Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Kaptan Singh & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

26 May 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:4397

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging firemen promotions for lack of jurisdiction, directing the petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal instead.

administrative petition_dismissed service matter promotion Central Administrative Tribunal writ petition

Dev Dutt v. Union of India

26 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:8926-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's dismissal of recruitment challenges due to vague rejection reasons and directed a fresh hearing ensuring reasoned and transparent decision-making under limited judicial review.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant judicial review recruitment administrative tribunal expert rejection

Metal Box India Limited v. V. Krishna & Anr.

26 May 2016 · V.K. Shali, J. · 2016:DHC:8626

The Delhi High Court held that an order granting time to vacate premises with agreed mesne profits payment is binding as abandonment of appeal, rejecting attempts to retract and dismissing dilatory applications.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Order 23 Rule 3 CPC abandonment of appeal compromise

Surender Kushwah v. State

26 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:4409-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's writ under Article 226, directing his release on parole despite adverse police reports, emphasizing parole as a constitutional right contingent on cogent reasons for denial.

criminal petition_allowed Significant parole constitutional right Article 226 life imprisonment

Kavinder Sharma v. Rati Sharma

26 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul, J · 2016:DHC:4411-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act following an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC Article 226 Constitution matrimonial dispute

Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Supertech Realtors Pvt Ltd

26 May 2016 · Vipin Sanghi · 2016:DHC:8597

The Delhi High Court accepted a fair and reasonable settlement agreement reached through mediation, disposed of the suits accordingly, and granted a refund of court fees to the plaintiff.

civil appeal_allowed settlement agreement mediation conciliation court fee refund

Metal Box India Ltd. v. T.K. Sehgal & Sons (HUF) & Ors.

26 May 2016 · V.K. Shali · 2016:DHC:4400

The Delhi High Court held that an order granting time to vacate premises with payment of mesne profits, accepted and acted upon by parties, is enforceable even without a formal written compromise, and dismissed the appellant's attempts to reopen the appeal on merits or recall witnesses.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 23 Rule 3 CPC Compromise Mesne profits Possession suit

Mahavir @ Olanga v. State

26 May 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:4401

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for dowry death and cruelty under Sections 304B and 498A IPC based on consistent prosecution evidence despite minor contradictions and hostile witnesses.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dowry death Section 304B IPC Section 498A IPC cruelty

Arjun Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi

26 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:4410-DB

Pre-arrest bail was denied to the petitioner involved in counterfeit currency offences due to serious allegations, prior similar charges, and the need for custodial interrogation.

criminal appeal_dismissed pre-arrest bail Section 438 CrPC counterfeit currency Sections 489B and 489C IPC

PERSYS PUNJ LLOYD JOINT VENTURE v. THE COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX

25 May 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu BakhrU · 2016:DHC:8923-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of petitions seeking delayed VAT refunds on the Respondent’s assurance to process all pending refunds with interest within two months, subject to revival if not complied with.

tax petition_dismissed Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 Section 38 refund claims tax refund delay

Anuj Chopra and Ors. v. Vaneeta Khanna and Ors.

25 May 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:4334-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the decree in favor of the Khannas, holding their second suit barred by res judicata and that their title documents were invalid due to non-registration and a subsisting status quo order, thereby upholding the appellants' claim as bona fide purchasers.

civil appeal_allowed Significant res judicata Agreement to Sell Power of Attorney Transfer of Property Act

Sh. Surinder Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.

25 May 2016 · Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:4338

The Delhi High Court allowed the land acquisition appeal for enhanced compensation in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Impulse India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, granting the appellant statutory benefits and market value compensation.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act Compensation enhancement Section 18 reference Delay and laches

Mohd. Nadeem v. State

25 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4345

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions of appellants in sexual and related offences but reduced their sentences considering mitigating factors and statutory limits on fines.

criminal sentence_modified quantum of sentence Section 376 IPC Section 377 IPC Section 323 IPC

SKECHERS USA INC & ORS v. PURE PLAY SPORTS

25 May 2016 · Vipin Sanghi · 2016:DHC:4344

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from marketing footwear that deceptively imitate the plaintiffs' distinctive GOwalk 3 trade dress, holding that unregistered trade dress can be protected under passing off law.

civil appeal_allowed Significant passing off trade dress interim injunction likelihood of confusion

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pratap Singh @ Krishna

25 May 2016 · Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:4308

The Delhi High Court allowed the State's appeal against acquittal, holding that conviction under Section 354 IPC can rest on sole trustworthy testimony of the victim without corroboration, and non-examination of an alleged witness or delay in FIR does not automatically vitiate the prosecution case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 354 IPC sexual assault sole testimony acquittal

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Mahesh Kumar

25 May 2016 · J. R. Midha · (2015) 224 DLT 651

The Delhi High Court held that a civil court has territorial jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within its limits, setting aside the trial court's order rejecting the plaint for lack of jurisdiction in a loan agreement dispute.

civil appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction cause of action Section 20 CPC loan agreement

Kamlesh Sherawat & Anr. v. Lalji Patel & Ors.

25 May 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:4349

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against rejection of a defamation suit plaint barred by limitation and defective pleadings, emphasizing strict adherence to pleadings and limitation rules.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Limitation Act 1963 defamation pleadings

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Devi Deen; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalta Prasad

25 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:4355

The Delhi High Court allowed the insurer's appeal holding that non-production of a valid permit by the vehicle owner despite notice constitutes breach of insurance policy, entitling the insurer to recover compensation from the owner and driver.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 insurance policy breach valid permit Order 12 Rule 8 CPC

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja Devi & Ors.

25 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:4354

The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation award and held that an expired driving license does not absolve the insurer from liability unless it caused the accident.

motor_accident_claims appeal_dismissed Significant motor vehicle accident compensation insurance liability expired driving license

Mohd Hasan v. Farooq @ Fakhruddin

25 May 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:4353

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against suit dismissal for failure to lead evidence, holding that a litigant cannot evade responsibility by blaming his advocates and that sufficient opportunity was afforded to prosecute the suit diligently.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant failure to lead evidence advocate negligence litigant responsibility dismissal of suit