Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Mohd. Amzad v. State

03 Jun 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4717

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of trafficking counterfeit currency due to lack of mens rea but upheld possession charges, reducing his sentence considering his family circumstances.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Fake Indian Currency Notes Section 489B IPC Section 489C IPC mens rea

Monu v. State

03 Jun 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4716

The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction from dacoity under Section 395 IPC to attempt to commit robbery under Section 393 IPC due to lack of evidence of involvement of five or more persons.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dacoity Section 395 IPC attempt to commit robbery Section 393 IPC

Chandan v. State

03 Jun 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4714

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and seven-year sentence of the appellant for armed robbery under Sections 394 and 397 IPC, affirming the prosecution's evidence and the fairness of trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery Section 394 IPC Section 397 IPC identification

Mani Ram v. State

03 Jun 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4713

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for raping his minor step-daughter but reduced his sentence from 10 to 7 years considering his repentance and family circumstances.

criminal appeal_allowed rape Section 376 IPC criminal intimidation Section 506 IPC

Alam v. State

03 Jun 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4715

The Delhi High Court upheld a rape conviction, ruling that delay in FIR and absence of injury do not negate rape, and reliable prosecutrix testimony suffices without corroboration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape Section 376 IPC delay in FIR consent

Datawind Innovations Private Limited v. Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited & Ors.

03 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:4721

Delhi High Court held it has jurisdiction despite exclusive Mumbai clause, appointed arbitrator, and granted interim relief in a contractual dispute involving dishonoured cheques and arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 exclusive jurisdiction clause territorial jurisdiction interim relief

Vijay Anand & Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Aman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

03 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4719
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that where a named arbitrator is ineligible under the amended Arbitration Act, the court can appoint a substitute arbitrator to ensure effective arbitration proceedings.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(5) Section 12(5) Arbitrator appointment

M/S KIRI ASSOCIATES (P) LTD v. PRAMOD KUMAR MITTAL

03 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4718

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award refusing specific performance due to the seller's fraudulent concealment of land acquisition proceedings and multiple agreements, ordering refund of advance with interest and compensation to the buyer.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 21(5) Specific Relief Act Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Manoj Kumar v. Union Bank of India & Ors.

03 Jun 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:4731

The Delhi High Court directed the bank to consider the petitioner’s representation against his transfer under the staff circular, declined interim relief, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

administrative petition_dismissed transfer policy service regulations promotion MMGS-II

G.L. Sagar v. EDCIL (India) Ltd. & Anr.

03 Jun 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:4730

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, directing the petitioner to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy against the disciplinary dismissal and note of disagreement, and ordered expeditious disposal of the appeal.

administrative appeal_allowed note of disagreement disciplinary authority dismissal from service exhaustion of statutory remedies

Ashok Kumar Goyal & Ors. v. State & Anr.

03 Jun 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:4732-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following reconciliation between the married parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

Kshitiz Chandra Vishal & Ors. v. Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped

03 Jun 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:4722

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the cancellation of a recruitment written test due to procedural irregularities and upheld the Institute's decision to conduct a fresh examination under Ministry directions.

administrative petition_dismissed cancellation of examination recruitment process procedural irregularity OMR sheet

PDS Multinational Fashions Limited v. Collector of Stamps

03 Jun 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:4686
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that references under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act must relate to pending cases and cannot be made in abstract, and that such references require a three-judge bench to decide, refusing to dismiss the CCRA’s reference despite prior Single Judge rulings.

administrative other Significant Section 57 Indian Stamp Act Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reference in abstract binding precedent

Manoj Kumar and Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corp. and Anr.

03 Jun 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:4725

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their writ petition with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the petition as withdrawn.

administrative petition_dismissed petition withdrawal leave to withdraw Central Administrative Tribunal High Court

M/S. CHINA TRUST COMMERCIAL BANK v. LILLIPUT KIDSWEAR LTD.

03 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:4726

The Delhi High Court held that leased premises do not vest in a sick industrial company under liquidation and allowed restoration of possession to the property owner without requiring BIFR consent.

civil appeal_allowed Significant leased property sick industrial company liquidation proceedings de-sealing

NTPC v. Larsen & Toubro Limited

03 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4710

The Delhi High Court disposed of arbitration appeals between NTPC and Larsen & Toubro by recording parties' agreed terms on interim bank guarantees, hire charges, and escrow arrangements, allowing continued use of equipment during arbitration.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Interim orders Bank guarantees Hire charges

Mohan Lal Kukreja v. Sunder Kukreja & Ors.

03 Jun 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:4690-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting a deed of retirement as forged and dismissed the challenge to the dissolution of a family partnership firm.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitral award partnership dissolution deed of retirement forgery

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. v. M/S. MS SHOES (EAST) LTD.

03 Jun 2016 · V.K. Shali · 2016:DHC:4728

The Delhi High Court held that a declaratory suit without claiming consequential relief of possession is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and set aside the decree declaring cancellation of allotment null and void.

civil appeal_allowed Significant declaratory suit consequential relief Section 34 Specific Relief Act Order 2 Rule 2 CPC

Mohan Lal Kukreja v. Sunder Kukreja & Ors.

03 Jun 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:4696-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding a deed of retirement forged and dismissed appeals challenging the non-dissolution of a family partnership firm.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partnership dissolution deed of retirement forgery handwriting expert report

Ashutosh v. Arun Jaitley & Ors.

03 Jun 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:4700-DB

The High Court held that in defamation suits, exact defamatory words must be precisely pleaded in the plaint, but replication repeating such statements need not be struck off, allowing the appellant to file a sur-rejoinder.

civil appeal_allowed Significant defamation pleading requirements Order 6 Rule 16 CPC replication