Delhi High Court

93,075 judgments

Year:

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Harmeet Kaur & Ors.

15 Jan 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:430

The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation award, affirming the method of averaging the deceased's last two years' income for loss of dependency and increasing the amount for loss of love and affection in line with Supreme Court precedents.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant loss of dependency motor accident claim income tax return average income

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahenaz

15 Jan 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:432

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and upheld the compensation awarded for death in a motor accident, affirming the inclusion of conveyance allowance with reasonable deductions and addition of 50% for future prospects.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim compensation loss of dependency future prospects

CIT -LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT v. SRF LTD.

15 Jan 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.K. GAUBA · 2015:DHC:433-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision allowing pre-capitalization expenses as revenue expenditure where new business ventures were under common management and funded from common sources, distinguishing the Challapalli Sugar precedent.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant pre-capitalization expenses revenue expenditure capital expenditure common management

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Barkha Sharma & Ors.

15 Jan 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:429
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld negligence in a fatal motor accident case but reduced the compensation by excluding transport allowance from income and enhancing certain heads of damages in line with precedent.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act Section 166 negligence loss of dependency

M/S DEV INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD & OTHERS v. M/S JAINCO DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & OTHRS

15 Jan 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:437

The court dismissed the defendants' applications for deletion from the suit, holding that they are necessary and proper parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and their denial of liability cannot be decided at the preliminary stage.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order I Rule 10(2) CPC mis-joinder necessary party proper party

Enfield Infrastructure Limited v. NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Ltd.

15 Jan 2015 · S. Muralidhar · 2015:DHC:435

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition restraining invocation of bank guarantees, holding that only clear fraud or irretrievable harm justifies such restraint under settled Supreme Court precedents.

civil petition_dismissed Significant bank guarantee arbitration interim relief force majeure

Union of India v. M/S. CHL LIMITED & ORS

15 Jan 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.K. GAUBA · 2015:DHC:436-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Customs Department cannot claim an overriding charge over immovable property auctioned under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act in the absence of statutory provisions, dismissing its writ petition.

civil petition_dismissed Significant customs duty recovery secured creditor overriding charge auction purchaser liability

Priya Swami v. State

15 Jan 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:399-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for robbery with a deadly weapon but set aside the murder conviction due to lack of substantive evidence beyond statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, clarifying the interpretation of 'use' of a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC use of deadly weapon

Mariners Buildcon India Ltd. v. K.V. Makkar Contracts

15 Jan 2015 · S. Muralidhar · 2015:DHC:398

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award valuing incomplete construction work based on industry norms rather than contract rates, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge quantum meruit contract rates

KANGRA ADARSH COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

15 Jan 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:409

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the PWD’s decision to shift an elevated corridor near a housing society, holding the project lawful and in public interest with adequate safeguards.

administrative petition_dismissed elevated corridor Right of Way Public Works Department infrastructure development

Puran v. State

15 Jan 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:404-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant due to lack of substantive evidence, holding that statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC cannot form the sole basis for conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 161 CrPC Section 164 CrPC substantive evidence identification parade

Aman Kumar Harjai v. State & Anr.

15 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:402

The High Court declined to quash a Section 138 NI Act complaint at the pre-notice stage, directing the petitioner to raise objections before the trial court at the framing of Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 251 Cr.P.C. quashing of complaint

Vineet Chaudhri v. R.K. Dawar and Ors.

15 Jan 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:407

The High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to comply with procedural objections and failure to appear.

other petition_dismissed non-prosecution dismissal in default procedural objections petition

Ram Kishore Vashisht v. Food Corporation of India

15 Jan 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:428

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking retrospective lateral movement from the ministerial to movement cadre, holding that such relief would prejudice the petitioner by causing demotion and loss of promotions already earned.

administrative petition_dismissed lateral movement ministerial cadre movement cadre promotions

Pawan Kumar v. Union of India

15 Jan 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:427

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging government appointments, holding that service disputes fall exclusively within the Central Administrative Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ of quo warranto Central Administrative Tribunal Section 14 Administrative Tribunals Act jurisdiction

M/S Khushi Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

15 Jan 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:424

The Delhi High Court quashed Coal India Ltd.'s 2012 transportation rate revision and related approval orders for failure to consult the Directorate General of Resettlement as mandated by the governing MOU.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Memorandum of Understanding Coal India Ltd. Directorate General of Resettlement Ex-Servicemen transport companies

Isha v. Balbir Singh & Ors.

15 Jan 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:425

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application for judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC due to defendants' failure to file written statements, granting possession and injunction decrees.

civil appeal_allowed Order VIII Rule 10 CPC written statement decree of possession permanent injunction

Vikas Dhawan & Ors. v. The Registrar General Delhi High Court

15 Jan 2015 · Sanjiv Khanna; Ashutosh Kumar · 2015:DHC:426-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging eligibility criteria for promotion to Private Secretary posts, holding that pay scale upgradation judgments do not mandate amendment of service rules covering both High Court and subordinate court employees.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Delhi High Court Establishment Rules Grade Pay upgradation Promotion eligibility Article 226 Constitution

CIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation

15 Jan 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:414-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment under Section 147 without tangible fresh material and based on mere change of opinion is invalid where the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all material facts.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 147 Income Tax Act reassessment change of opinion tangible material

Zaakir v. State NCT of Delhi

15 Jan 2015 · A.K. Pathak · 2015:DHC:415