Delhi High Court

69,037 judgments

Year:

Anoj Menon v. The State of NCT & Anr.

05 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6303

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences compromise deed

Pankaj Verma v. State & Anr.

05 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6309

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under multiple IPC sections based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR settlement agreement non-compoundable offences

Nand Kumar Jha v. Mohar Kumar Jha

05 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6307

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking forensic examination of cheques in a Section 138 NI Act complaint, holding that such examination is not warranted when signatures are undisputed and would cause undue delay.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 482 CrPC forensic examination cheque dishonour

Vipin Gulia v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

05 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6304

The Delhi High Court held that police investigation and FIR registration in a non-cognizable offence are lawful if prior Magistrate's permission under Section 155 Cr.P.C. is obtained, and quashing of FIR is not maintainable after framing of charge and recording of evidence.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. non-cognizable offence Section 506 IPC FIR registration

Edgeclife Developers LLP v. Southend Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

05 Sep 2016 · S. Muralidhar · 2016:DHC:9356

The Delhi High Court granted summary decree for recovery of share application money with statutory interest against a company that failed to allot shares and dishonoured refund cheques.

civil appeal_allowed Significant share application money Companies Act 2013 Section 42(6) Negotiable Instruments Act 1881

Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement

05 Sep 2016 · Vipin Sanghi · 2016:DHC:9125

The Delhi High Court quashed the Enforcement Directorate's order for failure to consider prior judicial decisions and directed a fresh hearing with a reasoned order.

administrative appeal_allowed Enforcement Directorate quashing of order fresh hearing reasoned order

Ashok Pandit v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr

05 Sep 2016 · A. K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:9124

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 307 IPC, holding that allegations prima facie disclosing an offence cannot be quashed at the initial investigation stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_dismissed quashing of FIR Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 307 IPC inherent jurisdiction

Sampati Devi v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

05 Sep 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:8436-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn with liberty to seek review of the impugned order regarding the non-functionality of the Town Vending Committee under Order 47 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Town Vending Committee South Delhi Municipal Corporation Order 47 CPC review application

Ashwani Kausmik v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

05 Sep 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:8311

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail applications as infructuous following the prior quashing of the FIR against the petitioners.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail application quashing of FIR infructuous bail criminal procedure

HC Sarin v. DDA

05 Sep 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:6275

The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition, holding that forfeiture of earnest money deposit upheld by higher courts precludes refund despite a refund order for other amounts.

civil petition_dismissed Significant earnest money deposit refund order forfeiture specific performance

RDS Project Ltd v. Chennai-Ennore Port Road Co. Ltd

05 Sep 2016 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:6279

The Delhi High Court held that future interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is payable on the entire sum awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal, including pre-award and pendente lite interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral Award Future Interest Pre-award Interest Pendente Lite Interest

Vijay Solvex Ltd. & Anr. v. Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

05 Sep 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:6276-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of the assignee of the registered trademark ASHOKA, holding the assignment valid and rejecting defendants' claims of prior use and invalidity.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant trademark assignment interlocutory injunction trademark infringement prior use

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. S M CABLE NETWORK

05 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6277

The Delhi High Court disposed of a civil suit after the plaintiff informed the court that the parties had settled and the suit would not be pursued further.

civil other civil suit settlement service of summons disposal of suit

Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v. KTV Network; SR Digital Network; ACN Digital Broadband Cable TV Network Private Limited; Amber Sky Network

05 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6278

The Delhi High Court held that suits valued below the minimum jurisdictional threshold must be transferred to the District Court for trial and accordingly transferred the present suits.

civil other Significant jurisdiction valuation of suit transfer of suit High Court

Narinder Kumar Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority

05 Sep 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:6274

The Delhi High Court directed the DDA to allot an alternative vacant industrial plot to allottees whose original plot was encroached and protected by law, instead of forcibly evicting encroachers.

property petition_allowed Significant industrial plot allotment encroachment Delhi Development Authority writ of mandamus

Suresh Kanti Lal Solanki & Anr. v. State & Anr.

05 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6297

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal FIR under Sections 409/411/120-B IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences compromise

Manish Radheshyam Malani v. State & Anr.

05 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6296

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 406, 409, and 120-B 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 appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences compromise

Amarjeet Singh and Ors v. Land Acquisition Collector (South) and Anr

05 Sep 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:6295-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, declaring the petitioners' acquisition proceedings lapsed.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Nature's Organic v. Vijay Sethi

05 Sep 2016 · JAYANT NATH, J. · 2016:DHC:6311

The Delhi High Court held that where part of the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction, the plaint cannot be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on disputed factual grounds and upheld the trial court's jurisdictional finding.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Order 7 Rule 10 CPC Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cause of action

Union of India & Ors. v. Ishwar Singh

05 Sep 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6271
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

A civil suit challenging statutory disciplinary orders under the CISF Act is barred by res judicata and must be challenged by writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 res judicata writ petition Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India