Delhi High Court

93,877 judgments

Year:

Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2046

The Delhi High Court restrained recovery proceedings under the EPF Act pending hearing of a statutory appeal, due to the non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal’s Presiding Officer, protecting the petitioner’s statutory right of appeal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7A Section 7-I Appellate Tribunal

M/S KUNDAN & SONS v. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II

03 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2047

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

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

Ajay Kumar Bhardwaj v. DTC

03 Mar 2015 · Kailash Gambhir; I. S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2064-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that dismissal of a government servant convicted of criminal offences unrelated to official duty is valid despite pending appeal and interim bail, as departmental protection applies only to acts committed while on duty.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Executive Instructions 1955 Office Order 201 Dismissal of government servant Criminal conviction

Mohinder Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

03 Mar 2015 · Manmohan Singh · 2015:DHC:2061

The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that inherent powers cannot override statutory bars on revision and that police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is warranted only when police assistance is necessary.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. police investigation

Sushil Kumar Kasana v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

03 Mar 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:2054-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition under the 1894 Act lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is unpaid for five years, granting subsequent purchasers the right to claim lapse of acquisition.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24(2) acquisition lapse

Sushila @ Babli v. Rambir Singh

03 Mar 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:2034

The court allowed the decree holders to withdraw their execution petition with leave, reserving the right to file a fresh petition within the limitation period.

civil appeal_allowed execution petition withdrawal of petition leave of court period of limitation

Vsaar Fashions Pvt Ltd v. Isha Natural Beauty Products & Wellness Pvt Ltd

03 Mar 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:2033

The Delhi High Court allowed impleadment of a co-defendant and disposed of the suit on the basis of a voluntary out of court settlement, granting refund of 50% court fees under Section 16A of the Court Fees Act.

civil appeal_allowed out of court settlement impleadment co-defendant mesne profits

Balli v. Kallo Devi & Anr

03 Mar 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:2035

The Delhi High Court dismissed the civil suit for non-prosecution due to the plaintiff's repeated absence from hearings.

civil appeal_dismissed non-prosecution dismissal of suit default plaintiff absence

Basti Ram v. Delhi Development Authority

03 Mar 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:2031-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

Acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of possession claims.

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

M/S RUNWELL (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

03 Mar 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:2030-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, regardless of physical possession.

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

Hans Kumar Jain v. Renu Gandotra @ Poonam

03 Mar 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:2037

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging acquittal under Section 138 NI Act, holding that the complainant failed to prove delivery of goods and that a security cheque dishonour does not attract criminal liability.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Security cheque Burden of proof

Deputy General Manager Telecom Project, BSNL, Jalandhar v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2036

The Delhi High Court restrained coercive recovery under EPF Act where the statutory appeal could not be heard due to non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal's Presiding Officer, protecting the petitioner's statutory right of appeal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7A Section 7-I statutory appeal

Shiv Raj Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

03 Mar 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:2032-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the compulsory retirement penalty imposed on an RPF constable found intoxicated on duty, holding that credible evidence sufficed despite absence of blood test.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary inquiry intoxication on duty Railway Protection Force Rules compulsory retirement

Mobinteco Limited v. Hike Limited

03 Mar 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:2083

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation between two transferor companies and a transferee company, dispensing with the requirement of convening meetings of shareholders and creditors as all had given written consent.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 dispensing with meetings

Meena Sharma v. Rajiv Kumar & Anr.

03 Mar 2015 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2015:DHC:2029
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Court held that a tenant must comply with orders under Section 15(1) and statutory obligations under Section 26 of the Delhi Rent Control Act to claim protection under Section 14(2), and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of subsequent rent defaults.

property remanded Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(a) Section 14(2) Section 15(1)

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Government of India v. DSC Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

03 Mar 2015 · S. Muralidhar · 2015:DHC:2026

The Delhi High Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot grant interim relief extending a concession agreement determinable by efflux of time, and such contracts can only be compensated by damages, not specific performance.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 interim relief Specific Relief Act, 1963 contract determinable by efflux of time

Jagdish Prasad v. State

03 Mar 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:2028-DB

The Delhi High Court held that when both attesting witnesses to a Will are dead, the Will's execution can be proved under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, allowing a fresh trial to consider such evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Will probate Indian Succession Act Section 63 Indian Evidence Act Section 68 Indian Evidence Act Section 69

The Timberland Company v. House of Fashion & Ors.

03 Mar 2015 · Najmi Waziri · 2015:DHC:2069

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to Timberland Company against defendants selling counterfeit goods infringing its registered trademarks.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off permanent injunction counterfeit goods

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

03 Mar 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:2067

The Delhi High Court reduced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim and clarified that counsel’s fees are payable under Delhi High Court Rules, with Claims Tribunals empowered to award costs like a Civil Court.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation loss of income pain and suffering

HDFC ERGO GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. BABY KHUSHBU

03 Mar 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:2068

The Delhi High Court reduced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim and clarified that Claims Tribunals have the power to award counsel’s fees and costs under the Delhi High Court Rules and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Claims Tribunal powers Compensation reduction Counsel’s fees