Delhi High Court

93,877 judgments

Year:

Shahnawaz @ Raju v. State (NCT) of Delhi

11 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2387

The Delhi High Court rejected bail in a circumstantial evidence case, emphasizing that evidence should not be piecemeal evaluated at the bail stage and directed expeditious trial completion.

criminal petition_dismissed bail application circumstantial evidence regular bail prolonged custody

Gopal Bhagnani v. Ramesh Chand

11 Mar 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:2366

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s order granting leave to defend in an eviction petition where ownership and bona fide requirement were disputed and necessary parties were not joined.

property appeal_dismissed eviction petition Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) leave to defend

Abdul Hafiz v. Mohd Zaki

11 Mar 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:2357

The High Court upheld the grant of leave to defend in an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that the tenant raised triable issues regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement and availability of alternative accommodation.

property petition_dismissed eviction petition Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) leave to defend

ALSTOM INDIA LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

11 Mar 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:2368 TED

The Delhi High Court held that a refund of Terminal Excise Duty paid without availing exemption is payable despite deemed export status, and the impugned order rejecting refund was not appealable under the FTDRA.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Terminal Excise Duty refund claim Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992

Food Corporation of India v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

11 Mar 2015 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2015:DHC:2369

The Delhi High Court held that the EPF Appellate Tribunal exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act by re-deciding merits and remanding the matter, setting aside the impugned review order.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 Section 7-L(2) Review jurisdiction Procedural review

Food Corporation of India v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

11 Mar 2015 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2015:DHC:2370

The Delhi High Court held that the EPF Appellate Tribunal's power of review under Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act is limited to correcting apparent mistakes and does not permit rehearing appeals on merits, setting aside the Tribunal's review order remanding the matter for fresh inquiry.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Section 7-L(2) EPF Act Review jurisdiction Procedural review Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

Sudhir Paswan v. The State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi

11 Mar 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:2353

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for kidnapping and raping a minor girl, holding that consent of a child below fifteen years is legally irrelevant.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant kidnapping sexual assault minor consent age proof

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. M/S JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING AND MARKETING (P) LTD

11 Mar 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.K. GAUBA · 2015:DHC:2354-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry before making additions under Section 68 and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after setting aside the ITAT order deleting unexplained credit additions.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 68 Income Tax Act unexplained credit share application money accommodation entries

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Raj Nayyar & Ors.

11 Mar 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:2396

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the insurer's appeal in a motor accident claim by adjusting compensation calculations, denying recovery rights due to failure to prove breach of policy, and setting counsel fees in accordance with High Court Rules.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation loss of dependency insurance recovery rights

CIT v. Tilak Raj Anand

11 Mar 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:2373-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's factual findings deleting most additions under block assessment, holding that documentary evidence outweighed third party denial of cash transactions and vague seized notes cannot sustain tax additions.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 69C block assessment unexplained income

CIT v. Tilak Raj Anand

11 Mar 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:2372-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed Revenue's appeals upholding ITAT's order that additions under Section 69C based on seized cash book entries were justified, while deleting most unexplained expenditure additions lacking clear attribution.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 69C block assessment unexplained cash credit

Brij Kishore Gupta v. Union of India

11 Mar 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2371

The court directed consideration of the petitioner’s promotion claim in accordance with the promotion policy and restrained further promotions to juniors until the petitioner’s claim was decided.

labor appeal_allowed Significant promotion policy retrospective promotion Corporate Promotion Committee public sector undertaking

N. Jagannathan v. Punjab National Bank

11 Mar 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2374

The Delhi High Court held that resignation is distinct from voluntary retirement under the Punjab National Bank Pension Regulations, 1995, and an employee who resigns without formally applying for voluntary retirement is not entitled to pension benefits.

civil petition_dismissed Significant resignation voluntary retirement pension entitlement Punjab National Bank Pension Regulations 1995

Sunita Ranga v. Punjab National Bank

11 Mar 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2367

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition holding that absence due to illness accepted in disciplinary proceedings cannot be excluded from service tenure for promotion eligibility.

administrative petition_allowed Significant promotion eligibility unauthorized leave sick leave disciplinary proceedings

L.N. Khemka and Ors. v. IFCI Limited and Ors.

11 Mar 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2358

The Delhi High Court held that an employer has the exclusive right to reduce the retirement age of employees, dismissing the petition challenging IFCI's reduction of retirement age from 60 to 58 years.

labor petition_dismissed Significant retirement age employer prerogative vested rights Article 14

Sambhav Khanna v. State (NCT of Delhi)

11 Mar 2015 · Sunita Gupta · 2015:DHC:2356

Anticipatory bail was denied to the accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case due to serious allegations, inconsistent pleas, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

criminal appeal_dismissed anticipatory bail Section 438 CrPC cheating criminal breach of trust

Dhian Chand v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Mar 2015 · Kailash Gambhir; I.S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2397-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of petitions challenging cancellation of candidature based on verified fake driving licences, affirming that a forged licence cannot be validated by renewal and that due process was followed.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant fake driving licence renewal of licence Section 15 Motor Vehicles Act principles of natural justice

PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Usha Rani and Ors.

11 Mar 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:2398-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a third party with valid title can challenge possession taken under the SARFAESI Act and the DRT has jurisdiction to restore possession if the mortgage security is invalid.

civil petition_dismissed Significant SARFAESI Act Section 17 Debt Recovery Tribunal equitable mortgage

M/S SCONCE GLOBAL PVT. LTD. v. M/S ETA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.

11 Mar 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:2395

The Delhi High Court disposed of a civil suit on the basis of a voluntary settlement reached through court-annexed mediation and granted refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.

civil appeal_allowed settlement agreement court-annexed mediation Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Section 16 Court Fees Act

Pradeep Kaur v. H.S. Khurana

11 Mar 2015 · V.K. Shali · 2015:DHC:2394

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the maintenance order, holding that the trial court rightly fixed maintenance based on assumed income in absence of definite proof and no enhancement was justified after seven years.

family petition_dismissed maintenance Article 227 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prima facie evidence