Delhi High Court

93,453 judgments

Year:

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder & Ors.

28 Jan 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:829
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the compensation awarded for the death of a homemaker in a motor accident, clarifying the method to value homemaker services and rejecting arbitrary linkage to the spouse's income.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim compensation homemaker services valuation loss of dependency

Inderjit Narula v. Rohit Dua

28 Jan 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:817

The Delhi High Court upheld acquittal in cheque dishonour cases where the complainants failed to prove the existence of debt and the accused plausibly rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 Section 139 presumption of debt

Inderjit Narula v. Rohit Dua

28 Jan 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:821

The Delhi High Court upheld acquittal in cheque dishonour cases where the accused plausibly rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by raising a credible defense of theft and the complainants failed to prove the loan transactions.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 Section 139 presumption Cheque dishonour

Inderjit Narula v. Rohit Dua

28 Jan 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:820

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in cheque dishonour cases, holding that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was successfully rebutted and the complainants failed to prove the existence of debt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 Section 139 Cheque dishonour

Inderjit Narula v. Rohit Dua

28 Jan 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:819

The Delhi High Court upheld acquittal in cheque bounce cases where the accused plausibly rebutted the presumption of debt under Section 139 by raising theft and the complainants failed to prove the loan's existence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 Section 139 Cheque dishonour

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Shahida & Ors.

28 Jan 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:832

The Delhi High Court upheld negligence of the bus driver but reduced compensation by disallowing future prospects addition due to lack of evidence, reaffirming binding precedents on future prospects in motor accident claims.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim negligence future prospects compensation

Shanshah v. Idrish

28 Jan 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:841

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging refusal of leave to defend in an eviction case, holding that the landlord's bonafide requirement and lack of alternative accommodation were established and the tenant failed to raise triable issues.

property appeal_dismissed Significant eviction petition Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) leave to defend

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Ashok Kumar Valecha & Ors.

28 Jan 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:831

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal, holding it liable for compensation as the driver named in the claim petition was admitted to be driving at the time of the accident and unpleaded evidence regarding another driver was inadmissible.

civil appeal_dismissed motor vehicular accident insurance liability pleadings driving licence

Bhushan Kumar v. Director of Education

28 Jan 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:830

The Delhi High Court held that professional fitness for re-employment of retired teachers up to age 62 must be assessed by the Deputy Director of Education, not the school Managing Committee, and set aside the refusal order accordingly.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant re-employment professional fitness Deputy Director of Education Managing Committee

M/S MINDA NEXGENTECH LIMITED v. TUSHAR KANTI GHOSH

28 Jan 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:866

The Delhi High Court decreed a summary suit for recovery of money where the defendant failed to comply with procedural requirements under Order XXXVII CPC and did not seek leave to defend.

civil appeal_dismissed summary suit Order XXXVII CPC memo of appearance leave to defend

M/S GUAR CONSTRUCTION CO v. DDA

28 Jan 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:823

The Delhi High Court disposed of a civil suit without adjudication as the parties referred their contract disputes to arbitration and the arbitral award was awaited.

civil other arbitration arbitration clause dispute resolution civil suit disposal

M/s. Futuristic Sales Private Limited v. M/s. Globe Panel Industries India Private Limited

28 Jan 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:858

The Delhi High Court allowed the application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, based on overwhelming written consents.

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

M/s. Bhartiya Finstock Private Limited v. M/s. Springdale Trading Private Limited

28 Jan 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:861

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 all parties consented and no secured creditors or investigations were pending.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 dispensing meetings shareholders consent

M/s. C. A. Process Industries Private Limited v. M/s. Jaipuria Beverages & Food Industries Private Limited

28 Jan 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:860

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approving a Scheme of Amalgamation where all parties had given written consent.

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

Inter Alliance Consultants Private Limited v. J.A. Textiles Private Limited

28 Jan 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:859

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approving a Scheme of Amalgamation where all parties had given their written consent.

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

Integrated Waste Management and Urban Services Company (Tamil Nadu) Limited v. IL&FS Environmental Infrastructure & Services Limited

28 Jan 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:857

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for amalgamation of a wholly owned subsidiary into its parent company after ensuring compliance and absence of objections.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Arrangement Companies Act 1956 Amalgamation Sanction

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi

28 Jan 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:837

The Delhi High Court held that a private employer adopting CCS(CCA) Rules mutatis mutandis can validly initiate departmental proceedings against erstwhile government employees transferred to it, dismissing the challenge to the charge-sheet on jurisdictional grounds.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant charge-sheet departmental proceedings CCS(CCA) Rules erstwhile government employees

Vikram Kapur & Ors. v. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd & Ors.

28 Jan 2015 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2015:DHC:836

The Delhi High Court held that inter-se family MOUs do not bind the company, which retains overall control, and set aside an injunction restraining the company from restructuring its units.

civil appeal_allowed Significant inter-se family arrangement company as distinct legal entity Board resolution Memorandum of Understanding

Geeta Devi v. M/S Updater Services (P) Ltd. & Anr

28 Jan 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:835

The Delhi High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s finding that the petitioner was transferred, not terminated, and dismissed the writ petition challenging the award under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

labor petition_dismissed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2A termination vs transfer writ jurisdiction

Rakesh Beniwal v. M/S Updater Services (P) Ltd. & Anr

28 Jan 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:834

The Delhi High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s finding that the petitioner’s services were not terminated but transferred, dismissing the writ petition challenging the award under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

labor petition_dismissed Industrial Disputes Act Section 2A termination of service transfer of employee