Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Kamal Kant Bansal & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

12 Jul 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:4882-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is unpaid for five years, but compensation must be paid allowing retention of land already utilized for public purposes.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition compensation Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act

Sharda Nand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

12 Jul 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:4881-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 after the award.

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

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. N.K. ROHATGI

12 Jul 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:4878-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of a writ petition challenging CAT's grant of MACP benefit, permitting a review application to correct facts regarding ad hoc and regular posts for financial upgradation.

administrative other Procedural MACP Scheme financial upgradation ad hoc post regular post

Gurnam Singh Trading as M/s G. C. Laboratories v. M/s Little Profit Trading Company

12 Jul 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:4879

The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit based on a voluntary out-of-court settlement recorded through a compromise application.

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

Nucleus Marketing & Communication v. Commissioner of Delhi Value Added Tax, Department of Trade & Taxes

12 Jul 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:4880-DB

The Delhi High Court held that refunds under Section 38 of the DVAT Act must be granted within prescribed time limits and failure to do so is unlawful, directing immediate payment of refunds with interest to the Petitioners.

tax petition_allowed Significant Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 Section 38 refund refund with interest statutory time limit

Karan Singh and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

12 Jul 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:4891-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, regardless of possession.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings compensation unpaid

Ashok Kumar Dass v. The State of NCT of Delhi

12 Jul 2016 · P.S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4885

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of assault and criminal intimidation, considering completed investigation, custodial period, and family circumstances, while cautioning that the order does not prejudice trial proceedings.

criminal appeal_allowed bail Section 439 CrPC assault counterblast FIR

Bharat v. State

12 Jul 2016 · Gita Mittal; R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:4884-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on a credible dying declaration, corroborated extra-judicial confession, and recovery of incriminating evidence, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the prosecution case.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dying declaration extra-judicial confession Section 302 IPC motive

KRISHNAPATNAM PORT COMPANY LIMITED v. STRATEGIC PORT INVESTMENTS KPC LIMITED & ORS

12 Jul 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4877
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court condoned a 144-day delay in refiling an arbitration appeal due to bona fide reasons including Supreme Court stay and procedural objections, directing expeditious hearing.

civil petition_allowed Significant condonation of delay Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 37(2)(b) interim orders

Vijay Kumar Soni and Anr. v. Staff Selection Commission and Anr.

11 Jul 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4816-DB

The Delhi High Court held that appointment under State quota must be based on domicile, not examination center, and errors granting appointments under incorrect quotas cannot justify parity claims.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant State quota domicile reservation Central Armed Paramilitary Forces

Vijay Kumar v. Balvinder Kumar

11 Jul 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:9044

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of revision petitions under Section 138 NI Act for failure to show sufficient cause for delay and non-compliance with procedural directions.

criminal appeal_dismissed Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 NI Act Section 145(2) NI Act summary trial

Azim v. New Delhi Municipal Council

11 Jul 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:8815

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of writ petitions with liberty to approach the Town Vending Committee first, dismissing the petitions accordingly.

administrative appeal_dismissed writ petition withdrawal Town Vending Committee liberty to approach

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Halliburton Export Inc

11 Jul 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:8489-DB

The Delhi High Court held that payments received for sale of pre-packaged software constitute business income and not royalty under the India-USA DTAA, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant royalty fee for technical services pre-packaged software Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

Maya Devi v. The State

11 Jul 2016 · P. S. Teji, J. · 2016:DHC:8260

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner mother-in-law accused under dowry death charges, applying the principle of parity and noting weak prosecution evidence against her.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC dowry harassment Section 498-A IPC

Parvinder Chawla @ Karan v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

11 Jul 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:8259

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a cheating and criminal conspiracy case, applying the principle of parity and finding no specific incriminating material against him.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail criminal conspiracy cheating parity in bail

Saransh Machan v. State

11 Jul 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:4839
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that FIRs under Section 304A IPC arising from road traffic accidents cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise due to the serious nature of the offence and the need for deterrence.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 304A IPC quashing of FIR road traffic accident compromise agreement

Yashpal Gosain v. Nand Kishore Gosain and Ors

11 Jul 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:4838

The Delhi High Court dismissed the civil suit in default due to the plaintiff's prolonged absence and failure to prosecute the case.

civil appeal_dismissed non-prosecution dismissal in default plaintiff absence civil suit

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd v. Chanchal Arya

11 Jul 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:4837

The court allowed the decree holder to withdraw the execution petition with liberty to file a fresh petition after gathering necessary documents.

civil appeal_allowed execution petition withdrawal of petition decree holder production of documents

Rakesh v. The State

11 Jul 2016 · Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:4828

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of evidence and allowed compounding of lesser offences following a compromise.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 304(II) IPC Benefit of doubt Compounding of offences Section 325 IPC

Bhawanjeet Singh v. Diwan Singh

11 Jul 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:4827

The Delhi High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal against eviction, holding that admitted tenancy and rent payment under a registered lease deed entitle the landlord to possession, and that filing an eviction suit suffices as notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant tenant landlord possession suit lease deed