Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Through: Nemo v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

13 Jul 2016 · HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHING... · 2016:DHC:4923-DB

The Delhi High Court deferred judicial review of parole guidelines, directing administrative review by a government committee and allowing petitioners to submit suggestions, with liberty to approach the Court again if unresolved.

criminal petition_dismissed Procedural Parole Guidelines Furlough Guidelines Delhi Prisons Rules Rule 75

Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd v. Chandradeep Singh Bhurji

13 Jul 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:4919

The High Court held that an executing court cannot grant compensation beyond the decree and set aside the order awarding damages for lost documents in execution proceedings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant executing court jurisdiction mandatory injunction compensation for loss of documents Section 47 CPC

Dr. Sahadeva Singh v. Union of India

13 Jul 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:4918-DB

The Delhi High Court held that disciplinary proceedings require separate approval by the disciplinary authority for initiation and framing of charges, quashing the charge-sheet issued without such approval.

administrative petition_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings charge-sheet approval Article 311 Central Civil Services Rules

Asia Huayu Metal Wire Mesh Products (P) Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs & Ors.

13 Jul 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:4916-DB

The Delhi High Court directed Customs to treat the DRI alert on two containers as lifted and proceed with assessment and clearance, granting relief to the importer facing undue delay.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alert assessment

Prime Time India Ltd. v. Ashok Kapoor and Ors.

13 Jul 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:4917

The Delhi High Court upheld a compromise for specific performance of sale of property shares, rejecting belated challenges based on fraud and duress, applying res judicata principles.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance compromise Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC res judicata

Davinder Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

13 Jul 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:4915-DB

The Delhi High Court held that shares issued to the Central Government by a cooperative society prior to the 2002 Act were valid and that redemption of such shares requires byelaw provisions or agreement, dismissing the petitioner's challenge and claim for refund as premature.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 Section 25 membership admission Section 35 redemption of shares Central Government membership

PEC LIMITED v. ADM ASIA PACIFIC TRADING PTE LTD

13 Jul 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4914
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award granting demurrage to the respondent, affirming limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and proper contractual interpretation by the arbitral tribunal.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 demurrage laytime

Suresh Kumar Goyal v. Chief Commissioner Income Tax-2 & Ors.

13 Jul 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:4913-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an attachment under the SARFAESI Act has precedence over a subsequent Income Tax Department attachment, directing registration of the sale deed executed by the secured creditor.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Section 13(2) Section 35 Income Tax Act

Rajinder Mohan Malhotra v. Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority

13 Jul 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:4911-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the authority of the Director (Commercial Lands), DDA, to impose damages for unauthorized occupation, applying estoppel to bar the appellant from disputing the computation after limiting his challenge to jurisdiction.

property appeal_dismissed Delhi Development Authority leasehold to freehold conversion unauthorized occupation encroachment

Sushila Pareek v. Delhi Development Authority

13 Jul 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:4912-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging cancellation of a plot allotment due to inordinate delay and laches, affirming that stale claims for allotment restoration are not maintainable.

property appeal_dismissed delay laches allotment cancellation Rohini Residential Scheme

Moser Baer India Ltd. v. State Bank of India & Anr

13 Jul 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:4910-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the State Bank of India to provide the petitioner with material and an opportunity of hearing before declaring it a Willful Defaulter under RBI Guidelines.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice Willful Defaulter RBI Guidelines Opportunity of Hearing

Raj Kumar Madan v. Hema Bhagia

12 Jul 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:9345

The Delhi High Court disposed of eviction petitions by directing the petitioners to file a review petition before the trial court to raise contentions under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, emphasizing procedural propriety.

property other Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14-D eviction order review petition

Abhishek Sharma v. Vipin Kumar

12 Jul 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:9223

The Delhi High Court allowed revision petitions and acquitted the petitioner after the parties compounded the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, directing his release from custody.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 138 NI Act compounding of offence acquittal release from custody

Khurana Enterprises v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax

12 Jul 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:8954-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of VAT refund petitions after the respondent confirmed partial payment and assured timely credit of the balance amount, discharging the contempt notice.

tax petition_dismissed Value Added Tax refund Electronic Clearing Service court directions

India Woods v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

12 Jul 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:8818-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the tax department to release the balance VAT refund with interest within two months, holding that statutory timelines under Section 38 of the DVAT Act cannot be circumvented by administrative delays.

tax petition_allowed Significant refund Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 Section 38 DVAT Act interest on refund

RP MALPIAN&COMPANY v. SANJEEV SRIVASTAVA

12 Jul 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:8629

The Delhi High Court disposed of contempt petitions as satisfied after the respondents paid the amount directed by the earlier order, and the petitioners chose not to pursue the matter further.

civil petition_dismissed contempt petition compliance payment court order

Neeraj@Kashi v. State

12 Jul 2016 · S. P. Garg · 2016:DHC:8506

The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Neeraj alias Kashi by referring to a detailed common judgment in a related case.

criminal appeal_dismissed criminal appeal appeal dismissed Delhi High Court common judgment

Commissioner of Income Tax-V v. New Delhi Television Ltd

12 Jul 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:8491-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed Revenue's appeals and delay condonation applications, affirming ITAT's rulings allowing ESOP expenses and treating software expenses as revenue expenditure based on binding precedents.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant delay in filing appeals condonation of delay Employees Stock Option Plan ESOP expenses

Pupinder Kaur v. State (GNCT of Delhi); Prem Singh v. State (GNCT of Delhi)

12 Jul 2016 · S. P. Garg · 2016:DHC:8261

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a cheating and criminal conspiracy case, emphasizing their cooperation with the investigation and the prosecution's non-opposition.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. Section 420 IPC Section 34 IPC

Sh. Balraj & Anr. v. Sh. Rajbir & Anr.

12 Jul 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:4876

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and the suit for possession was barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, affirming the defendants' ownership by prescription.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant possession suit ownership law of prescription Section 27 Limitation Act