Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
CIT v. Metaphor Exports P Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the ITAT's deletion of additions under Section 68, holding that the assessee satisfactorily explained the source of share capital and loans with credible evidence.
M/S SHEEBA WHEELS PRIVATE LTD. v. SATVIJAY INVESTMENT & CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) LTD.
The Delhi High Court upheld the CLB's refusal to stay company petition proceedings despite pending criminal forgery cases, affirming that civil proceedings can continue independently of criminal trials.
Sarjit Singh Awla v. Kuldeep Singh Awla
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit challenging a 2008 relinquishment deed as barred by limitation, holding that the power of attorney authorized full relinquishment of the plaintiff's share in the property.
CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. NEW DELHI TELE TECH PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Delhi High Court upheld that only the court within whose jurisdiction the home branch of the drawee bank is situated has territorial jurisdiction to try Section 138 NI Act complaints unless proceedings have reached Section 145(2) stage.
State v. Raj Pal @ Raj
The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a kidnapping and rape case due to contradictory evidence and lack of proof on consent and age, dismissing the State's appeal.
Santosh Sindal v. School Management of Daya Nand School & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that retrenchment of a teacher by abolition of the post under the Delhi School Education Act is lawful and new factual grounds regarding Industrial Disputes Act compliance cannot be raised for the first time before the High Court.
Harkesh (Deceased) Thr Lrs v. Union of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, holding that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause to condone a delay of over three years in filing the appeal.
CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. NEW DELHI TELE TECH PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Delhi High Court held that courts have territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only over the home branch of the drawee bank, and complaints filed elsewhere must be returned unless trial has commenced under Section 145(2).
CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. NEW DELHI TELE TECH PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Delhi High Court held that territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies with the court where the home branch of the drawee bank is located, dismissing the petition challenging the return of complaints for lack of jurisdiction.
CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. NEW DELHI TELE TECH PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Delhi High Court held that courts have territorial jurisdiction over Section 138 NI Act complaints only where the home branch of the drawee bank is located, dismissing petitions challenging return of complaints for lack of jurisdiction.
Department of Transport Government of NCT of Delhi v. M/ Star Bus Services Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court upheld the valid appointment of a sole arbitrator under the arbitration agreement despite non-membership in ICADR, dismissing the petition to terminate his mandate.
Girish Kumar Jain v. Veena Lata & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the discharge of accused in a criminal case, holding that absence of prima facie evidence justified the discharge and no interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was warranted.
Naresh Kumar Arora v. State & Anr.
The High Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR under Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC, holding that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised when an alternate efficacious remedy exists before the trial court.
Rameshwar Yadav & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 IPC arising from a commercial dispute on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the court's inherent power to prevent futile criminal proceedings.
Jogesh Dass Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 417, 493, 495, and 498A IPC following an amicable settlement in a matrimonial dispute, emphasizing that continuation of proceedings would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice.
Yashwant Mishra v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR under Section 308 IPC based on a compromise after complainant evidence was recorded, holding that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to stifle legitimate prosecution at this stage.
Sumit Aggarwal v. State
The High Court allowed recalling the complainant for further cross-examination on suicide notes not deposed to earlier, emphasizing the accused’s right to effective cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for a just trial.
K Swaminathan & Ors. v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking quashing of FIRs involving serious offences including dacoity under Section 395 IPC, holding that compromise between parties cannot legally sanction quashing and the trial court must first decide on the charge.
K Swaminathan & Ors. v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking quashing of FIRs involving serious offences including dacoity, holding that compromise between parties cannot justify quashing and the trial court must first decide on the charge.
Krishan Kumar & Anr v. State
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC based on compensation paid and compromise between parties, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.