Delhi High Court
92,628 judgments
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court held that a complaint under Section 138 NI Act is maintainable against a partner who admits issuing the cheque in a particular capacity, and quashing is not warranted solely for non-impleading the partnership firm.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that the accused's admission as proprietor estops denial and vicarious liability requires the firm to be impleaded as primary offender.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that a proprietor issuing a cheque is liable even if the entity is a partnership firm, and misjoinder does not warrant quashing at the initial stage.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that a proprietor is personally liable for dishonoured cheques issued in the name of a proprietorship, and vicarious liability under Section 141 applies only when the firm is the primary offender.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that misdescription of accused as proprietor instead of partner is not a ground for quashing where the accused admits issuing the cheque in that capacity.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against a partner arrayed as proprietor, holding that non-impleadment of the partnership firm does not warrant quashing where the accused admits issuing the cheque.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray Prop M/s Coal Corporation
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that the proprietor is personally liable and the complaint is maintainable despite the business being a partnership firm.
Radha Kushwaha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to grant pardon to the petitioner as an approver due to contradictory affidavits and prosecution opposition, emphasizing judicial discretion and the need to protect the prosecution's case.
Aditi Singh v. Amarendra Dhari Singh
The Delhi High Court set aside the summoning order in a Section 138 NI Act complaint filed beyond limitation and remanded the matter to the trial court to consider condonation of delay afresh.
Pradeep Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim maintenance order of Rs. 13,000 per month for wife and minor child, emphasizing the husband's admitted income and wife's current unemployment due to childcare.
Vipin Kumar Mittal v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to file appeals against GST demand orders with a limited pre-deposit due to possible duplication of demand amounts, leaving the issue for adjudication by the Appellate Authority.
MS STESALIT LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court admitted the writ petition challenging the GST classification circular on Roof Mounted Package Unit air conditioners, directing adjudication to proceed with judicial oversight.
M/S Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Ltd v. Additional Commissioner (Adjn.) CGST Delhi North & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order for ignoring the petitioner’s timely reply and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with proper hearing.
Vijendar Singh & Anr. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation to the deceased's parents, holding that the death was due to an untoward incident and not criminal negligence, affirming the liability of Railways despite loss of ticket.
Rashmi Srivastava & Anr. v. M/S Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt Ltd and Ors
The High Court dismissed the appeal and condonation application, holding that the restoration application filed beyond the 30-day limitation period without sufficient cause was rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
Maya Devi and Ors. v. Veermati
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioners' application to lead evidence after their defence was struck off in probate proceedings but allowed them to file an application to recall the striking off order.
Rakesh Kumar Soin v. Sh. Nitin Soin & Ors.
The High Court allowed reopening of evidence and cross-examination in a civil suit despite prior non-appearance, emphasizing merit-based adjudication subject to costs and strict compliance.
Prime Care Hospital Ltd. & Anr. v. Kamla Devi Deceased & Ors.
The High Court directed the Trial Court to compassionately reconsider the petitioner's restoration and waiver of cost applications after dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution due to procedural lapses.
Supertech Limited v. Kanwal Batra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside the NCDRC's imprisonment order against Supertech's Managing Director for non-compliance, directing fresh execution proceedings for recovery of the balance decretal amount.
Harpal Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging disciplinary punishments and adverse performance appraisal remarks of a BSF Head Constable, affirming limited judicial interference in such administrative matters.