Delhi High Court

80,866 judgments

Year:

Para Medical Technical Staff Welfare Association of MCD v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

02 Sep 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:7241

The Delhi High Court directed the NDMC to consider the petitioner's application for recognition within a stipulated time and clarified that recognition and room allotment are distinct processes, ensuring due process in possession disputes.

administrative petition_allowed Significant recognition of association office room allotment mandamus due process of law

M/S Joule Infrastructure Private Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

02 Sep 2015 · G.S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:7242-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition allowing the petitioners six weeks to negotiate a settlement or find a buyer before the bank could auction the mortgaged property, emphasizing compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.

civil other Significant mortgaged property auction valuation report Supreme Court guidelines

Rahul Aggarwal v. State & Ors

02 Sep 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:7250

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the basis of amicable settlement and absence of negligence, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR Section 279 IPC Section 304-A IPC

Sushil Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

02 Sep 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:7251

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against a BSF constable under Sections 279/337 and 304A IPC on the basis of amicable settlement, absence of culpable negligence, and compensation to the complainant.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR culpable negligence compensation

Mohit Kaura & Anr v. State & Anr

02 Sep 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:7248

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR for cheating under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after the consumer commission directed refund with interest and compensation was paid, subject to additional compensation by petitioners.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cheating refund consumer commission

Sandeep Jain v. Priya Jain & Anr.

02 Sep 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:7247

The Delhi High Court reduced the interim maintenance payable by the husband from ₹40,000 to ₹20,000 per month, finding prima facie concealment of income but reserving final determination for trial.

family appeal_allowed Section 125 Cr.P.C. interim maintenance concealment of income matrimonial advertisement

Sarjeevan Bhatia v. Om Prakash Bhatia

02 Sep 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:7246

The Delhi High Court set aside a suo motu dismissal under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and directed an expeditious trial where triable issues were raised despite inconsistent defenses.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 12 Rule 6 CPC suo motu dismissal trial entitlement possession suit

Karamvir Singh v. State & Anr

02 Sep 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:7249

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR settlement between parties inherent powers of High Court

Tara Chand Kaushik v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

02 Sep 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:7236

The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of a criminal FIR under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471 IPC on the basis of amicable settlement between related parties, applying the principles of Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC compromise in criminal cases non-heinous offences

Pradeep Kapoor v. The State & Anr

02 Sep 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:7237

The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of an FIR under non-heinous IPC sections based on a genuine settlement between parties, applying the principles under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR settlement between parties non-heinous offences

State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar

02 Sep 2015 · Sunita Gupta · 2015:DHC:7223

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's jurisdiction and ruling that the termination of a muster roll employee without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was illegal retrenchment entitling reinstatement with full back wages.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25F illegal retrenchment territorial jurisdiction

Gulab Singh v. Satyender Singh & Ors

02 Sep 2015 · V.K. Shali · 2015:DHC:7266

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that dismissal of a suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires an unequivocal admission, which was absent in this property partition dispute.

civil appeal_dismissed Order XII Rule 6 CPC admission partition suit Section 58 Evidence Act

Neelam Nagpal and Anr. v. Syndicate Bank and Ors.

01 Sep 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:12029-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the default dismissal of appeals by the DRAT due to Bar Association's call for abstinence and remanded the matters for hearing on merits after the Bar Association tendered an apology.

administrative appeal_allowed Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal default dismissal abstinence from work Bar Association

Neelam Nagpal and Anr v. Syndicate Bank and Ors

01 Sep 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:11549-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the default dismissal of appeals by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal due to Bar Association's abstinence call and remanded the matters for hearing on merits after an unqualified apology was tendered.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal default dismissal non-appearance Bar Association abstinence

PR.GIT v. Rajiv Gupta

01 Sep 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:11426-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed tax appeals against Rajiv Gupta, holding no substantial question of law arises in view of a recent authoritative decision.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Appeal Substantial Question of Law Precedent CIT v. MGF Automobiles Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central -II) v. Kusum Gupta

01 Sep 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhrhu · 2015:DHC:11138-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that income tax additions under Section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 153A Income Tax Act search and seizure incriminating material assessment and reassessment

Farooq Ahmed v. Padmini Singla Directorate of Education

01 Sep 2015 · Gita Mittal; L. S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:10846-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed two connected contempt appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the appellants to pursue other remedies.

other appeal_dismissed Procedural contempt appeal withdrawal of appeal liberty to invoke remedy Delhi High Court

Bijender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

01 Sep 2015 · Gita Mittal; I.S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:7160-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the Government's order setting aside cooperative society election results and appointing an administrator for non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 123 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and principles of natural justice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 Section 123 natural justice show cause notice

Nugent Estates Ltd v. M/S MS Shoes East Ltd

01 Sep 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:7159-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award made beyond the prescribed period without court extension is not an award in law until time is enlarged, so objections filed before such enlargement are not barred by limitation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Act, 1940 Section 28 Limitation Act, 1963 condonation of delay

Din Bandhu Das v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

01 Sep 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:7163-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a tender condition restricting participation to not-for-profit and government entities as a reasonable policy decision in public interest, dismissing the petition challenging it.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant tender conditions not-for-profit societies government undertakings judicial interference