Delhi High Court

69,037 judgments

Year:

eBIZ.COM PVT. LTD. v. Union of India & Ors.

01 Sep 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:6194-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

Delhi High Court held that DGCEI's search, summons, and arrest of eBIZ's MD without prior show cause notice or adherence to statutory procedure under the Finance Act, 1994 were illegal and quashed the actions.

tax petition_allowed Significant Finance Act 1994 Service Tax Search and Seizure DGCEI

Sachin Taneja & Ors. v. Yatinderjit Singh

01 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:6227
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed condonation of delay in filing the list of witnesses beyond the 30-day limit under Section 148 CPC, emphasizing the court's inherent power to extend time for ends of justice and permitted the petitioner to call additional witnesses subject to costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay list of witnesses Order XVI Rule 1 CPC Section 148 CPC

Monika Arora v. Neeraj Kohli & Anr

01 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath, J. · 2016:DHC:6228

The Delhi High Court held that a suit relating to an agreement for sale of property notified as commercial and intended for exclusive commercial use is a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act and must be adjudicated by the Commercial Division of the High Court.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Commercial Courts Act 2015 commercial dispute immovable property jurisdiction

Amtul Habib v. Maujma Khan

01 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:6231

The Delhi High Court quashed the ARC's order granting leave to defend in an eviction petition under the DRC Act and allowed eviction with a six-month stay on execution.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act eviction petition leave to defend Section 14(1)(e)

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v. M/S STN Cable Network & Ors.

31 Aug 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6124

The Delhi High Court transferred commercial suits filed by the plaintiff to the District Judge due to lack of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and disposed of the suits accordingly.

civil other Commercial Courts Act, 2015 pecuniary jurisdiction transfer of suits District Judge jurisdiction

Mahender Singh Dhillon v. Union of India

31 Aug 2016 · Indira Banerjee; V. Kameswar Rao · 2016:DHC:8942-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of writ petitions with liberty to challenge the respondents' order dated 27.06.2016 through appropriate legal remedies.

administrative appeal_dismissed writ petition withdrawal liberty to challenge order dated 27.06.2016

Om Prakash & Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

31 Aug 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6146

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 420, 471, and 120-B IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, affirming the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

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

M/S Appreciate Fincapp Pvt Ltd v. HKK Buildwell Pvt Ltd

31 Aug 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:8517

The court directed transfer of money recovery decrees to the court having jurisdiction over the attached immovable property and allowed continuation of the attachment order pending execution.

civil appeal_allowed execution of decree attachment order transfer of decree jurisdiction

Pratap Singh and Anr. v. Mahavir Singh and Anr.

31 Aug 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:6192

The Delhi High Court allowed partial amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after trial commencement to add reliefs of cancellation, possession, and mesne profits, while disallowing new facts that would substitute the plaint, clarifying the scope of amendments and limitation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Amendment of pleadings Limitation Cancellation of sale deed

Padamjit Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council

31 Aug 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:6171-DB

The Delhi High Court held that NDMC's removal of the petitioner's weighing machine and electricity disconnection without prior notice violated natural justice and directed reinstatement with due process.

administrative petition_allowed Significant natural justice audi alteram partem administrative action show cause notice

Babu Lal Mitharwal v. Union of India

31 Aug 2016 · G. S. Sistani; I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6170-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation for pay scale revision by a reasoned order within three months, without granting substantive relief on pay parity claims.

administrative other pay scale revision equal pay for equal work representation Central Administrative Tribunal

Ishwar Chand Jindal v. Shashi Prabha Jindal

31 Aug 2016 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; DEEPA SHARMA · 2016:DHC:6169-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a Family Court's order granting Rs. 2 lakhs per month pendente lite maintenance to the wife, emphasizing consideration of income, status, and reasonable needs under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

family appeal_dismissed Significant maintenance pendente lite Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act Family Courts Act Section 19 paying capacity

V.K. Sood Engineers and Contractors v. Northern Railways

31 Aug 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:6166

The Delhi High Court held that payments due to a partnership firm cannot be withheld on account of recovery claims against a separate proprietorship firm with a similar name, directing release of admitted payments pending arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 stay withholding payments distinct legal entities

NATRIP IMPLEMENTATION SOCIETY v. IVRCL LIMITED

31 Aug 2016 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:6167

The Delhi High Court held that financial distress alone does not justify an order to secure amounts claimed in arbitration and upheld the arbitral tribunal's discretion to deny such interim relief absent evidence of asset dissipation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Interim measures Security for claims Financial distress

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Karambir Tyagi & Ors.

31 Aug 2016 · J. R. Midha · 2016:DHC:6168

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation including future prospects for the deceased but set aside penal interest imposed after appeal filing, partially allowing the insurer's appeal.

civil appeal_partially_allowed Significant compensation future prospects loss of dependency penal interest

Union of India v. Ravindranath Narendranath Padukone

31 Aug 2016 · G. S. Sistani; I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6163-DB

The Delhi High Court granted a limited extension of time with costs to complete a departmental enquiry against a retired officer, clarifying that appointment of a fresh Inquiry Officer does not necessarily mean a de novo enquiry.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry extension of time Central Administrative Tribunal CCS (CCA) Rules 1965

Deepak Mohan v. Union of India & Ors.

31 Aug 2016 · G. S. Sistani; I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6164

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a transfer order, directing the respondents to provide service documents and deeming the 'No Demand Certificate' granted, while protecting the petitioner from liability for missing inventory items.

administrative petition_allowed transfer order malafide intent Central Administrative Tribunal No Demand Certificate

South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Satish Builders

31 Aug 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:6165

The Delhi High Court held that the limitation period for re-filing arbitration objections runs from the date of return by the Registry, condoned delay caused by administrative processes, and set aside the trial court's dismissal of objections as time barred.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act condonation of delay limitation period re-filing objections

Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors. v. Bhabani Sankar Swain & Ors.

31 Aug 2016 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:6174

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction against defendants using the mark 'VERIZON' or deceptively similar marks, holding it to be trademark infringement and passing off, while declining damages for lack of proof.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off permanent injunction registered trademark

M/S APOLLO TYRES LTD v. M/S INDIRA TYRES

31 Aug 2016 · Vipin Sanghi · 2016:DHC:6186

The High Court convicted the accused for dishonour of 61 cheques under Section 138 NI Act, holding that admission of debt in statutory notice reply precludes defence of security deposit without documentary proof.

criminal conviction_upheld Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Presumption under Section 139 Security deposit defence