Delhi High Court

69,037 judgments

Year:

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

23 Aug 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:5955-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that payments for trademark use and expertise were revenue expenditure, ESOP funding was deductible from capital gains, and rejected revenue's challenges on commission disallowance, Section 14A, and foreign exchange loss treatment.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant revenue expenditure capital expenditure trademark payments ESOP Trust

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

23 Aug 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:5954-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that payments for trademark use and expertise were revenue expenses, ESOP Trust funding was deductible from capital gains, and disallowances under Sections 14A and on export commission were unjustified.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capital expenditure revenue expenditure trademark payments ESOP Trust

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

23 Aug 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:5953-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld ITAT's ruling that payments for trademark use and expertise were revenue expenses, ESOP funding was deductible under Section 48, and disallowances on commissions and foreign exchange losses were unjustified, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capital expenditure revenue expenditure trademark payments ESOP Trust

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

23 Aug 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:5957-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that payments for trademark use and expertise were revenue expenses, ESOP funding was deductible from capital gains, and disallowances under Sections 14A and foreign exchange losses were unjustified, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant revenue expenditure capital expenditure trademark payments ESOP Trust

M/S COMFORT INTECH LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

23 Aug 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:5937-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the RBI's cancellation of an NBFC's registration for failure to provide a fair hearing, emphasizing the mandatory application of natural justice in administrative actions.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant natural justice audi alteram partem non-banking financial company RBI registration cancellation

Pam Parmar v. Col Dewan & Ors.

23 Aug 2016 · J. R. Midha · 2016:DHC:5936

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation and interest in a death claim where the deceased's income was from investments, awarding loss of estate and increasing amounts for love, affection, and consortium.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compensation loss of dependency loss of estate loss of love and affection

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd v. Vinay Kumar Mehta

22 Aug 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:8703

Contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with payment and affidavit filing were disposed of as satisfied upon respondents' subsequent compliance.

civil petition_dismissed contempt petition wilful disobedience court order compliance installment payment

Vibhas Arora v. Regional Passport Officer

22 Aug 2016 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:5902

The Delhi High Court held that the biological father's name is not legally mandatory in passport applications and directed issuance of passport without it, mandating software modification to accept such applications.

administrative petition_allowed Significant passport issuance father's name parental divorce passport manual

KRISHAN MURARI SHARMA & SONS v. NEW DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL

22 Aug 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:5904

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding that disputed questions of limitation and procedural compliance are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of arbitrator limitation period

Shikher Jain v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

22 Aug 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:5882

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC matrimonial dispute

R.L. Kohli v. Murti Bhagwan Jagannathji Maharaj & Anr.

22 Aug 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5892
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding that a licensee is estopped from disputing the licensor's title and a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable to evict the licensee after license termination.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant licensee mandatory injunction Section 116 Indian Evidence Act title dispute

Mala Bhagat Bali v. State & Anr.

22 Aug 2016 · S. Muralidhar · 2016:DHC:5888

The Delhi High Court dismissed the delay condonation application and appeal by the respondent, upheld the validity of the 2012 Will, and granted letters of administration to the petitioner, exempting her from furnishing an administration bond as the sole beneficiary.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Indian Succession Act Will execution Letters of administration Condonation of delay

Hindpal Singh Jabbal & Ors v. Jasbir Singh & Ors

22 Aug 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:5910-DB

The Delhi High Court lacks jurisdiction to try a suit below Rs. 2 crores involving cancellation of General Powers of Attorney and Sale deeds as such disputes do not qualify as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant pecuniary jurisdiction Delhi High Court Act, 1966 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 commercial dispute

Mohar Singh Meena v. New Delhi Municipal Council

22 Aug 2016 · G. S. Sistani; I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5912-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal's direction to hold a review promotion committee based solely on an affidavit, allowing the petitioner to independently challenge the NDMC's decision.

administrative appeal_allowed Departmental Promotion Committee Central Administrative Tribunal review DPC affidavit

Fahad Aziz Azmi & Ors. v. State & Ors.

22 Aug 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:5891

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 323, 324, 341, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers 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

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. BALCHAND

22 Aug 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5908-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT’s order quashing recovery of amounts from a retired employee’s dues, holding such recovery impermissible under Supreme Court precedent where suspension was revoked and charges dropped.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant recovery from retirement dues ACP benefits MACP benefits suspension and reinstatement

Sanjay Vermani v. Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi

22 Aug 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:5905-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years from the award date.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse non-payment of compensation

Devender Kumar Gupta v. Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi

22 Aug 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:5906-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years before the 2013 Act commenced, regardless of physical possession.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings non-payment of compensation

Dinesh Verma v. Mukesh Kumar & Anr

22 Aug 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:5907

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld joint and several liability of the appellant and co-respondent to pay compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, based on unchallenged evidence of employment relationship.

labor appeal_dismissed Employees Compensation Act, 1923 employer-employee relationship compensation liability joint and several liability

M.M.L. VIJ v. UOI

22 Aug 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5917-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that the post of Section Officer in CTSA is an isolated post under the ACP scheme, entitling the petitioner only to the next higher standard pay scale, dismissing his claim for a higher financial upgradation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme Isolated post Section Officer Central Tibetan Schools Administration