Delhi High Court

93,877 judgments

Year:

Ashok Dogra v. State

13 Feb 2015 · P. S. Teji · 2015:DHC:1455

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Ashok Dogra for dowry-related cruelty and criminal breach of trust, clarifying that acquittal of co-accused does not preclude individual liability under Section 34 IPC and minor contradictions in evidence do not vitiate the prosecution case.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC Dowry harassment

Mohd. Usman v. The State & Another

13 Feb 2015 · P. S. Teji · 2015:DHC:1456

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under FERA but modified the sentence to a fine under FEMA, clarifying the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the transition from FERA to FEMA penalties.

criminal sentence_modified Significant Foreign Exchange Regulation Act Foreign Exchange Management Act Section 56 FERA Section 13 FEMA

Mohd. Arif Seikh v. The State & Another

13 Feb 2015 · P. S. Teji · 2015:DHC:1457

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 56 of FERA but modified the sentence to a fine under FEMA, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the transition from FERA to FEMA penalties.

criminal sentence_modified Significant Foreign Exchange Regulation Act FERA Foreign Exchange Management Act FEMA

Mahendra Singh v. State

13 Feb 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:1466

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, affirming the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process in such cases.

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

BHARTI AXA GENERAL INS. CO. LTD v. SMT POONAM

13 Feb 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:1478

The Delhi High Court held that the multiplier for compensation in a motor accident claim must be based on the higher age between the deceased and claimant, reducing the award accordingly while upholding addition for future prospects.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compensation multiplier future prospects motor accident claim

Varun Gupta v. Kanta Devi

13 Feb 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:1479

The Delhi High Court accepted a voluntary out-of-court settlement in a suit for specific performance, decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed specific performance compromise application Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC out-of-court settlement

Sunita Rani Verma v. Union of India & Ors.

13 Feb 2015 · Kailash Gambhir; I. S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:1492-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioner's claim for age relaxation in recruitment, holding she was over age despite relaxations and thus ineligible.

administrative appeal_dismissed age relaxation OBC reservation divorcee relaxation Central Administrative Tribunal

M/S MAYUR RECREATIONAL & DEV.LTD v. CIT

13 Feb 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.K. GAUBA · 2015:DHC:1490-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal directing fresh determination of annual letting value of property under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, applying rent control principles to estimate standard rent.

tax appeal_allowed Significant annual letting value Income Tax Act 1961 Section 23 standard rent

Tractebel Consulting Engineers Private Limited v. Tractebel Engineering Private Limited

13 Feb 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:1489

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation where majority consents were obtained in writing.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Section 391(1) Section 394

Ganraj Sugars Private Limited v. Ojas Industries Private Limited

13 Feb 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:1488

The Delhi High Court refused to dispense with convening meetings for a Scheme of Amalgamation due to discrepancies in share exchange ratios and directed the applicants to clarify the errors before further consideration.

corporate other Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 and 394 share exchange ratio

M/s. Arcadia Management Services Private Limited v. M/s. HRC Advisory Services Private Limited

13 Feb 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:1487

The court refused to dispense with convening meetings for a Scheme of Amalgamation due to discrepancies in share exchange ratios and lack of proper authorization for consents by the holding company, directing clarification before further hearing.

corporate other Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 share exchange ratio

Lt Col Vijay Singh Sandhu v. Kingstar Entrepreneur Pvt. Ltd.

12 Feb 2015 · S. Muralidhar · 2015:DHC:11694

The Delhi High Court ordered continuation of an interim order during arbitration proceedings and disposed of the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 17 appointment of arbitrator

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v. M/S Siemens Ltd

12 Feb 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:11688

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award in favor of Siemens Ltd. for customs duty refund/duty exemption, dismissing DMRC's objections and directing payment within six weeks.

civil appeal_dismissed arbitral award customs duty refund duty exemption public sector undertaking

HUAWEITECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD. v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

12 Feb 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R. K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:11043-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals filed by Huawei Technologies against income tax orders, directing the appellant to pursue pending rectification applications before the ITAT.

tax appeal_dismissed rectification application Income Tax Appellate Tribunal appeal dismissal income tax

Sat Bhushan Jain v. CBI

12 Feb 2015 · Vipin Sanghi

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act but significantly reduced the sentence on humanitarian grounds invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal sentence_modified Significant Section 482 CrPC Prevention of Corruption Act sentence reduction humanitarian grounds

CIT v. Big Apple Clothing Pvt. Ltd.

12 Feb 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:1451-DB

The Delhi High Court initiated contempt proceedings against a non-party for making unsolicited and unsubstantiated allegations that interfered with ongoing income tax appeals and writ petition.

administrative other Contempt of Court Section 15 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Income Tax Department Intervention Application

Pramilla Devi v. Brahm Singh

12 Feb 2015 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:1443

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to the plaintiff, holding her as the rightful owner and possessor of the suit land, and restrained the defendant from interfering with the property.

civil appeal_allowed permanent injunction possession ownership registered sale deed

Promila Gulati v. Anil Gulati

12 Feb 2015 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2015:DHC:1444

The court upheld the plaintiff's ownership under a registered Gift Deed, rejected the defendant's benami and family settlement defenses, and granted mandatory injunction against the defendant licensee whose license was terminated.

civil appeal_allowed Significant registered Gift Deed Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Section 4 Benami Act Order XII Rule 6 CPC

Rattan Lal Arora v. Delhi Vidhyut Board & Ors.

12 Feb 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:1450

The Delhi High Court upheld the employer's authority under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules to permanently withhold pension and gratuity from a retired employee found guilty of grave misconduct, even without pecuniary loss to the government.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Rule 9 CCS Pension Rules withholding pension forfeiture of gratuity grave misconduct

Shaminder Kumar & Ors. v. Nand Kishor & Ors.

12 Feb 2015 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2015:DHC:1429

The Delhi High Court dismissed the eviction petition for failure to prove landlordship and better title under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that absolute ownership is not required but prima facie ownership must be established.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) eviction petition landlord-tenant relationship