Delhi High Court
79,582 judgments
Satish Mehta v. Sasken Communication Technologies & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that orders for arrest and civil imprisonment in execution proceedings must comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under Order XXI CPC, including notice and opportunity to show cause, failing which such orders are unsustainable.
Satish Mehta v. Sasken Communication Technologies & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that arrest and civil imprisonment of judgment debtors in execution proceedings require strict compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Order XXI CPC, and set aside orders passed without such compliance.
Satish Mehta v. Sasken Communication Technologies & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that arrest and civil imprisonment of a judgment debtor in execution proceedings require strict compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Order XXI Rule 11A and Rule 37 of the CPC, and set aside orders passed without such compliance.
Vinod Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that suspension of BSF personnel governed by Rule 40A of BSF Rules is not subject to mandatory review and time limits under CCS Rules unless expressly incorporated, validating the extension of suspension without such review.
Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Edward Keventer (Successors) Private Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the sale of two properties held as fixed assets for over fifty years resulted in long-term capital gains and not business income.
Naveen Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute after the parties amicably settled, reaffirming the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to end futile criminal proceedings in such cases.
FORBES FACILITY PVT LTD v. G.B. PANT HOSPITAL
The Delhi High Court partially allowed the appeal by removing the requirement of a bank guarantee for alleged excess payment, affirming that unilateral contract modifications after substantial performance are impermissible without mutual consent.
M/S OPAQUE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. M/S MILLENNIUM REALTECH PVT. LTD.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition holding that disputes regarding enforceability and specific performance of a collaboration agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under the arbitration agreement.
Mintu Mandal v. State
The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of murder due to insufficient circumstantial evidence and inadmissibility of hearsay statements, emphasizing the requirement of a complete chain of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Sarwan Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that new recruitment rules apply to vacancies arising after their commencement, set aside an improper promotion, and directed expunging adverse remarks to ensure fair consideration for promotion.
Satish Mehta v. Sasken Communication Technologies & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside orders of civil imprisonment for non-payment in execution proceedings due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Order XXI CPC.
Satish Mehta v. Sasken Communication Technologies & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that orders for arrest and civil imprisonment in execution proceedings must comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under Order XXI CPC, including notice and application requirements, failing which such orders are unsustainable.
Jijy Philip v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of an FIR under Sections 420 and 406 IPC based on a mediated settlement before trial commencement, emphasizing the Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to end criminal proceedings in non-heinous cases upon fulfillment of settlement terms.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. NCT of Delhi
The High Court held that a Magistrate may direct further investigation after cognizance but cannot order filing of a supplementary charge-sheet or direct the Director of the investigating agency, and quashed the trial court's order directing further investigation at the charge stage.
Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar v. CBI
The Delhi High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC relying on the principle that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and that a No Objection Certificate cannot preclude prosecution.
Bipin Chander Paul Kakkar v. CBI
The Delhi High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC at the final trial stage, holding that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and a No Objection Certificate without prejudice cannot bar prosecution.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Manoj Khurana & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and costs to Louis Vuitton against defendants selling counterfeit goods infringing its well-known registered trademarks.
M/S OPAQUE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. M/S MILLENNIUM REALTECH PVT. LTD.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that disputes over enforceability of a collaboration agreement fall within arbitration jurisdiction, and the court cannot grant interim relief on such issues under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
Dr S C Batra v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of disciplinary charge sheets issued to Dr. S.C. Batra, affirming the Board's delegation of authority to the Managing Director and proper application of mind in approving charges.
CRYSTAL PUBLICATION v. M/S JAIN PAPER AGENCY & ANR
The High Court dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the same pleas before the trial court.