Delhi High Court

68,862 judgments

Year:

Ved Prakash Sharma v. Lt Col RP Sharma

17 Aug 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:9323

The Delhi High Court disposed of civil appeals on the basis of a lawful compromise agreement between the parties, directing refund of court fees and return of trial court records.

civil appeal_allowed Compromise Agreement Appeal disposal Court Fees Act 1870 Section 16A

Rani Bhardwaj v. Mohan Sharma & Ors.

17 Aug 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:5818

The Delhi High Court disposed of a civil suit as infructuous after all parties sold the suit property, rendering the suit moot.

civil other infructuous suit sale of suit property disposal of suit civil procedure

Vectus Industries Limited & Anr v. M/S Sharma Plasto Containrs & Anr

17 Aug 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:5816

The Delhi High Court decreed a civil suit based on a voluntary settlement agreement involving trademark disputes and ordered refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.

civil settled Settlement Agreement Trademark dispute Court Fees Act Section 16

Public Works Department v. Kanti Devi & Ors.

17 Aug 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:5826

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation awarded to deceased and injured workers by recognizing employer-employee relationship through oral evidence and allowed the principal employer to seek indemnity from the contractor.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees Compensation Act, 1923 employer-employee relationship burden of proof oral evidence

Novartis AG & Ors. v. Wockhardt Ltd

17 Aug 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:5819

The Delhi High Court decreed the patent infringement suit in favor of Novartis AG based on the defendant's undertaking not to infringe the patent and to withdraw its revocation application.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed patent infringement Indian Patent No. IN 212815 revocation application Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Vidya Devi v. Delhi Development Authority

17 Aug 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5830

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging dismissal of injunction suit, holding that appellants were in possession of government-acquired land and no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Regular Second Appeal Section 100 CPC injunction against dispossession demarcation report

Surjit Singh & Ors v. Delhi Development Authority

16 Aug 2016 · Manmohan, J · 2016:DHC:8935

The Delhi High Court held that eviction orders under the Public Premises Act must be challenged by filing appeals under Section 9, not writ petitions, and granted interim protection against eviction during appeal proceedings.

administrative appeal_allowed Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Section 9 eviction orders alternative remedy

Rita Solanki v. Jai Solanki

16 Aug 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5790-DB

The Delhi High Court held that recalling witnesses for further cross-examination and admitting additional documents at the final stage of divorce proceedings is impermissible solely due to change of counsel or prior counsel's negligence, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines and preventing trial delays.

family appeal_dismissed Significant recall of witnesses cross-examination additional evidence Order XIII Rule 1 CPC

Union of India v. D.S. Rawat & Ors.

16 Aug 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:5789-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld respondents' placement in Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay Rs.5400 but set aside their claim for second financial upgradation under MACP in Grade Pay Rs.6600, clarifying MACP benefits must follow the prescribed grade pay hierarchy.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme MACP Assured Career Progression Scheme Sixth Pay Commission

M/s National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation v. Andhra Pradesh Mahila Welfare Society & Ors.

16 Aug 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:5796-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that a continuing guarantee and demand notices without written acknowledgement or part payment do not extend the limitation period for a suit to recover loan amounts.

civil appeal_dismissed limitation continuing guarantee acknowledgement of debt Section 19 Limitation Act

M/s National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation v. M/s Mukherjeepara Sanmilita Pallibashi Samiti

16 Aug 2016 · Siddharth Mridul, J · 2016:DHC:5797-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that mere issuance of demand notices and an unsupported claim of continuing guarantee do not extend the limitation period under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the suit for recovery of loan was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation.

civil appeal_dismissed Limitation Act, 1963 Section 19 Limitation Act continuing guarantee acknowledgment of debt

M/s National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation v. M/s Bhagat Singh Organization for Awakening and Rural Development

16 Aug 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:5798-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a suit for recovery of loan was barred by limitation as there was no written acknowledgment or part payment by the debtor to extend the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963.

civil appeal_dismissed limitation continuing guarantee acknowledgment of debt Section 19 Limitation Act

FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PVT LTD v. TARA KERKAR & ORS

16 Aug 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:5793

Delhi High Court held that courts have territorial jurisdiction over defamation suits involving internet and telecast publication accessible in their jurisdiction, setting aside the trial court's order dismissing the plaint for lack of jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant defamation territorial jurisdiction internet publication telecast

Union of India v. Kamla Devi

16 Aug 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5800-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order setting aside the removal of a Branch Post Master due to failure of the employer to prove charges with independent evidence and non-production of relevant documents in the departmental inquiry.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant departmental inquiry burden of proof preponderance of probabilities disciplinary proceedings

Benjamin Benjamin & Vats v. Delhi Development Authority

16 Aug 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:5799-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the award of a consultancy contract by DDA, holding that the successful bidder met eligibility criteria and did not submit false information.

administrative petition_dismissed Request for Proposal Tender eligibility criteria Completed consultancy work Misrepresentation in tender

National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited v. C.S.T. Delhi

16 Aug 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:5801-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the CESTAT's order directing a partial pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs by the appellant PSU as a condition for hearing its service tax appeal, dismissing the plea for full waiver.

tax appeal_dismissed pre-deposit Central Excise Act Finance Act, 1994 service tax liability

Beena Kumari v. Raj Kumar

16 Aug 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5795

The High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment for deciding the appeal on merits without first deciding the condonation of delay application and remanded the matter for proper adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay limitation period first appeal procedural irregularity

Bhushan Kumar Khanna v. Asha Devi

16 Aug 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5794

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal challenging dismissal of a possession suit, upholding the validity of a Settlement Deed and refusing additional evidence at the appellate stage.

civil appeal_dismissed Section 100 CPC second appeal possession suit Settlement Deed

Shabana Begum v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

16 Aug 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:5792

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal in a rape case, holding that consent given under mere promise or impression of marriage without legal solemnization does not amount to consent under misconception of fact under Section 375 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 376 IPC Section 375 IPC consent under misconception promise of marriage

Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Gurvinder Singh & Anr.

16 Aug 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5791-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a Chartered Accountant's commercial conduct unrelated to his professional practice does not constitute professional misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and dismissed disciplinary proceedings.

professional_regulatory petition_dismissed Significant Chartered Accountants Act 1949 professional misconduct disciplinary proceedings Section 21