Delhi High Court

80,411 judgments

Year:

Prakash Singh v. State

24 Aug 2015 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:6907

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for possession of commercial quantity of ganja, ruling that Section 50 NDPS notice is not mandatory in chance recovery cases and police evidence without public witnesses can be credible.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 50 NDPS Section 55 NDPS chance recovery

M/S Ruby Handicraft v. Nexus Design Project Pvt Ltd & Anr

24 Aug 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:6910

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a recovery suit as barred by limitation, holding that the account was not mutual, open and current and refused admission of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant limitation mutual open and current account reciprocal demands Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

Rakesh Kumar Mehra v. State

24 Aug 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:6892

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of appellants under the NDPS Act due to failure of prosecution to produce independent witnesses and non-compliance of mandatory procedural safeguards, granting them benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Sections 29 and 21(c) independent public witness secret information

Union of India v. Vijay Singh & Ors.

24 Aug 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:6918-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The court held that disciplinary authorities must apply independent mind before seeking UPSC advice and provide charged officers an opportunity to represent against UPSC's recommendations, setting aside penalty orders passed without such procedural fairness.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 UPSC advice principles of natural justice

Vikas Kumar v. Central Reserve Police Force

24 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6917-DB

Termination of provisional appointment for alleged concealment of criminal case was set aside as the petitioner was never arrested and the termination was based on incorrect information without due process.

administrative petition_allowed Significant provisional appointment verification roll concealment of criminal case natural justice

M/S INNOVATIVE TEXTILES PVT. LTD & ANR. v. SH. HEM CHAND SHARMA & ANR.

24 Aug 2015 · Manmohan Singh · 2015:DHC:6913

The Court held that defendants violated a conditional injunction by transferring shares in a company owning restrained property without permission, amounting to contempt, and ordered furnishing of security to continue defending the suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant injunction leave to defend contempt of court transfer of shares

Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

24 Aug 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:6919-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that separate approval for initiation and issuance of a charge sheet is mandatory under CCS (CCA) Rules, quashing the charge sheet for lack of such approval.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings charge sheet approval CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 competent authority

Brij Mohan Thr Lrs v. Mam Chand & Anr

24 Aug 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:6880

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding possession decree against a tenant holding over after lease expiry, rejecting non-joinder and tenancy protection statute defenses.

civil appeal_dismissed lease termination month-to-month tenancy Order 12 Rule 6 CPC non-joinder of necessary party

Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

24 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6914-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a CISF member’s right to a defence assistant of his choice during disciplinary enquiry cannot be restricted by the place of enquiry once approved, directing the Force to facilitate effective assistance despite transfers.

administrative petition_allowed Significant disciplinary enquiry defence assistant Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 Rule 36(8)(a)

CIT v. Arvinder Singh; CIT v. Elegant Travels Pvt Ltd

24 Aug 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:6867-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed Revenue's delayed appeals against ITAT orders for lack of satisfactory explanation, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods by government departments.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay limitation period Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A

Manoj Kumar v. State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr

24 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6882

The Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR under Section 307 IPC at an advanced trial stage despite reconciliation, allowing the accused to seek recall and cross-examination of the complainant in trial court.

criminal appeal_dismissed quashing of FIR Section 307 IPC inherent jurisdiction advanced stage of trial

HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S VIKAS HOLDING PVT. LTD. AND ANR

24 Aug 2015 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SANJEEV SACHDEVA · 2015:DHC:6877-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a director is neither a necessary nor proper party in a suit against the company for recovery of amounts advanced by a third party, dismissing the appeal seeking his impleadment.

civil appeal_dismissed impleadment Order I Rule 10 CPC separate legal personality company director

Anmol Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi

24 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6883

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail application in a serious robbery case under Sections 394/34 IPC, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's involvement.

criminal appeal_dismissed pre-arrest bail Section 394 IPC Section 34 IPC serious offence

Md. Jacki v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

24 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6897

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 287 and 304-A IPC based on a settlement and compensation paid to the victim's family, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR compromise in criminal cases Section 287 IPC

Khushbir Singh v. State NCT Govt of Delhi & Anr.

24 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6898

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings due to lack of evidence and the complainant's son's affidavit supporting the petition.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR final report no evidence Sections 182, 192, 193, 416, 465, 468, 471 IPC

Kailash & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

24 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6899

The Delhi High Court held that the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in serious forgery cases merely because the disputed amount has been paid, especially without a No Objection Certificate from the complainant.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR forgery No Objection Certificate

Naresh Verma v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr

24 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6900

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

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

Jayakumar R Nair & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

24 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6901

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, and 34 IPC on the basis of amicable settlement and compensation between parties, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR settlement between parties compromise in criminal cases

Bata India Limited v. Vitaflex Mauch Gmbh

24 Aug 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:6902

The Delhi High Court held that threats of infringement proceedings without valid registered trademark or patent rights are groundless and granted injunction restraining such threats.

civil appeal_allowed Significant groundless threats trademark infringement patent infringement Trade Marks Act 1999

Archana Tuli v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

24 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6903

The High Court declined to quash the summoning order under Sections 506(1) and 34 IPC, directing the petitioner to raise her contentions at the trial court during the charge hearing.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 506 IPC Section 34 IPC Section 482 CrPC criminal intimidation