Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Mr. Sunil K Goel, Adv. v. SHRI UMESH KUMAR GUPTA & ANR .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against an arbitral award upholding interest on delayed payment and refund of earnest money, affirming limited court interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
8fce6caa9eb7dd2e9307938887c5abefb645a0df4efa270c7c9688b9bd3deb52
The Delhi High Court approved a Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and creditors based on their unanimous written consent.
Life Technologies Corporation & Anr. v. ATZ Lab Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application to set aside condonation of delay in filing an appeal, holding that the acquisition of Life Technologies Corporation by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc did not amount to a merger and that no misrepresentation was made.
Through Mr.Ankit Jain, Adv v. MATRAM ..... Defendant
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside a decree passed under Order XXXVII CPC due to non-appearance, absence of defence, and unexplained delay.
Son of the petitioner in person. v. SMT. SUMITRA DEVI & ORS. ......
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of review and additional issues applications in a suit barred by res judicata, holding that the petitioner was deliberately delaying proceedings without valid cause.
MAHENDER SINGH RAWAT & ANR ..... Through Mr. Rajat Joseph, Advocate v. RAM KISHAN & ANR .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation award holding the vehicle owner liable despite the motorcycle being driven by a minor without consent or licence.
M/S TUNDAY KABABI PVT LTD & ORS ..... PLAINTIFF v. CORAM:
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to recall their earlier statement deleting defendant No.3 from a trademark infringement suit, reinstating defendant No.3 based on the franchise agreement linking the defendants and correcting an inadvertent error by counsel.
Sh. Tarun Sharma and Ms. Boudh Prabha, Advocates. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....
Judgment text insufficient for detailed analysis; refers to decision in W.P.(C) 7370/2010 for details.
Sh. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Sh. Jasmeet Singh, Sh. Ruchir Mishra and Sh. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocates, for UOI. v. SUDHANSHU KUMAR KHARE AND ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court held that the CBI had lawful power to relax recruitment rules under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, validating promotees appointed beyond quota with UPSC approval and directing seniority determination based on actual availability and rotation of vacancies.
Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Advocate. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the Government’s decision restricting PGT Biology eligibility to candidates with M.Sc. in Botany or Zoology, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to include specialized degrees like Microbiology.
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate v. SULTAN SINGH (D) THR LRS. & ORS
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal as time barred due to unexplained delay and upheld the compensation awarded for land acquisition as legally valid.
Mr. Mohd. Elahi, Advocate v. SANGEETA NARANG .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against concurrent findings that the appellant failed to prove ownership via Sale Deed and thus was not entitled to recover arrears of rent.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate v. SURAJ BHAN & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal as time barred for failure to satisfactorily explain delay and upheld the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate v. SH SARWAN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and condoned a 94-day delay in filing the first appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach to limitation for advancing substantial justice.
Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate v. SMT. RAM PYARI .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the partition decree, holding that municipal house tax records established ancestral ownership and the appellant failed to prove self-acquisition of the suit property.
Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as time barred due to inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation and upheld the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act.
Mr. S.K.Solanki, Advocate v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as time barred due to the appellants' failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for a three and a half year delay in filing, rejecting poverty and vague mental disturbance claims as grounds for condonation.
Judgment pronounced on 17.11.2014 M/S MAGNUM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act due to unexplained delay of over 90 days in re-filing, holding that delay beyond 120 days requires stringent scrutiny and sufficient cause which was not shown.
Mr.Yash Mishra and Ms.Chandni Goyal, Advocates v. A2Z POWERCOM LTD. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, holding that only courts at the agreed arbitration venue of Gurgaon have territorial jurisdiction.
Through: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Adv v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION& ANR..... Defendants
The Delhi High Court held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging property tax assessments under the DMC Act where statutory appeal remedies with pre-deposit requirements exist, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as not maintainable.