Delhi High Court

93,453 judgments

Year:

Vikas Aggarwal v. Director, DRI

03 Feb 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:1078

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's condition requiring prior permission before the petitioner could leave the country, holding that the Supreme Court's bailability ruling does not apply retrospectively to offences that were non-bailable at the time of commission.

criminal petition_dismissed bail conditions Section 135 Customs Act bailable offence non-bailable offence

Mou Sood v. Rahul Sood

03 Feb 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:1082

The Delhi High Court enhanced maintenance and rental allowance for a petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 while leaving restoration to the shared household to be decided at trial.

family appeal_allowed Significant Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 maintenance restoration to shared household alternate accommodation

Kamla Devi v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Feb 2015 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. · 2015:DHC:1073-DB

The Delhi High Court held that claims of medical negligence involving disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and upheld dismissal of the writ petition while allowing the appellant to pursue appropriate proceedings.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant medical negligence writ jurisdiction Article 226 compensation claim

Prince Kumar & Ors. v. The Institute of Company Secretaries of India & Anr.

03 Feb 2015 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:1038-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the restriction limiting eligibility to contest elections to the Regional Councils of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India to Fellow Members, holding it a reasonable statutory classification consistent with the Act and not violative of Article 14.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Company Secretaries Act, 1980 Associate Members Fellow Members Regional Councils

Mohan Overseas Pvt Ltd v. Deepak Varma & Anr

03 Feb 2015 · JAYANT NATH · 2015:DHC:1107

The Delhi High Court held that the plaint discloses a cause of action and dismissed the defendant's application to reject the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, affirming the validity of title and possession claims based on registered documents executed prior to the Suraj Lamp judgment.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cause of action General Power of Attorney Agreement to Sell

Krishan v. State

03 Feb 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:1104

The Delhi High Court altered the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, holding that the fatal blow was inflicted in the heat of the moment without premeditation or intention to kill.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant culpable homicide not amounting to murder Section 304 IPC Section 302 IPC heat of passion

Akbar Hussain v. Jai Dev Vashisth

03 Feb 2015 · V. K. Shali · 2015:DHC:1068

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal, upholding the finding that he was an employee, not a tenant, and affirming injunctions to remove him from the disputed shop premises.

civil appeal_dismissed permanent injunction mandatory injunction tenant employee

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Hero Honda Motors Limited

03 Feb 2015 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2015:DHC:1069-DB
Cites 9 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that payments under a technical assistance agreement granting only a limited license to use know-how are revenue expenses, not capital expenditures, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capital expenditure revenue expenditure technical know-how license agreement

Gurmeet Kaur Bakashi v. Ravinder Singh Choudhary & Ors.

03 Feb 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:1070

The Delhi High Court accepted a court-mediated settlement in a partition suit, disposed of the case accordingly, and granted a 50% refund of court fees under Section 16-A of the Court Fees Act.

civil appeal_allowed Settlement Agreement Court-annexed mediation Partition suit Section 16-A Court Fees Act

SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A. & ANR. v. SAPAN KUMAR BHATIA & ORS.

03 Feb 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:1071

The Delhi High Court approved a voluntary out-of-court settlement between parties in a trademark and copyright infringement suit and decreed the suit accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed compromise application trademark infringement copyright settlement

Tajinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh & Ors.

03 Feb 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:1072

The Delhi High Court decreed a partition suit based on a voluntary settlement agreement supported by a registered will, binding the parties to agreed shares in the disputed property.

civil appeal_allowed Settlement Agreement Partition Suit Registered Will Voluntary Settlement

Rattan Singh Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Punj Lloyd Ltd.

03 Feb 2015 · S. Muralidhar · 2015:DHC:1067

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes after unsuccessful mediation, holding that procedural compliance with the arbitration clause was satisfied and the arbitrator may determine the scope of claims.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 434 Companies Act, 1956 appointment of arbitrator

Harvinder Singh v. State

03 Feb 2015 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2015:DHC:1046

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for lack of prima facie evidence, holding that the sale deed was genuine and the petitioner was wrongly implicated without sufficient proof of conspiracy or management role.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. criminal conspiracy sham transaction due diligence

Harvinder Singh v. State

03 Feb 2015 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2015:DHC:1054

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for lack of prima facie evidence, holding that the sale deed was genuine and the petitioner was not involved in the accused company's criminal conspiracy.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of criminal proceedings criminal conspiracy vicarious liability

Satnam Arora v. Union of India & Ors

03 Feb 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:1052-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation payment to the landowner occurs within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in court without tendering to the owner is insufficient payment.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 compensation payment deposit in court

Chandni Mahal v. Rashid

03 Feb 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:1092-DB

The High Court dismissed the State's leave petition and upheld the acquittal of the accused in a child rape case due to procedural lapses, unreliable identification, and lack of forensic evidence, reaffirming the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Acquittal Section 376 IPC POCSO Act Delay in FIR

Alok Kumar v. Pawan Hans Ltd. and Anr.

03 Feb 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:1091

The Delhi High Court held that a probationary employee is not deemed confirmed without a written confirmation order and that termination of probationary services for unsatisfactory performance via a non-stigmatic order does not require natural justice, dismissing the petition challenging such termination.

labor petition_dismissed Significant probationary service deemed confirmation immediate absorption termination of service

Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

03 Feb 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:1102-DB
Cites 2 · 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 possession is not taken and compensation is not paid by offering it to the landowner, and mere deposit in court does not amount to payment.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 compensation payment deposit of compensation in court

Sandeep Kohli v. Union of India & Ors

03 Feb 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:1101-DB
Cites 2 · 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 possession is not taken and compensation is not paid, and mere deposit of compensation in court without offering it to the landowner does not constitute payment.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 compensation payment physical possession

Uma Shankar v. State (NCT) of Delhi

03 Feb 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:1048

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a father for repeatedly raping his minor daughter, relying on consistent victim testimony corroborated by medical evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed sexual assault rape minor victim child witness testimony