Delhi High Court

93,877 judgments

Year:

Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Constable (Mounted) Laxmi Narayan

03 Mar 2015 · Kailash Gambhir; I.S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2073-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT order directing out of turn promotion under a superseded Standing Order, holding that claims must be considered under the applicable Standing Order and that illegal benefits granted to others cannot be claimed under Article 14.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant out of turn promotion Standing Order No.4/1989 Standing Order No.4/2003 Standing Order No.4-A/2009

CIT v. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-Operative

03 Mar 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:2072-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, an assessee is entitled only to interest on the refund amount and not to interest on delayed payment of such interest, overruling the ITAT's contrary order.

tax appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 244A interest on refund interest on interest Income Tax Act

M.R. Bhangalya v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Mar 2015 · Kailash Gambhir; I.S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2074-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging pension deduction during re-employment, holding that relevant Office Memoranda must be read together to justify such deductions.

administrative petition_dismissed re-employment pension deduction pay fixation Office Memorandum 2nd July 1999

HDFC ERGO GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. BABLU SAHANI

03 Mar 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:2080

Delhi High Court enhanced compensation for a deceased homemaker in a motor accident, ruling no deduction for personal expenses and clarifying counsel fee awards under Motor Vehicles Act and High Court Rules.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation loss of dependency homemaker services valuation personal expenses deduction

TATA SONS LTD v. NEIL SOMBUNTHAM & ANR

03 Mar 2015 · JAYANT NATH · 2015:DHC:2084

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to Tata Sons Ltd restraining defendants from using the 'TATA' trademark in the domain name www.tatamassage.com and ordered transfer of the domain name, holding it to be trademark infringement.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Well-known trademark Permanent injunction Domain name dispute

Manish Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

03 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2059

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

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

Sunil Rakheja & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

03 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2051

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, reaffirming the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to end futile criminal proceedings in such cases.

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

Poonam H. Shokeen v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

03 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2050

The High Court held that the Revisional Court must hear the proposed accused before dismissing a revision petition challenging dismissal of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., and quashed the impugned order for non-compliance.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Section 203 Cr.P.C. Revision petition Hearing of accused

Dinesh Sharma v. State (Delhi Admn)

03 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2049

The High Court held that a Metropolitan Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance in absence of a Municipal Magistrate and that limitation issues must be decided by the trial court, dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_dismissed Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 Metropolitan Magistrate jurisdiction Limitation period Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Arvind Madhok v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr

03 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2056

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC based on an amicable settlement between employer and employee, emphasizing the cautious exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR amicable settlement employer-employee dispute

Sunil Kumar @ Google v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors

03 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2058

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308 and 341 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between neighbors, applying the principles governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 308 IPC

Deepak Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr

03 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2057

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406/34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on an amicable settlement, applying the principles governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC in matrimonial disputes.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR Dowry Prohibition Act compromise in criminal cases

Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi

03 Mar 2015 · Sunita Gupta · 2015:DHC:2071

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions of two accused for dacoity and criminal conspiracy based on credible witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, while reducing their sentences from 10 to 7 years.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dacoity criminal conspiracy Section 120-B IPC Test Identification Parade

Manoj Kumar v. Director of Revenue Intelligence

03 Mar 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:2038

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner involved in pseudoephedrine trafficking, emphasizing his subordinate role, prolonged custody, and inapplicability of Section 37 NDPS Act to controlled substances.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail pseudoephedrine controlled substance NDPS Act

M/S PRESIDENCY KID LEATHER PVT. LTD. v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II

03 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2039

The Delhi High Court restrained coercive recovery measures against the petitioner until the statutory appeal under the Employee’s Provident Fund Act is heard, due to the non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal’s Presiding Officer.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7A Section 7C Section 7(I)

Badarpur Thermal Power Station v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court & Anr.

03 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2040

The Delhi High Court held that departmental inquiry can proceed despite pending criminal trial, acquittal on benefit of doubt does not mandate reinstatement, and set aside the Labour Court's award reinstating a daily wage employee dismissed for misconduct.

labor appeal_allowed Significant departmental inquiry criminal trial acquittal benefit of doubt

M/S GRASSMORE TEA ESTATE v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II

03 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2041

The Delhi High Court restrained coercive recovery under the EPF Act pending hearing of a statutory appeal that could not be heard due to the non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal’s Presiding Officer.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7A Section 7(I) statutory appeal

M/S HOTEL RANI CASTLE v. E.P.F. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANR.

03 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2042

The Delhi High Court restrained coercive recovery measures against the petitioner pending hearing of a statutory appeal that could not be heard due to the non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal's Presiding Officer.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 statutory appeal Appellate Tribunal Presiding Officer vacancy

BSNL v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Bareilly

03 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2044

The Delhi High Court restrained coercive recovery under the EPF Act pending hearing of a statutory appeal that could not be heard due to the non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal's Presiding Officer.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7A Section 7B Section 7(I)

M/S TUBE EXPANSION EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. v. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II

03 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2045

The Delhi High Court restrained coercive recovery under EPF Act pending hearing of statutory appeal which was delayed due to non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal’s Presiding Officer.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7A Section 7(I) statutory appeal