Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Donaldson India Filters Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle 10(1)
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 after four years is invalid without tangible material showing failure to disclose, and mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer does not justify reopening assessment.
Sh. Purna Nand v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting the contractor's claim for loss of business under a contract clause excluding such damages, affirming the finality of arbitral decisions on contractual interpretation.
SSAB TECHNOLOGY AB & ANR. v. P.E.RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.
The Delhi High Court recorded and decreed a civil suit based on a joint out-of-court settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, disposing of the suit accordingly.
SHRI K.K. BHASIN v. SHRI M.M. BHASIN AD ORS
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the civil suit after parties settled their dispute through arbitration, disposing the suit with liberty to pursue partition modalities before the Arbitrator.
Madhu Oberoi v. Satinder Mehta
The Delhi High Court upheld a mediated settlement in a civil suit concerning property claims, accepted a special power of attorney on record, and ordered a 50% refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Shree Lakshmi Agri-Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court condoned delay and directed the government authority to consider the petitioners' pending subsidy representation under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme within eight weeks.
M/s DARCL LOGISTICS LTD v. SHIV-VANI OIL & GAS EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's leave to defend in a summary suit for freight charges, granting the plaintiff recovery with interest based on acknowledgment of debt and absence of a bona fide defence.
Future Lifestyle Fashions Limited v. Adidas India Marketing Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator, holding that no valid arbitration agreement existed due to the unsigned status of the relevant agreement and the non-continuance of the arbitration clause in the original MoU.
I.T.E. India Pvt Ltd v. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation
The Delhi High Court held that the arbitration clause survives contract termination and appointed an arbitrator after the respondent failed to comply with the conciliation procedure under the contract.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Savio Fernandes & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to WWE against defendants selling counterfeit merchandise infringing WWE's trademarks and copyrights, emphasizing protection against unauthorized use and passing off.
Ris Joginder Singh v. UOI and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging denial of extension of service and promotion in the President's Bodyguard, affirming that mandatory fitness tests and procedural compliance govern such decisions.
M/S. LANCO INFRATECH LIMITED v. M/S. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
The Delhi High Court held that once an arbitrator is appointed under the arbitration agreement, challenges to such appointment cannot be made under Section 11(6) but must be raised before the arbitral tribunal under Sections 13 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
MUNCH FOOD PRODUCTS LTD. v. SK SHEORAN
The Delhi High Court directed the Central Excise Department to comply with appellate orders granting refund interest under the Central Excise Act within three months, failing which additional compensation would be payable.
Vijay Gandhi v. Veena Kumari
The Delhi High Court upheld eviction orders, ruling that a landlord's bona fide requirement for possession can be a reasonably foreseeable future need and does not have to exist at the time of filing the eviction petition.
National Highways Authority of India v. M/S Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the arbitral award granting reimbursement for increased entry tax under a subsequent legislation clause in the contract, holding that the additional cost was not factored into the price adjustment formula.
Saurabh Sharma & Anr v. State (NCT Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR against petitioners facing serious IPC charges, directing expeditious trial and allowing benefit of doubt if warranted, while proceedings continue against other accused.
Rajpal Sachdeva @ Raju v. State
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
M P Singh Sahi v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, holding that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to raise the issues before the trial court and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised prematurely.
Bhupender Kumar Ujinia & Ors v. The State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, emphasizing the court's power to prevent futile criminal proceedings.
Motiwala & Ors. v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed two cross FIRs arising from a settled dispute over an electricity bill, emphasizing the court's power to end criminal proceedings to secure justice and restore harmony.