Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram

13 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3863
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court clarified the uniform method for calculating just compensation in motor accident claims involving death of children, endorsing adjusted notional income and consistent application of multipliers and deductions to ensure fairness and uniformity.

civil other Significant motor accident claims compensation calculation death of children notional income

Satish Kumar v. State

13 May 2016 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:3860-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer was admissible and modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, reducing the sentence accordingly.

criminal sentence_modified Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part I IPC culpable homicide

Sunil Gupta v. State

13 May 2016 · S. P. Garg · 2016:DHC:3861

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications of accused in a grievous injury case, emphasizing the gravity of offences and specific roles assigned to petitioners.

criminal appeal_dismissed anticipatory bail grievous injury common intention false implication

KRISHNA DEVI v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

13 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3879

The Delhi High Court held that a loader traveling in a goods vehicle for loading/unloading purposes is not a gratuitous passenger, and thus insurer's recovery rights against the vehicle owner on breach of policy terms were set aside.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor vehicular accident goods vehicle gratuitous passenger insurance policy breach

Upender Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarter & Anr.

13 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:3866-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the termination of a police recruit for repeated unauthorized absences during training, holding the termination order non-stigmatic and valid under CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.

administrative petition_dismissed termination simplicitor unauthorized absence Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 stigmatic termination

LS Cable & System Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax – II

13 May 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:3859-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Authority for Advance Ruling cannot reject applications solely because a Section 143(2) notice was issued before or after filing if the question was not already pending before income tax authorities on the application date.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Authority for Advance Ruling Section 143(2) Section 245R(2) Income Tax Act, 1961

Kanhaiya Kumar v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

13 May 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:3854

The Delhi High Court granted conditional protection to JNU students by staying enforcement of disciplinary penalties pending appeals, subject to withdrawal of strikes and maintenance of campus discipline.

administrative petition_allowed Significant High Level Enquiry Committee disciplinary proceedings appeal stay of orders

Bismillah v. State

13 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3855-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Bismillah for kidnapping under Section 364-A IPC, ruling that natural witnesses are not 'interested witnesses' and that harboring a kidnapped child and negotiating ransom constitute criminal liability.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 364-A IPC kidnapping ransom negotiation interested witness

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Salora International Ltd

13 May 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakru · 2016:DHC:3852-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that for capital gains tax computation, the entire consideration fixed under a court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement, including amounts paid directly to shareholders with the transferor's consent, must be treated as consideration received or accruing to the transferor company.

tax appeal_allowed Significant capital gains scheme of arrangement Companies Act 1956 consideration

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd.

13 May 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:3848-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act is discriminatory under Article 26(3) of the India-US DTAA and upheld the ITAT's allowance of administrative fees paid by Herbalife India to its US affiliate as a deductible expense.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 40(a)(i) Income Tax Act Article 26(3) DTAA fees for technical services non-discrimination

Swaraj Kishore Arora v. Indian Bank

13 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3849-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Recovery Officer has jurisdiction to adjudicate objections to sale of mortgaged property, recognizing possessory rights under agreements to sell, and upheld the bank's recovery proceedings despite non-production of original title deeds.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Recovery Officer powers equitable mortgage attachment and sale

Swaraj Kishore Arora v. Indian Bank

13 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3850-DB

The Delhi High Court held that in recovery proceedings, the Recovery Officer must recognize possessory rights or interests of third-party objectors with agreements to sell and possession, and a bank cannot claim mortgage rights without producing original title documents.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 equitable mortgage Recovery Officer powers possession

Swaraj Kishore Arora v. Indian Bank

13 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3851-DB

The Delhi High Court held that in recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Act, a Recovery Officer must recognize third party interests and possession under agreements to sell with possession, and a bank's failure to produce original title documents weakens its mortgage claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Recovery Officer powers equitable mortgage agreement to sell

Swaraj Kishore Arora v. Indian Bank

13 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3856-DB

The Delhi High Court clarified the powers of the Recovery Officer in recovery proceedings, holding that third-party objectors with possession and interest under agreements to sell must be recognized, and that equitable mortgage claims require production of original title documents.

civil other Significant Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Recovery Officer powers equitable mortgage attachment and sale

Abhey Singh v. State

13 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3853-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted Abhey Singh of murder charges due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and significant investigative discrepancies, emphasizing the need for credible evidence to uphold conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant eyewitness testimony benefit of doubt Section 302 IPC investigation irregularities

Astha Rai v. Delhi Public School

12 May 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:8918

Delhi High Court restored admissions of minors expelled for alleged forged income certificates after genuine certificates were produced, emphasizing protection of minors' educational rights.

family appeal_allowed Significant income certificate EWS category minor students admission cancellation

Union of India v. Amit Sharma

12 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmiwaziri · 2016:DHC:8897-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging expired interim orders and directed the Central Administrative Tribunal to expedite disposal of pending applications.

administrative petition_dismissed interim order Central Administrative Tribunal Original Application writ petition

Rajesh Kumari v. Union of India & Anr.

12 May 2016 · Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:8830-DB

Delhi High Court directs CISF to pay House Rent Allowance to personnel permitted to live outside official accommodation when no government accommodation is provided, following settled legal precedent upheld by the Supreme Court.

administrative petition_allowed Significant House Rent Allowance CISF Rules 2001 Outdoor residence permission Government accommodation

Ravi Kant v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

12 May 2016 · Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:8250

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of molestation in cross FIRs, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with investigation and protection of the complainant.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. molestation cross FIR

Arti Sachan v. State

12 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:8249

Pre-arrest bail granted to former employees accused of disclosing intellectual property, as they cooperated with investigation and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

criminal appeal_allowed pre-arrest bail Section 438 CrPC custodial interrogation intellectual property