Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

M/S Sedna Impex India Pvt Ltd v. M/S Amitoje Creations & Ors

20 Jul 2016 · Vipin Sanghi · 2016:DHC:8509

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and restored a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dismissed in default, holding that sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance due to procedural lapses.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act dismissal in default non-appearance sufficient cause

Chameli Devi & Ors v. Lucky Choudhary

20 Jul 2016 · JAYANT NATH · 2016:DHC:8622

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging the trial court's refusal to admit evidence from a different suit, directing the petitioners to raise the issue via a review application before the trial court.

civil petition_dismissed Procedural Section 33 Indian Evidence Act Section 151 CPC adducing additional documents evidence from previous suit

Integrated Capital Services Ltd. v. Rohit Dhawan Proprietor Rohit Investments

20 Jul 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:5131

The Delhi High Court held that limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not permit reappreciation of evidence but modified the arbitral award to the extent of the admitted liability with interest.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 arbitral award judicial interference

Pahlado & Ors v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors

19 Jul 2016 · Vipin Sanghi · 2016:DHC:9119

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to initiate criminal proceedings as premature and directed the petitioners to approach the trial Court for release of seized goods.

criminal petition_dismissed initiation of criminal proceedings prematurity of writ petition seizure and release of goods Section 448 IPC

Yogender and Ors v. Union of India and Anr

19 Jul 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:8825-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging denial of OBC reservation benefits to Jatt community candidates post Supreme Court ruling, granting liberty to file fresh petitions on unfilled SC/ST vacancy diversion.

constitutional petition_dismissed OBC reservation Jatt community Supreme Court decision reservation eligibility

Anita Devi v. C M Kacharoo

19 Jul 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:8630

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw contempt petitions with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

civil appeal_dismissed Procedural contempt petitions withdrawal liberty to file proceedings procedural law

Geetu Gujral v. State (N.C.T of Delhi)

19 Jul 2016 · A. K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:8265

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners accused of assaulting police personnel, considering their cooperation in investigation and interim protection already granted.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail assault on police cooperation in investigation interim protection

Vijay Kumar v. State; Sudesh Kumar v. State

19 Jul 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:8219

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused in a sexual assault case after DNA evidence excluded them as biological fathers, emphasizing consideration of all facts and possibility of false implication.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail DNA report false implication sexual assault allegations

Soni Dave v. M/S Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd.

19 Jul 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:5068

The Delhi High Court held that landlord-tenant suits for ejectment do not qualify as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 when the property is not used exclusively in trade or commerce and the valuation for jurisdiction must follow rental value under the Court Fees Act, ordering transfer of the suits to the District Judge.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Commercial Courts Act, 2015 specified value commercial dispute immovable property

Staar Surgical Company v. Polymer Technologies International & Ors.

19 Jul 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:5075

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's passing off suit against the defendants' trademark 'EYEPCL' for lack of deceptive similarity with 'ICL' in the context of surgical intraocular lenses, allowing summary dismissal of a suit without prima facie merit.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant passing off deceptive similarity trademark intraocular lenses

Rohit Jain & Anr v. Union of India and Ors

19 Jul 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:5069-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 despite possession, directing payment of compensation under the 2013 Act even though the land was utilized.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition compensation possession

Sardar Gurbax Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

19 Jul 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:5079-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, granting relief to petitioners whose land acquisition award was not compensated.

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

Shabana Ali and Anr. v. Farman Ali @ Shahil

19 Jul 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:5077-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's order rejecting the recall of summons in a restitution of conjugal rights petition, holding that the existence of a Muslim marriage must be established through trial and evidence rather than summary dismissal.

family appeal_dismissed Significant Family Courts Act restitution of conjugal rights Muslim marriage nikahnaama

Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India and Ors.

19 Jul 2016 · G. Rohini; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:5076-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the National and State Disaster Management Authorities must comply with their statutory duty to formulate guidelines for minimum standards of relief under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and disposed of the PIL after respondents demonstrated progress in this regard.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Disaster Management Act, 2005 National Disaster Management Authority State Disaster Management Authority minimum standards of relief

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Prem Chand Sharma

19 Jul 2016 · G. S. Sistani; I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5078-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of delayed disciplinary proceedings and penalty imposed without prior communication of UPSC advice, emphasizing compliance with natural justice and expeditious inquiry.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings UPSC advice natural justice delay in inquiry

MERCK KGAA & ANR v. PAWAN KUMAR JINDAL & ORS

19 Jul 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:5066

The Delhi High Court accepted a voluntary out-of-court settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in a trademark infringement suit, decreeing the suit accordingly and disposing of the case.

civil appeal_allowed compromise Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC trademark infringement settlement

Rajinder Kumar Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

19 Jul 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:5070-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act pending for over five years without possession or compensation are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, regardless of court stay orders.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 land acquisition statutory fiction physical possession

Suresh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

19 Jul 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:5065-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without possession or compensation for over five years before the 2013 Act, are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse physical possession

RANJEET CHAWLA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

19 Jul 2016 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; ASHUTOSH KUMAR · 2016:DHC:5067-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending for over five years without possession or compensation under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse possession not taken

Vinod Gugnani & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.

19 Jul 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:5028-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if physical possession is not taken and compensation is not tendered to the landowner, applying Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation physical possession Section 24(2)