Delhi High Court

81,561 judgments

Year:

Govind Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.

03 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6144

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Kush Kalra v. Union of India & Anr.

02 Aug 2015 · Gita Mittal; C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:108-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court held that excluding women from recruitment as officers in the Indian Territorial Army is unconstitutional discrimination violating Articles 14, 15, and 16, and directed the respondents to allow women to apply on par with men.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant gender discrimination Territorial Army Articles 14 15 16 constitutional equality

Rahul Pal @ Vicky v. Preeti Jain & Anr

31 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait, J. · 2015:DHC:6071

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal FIR based on a settlement between parties before framing of charges, applying inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in the interest of justice.

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

Sanjay Mukherjee & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

31 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:6074

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal case under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

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

Orient Carpet Gallery Pvt Ltd v. Suresh Jain

31 Jul 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:11862-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a decree on admission and disposed of related suits and appeals following a comprehensive settlement reached through mediation in a property dispute.

civil settled Procedural specific performance Order XII Rule 6 CPC settlement mediation

PR. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Coronation Infrastructure Ltd.

31 Jul 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:11376-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision exempting the assessee from penalty under Section 271C for bonafide failure to deduct tax at source detected during a survey.

tax appeal_dismissed Section 271C tax deduction at source penalty bonafide failure

National Highways Authority of India v. Ltd Cementation India Ltd.

31 Jul 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:11069

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of multiple petitions filed by NHAI against ITD Cementation India Ltd. following a settlement between the parties, disposing of the petitions as withdrawn.

civil appeal_allowed settlement withdrawal of petitions Order 23 Rule 1 CPC disposal of cases

Sh. Parveen Khatri v. Smt. Rani

31 Jul 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:6092

The Delhi High Court dismissed a suit for specific performance of a joint Agreement to Sell due to absence of signature by all sellers and non-compliance with Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

civil appeal_dismissed Agreement to Sell Specific Performance Section 12 Specific Relief Act Joint Contract

Rakesh v. The State of (NCT) Delhi

31 Jul 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:6089

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a man for kidnapping and raping a minor girl, ruling that consent is immaterial due to her age, but modified the sentence considering mitigating factors and ordered compensation to the victim.

criminal appeal_allowed kidnapping rape minor consent Section 363 IPC

Brainsmart Media and Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Newspaper Society

31 Jul 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:6090

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for non-prosecution and default due to repeated non-appearance despite service of notices and a pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed non-prosecution default Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissal of suit

J.R RICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. GYAN PRAKASH SAHU

31 Jul 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:6088

The Delhi High Court decreed a civil suit based on a bona fide out-of-court settlement freely arrived at by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed out-of-court settlement Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC civil suit decree voluntary settlement

Jasbir Singh Lamba & Ors v. Phoolwati & Ors

31 Jul 2015 · Jayant Nath · 2015:DHC:6115

The Delhi High Court held that a counter claim challenging sale deeds cannot be summarily rejected on limitation grounds under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without evidence, as limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Limitation Act Article 58 declaration suit counter claim

Laxman Industries Limited v. Laxman Marketing Private Limited and Ors.

31 Jul 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:6086

The Delhi High Court upheld a voluntary settlement reached through court-annexed mediation, disposed of the suit accordingly, and granted refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

civil appeal_allowed Settlement Agreement Court-annexed mediation Section 16 Court Fees Act Refund of court fees

Shamshad & Ors. v. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

31 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:6077

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes upon an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Girish Khorwal & Anr. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

31 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:6073

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal case under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, affirming the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

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

Asma @ Rani & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

31 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:6069

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 448, 454, and 380 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties at the early investigation stage, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

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

Kanhiya Lal Sharma & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

31 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:6070

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against parents-in-law under Section 498A IPC based on a matrimonial settlement, while allowing prosecution against the husband to continue.

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

Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 v. Sri Chand Gupta

31 Jul 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:6085-DB

The Delhi High Court held that seized cash retained under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act does not constitute payment of tax for interest computation under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C until regular assessment or return filing.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 132 Income Tax Act Seized assets Advance tax Interest computation

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bharat Hotels Limited

31 Jul 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:6084-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's allowance of interest paid on loans for hotel project expansions as revenue expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the Revenue's claim based on Explanation 8 of Section 43(1).

tax appeal_dismissed Significant interest expenditure revenue expenditure capitalization Section 36(1)(iii)

Workmen of Sports Authority of India Kamgar Union v. Sports Authority of India

31 Jul 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:6098-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that contract labour are not deemed employees of the principal employer unless the contract is a sham, setting aside a Labour Court award for regularization but maintaining interim wage payments under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant contract labour principal employer unfair labour practice Industrial Disputes Act