Delhi High Court

82,305 judgments

Year:

Karan Singh v. State

30 Apr 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:3961-DB

Delhi High Court partly allowed appeals by modifying convictions of some accused from Section 364A IPC to Section 363 IPC while upholding kidnapping for ransom convictions against others based on credible victim testimony and corroborative evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant kidnapping for ransom Section 364A IPC charge framing victim identification

Suneel Kumar Muttoo v. V.K. Muttoo & Anr.

30 Apr 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:3926

The Delhi High Court recorded a consent settlement in a partition suit dividing shares among siblings and ordered sale of the property with proceeds to be distributed accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed partition suit undivided share preliminary decree consent settlement

M/S DRS LOGISTICS PVT LTD v. M/S APM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD & ORS

30 Apr 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:3927

The Delhi High Court dismissed the civil suit as withdrawn following the plaintiff's out-of-court settlement with the defendants and request to discontinue the suit.

civil appeal_dismissed out-of-court settlement withdrawal of suit dismissal as withdrawn civil procedure

M/S BANSAL TRADING COMPANY v. M/S RAJIT PAINTS LTD & ORS

30 Apr 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:3928

The plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the civil suit following an out of court settlement, and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn.

civil appeal_allowed out of court settlement withdrawal of suit leave of court civil procedure

Sanjeet Sahni v. State

30 Apr 2015 · Sunita Gupta · 2015:DHC:3924

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a man for raping a 9-year-old girl, affirming that sole reliable testimony of a child victim suffices for conviction despite delay in FIR and absence of fresh injuries.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape child witness sole testimony delay in FIR

UOI v. D.S. Meena

30 Apr 2015 · V.P. Vaish · 2015:DHC:3917

The Delhi High Court set aside the CIC order directing disclosure of confidential ACRs of third-party officers, holding that such personal information is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless larger public interest is demonstrated.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 8(1)(j) Annual Confidential Reports Right to privacy

State Bank of India & Anr v. Dharmendra Prasad Singh & Ors

30 Apr 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:3919-DB

The Delhi High Court held that experimental contractual recruitment by a public sector bank with transparent procedures and subsequent absorption based on objective performance criteria does not violate constitutional principles prohibiting backdoor entries in public employment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant contractual recruitment public employment backdoor entry Uma Devi case

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd

30 Apr 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; VIBHU BAKHRU · 2015:DHC:3957-DB

The High Court held that losses claimed on sham share transactions involving interlinked companies and undisclosed funds are not allowable under the Income Tax Act, setting aside the Tribunal’s order that had accepted the genuineness of such transactions.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 loss on shares genuineness of transactions sham transactions

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. M/S Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S

30 Apr 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:3935-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral tribunal's interpretation that Notices of Readiness were valid despite one crane being non-functional, rejecting pro-rata demurrage reduction for pre-berthing period absent express contract terms.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Contract of Affreightment Notice of Readiness laytime demurrage

Manoj Pangotra & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

30 Apr 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:3940

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 511, and 120-B IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR amicable settlement cheating

Neeraj Kumar Legha v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors

30 Apr 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:3939

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 336, 338, and 387 IPC based on an amicable settlement between 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 amicable settlement compromise in criminal cases

Kalicharan v. State NCT of Delhi

30 Apr 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:3944-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants of murder and robbery charges due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and material contradictions in prosecution evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant sole eyewitness testimony credibility of witness contradictions in evidence benefit of doubt

Kalicharan v. State NCT of Delhi

30 Apr 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:3943

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants of murder and robbery charges due to unreliable sole eyewitness testimony and material contradictions in prosecution evidence, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence to sustain conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant sole eyewitness testimony reasonable doubt contradictions in evidence Test Identification Parade (TIP)

Sudhir Kumar v. State

30 Apr 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:3960-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted four appellants of murder charges due to unreliable eyewitness testimony, procedural lapses in FIR registration, and inconsistencies in medical evidence, holding that suspicion cannot replace proof.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC FIR ante-timed FIR

Kuldeep Sobti v. Pahwa Buildtech Pvt Ltd & Anr

30 Apr 2015 · Jayant Nath, J. · 2015:DHC:3948

The Delhi High Court granted conditional leave to defend to defendants in a suit for recovery of money under property sale agreements, holding that the second agreement superseded the first and that procedural defects did not warrant dismissal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC leave to defend non-verification of plaint agreement supersession

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vishisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.

30 Apr 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; VIBHU BAKHRU · 2015:DHC:3956-DB

The Delhi High Court held that losses claimed on sham share transactions involving interlinked companies and non-payment of consideration are not allowable, setting aside the Tribunal's order that had upheld such losses.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 loss on shares genuineness of transactions sham transactions

Badri Sahni v. State

30 Apr 2015 · Sunita Gupta · 2015:DHC:3958
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 20 NDPS Act but modified the sentence to the period already served, granting relief on quantum of sentence due to satisfactory conduct and substantial custody period.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 20 NDPS sentence modification period undergone

Chattar Pal v. State NCT of Delhi

30 Apr 2015 · A.K. Pathak · 2015:DHC:3959

The Delhi High Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 397 IPC for lack of evidence of personal use of deadly weapon or causing grievous hurt, while upholding robbery convictions and reducing sentence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 397 IPC deadly weapon grievous hurt robbery

Montblanc Simplo GmbH v. M/S Chunni Lal Hazari Lal & Ors.

30 Apr 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:3947

The Delhi High Court accepted a joint settlement in a trademark dispute, decreed the suit accordingly, and granted a 50% refund of court fees under Section 16-A of the Court Fees Act.

civil appeal_allowed settlement Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC court fees refund Section 16-A Court Fees Act

MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. DELHI STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.

30 Apr 2015 · Manmohan Singh · 2015:DHC:3954
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 129 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act renders a suit against a cooperative society not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 129 Delhi Cooperative Societies Act mandatory notice cooperative society suit maintainability