magistrate cannot direct examination of witnesses before accepting a police cancellation report and upheld the trial court's acceptance of the cancellation report in a road accident case.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant cancellation report Section 173 CrPC taking cognizance eyewitness statement

Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs

22 Sep 2016 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:6686

The Delhi High Court held that children of Tibetan refugees born in India between 1950 and 1987 are Indian citizens by birth under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and directed issuance of passports without requiring separate citizenship applications.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant Citizenship Act, 1955 Section 3(1)(a) Tibetan refugees Indian citizenship by birth

Ashok Kumar v. Purshotam Lal Verma

22 Sep 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:6688-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, summons must be served simultaneously by ordinary process and registered post, but service by one mode suffices to start the 15-day limitation period for filing leave to defend, which runs from the first valid service.

civil other Significant Section 25B Delhi Rent Control Act service of summons leave to defend limitation period

Usha v. Kishan Chand @ Lokesh

22 Sep 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:6687-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a divorce decree on the ground of mental cruelty where the wife’s conduct, including ridiculing the husband’s speech disability and making unsubstantiated allegations, was found to make cohabitation impossible.

family appeal_dismissed Significant mental cruelty Hindu Marriage Act 1955 Section 13(1)(ia) divorce

Singh v. Union of India

22 Sep 2016 · Chief Justice G. Rohini; Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:6678-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the appellant had no legal right to operate catering stalls beyond the expiry of the contractual license period under the Catering Policy, 2010, and Railway circulars granting extensions to other units did not apply.

administrative appeal_dismissed Catering Policy 2010 IRCTC license license extension administrative circular

Virender Kumar v. Sunder Kumar

22 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:6696

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition upholding the trial court's finding that the petitioner failed to prove prior possession and illegal dispossession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 6 Specific Relief Act possession illegal dispossession prior possession

Vinod Kumar Aggarwal v. Ritu & Anr.

22 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:6700

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding the landlord's bona fide requirement for commercial use genuine and dismissing the tenant's challenge to the eviction.

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

Bhagwan Das Kewal Ramani v. Ishu Ramani & Anr

22 Sep 2016 · G. S. Sistani · 2016:DHC:6692

The Delhi High Court decreed partition of a property based on a valid Will and Relinquishment Deed, confirming shares without formal metes and bounds partition due to peaceful possession and mutual agreement.

civil appeal_allowed partition suit Will Relinquishment Deed mutation

Daryao Singh v. State

22 Sep 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:6693

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking to reopen evidence and add charges after 36 years, holding that the summoning order under Sections 447/323 IPC had attained finality and the trial could not be restarted.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 447 IPC Section 323 IPC Section 313 CrPC Section 311 CrPC

M/S ABASKAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

22 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6694

The Delhi High Court directed NDMC to hear the petitioner’s representation before enforcing disputed electricity charges under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, emphasizing the right to a hearing prior to recovery.

administrative other Significant Electricity Act 2003 Section 126 Sundry Adjustment Electricity bill dispute

Sharma Farms Private Limited v. Globus Projects Private Limited

22 Sep 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:6699-DB

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Sharma Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, after satisfying itself of approvals and statutory compliance.

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

Paramjeet Singh v. Delhi Development Authority

22 Sep 2016 · JAYANT NATH · 2016:DHC:6698

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging refusal to amend the plaint after trial commencement, holding that late amendments changing the suit's nature without due diligence are impermissible.

civil petition_dismissed Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amendment of pleadings due diligence permanent injunction

Asheesh Vaderaa v. State & Ors.

22 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:6697

The Delhi High Court held that a party supporting the petitioner in a probate suit has the right to cross-examine an objector's witness if allegations are made against that party, ensuring the fundamental right to test evidence under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant cross-examination Section 138 Indian Evidence Act right to cross-examine probate petition

38c94626fbb0ac68a704643771046a6bfccd83063ea4b5ff9a1078cde54f4a2b

22 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:8602

The court dismissed petitions seeking stay of possession order already implemented and directed expeditious disposal of the related appeal by the Deputy Commissioner.

administrative petition_dismissed possession stay order afforestation Sub-Divisional Magistrate

MVL Ltd & Anr v. Ankush Gandhi and Anr

22 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6679

The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal on the basis of a settlement with payment of decretal amount and interest, and granted refund of court fees under Section 16A of the Court Fee Act.

civil appeal_allowed settlement decretal amount interest court fee refund

Brij Trading Company Private Limited v. Hindustan Unilever Limited

22 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6680

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn after the parties reached a full and final settlement through mediation and the appellant received the agreed payment.

civil appeal_dismissed appeal withdrawal settlement mediation ombudsman

Scrum Alliance, Inc v. Mr. Prem Kumar S. & Ors.

22 Sep 2016 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8346
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the defendants infringed the plaintiff's registered Certification Trade Marks "CERTIFIED SCRUMMASTER" and "CSM" by unauthorized use of identical and deceptively similar marks and logos, granting injunction against the defendants.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Certification Trade Mark Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 75 infringement Section 76(3) protection

Mahavir Lamba v. State & Anr

21 Sep 2016 · A. K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:9231

Delhi High Court allowed revision petitions and acquitted the petitioner by compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act following a settlement between the parties.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act compounding offence criminal revision petition settlement

Amrit Lal Shukla v. Harish Kumar

21 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:9343

The Delhi High Court quashed the ARC's order granting leave to contest eviction for lack of reasons and improper application of law, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 25-B(4) leave to contest eviction