Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

N.M. Marenmai v. Union of India

19 Jul 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5014-DB

The Delhi High Court held that CRPF personnel posted in Jammu & Kashmir, northeastern states, or left wing extremist areas are entitled to retain family accommodation allotted at peace stations like Delhi, quashing eviction notices and penal rent demands contrary to this entitlement.

administrative petition_allowed Significant CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, 2008 family accommodation retention Jammu & Kashmir posting northeastern states

N.M. Marenmai v. Union of India

19 Jul 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5013-DB

Delhi High Court held that CRPF personnel posted in disturbed areas are entitled to retain family accommodation at peace stations like Delhi, quashing eviction notices and penal rent demands contrary to this entitlement.

administrative petition_allowed Significant CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, 2008 family accommodation retention eviction notice penal rent

Ex Flight Cadet Mohit Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors.

19 Jul 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5011-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the termination of a flight cadet for theft, holding that disciplinary authorities must consider mitigating factors and proportionality before imposing the harshest penalty under Air Force Order 05/2012.

military/administrative appeal_allowed Significant Air Force Order 05/2012 flight cadet disciplinary action theft serious indiscipline

Gauvind Pathak & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

19 Jul 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:5054

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal proceeding under Section 498-A IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement, 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

CNS Infotech (India) Private Limited v. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Private Limited

19 Jul 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:5053

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between CNS Infotech and Ratna Commercial Enterprises under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dissolving the transferor company without winding up.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Section 391 Section 394

PVK Marketing Private Limited v. Gold Star Infratech Private Limited

19 Jul 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:5052

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approving a Scheme of Amalgamation between a holding company and its wholly owned subsidiary based on unanimous written consents.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Section 391(1) Companies Act, 1956 dispensing with meetings shareholders consent

Samsung Data Systems India Private Limited v. Samsung SDS India Private Limited

19 Jul 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:5062

The Delhi High Court allowed the application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Arrangement where requisite written consents were obtained.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Arrangement Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 and 394 demerger

Giesecke & Devrient India Private Limited v. Giesecke & Devrient MS India Private Limited

19 Jul 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:5061

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Arrangement and Demerger where overwhelming consents were obtained.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Arrangement Demerger Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394

Paramount Organochem Private Limited v. Paramount Aromachem Private Limited

19 Jul 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:5060

The Delhi High Court allowed the transferor company's application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, where all stakeholders consented in writing and no secured creditors existed.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 dispensing meetings

Toyo Ink Businessnetwork India Private Limited v. Toyo Ink India Private Limited

19 Jul 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:5059

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation based on their written consents.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 and 394 dispensing meetings

Commissioner of Police v. Karam Chand

19 Jul 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5058-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the CAT order quashing disciplinary punishment, directing the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh reasoned orders in accordance with law, emphasizing that multiple punishments for the same misconduct are impermissible.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings charge sheet multiple punishment reasoned order

Anita Meena v. Union of India & Ors.

19 Jul 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5057-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the CAT's dismissal of the petitioner's recruitment challenge and remanded the matter for fresh hearing following remand of identical cases.

administrative appeal_allowed Procedural Central Administrative Tribunal remand recruitment Grade-D post

Nitin Bansal & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

19 Jul 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:5056

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498-A IPC based on an amicable settlement reached through mediation, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

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

Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes v. Shiva Nandan Prasad

19 Jul 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:5055-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court clarified that the department must release consequential benefits in accordance with law following the quashing of a charge sheet, while allowing legal objections through speaking orders.

administrative other Significant Central Administrative Tribunal charge sheet consequential benefits CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

MERCK KGAA & ANR v. PAWAN KUMAR JINDAL & ORS

19 Jul 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:5029

The Delhi High Court accepted a voluntary compromise in a trademark infringement suit, decreeing the suit in terms of the settlement and disposing of the case.

civil appeal_allowed trademark infringement compromise application Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC settlement

Ayushi Sethi & Ors. v. State & Anr.

19 Jul 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:5026

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498-A IPC based on a genuine settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent power 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

Khushwant Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)

19 Jul 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:5027

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail for the accused in a rape case, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and evidentiary support against bail at the pre-trial stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant anticipatory bail Section 438 CrPC rape Section 376 IPC

S C Aggarwal v. B K Goel & Anr.

19 Jul 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:5851

The Delhi High Court allowed a preliminary decree for partition based on admissions of joint ownership under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, emphasizing that mutual possession arrangements do not affect the legal right to partition.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 12 Rule 6 CPC admissions in pleadings partition suit joint ownership

Avtar Singh & Ors v. The State (NCT) Delhi & Ors

18 Jul 2016 · A.K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:9117

The Delhi High Court quashed cross-FIRs arising from a trivial quarrel causing simple injuries after the parties amicably settled their disputes, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC cross-FIRs simple injuries

Ransingh Chauhan v. Puneetkumar Goel & Ors.

18 Jul 2016 · Manmohan J · 2016:DHC:8635

The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple contempt petitions as infructuous following a subsequent Division Bench order, granting petitioners liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings if future breaches occur.

civil petition_dismissed contempt petitions Division Bench order infructuous petitions breach of court order