Delhi High Court

69,037 judgments

Year:

Ajeet Panwar v. Babita

23 Aug 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5920-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the husband's appeal and granted divorce on the ground of cruelty, holding that false criminal complaints by the wife and related wrongful arrests constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

family appeal_allowed Significant cruelty Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) false complaint

Sukhdev v. M/S Habitat World at India Habitat Centre

23 Aug 2016 · Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:5949

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a Boiler Operator for pilferage, holding that representation by a co-employee satisfied natural justice and non-supply of inquiry report did not vitiate proceedings absent prejudice.

labor petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary inquiry natural justice representation by co-employee inquiry report

Indian Heritage Research Foundation v. State & Ors.

23 Aug 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:5952

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner one last opportunity to summon the Sub-Registrar as an official witness under Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC despite delay, emphasizing the discretionary power of the court to ensure justice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC Order 18 Rule 17 CPC summoning witness probate petition

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Pankaj Kumar Jha & Ors.

23 Aug 2016 · J.R. Midha · 2016:DHC:5946

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation awards in motor accident claims including 50% future prospects and multiplier based on deceased's age but set aside penal interest due to pending appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim compensation future prospects multiplier

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Pankaj Kumar Jha & Ors.

23 Aug 2016 · J.R. Midha · 2016:DHC:5947

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation awards for deaths in a motor accident, affirmed future prospects and multiplier application, but set aside penal interest due to the appellant's pending appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant compensation award future prospects loss of dependency multiplier

Sanjeev Kapoor & Ors. v. State & Ors.

23 Aug 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:5942

The Delhi High Court granted probate for an uncontested unregistered will duly proved under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, subject to procedural compliance.

civil petition_allowed probate Indian Succession Act unregistered will Section 276

Sant Singh Arora v. Ved Prabha & Ors.

23 Aug 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:5941

The Delhi High Court held that Section 10 CPC does not apply to stay a civil suit pending a probate petition appeal, as probate proceedings are not suits and deal only with the Will's validity.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 10 CPC stay of suit probate petition Will

P.R.Chemicals v. Union of India & Anr.

23 Aug 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:5948-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Plastic Waste Management Rules are not retrospective and allowed rebate claims for goods exported prior to the rules' enforcement date, emphasizing the relevant time of export as clearance for shipment.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Rules Rebate claim Plastic Waste Management Rules Export definition

Om Prakash Gupta v. Nirmal Kanta

23 Aug 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:5958

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging eviction on bona fide requirement grounds, affirming the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and rejecting belated evidence of alternative accommodation.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bona fide requirement eviction petition leave to defend

INTERNATIONAL PANAACEA LTD. v. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD.

23 Aug 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:5945

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act, rejecting the respondent’s plea that no dispute arose and that the back-to-back contract precluded arbitration.

arbitration petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(5) sole arbitrator appointment back-to-back contract

The Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar Bhatia

23 Aug 2016 · G. S. Sistani; I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5950-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of disciplinary and appellate orders against government employees due to non-compliance with mandatory inquiry procedures, failure to produce material witnesses, and the acceptance of a criminal closure report negating departmental findings.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Rule 14(18) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 departmental inquiry natural justice personal hearing

Glencore International AG v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited

23 Aug 2016 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:5932
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that Part I of the Arbitration Act does not apply to a foreign-seated arbitration governed by English law, allowing enforcement of the foreign award despite a pending Section 34 challenge in another court.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Part I exclusion foreign seated arbitration seat of arbitration

State v. Gurbaj Singh

23 Aug 2016 · Gita Mittal; R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:5933-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused in a murder case due to insufficient evidence and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC Acquittal Circumstantial evidence

Kapil Kumar Sharma v. State

23 Aug 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:5922

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a non-family accused in a matrimonial assault case, emphasizing cooperation with investigation and imposing conditions to protect the trial process.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 CrPC matrimonial dispute Indian Penal Code Sections 308 and 34

Yogender Kumar @ Rinku and Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

23 Aug 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:5923

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for dowry death and cruelty, affirming that consistent family testimony and forensic evidence established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Section 304-B IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dowry death Section 304-B IPC Section 498A IPC cruelty

Jeetu Singh v. Bhannamal Gulzarimal Pvt Ltd

23 Aug 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:5951

The Delhi High Court upheld the Company's right to possession of the entire property allotted to its former employee under Section 630 of the Companies Act, dismissing the tenant's claim to a portion thereof.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 630 Companies Act possession employee allotment wrongful withholding

Kandula Subramaniam v. Krishnakoli Datta

23 Aug 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5919-DB

The Delhi High Court reduced the husband's child maintenance from ₹23,000 to ₹15,000 per month, emphasizing proportionate parental contribution based on income and reasonable child expenses under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

family appeal_allowed Significant maintenance of minor child Hindu Marriage Act 1955 Section 24 Section 26

Raju Proprietor @ Rajesh Chugh v. Onkar Nath

23 Aug 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:5943

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation awarded under the Employee’s Compensation Act, ruling that limitation starts from the disability certificate date and the employer bears the burden to prove the employee was not on duty.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 Section 10 limitation period disability certificate

Central Board of Trustees EPF v. St. Michaels School Durgapur

23 Aug 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:5940-DB

The Delhi High Court held that appeals under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act require no pre-deposit and the Appellate Tribunal may grant conditional stay of recovery, setting aside a Single Judge’s order granting absolute stay.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Employees’ Provident Fund Act Section 14B Section 7Q Section 7-O

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 v. Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd.

23 Aug 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:5956-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's order treating trademark payments as revenue expenditure, allowed ESOP Trust funding deduction under Section 48, rejected excessive commission disallowance, and affirmed treatment of foreign exchange losses as revenue expenditure.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capital expenditure revenue expenditure trademark payments ESOP Trust