Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Through: Mr. Jagat Singh, Adv. with Mr. Bhagat Singh, Adv v. RUCHIKA ABBI ..... Defendant
The Delhi High Court held that a Civil Court retains jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining foreign proceedings despite Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to Family Courts over certain matrimonial matters.
BLE MR. JUSTICE v. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA
The High Court upheld the ITAT’s order quashing the Commissioner’s revision under Section 263, holding that confirmed accounts were furnished and the revision was based on incorrect assumptions.
Through: Mr.Akash Vajpai , Advocate v. M/S. MANJU FINANCE CORPORATION, NEW DELHI
The High Court held that absence of a satisfaction note and non-issuance of notice under Section 158BD vitiates block assessment proceedings under Sections 158BD and 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Mr. Hitender Sakkarwal & Mr. Sindhu, Advocates with petitioners in person v. STATE OF DELHI & ANR .....
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the basis of an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, applying its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the misuse of a sports complex within a residential colony, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that courts should not interfere in internal colony matters absent clear public harm.
Mr.Sanjeev Narula with Mr.Ajay Kalra, Advocates. v. SH. GIAN PRAKASH & ORS. ......
The Delhi High Court held that a bank must pay fixed deposit interest on a court-mandated deposit until encashment and cannot unilaterally reduce interest to simple interest without communicating renewal terms.
Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate and Ms. Anupama, Advocate. v. GURJIT SINGH TALWAR .....
The Delhi High Court held that a father of means is liable to pay reasonable expenses for his unmarried daughter's marriage under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and moderated the claimed amount to ₹37 lakhs from ₹66 lakhs.
Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate with v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of two appellants for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, acquitted the third appellant for lack of reliable identification, and reduced the sentence of the convicted appellants considering their age and antecedents.
Mr. Satish Sharma & Mr. Bhisham Singh, Advs. Petitioner No.4 in person. v. STATE & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from a landlord-tenant dispute under Sections 452, 323, and 34 IPC based on a settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate with v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of two appellants for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC with reduced sentences, acquitted the third appellant due to unreliable identification, and emphasized proper identification procedures and the impact of procedural lapses on prosecution credibility.
Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate with v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of two appellants for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, acquitted the third appellant due to flawed identification, and reduced the sentences of the convicted appellants considering mitigating factors.
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar & Mr. Dalip Singh, Advs v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the basis of a genuine settlement and mutual divorce, emphasizing the court's power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
26ebbd9ba4f643c75ee99dfb74e4fa8cdf64eea8cc129846042bc4beae6dc8f3
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Sitara Media Ventures Private Limited and C & C Alpha Group India Private Limited under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing the transfer of assets and liabilities and dissolution of the Transferor Company.
895cf8058e988dbaf0034af4abd82ae5efdac187781545e370b0341ed4f4b9e8
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with the requirement of convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for a Scheme of Arrangement between a wholly owned subsidiary and its parent company based on requisite consents.
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena & Ms. Usha Saxena, Advocates v. BABU LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THR HIS LRS
The Delhi High Court upheld that statutory tenancy succession under the Delhi Rent Control Act applies equally to commercial tenancies and dismissed the appellant's claim to tenancy rights as a class one heir outside the Act's provisions.
Through: Mr.Amarjeet Yadav, Advocate Legal heirs of plaintiff, in person v. CHAUDHARY KISHAN CHAND & SONS AND ORS...... Defendant
The Delhi High Court decreed a partition suit based on an amicable settlement recorded under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and clarified that the settlement deed may not require stamp duty as per judicial precedent.
Mr. R.K. Sharma with Ms. Dezy Gaur, Mr. S.K. Rout, Mr. Pramod Kumar and Mr. Syed Mohd. Mehdi, Advs. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest writ petition seeking directions for demolition of an unsafe school building due to non-disclosure of material facts and the building no longer being in use.
SUSAN V.JOHAN & ORS. ..... Through Mr.O.P.Mannie, Advocate v. JOY MARKOSE AND ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court held that while claims under Section 163-A M.V. Act are not maintainable when the deceased driver is deemed owner, claimants are entitled to compensation under the Personal Accident insurance coverage, which the Tribunal may adjudicate to avoid hardship.
Mr. Faisal Zafar, Advocate with petitioner-in-person v. USHA KIRAN PAHWA .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the husband's appeal, holding that he failed to prove desertion or cruelty by the wife under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.