Delhi High Court

69,037 judgments

Year:

PENGUIN BOOKS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR v. VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS

09 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6405

The Delhi High Court decreed a civil suit based on a voluntary joint settlement between the parties concerning publication rights, disposing of the suit accordingly.

civil settled joint settlement civil suit voluntary settlement Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC

Sachin Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

09 Sep 2016 · Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:6430
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that resignation is effective only upon acceptance and communication, but where the employee joins a rival company and accepts final settlement, the employer-employee relationship terminates and withdrawal of resignation is not permissible.

employment petition_dismissed Significant resignation acceptance withdrawal of resignation employer-employee relationship locus penitentiae

Dina Nath Public School v. Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors.

09 Sep 2016 · Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:6427

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging EPF appellate orders on the ground of forum non conveniens, holding that the mere location of the appellate authority does not confer jurisdiction if the cause of action and parties are situated elsewhere.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant forum conveniens Article 226 Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 jurisdiction

Dina Nath Public School v. Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors.

09 Sep 2016 · Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:6428

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging EPF appellate orders on the ground that the court was not the appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens despite the appellate authority being located in Delhi.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant forum conveniens Article 226 Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 jurisdiction

Rajender @ Kallu v. State

09 Sep 2016 · Gita Mittal; P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6429-DB

The Delhi High Court held that delay in sending FIR to Magistrate under Section 157 Cr.P.C. is not automatically fatal and directed adoption of e-transmission to ensure timely compliance and improve investigation quality.

criminal other Significant Section 157 Cr.P.C. FIR transmission juvenility e-transmission

Sonidave v. Yasin Mir

08 Sep 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:8704

Contempt proceedings are not maintainable for enforcement of a decree passed in a first appeal; execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure are the appropriate remedy.

civil petition_dismissed Significant contempt proceedings execution proceedings Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC Order 21 Rule 32 CPC

Ajit Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi

08 Sep 2016 · S. P. Garg · 2016:DHC:8314

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in a cheating and conspiracy case after settlement with the complainant and payment of compensation.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. cheating Section 420 IPC

Dinesh v. State; Bimla Devi v. State

08 Sep 2016 · S. P. Garg · 2016:DHC:8299

Anticipatory bail granted to accused under Sections 498A/328/34 IPC on condition of monetary payment to complainant and cooperation with investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. Section 498A IPC monetary compensation

Sushila Devi v. State

08 Sep 2016 · A.K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:8315

The Delhi High Court granted bail to petitioners accused of illegal occupation of land based on disputed ownership documents, holding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary given the documentary nature of the case.

criminal bail_granted bail documentary evidence ownership dispute registered documents

Sh. Mangal Sain Sharma v. State Bank of India and Ors.

08 Sep 2016 · Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:6398

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pension at the higher pre-amendment rate subject to the revised ceiling, allowing his writ petition for pension re-computation and arrears.

civil appeal_allowed Significant pension fixation Imperial Bank of India Pension Rules pension ceiling revised pension rules

Anadil Hasan v. State

08 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6388

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner accused of kidnapping for ransom and murder, holding that no prima facie case for bail was made out given the gravity of the offences and the petitioner’s role as main conspirator.

criminal bail_denied Significant bail Section 439 Cr.P.C. kidnapping for ransom murder

Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. v. M Tex Exports Pvt Ltd.

08 Sep 2016 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:6387

The Delhi High Court dismissed CCIC's petition under Section 34 challenging an arbitral award, holding that unsubstantiated claims of loss without evidence do not warrant setting aside the award.

civil petition_dismissed Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 arbitral award bank guarantee

Bindu Sharma v. State

08 Sep 2016 · Gita Mittal; P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6394-DB

Delhi High Court set aside the murder conviction of Bindu Sharma due to lack of reliable evidence and inconsistencies in the key child witness's testimony.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 120B IPC child witness testimony Section 164 CrPC statement

Atul Talwar v. State

08 Sep 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog · 2016:DHC:6377

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and charges for criminal intimidation and extortion where a harmless toy pistol was used, holding no reasonable person would feel intimidated.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant toy pistol criminal intimidation Section 506 IPC extortion

Monshar Ent. v. IAAI and Anr.

08 Sep 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6378

The Delhi High Court held that the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award begins only upon specific service of notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, and set aside an order making the award a Rule of the Court due to non-service of such notice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral Award Limitation Act, 1963 Article 119(b) Section 14(2) Arbitration Act, 1940

Atul Talwar v. State

08 Sep 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog · 2016:DHC:6379

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and charges for criminal intimidation where the accused pointed a harmless toy pistol, holding no reasonable person would feel intimidated under such circumstances.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant toy pistol criminal intimidation Section 387 IPC Section 506 IPC

Saisudhir Energy Limited v. NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited

08 Sep 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:6386
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside arbitral damages awarded without proof of loss, holding liquidated damages must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss and government agencies must act fairly under public mission contracts.

civil appeal_allowed Significant liquidated damages breach of contract arbitral award fundamental policy of Indian law

Saisudhir Energy Limited v. NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited

08 Sep 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:6373
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral finding that liquidated damages cannot be awarded without proof of loss, setting aside damages granted contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law in a solar power project dispute.

civil appeal_allowed Significant liquidated damages breach of contract arbitral award fundamental policy of Indian law

Sanjeev Desai v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

08 Sep 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:6385

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and directed probate of a Will despite signature discrepancies and post-death notarization, emphasizing the need to examine attesting witnesses and consider the original Will as primary evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant probate petition Will validity signature discrepancies notarization of Will

Sukhdev Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

08 Sep 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:6384

The High Court allowed the petition challenging the recall of prosecution witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. due to delay and availability of documents on record, emphasizing promptness and necessity in recalling witnesses.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall of witnesses delay in application complaint case