Delhi High Court

93,453 judgments

Year:

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd.

30 Jan 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:932-DB

The Delhi High Court delivered a reserved judgment on connected income tax appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against Yum Restaurants entities.

tax other Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals Yum Restaurants

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd.

30 Jan 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:931-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeals against Yum Restaurants, holding that the tax assessments were unsustainable and affirming the applicability of prior findings in connected appeals.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Appeals Assessment Tax Demand Income Tax Act, 1961

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd.

30 Jan 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:937-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Commissioner of Income Tax's appeals, upholding the respondents' challenge to the tax assessments as unsustainable under the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 tax assessment Commissioner of Income Tax tax demand

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Man Chand and Ors.

30 Jan 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; VIPIN SANGHI · 2015:DHC:938-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT order on promotion quotas, holding that once candidates enter a common cadre, quota rules under Article 16(1) apply without post-based reservation rosters, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant promotion quota reservation Article 16(1)

Rampat v. Ganga Devi

30 Jan 2015 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2015:DHC:940

The Delhi High Court held that a tenant seeking leave to defend an eviction petition must prima facie disclose triable issues through affidavits and material, and granted leave to defend where the tenant raised credible disputes regarding bona fide requirement and alternate accommodation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 25B(5) leave to defend eviction petition

Asha Khanna & Ors. v. Pankaj Khanna & Ors.

30 Jan 2015 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2015:DHC:939

The Delhi High Court held that a probate petition is barred by res judicata where the validity of the Will has been conclusively decided in prior civil litigation between the same parties and property.

civil petition_allowed Significant res judicata probate petition validity of Will Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Uma Devi Deceased Thr. LRs. v. Shivraj Krishan Gupta & Ors.

30 Jan 2015 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2015:DHC:942

The Court held that in a partition suit, the lis continues until full execution of the final decree, and directed appointment of a Commissioner to determine mesne profits and interest pendente lite as previously ordered.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition suit mesne profits pendente lite appointment of commissioner

Neeraj Shukla v. Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd.

30 Jan 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:941

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Trial Court's order granting leave to defend in a summary suit under Order 37 CPC due to triable issues raised by the defendant.

civil petition_dismissed Order 37 CPC leave to defend summary suit liquidated demand

YAHOO INC v. ABDUL RASHEED AND ORS

30 Jan 2015 · JAYANT NATH · 2015:DHC:972

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to Yahoo Inc. restraining a Kerala salon from using the 'YAHOO' mark, holding it infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and caused passing off.

civil appeal_allowed Trademark infringement Passing off Permanent injunction Well-known trademark

Subhash Chand v. State (NCT of Delhi)

30 Jan 2015 · P. S. Teji · 2015:DHC:922

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death, rejecting the petitioner's false alibi plea, but modified the sentence to time served with enhanced fines.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rash and negligent driving Section 304A IPC Section 279 IPC plea of alibi

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd.

30 Jan 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:918-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that the assessee's service income is business income and allowed deductions for royalty payments, administrative expenses, depreciation, food tasting expenses, and provisions, dismissing the revenue's appeals.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant service income business income income from other sources royalty payment

Shree Shyam Enterprises v. Union of India

30 Jan 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:916

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

administrative petition_allowed Significant Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 14B Section 7(I) statutory appeal

EICHER MOTORS LIMITED v. SANJIV KUMAR KHATOI & ANR.

30 Jan 2015 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:953

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to Eicher Motors for trademark and copyright infringement by defendants using a confusingly similar domain name and website.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement copyright infringement passing off domain name dispute

Food Corporation of India v. M/S Guru Arjan Dev Rice Mills & Ors.

30 Jan 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:913

The Delhi High Court admitted a petition challenging an arbitral award for dealing with matters beyond arbitration scope and failure to state reasons, issuing notice to respondents while allowing recovery of awarded amount.

civil other Significant Arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration Act Limitation period Scope of arbitration

Abdulla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

30 Jan 2015 · Manmohan Singh · 2015:DHC:966

The Delhi High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of a proclaimed offender, reaffirming that such persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant anticipatory bail proclaimed offender Section 438 CrPC Section 82 CrPC

M.C. Goyal v. Sardar Mehar Singh

30 Jan 2015 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2015:DHC:965
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on the landlord's bonafide requirement to provide premises for his dependent son's business, affirming limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 25B(8) eviction bonafide requirement

Ramesh Kumar v. Bank of India

30 Jan 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:964

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging termination orders after a 12-year delay, holding that the doctrine of delay and laches bars relief despite no strict limitation period under Article 226.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 Constitution of India writ petition doctrine of delay and laches limitation

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.

30 Jan 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:963

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking extension of deputation beyond the granted period, holding that acceptance of a limited extension estops the petitioner from claiming further tenure and that allegations of malice require factual proof.

administrative petition_dismissed deputation extension of tenure malice mala fide

Food Corporation of India v. M/S Ashok Rice Mills & Ors.

30 Jan 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:912

The Delhi High Court admitted a petition to set aside an arbitral award that was prima facie incomprehensible, lacked reasons, and was beyond the pleadings, ordering notice to respondents and further proceedings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration Act Setting aside award Natural justice

The Union of India & Ors v. M/S Rishi Engineering & Construction (P) Ltd

30 Jan 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:910

The Delhi High Court admitted a petition to set aside an arbitral award for failure to state reasons and prima facie evidence of bias, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned awards under the Arbitration Act.

civil other Significant Arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration Act Section 31(3) Arbitration Act Reasons in arbitral award