Delhi High Court

76,343 judgments

Year:

MIDAS HYGIENE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. SUDHIR BHATIA

04 Nov 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; VIPIN SANGHI · 2015:DHC:9160-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the Copyright Board's cancellation of copyrights on labels and trademarks, holding that such works are excluded from design registration under the Designs Act and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on locus standi, originality, and limitation.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Copyright Act, 1957 Designs Act, 2000 Section 15(2) copyright cessation

Budha v. State

04 Nov 2015 · Sanjiv Khanna; R. K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:9161-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for murder based on circumstantial evidence, admissible disclosures under Section 27 Evidence Act, and forensic DNA reports, dismissing their appeals.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder criminal conspiracy circumstantial evidence last seen evidence

Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia

04 Nov 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:9165-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals by Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd., upholding the lower courts' findings on contractual liability in a commercial dispute.

civil appeal_dismissed contractual obligations commercial dispute appellate review burden of proof

Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia

04 Nov 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:9166-DB

The Delhi High Court delivered its judgment on appeals filed by Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. against Sudhir Bhatia concerning a commercial dispute.

civil other appeal contractual dispute commercial transaction Delhi High Court

Rekha Nambiar v. CBI

04 Nov 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:9146

Delhi High Court upheld framing of charges against petitioners for abetment in disproportionate assets case under Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at charge framing stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant framing of charges disproportionate assets Prevention of Corruption Act Section 109 IPC

Rekha Nambiar v. CBI

04 Nov 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:9147

The Delhi High Court upheld framing of charges against petitioners for abetting disproportionate assets acquisition under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the charge framing stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act disproportionate assets Section 109 IPC abetment

Bijender Singh v. Union of India

04 Nov 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:9148-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed the dismissal of a CRPF driver for misconduct related to a fatal accident due to insufficient individual evidence and ordered reinstatement with partial back wages.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings dismissal from service Central Reserve Police Force misconduct

Jet Lite (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-XVI

04 Nov 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:9144-DB
Cites 5 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld additions under Section 68 for unexplained share capital where identity was not established, affirmed exemption of supplemental lease rent under Section 10(15A), and remanded training payment issues for fresh consideration, clarifying TDS obligations and taxability of fees for technical services.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 68 unexplained cash credit Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) Fees for Technical Services

Sudershan Kumar Sharma v. M/S Asians Buildtech Engineers

04 Nov 2015 · Manmohan Singh · 2015:DHC:9191

The Delhi High Court decreed a summary suit for recovery of Rs. 30,12,671 with interest against a defendant who failed to appear and whose post-dated cheques were dishonored.

civil appeal_dismissed summary suit Order XXXVII CPC dishonour of cheque Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act

Manju Anand & Anr v. Geeta Chopra & Ors.

04 Nov 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:9923

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition and declaration challenging a will and mutation of property, holding that prior admissions in succession certificate proceedings estopped them from contesting the inheritance and that probate was not mandatory for immovable property in Delhi.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant succession certificate will probate self-acquired property

Harish Kapoor v. Walaiti Ram Kewal Krishan (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

03 Nov 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:11858

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's applications to withdraw two civil suits following an amicable settlement between the parties under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed withdrawal of suit Order 23 Rule 1 CPC settlement civil procedure

CISEXPORTSPVT.LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIRCARGO

03 Nov 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhrur · 2015:DHC:11849-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the CESTAT’s pre-deposit order requiring CIS Exports Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs. 27 lakhs with interest before hearing its appeal against duty drawback penalties, dismissing the appellant’s plea for waiver due to lack of documents and delay.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant pre-deposit duty drawback Customs Act 1962 prima facie case

Rachel Aomar v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors

03 Nov 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:11101-DB

The Delhi High Court held that restriction of movement under the Foreigners Act on national interest grounds is lawful and dismissed the habeas corpus petition challenging the deportation of a foreign national spouse.

constitutional petition_dismissed habeas corpus Foreigners Act 1946 restriction of movement deportation order

Arif v. State of Not of Delhi

03 Nov 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2015:DHC:11088

The Delhi High Court quashed cross FIRs arising from a scuffle over a Jhuggi construction after the parties amicably settled their dispute, exercising its inherent powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Article 226 Constitution of India Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement

M.C. Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Nov 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:9143-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the review DPC's decision denying promotion to DIG due to the petitioner's failure to meet the required "very good" ACR grading standard for five consecutive years, dismissing the petitioner's challenge based on non-communication of adverse entries and missing records.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Departmental Promotion Committee Annual Confidential Report promotion eligibility Sashastra Seema Bal

Piyare Lal & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar

03 Nov 2015 · V.K. Shali · 2015:DHC:9142

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order on bona fide requirement grounds, holding that the tenant cannot dispute landlord's ownership after admitting tenancy and rent payment, and that the landlord's claim for better accommodation is genuine.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bona fide requirement eviction leave to defend

Ranjeet Singh Narula v. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary

03 Nov 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:9136-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the matrimonial appeal directing interim custody of the minor child to remain with the maternal grandparents as per the settlement, setting aside the Family Court's ex parte custody order for lack of notice and procedural fairness.

family appeal_allowed Significant custody of minor ex parte order family court Hindu Marriage Act

Pawan Chadha & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

03 Nov 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2015:DHC:9139-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406 and 498A IPC arising from matrimonial disputes following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC Section 406 IPC Section 498A IPC

Satender @ Satte v. State; Ram Singh @ Aarami v. State

03 Nov 2015 · Sanjiv Khanna; R. K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:9128-DB

The Delhi High Court heard criminal appeals filed by Satender and Ram Singh challenging their convictions, with the judgment referring to a prior decision for detailed reasoning.

criminal other criminal appeal conviction High Court of Delhi appellant

Sushil @ Jalebi v. State

03 Nov 2015 · Sanjiv Khanna; R. K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:9127-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants convicted of murder due to insufficient and unreliable circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity of a complete and credible evidentiary chain.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC call detail records