Delhi High Court

80,866 judgments

Year:

Nirupama Wadhwan v. State

07 Sep 2015 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:10681

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail applications of petitioners accused of criminal conspiracy and fraud involving mortgaged property, holding that prima facie evidence and absconding co-accused justified denial of bail.

criminal bail_denied bail criminal conspiracy cheating criminal breach of trust

M/S. EVOLVE MARKETING SERVICES PVT LTD. v. M/S. AIRCEL LTD. & ANR.

07 Sep 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:7387

The Delhi High Court held that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 are not maintainable against interlocutory orders of an Arbitral Tribunal, and the Arbitration Act provides the exclusive remedy for such challenges.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution Writ petition maintainability Interlocutory orders in arbitration

Burger King Corporation v. Burger Place

07 Sep 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:7385

The Delhi High Court granted a decree for permanent injunction against a defendant who defaulted in filing a written statement in a trademark infringement suit, affirming the court's discretion under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC to pronounce judgment on a clear and uncontested plaintiff's case.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VIII Rule 10 CPC written statement trademark infringement passing off

Sandhya Windlass v. Lt. Governor, Govt of NCT of Delhi

07 Sep 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:7371-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation remains unpaid for over five years, even if compensation is deposited in treasury but not offered to the landowner.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 acquisition proceedings lapsed compensation payment

TRANSLINE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. v. NET INDIA

07 Sep 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:7378

The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit seeking declaration against contract termination and encashment of Bank Guarantee with liberty to revive if the guarantee is encashed before a specified date.

civil other Bank Guarantee Contract termination Declaration suit Interim injunction

REMI PROCESS PLANT & MACHINERY LTD. v. M/S FERNAS CONSTRUCTION LTD.

07 Sep 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:7377

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit upon settlement and granted a 50% refund of court fees under Section 16-A of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

civil appeal_allowed withdrawal of suit settlement court fees refund Section 16-A Court Fees Act

M/S Coronation Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. I.R.C.O.N. International Ltd. and Anr.

07 Sep 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:7376
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court partly modified an arbitration award by directing adjustment of claims as on a common date and applying contractual interest only on amounts liable therefor, while upholding the rest of the award.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Award Section 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act mobilization advance interest calculation

SHRI TARUN SINGHAL v. SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR & ORS.

07 Sep 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; DEEPA SHARMA · 2015:DHC:7386-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's interlocutory appeal, affirming denial of temporary injunction due to failure to establish prima facie title and possession over the suit property.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant temporary injunction prima facie case possession power of attorney

Amit Guglani v. Pushpa Guglani

07 Sep 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:7380-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's order directing maintenance arrears deposit pending investigation and dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging enforcement measures.

family appeal_dismissed maintenance arrears Fixed Deposit Receipt income tax documents non-bailable warrants

Chander Bhan Singh Chauhan v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors.

07 Sep 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2015:DHC:7384-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the unreasoned order rejecting the petitioner’s appeal against arms licence cancellation and remanded the matter for a reasoned decision in light of the petitioner’s acquittal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Arms Act, 1959 Cancellation of arms licence Quasi-judicial authority Recording reasons

Khoob Singh v. State & Anr

07 Sep 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2015:DHC:7383-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed non-speaking orders by police and Lieutenant Governor for failing to record reasons, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of reasoned decisions by quasi-judicial authorities.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quasi-judicial authority non-speaking order recording reasons natural justice

Jha, Advs v. State

07 Sep 2015 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2015:DHC:7379

Anticipatory bail applications of petitioners accused of conspiracy and misappropriation of loans secured against complainant's property were dismissed due to necessity of custodial interrogation and ongoing investigation.

criminal petition_dismissed anticipatory bail criminal conspiracy cheating criminal breach of trust

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Naraindham Trust

07 Sep 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:7375-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision that anonymous donations received by a religious trust engaged in spiritual and charitable activities are exempt from tax under Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 115BBC anonymous donations religious trust spiritual activities

Karan Pal and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

07 Sep 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:7370

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute non-compoundable offences

Shahjahanbad CGHS Ltd. & Ors v. NCT of Delhi & Ors

07 Sep 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:7374-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the Cooperative Tribunal's order and appointed a former Judge as Observer to oversee free and fair elections and administration of the petitioner cooperative society.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India Cooperative Tribunal Appointment of Observer

Ram Swami Alias Sonu and Ors v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr

07 Sep 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:7362

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC on the basis of a genuine settlement between the parties at the initial stage of investigation under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute non-compoundable offence

Mohd Shahid Alias Shahid Khan and Ors v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr

07 Sep 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:7366

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on an amicable settlement and dissolution of marriage, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute settlement agreement

Rishi Raj and Anr v. State Govt of NCT Delhi

07 Sep 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:7367

The Delhi High Court granted bail to accused in a kidnapping and murder case where evidence was circumstantial and disputed, emphasizing the balance between accused rights and interests of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC circumstantial evidence kidnapping

M/S BEDI & BEDI ASSOCIATES v. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES

07 Sep 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:7368

The Delhi High Court held that the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal cannot require pre-deposit of damages under Section 14-B as a condition to entertain appeals, limiting pre-deposit requirements to dues under Section 7A.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal Section 14-B EPF Act pre-deposit damages levy

Madhusmita Saikia v. Union Public Service Commission

07 Sep 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:7369

The Delhi High Court directed the respondent to entertain and decide the petitioner’s delayed first appeal under the RTI Act within four weeks, emphasizing the statutory remedy before the Chief Information Commissioner.

administrative petition_allowed Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 19(1) first appeal Appellate Authority