Delhi High Court

82,660 judgments

Year:

M/S OK Play India Limited v. Pradeep Tayal

15 Apr 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:3344

The Delhi High Court held that a clear jurisdiction clause in a purchase order prevails over conflicting clauses in subsequent documents, directing the suit to be filed in the court having jurisdiction as per the contract.

civil appeal_allowed Significant jurisdiction clause purchase order retail cash bill Order 7 Rule 10 CPC

Adil Hussain v. Amtul Shamim

15 Apr 2015 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2015:DHC:3345

The Delhi High Court held that sending a rent demand notice by registered post and UPC to the correct address raises a presumption of valid service under the Delhi Rent Control Act, dismissing the tenant's challenge to eviction on grounds of invalid notice.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 service of notice Section 14(1)(a) presumption of service

Tarun Batra & Anr v. Roopa Sood

15 Apr 2015 · Jayant Nath · 2015:DHC:3395

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining unauthorized removal of load bearing walls without municipal sanction, emphasizing structural safety and statutory compliance under the DMC Act, 1957.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant interim injunction structural safety load bearing wall Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.

15 Apr 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:3385

The Delhi High Court set aside the reviewing authority’s order on drug price fixation under the repealed DPCO 1995 and remanded the matter for a fresh reasoned decision in light of the DPCO 2013 replacement.

administrative other Procedural Drug Price Control Order 1995 Drug Price Control Order 2013 price fixation reviewing authority

M/S MASUMI OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE

15 Apr 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:3382

The Delhi High Court held that an entity cannot be placed on the Denied Entity List without being heard and allowed the petitioner to continue exports subject to safeguards pending adjudication.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Denied Entity List Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 natural justice Right to Information Act, 2005

Kshitiz Diwakar v. Delhi University & Anr.

15 Apr 2015 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:3377

The court held that admission deadlines must be strictly followed and rejected a late MBA admission application, while directing future admission schedules to be fixed after CAT results are declared to ensure fairness.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant admission schedule Common Admission Test CAT results MBA admission

Dansingh v. State GNCT of Delhi

15 Apr 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:3348
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

Bail was denied to the petitioner in a commercial quantity narcotics case due to credible intercepted evidence, risk of witness tampering, and prior absconding.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC NDPS Act intercepted telephone conversation

Deepak v. State

15 Apr 2015 · Manmohan Singh · 2015:DHC:3389

The Delhi High Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to order that sentences in three separate FIRs run concurrently, considering the petitioner’s prolonged custody and family circumstances.

criminal petition_allowed Significant concurrent sentences Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 427 Cr.P.C. multiple convictions

Sanjay Mishra v. State

15 Apr 2015 · Manmohan Singh · 2015:DHC:3388

The Delhi High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent running of sentences in two separate FIRs, allowing the petition and directing the petitioner's release if not required elsewhere.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. concurrent sentence inherent powers multiple convictions

Jage Ram & Anr. v. State of Delhi

15 Apr 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:3396-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellant Vedo due to material inconsistencies in multiple dying declarations, holding that conviction cannot safely rest solely on unreliable dying declarations.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 120-B IPC Section 406 IPC

Palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. Union of India Ministry of Railway & Ors

15 Apr 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:3378

The Delhi High Court held that a Ministry of Railways Circular disbanding terminal charges does not apply to private freight terminals granted rights under Railway Board Policies and directed the respondents to ensure the Circular's inapplicability to the petitioners.

administrative petition_allowed Railway Board Policy terminal charges Ministry of Railways Circular private freight terminal

Meenu Aggarwal v. SDMC & Anr

15 Apr 2015 · Suresh Kait, J. · 2015:DHC:3376

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for contempt against SDMC, holding that no contempt arose from a good faith statement about unauthorized construction later confirmed by inspection.

administrative petition_dismissed contempt of court unauthorized construction Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 show cause notice

Surat Singh College of Education Thr Shri Surat Singh Jankalyan Trust v. Juglal Singh & Ors.

15 Apr 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:3375

The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt petition against NCTE authorities for alleged non-compliance of its order, directing them to consider the petitioner’s application under the new regulations for the academic year 2015-2016.

administrative petition_dismissed NCTE Regulations 2009 New NCTE Regulations 2014 Contempt of Court Recognition of Educational Institution

K V R Murthy v. Dharamwati Devi

15 Apr 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:3379

The Delhi High Court upheld the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act and dismissed the tenant's petition challenging the refusal of leave to defend.

property appeal_dismissed eviction petition bona fide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act leave to defend

Rajeev Agnihotri v. Government of NCT of Delhi

15 Apr 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:3373-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act despite court stay orders, and the 2015 Ordinance proviso does not affect vested rights.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act land acquisition legal fiction stay order

DEV PRATAP SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

15 Apr 2015 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SANJEEV SACHDEVA · 2015:DHC:3374-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as possession was not taken and compensation was not paid, with the 2015 proviso excluding periods only where possession is taken and compensation deposited.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition compensation payment possession

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. BHAGVIR SINGH

15 Apr 2015 · A.K. Pathak · 2015:DHC:3401

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Sections 186, 353, and 333 IPC, emphasizing that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals based on possible views of evidence absent perversity or manifest error.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant acquittal appellate interference presumption of innocence discrepancies in evidence

Manoj Kumar v. Union of India

15 Apr 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:3371-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation have not been effected within five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings possession and compensation

Sukhveer Singh Dagar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

15 Apr 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:3372-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years after the award, regardless of possession disputes.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings non-payment of compensation

Tarun Batra & Anr v. Roopa Sood

15 Apr 2015 · Jayant Nath · 2015:DHC:3398

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining unauthorized removal or alteration of structural walls without municipal sanction to protect building safety.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant interim injunction load bearing wall Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 unauthorized construction