Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Union of India through Sr.D.E.E(G) North Central Railway v. Jitco Overseas Ltd.

31 May 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4591

The Delhi High Court held that challenges to arbitral awards must be filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, dismissed the petition under the 1940 Act, and allowed enforcement of the award in favor of the respondent.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 objections arbitral award challenge

Air France Ground Handling Pvt. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator

31 May 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:4579

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for voluntary winding up and final dissolution of Air France Ground Handling Pvt. Ltd. upon satisfaction of all statutory requirements under the Companies Act, 1956.

corporate petition_allowed voluntary winding up Companies Act 1956 Section 497 Official Liquidator

Kring Tellabs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator

31 May 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:4578

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for voluntary winding up of Kring Tellabs India Pvt. Ltd. after finding full compliance with statutory requirements under Section 497 of the Companies Act, 1956.

corporate petition_allowed voluntary winding up Companies Act 1956 Section 497 Official Liquidator

Maps Food & Beverage Services Private Ltd. v. Official Liquidator

31 May 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:4576

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for voluntary winding up and ordered final dissolution of Maps Food & Beverage Services Private Limited upon full compliance with statutory requirements under Section 497 of the Companies Act, 1956.

corporate petition_allowed voluntary winding up Companies Act 1956 Section 497 Official Liquidator

Ex-Servicemen Garuda Carriers Private Limited v. Official Liquidator

31 May 2016 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2016:DHC:4577

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for voluntary winding up of Ex-Servicemen Garuda Carriers Pvt. Ltd., holding that all statutory compliances under Section 497 of the Companies Act, 1956 were met and ordered final dissolution effective from the petition filing date.

corporate petition_allowed voluntary winding up Companies Act 1956 Section 497 Official Liquidator

M/S GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

31 May 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:4574-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the reasonableness of tender conditions relating to age and substitution clauses and declined to interfere with the tender process except noting the respondents' assurance to rectify financial eligibility anomalies.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant tender conditions judicial review arbitrariness Article 14

M/S GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

31 May 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:4573-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the reasonableness of tender conditions for facility management services, dismissed the petition challenging age and substitution clauses, and accepted the respondents' assurance to rectify an inconsistency in eligibility criteria.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant tender conditions arbitrariness reasonableness judicial review

Rajender Kumar v. State

31 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4568

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of rape and criminal intimidation charges, holding that the prosecutrix's testimony was not credible and the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape Section 376 IPC criminal intimidation Section 506 IPC

Mukesh Kumar v. State

31 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4569

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants convicted for robbery under Sections 392/34 and 397 IPC due to improbabilities and contradictions in the prosecution case and lack of corroborative evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC apprehension at spot

Mukesh Kumar v. State

31 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4563

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants convicted for robbery under Sections 392/34 and 397 IPC due to improbabilities and lack of corroborative evidence in the prosecution case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC benefit of doubt

Jakir Malik v. State

31 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4570

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of kidnapping and rape charges, holding that the prosecutrix was above the age of consent and voluntarily accompanied him, and that the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant age of prosecutrix consent kidnapping rape

Shriprakash Dwivedi v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

31 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:4603-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 498A IPC based on a lawful matrimonial settlement and consent of the complainant's authorized representative, subject to compliance with maintenance and compensation conditions.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Article 226 Constitution matrimonial dispute

Navdeep Passi v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

31 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:4604-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between siblings concerning misappropriation of retiral benefits, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement compromise deed

Vardhman Estates & Developers Private Limited v. State

31 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:4605-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420/34 IPC arising from a private commercial dispute amicably settled by the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC private commercial dispute Section 420 IPC

Sangeeta Chauhan v. Rumali Devi

31 May 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:4550

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the owner's right to possession, rejecting the appellant's claim of an irrevocable license and defense based on an unregistered agreement to sell.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant recovery of possession irrevocable license Section 60(b) Indian Easement Act specific performance

Sunil Bihari v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

31 May 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:4551

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of four appellants for unlawful assembly and assault in a jail lockup incident while acquitting others due to insufficient and unreliable evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant unlawful assembly Section 149 IPC constructive liability identification parade

Sunil Bihari v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

31 May 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:4553

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of some appellants for unlawful assembly and assault in a lockup riot while acquitting others due to lack of specific evidence and unreliable identification.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant unlawful assembly Section 149 IPC constructive liability mass violence

Union of India through Sr.D.E.E(G) North Central Railway v. Jitco Overseas Ltd.

31 May 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:4592

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging an arbitral award, holding that the 1996 Act applies and no valid objections under Section 34 were pending, thereby allowing the award to be enforced.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 objections arbitral award

Union of India through Sr.D.E.E(G) North Central Railway v. Jitco Overseas Ltd.

31 May 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:4590

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, holding that the 1996 Act applies and no valid objections under Section 34 were pending, thus the award is enforceable.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 30 Section 33

Union of India through Sr.D.E.E(G) North Central Railway v. Jitco Overseas Ltd.

31 May 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:4589

The Delhi High Court held that petitions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 challenging an arbitral award are not maintainable once the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies, dismissed the petition, and allowed the award-holder to recover the awarded amount.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 30 Section 33