Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Sukh Shyam & Ors.

11 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:8813
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

Delhi High Court modified compensation in a motor accident claim by excluding future prospects from income calculation and increasing interest, while upholding negligence and entitlement to damages.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor vehicle accident negligence compensation loss of dependency

Kishan Lal v. Kaushalya Devi

11 May 2016 · Indermeet Kaur · 2016:DHC:8775

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of an eviction petition before leave to defend was granted, dismissing the tenant's challenge as misconceived.

civil petition_dismissed eviction petition amendment of pleadings Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e)

Manas Mandir v. Lajwanti

11 May 2016 · Indermeet Kaur · 2016:DHC:8552

The Delhi High Court allowed amendment of an eviction petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to correct procedural defects in signing before trial commencement, holding such amendments do not change the case's nature and must be liberally permitted.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amendment of pleadings procedural error eviction petition

Jagdish Singh v. Rajesh Kalia

11 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:8532

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of criminal leave petitions following an amicable settlement reached through mediation and dismissed the petitions as withdrawn.

criminal appeal_dismissed withdrawal of leave petition mediation settlement amicable settlement dismissal as withdrawn

Janki v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

11 May 2016 · Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:8248
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that an accused’s right to compulsory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. accrues upon expiry of the statutory period and is not extinguished by subsequent filing of the charge sheet, allowing bail to the petitioner despite delayed charge sheet submission.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. compulsory bail charge sheet delay indefeasible right to bail

Sunil @ Gyaneshwar v. State (Not of Delhi)

11 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:8247

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications in a robbery and assault case, holding that the nature of accusations and medical evidence did not justify bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_dismissed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. robbery grievous hurt

BHUSHAN@LAMBU v. STATE

11 May 2016 · Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:8246

The High Court dismissed as withdrawn the bail applications of accused involved in multiple cases after petitioners chose not to pursue bail.

criminal bail_denied bail application withdrawal of bail multiple criminal cases involvement in other cases

Dilshad v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

11 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3805-DB

Bail was denied to the accused involved in a daylight robbery with strong victim identification and multiple similar offenses, underscoring that serious charges with credible evidence warrant continued judicial custody.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail Section 439 Cr.P.C. robbery Indian Penal Code Sections 392, 397, 411

Manpreet @ Anshu v. The Govt of NCT of Delhi

11 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3803-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 308 IPC on the ground of an amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC Article 226 Constitution Section 308 IPC

Roshan Lal & Ors. v. The State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr

11 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3804-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from matrimonial discord following an amicable settlement, mutual consent divorce, and withdrawal of complaints, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC matrimonial dispute compromise deed

Virender Kumar @ Mintu v. State

11 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3806-DB

The Delhi High Court granted parole to a life convict for repairing his family house and reestablishing social ties, emphasizing the entitlement of long-term convicts to parole subject to conditions and verification.

criminal petition_allowed Significant parole life imprisonment Parole/Furlough Guidelines 2010 Article 226 Constitution

Archana Agarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

11 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:3808-DB

Delhi High Court held that eligibility for TGT appointment requires studying the subject as core/elective in all parts/years taught, not necessarily with 100 marks each year, allowing the petitioner’s appointment claim.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Trained Graduate Teacher Recruitment Rules elective subject corrigendum

Rajeev Bhatnagar v. Jaswant Singh & Ors.

11 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3801

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of an appeal against a motor accident compensation award to enable reopening of inquiry and adjudication of a pending application to set aside an ex parte order.

civil appeal_dismissed Procedural Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Order 9 Rule 13 CPC ex parte order compensation claim

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ram Jatan & Ors.

11 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3800

The Delhi High Court held that an insurer cannot avoid liability under a third-party insurance policy on grounds of vehicle leasing or driver license issues when the owner retains control under a radio-taxi scheme.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant third-party insurance motor vehicle accident driving license validity insurance policy breach

Delhi Transco Ltd v. Mohit Singh Jadhav

11 May 2016 · A.K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:3807

The Delhi High Court held that a 100% government-owned statutory authority can appoint its own Estate Officer for eviction proceedings under the PP Act, rendering the notification appointing SDMs inapplicable and restoring the eviction order against an unauthorized occupant.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Estate Officer jurisdiction statutory authority government company

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ram Jatan & Ors.

11 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3802

The Delhi High Court held that an insurer cannot avoid liability under a third-party insurance policy due to leasing arrangements or driver employment status, provided the driver held a valid license and no fundamental breach of policy terms occurred.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant third-party insurance motor accident claim driving license lease agreement

Tata Teleservices Limited v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr.

11 May 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu BakhrU · 2016:DHC:3783-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed the CBDT instruction denying tax refunds post-scrutiny notice, holding that discretion to process returns lies with the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1D) of the Income Tax Act.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 143(1D) CBDT Instruction refund denial

QUIPPO OIL AND GAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v. OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED

11 May 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3769-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a 100% ownership condition for subsidiary bidders in tenders is ancillary and can be waived, and selective enforcement of such a condition is arbitrary and violative of fairness under Article 14.

administrative petition_allowed Significant tender conditions essential eligibility criteria ancillary conditions 100% subsidiary ownership

QUIPPO OIL AND GAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v. OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED

11 May 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3762-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the 100% shareholding condition for subsidiary bidders in ONGC tenders is ancillary, not essential, and its selective enforcement is arbitrary, thus prohibiting rejection of the petitioner's bid on this ground.

administrative petition_allowed Significant tender conditions essential eligibility criteria ancillary conditions 100% subsidiary

M/S SECURITY SHOPPE (INDIA) PVT LTD v. THD DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE

11 May 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3771-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a lab test report must come from a laboratory accredited in the relevant discipline to satisfy tender requirements, rendering a bid non-compliant if the accreditation is unrelated.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Trial Directives 2014 Deep Search Mine/Metal Detectors Lab test report Accreditation