Delhi High Court

93,075 judgments

Year:

Harvest Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. BP Singapore Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

11 Nov 2014 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:5887

The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit for defamation and wrongful termination, holding that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action and that employer communications about termination made in good faith are protected by qualified privilege.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant defamation qualified privilege termination of employment limitation

Manu Abhishek v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr

11 Nov 2014 · Manmohan · 2014:DHC:5888

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking admission through supplementary counseling after the cut-off date, holding that students already admitted cannot participate in such counseling and upholding the University’s withdrawal of the notification as per Supreme Court directions.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant supplementary counseling vacant seats admission cut-off date University notification withdrawal

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV v. M/S Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited

11 Nov 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:5889-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that deduction under Section 80M must be allowed without reducing dividend income by deduction under Section 36(1)(viii), preventing double deduction, and ruled amortization expenses on long leasehold land as capital expenditure not allowable as revenue deduction.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 36(1)(viii) Section 80M Section 80K deduction

Kuldeep Singh v. The District & Sessions Judge, Delhi

11 Nov 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:5905-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a government servant due to procedural irregularities in the disciplinary inquiry and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry complying with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary inquiry CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 Rule 14(15) Rule 14(18)

Rajiv Purusothaman Kutty & Others v. M/S Religare Finvest Ltd

11 Nov 2014 · Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:5910

The Delhi High Court condoned a three-day delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on grounds of medical illness and bereavement, allowing the petition to be heard on merits.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 condonation of delay limitation period

M/S FINANCIAL EYES (INDIA) LTD v. SH BIJENDER CHAUHAN

11 Nov 2014 · Gita Mittal; J. R. Midha · 2014:DHC:5907-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appellant leave to defend a summary suit upon deposit of the claimed amount, emphasizing that even an illusory defence should not be summarily rejected without evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC leave to defend summary suit Sale of Goods Act 1932

Sumit Kumar & Ors. v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.

11 Nov 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:5902

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties under its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR matrimonial disputes non-compoundable offences

Ashish Jain & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

11 Nov 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:5903

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the basis of an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, emphasizing the sparing exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR matrimonial disputes Section 498A IPC

Avijeet Mullick v. State & Anr.

11 Nov 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:5904

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal case arising from matrimonial disputes under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial disputes amicable settlement

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunji Lal & Ors.

11 Nov 2014 · Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:5913

The Delhi High Court set aside a motor accident compensation Award for failure to allow the insurance company to lead evidence and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with proper evidence on disability and policy violation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Claims Tribunal opportunity to lead evidence insurance policy violation functional disability assessment

Sukhveer Singh v. Hoshiyar Singh & Ors.

11 Nov 2014 · Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:5914

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation for a police constable injured in a motor accident by including loss of promotion prospects and increased non-pecuniary damages, while rejecting unsupported medical expense claims.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation enhancement permanent disability loss of promotional prospects

Union of India v. Khacheru Khan

11 Nov 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:5869

Judgment delivered by Delhi High Court in a writ petition involving Union of India (CPWD) and Khacheru Khan, with detailed reasoning referenced in another connected case.

other other Union of India CPWD writ petition Delhi High Court

The Superintending Engineer & Anr. v. Girish Chand

11 Nov 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:5870

Judgment delivered by Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 7003/2011 involving The Superintending Engineer and another versus Girish Chand, referencing a detailed judgment in WP(C) 2314/2011.

other other Delhi High Court Writ Petition Administrative dispute Superintending Engineer

The Superintending Engineer & Anr. v. Amar Singh

11 Nov 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:5867

Judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 7002/2011 involving The Superintending Engineer and Amar Singh on November 11, 2014, with detailed reasoning referred to another related petition.

other other Writ Petition High Court of Delhi Administrative dispute Service matter

The Executive Engineer v. Sh. Hari Har Prasad

11 Nov 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:5868

Judgment delivered by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3229/2012 involving Executive Engineer and Shri Hari Har Prasad, referencing a detailed judgment in WP(C) 2314/2011.

other other Writ Petition Executive Engineer Delhi High Court Service Law

UOI v. Jitender

11 Nov 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:5871

Judgment delivered by Delhi High Court in writ petition WP(C) 2830/2011 involving Union of India and Jitender, with detailed reasoning referenced in WP(C) 2314/2011.

other other Writ Petition Union of India Delhi High Court Judgment

UOI and Anr. v. Mahavir Singh and Ors.

11 Nov 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:5872

Judgment delivered by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2315/2011 involving Union of India and Mahavir Singh, with detailed reasoning referenced in a connected case.

other other Delhi High Court Writ Petition Union of India Mahavir Singh

UOI AND ANR. v. BAHGWAN SHAHAI AND ORS

11 Nov 2014 · SURESH KAIT, J. · 2014:DHC:5873

The Delhi High Court held that pre-regularization service of workmen paid from contingency funds counts towards pension entitlement under the Pension Rules, dismissing the CPWD's challenge.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Pension Rules 1972 Contingency Fund Consolidated Fund of India Pre-regularization service

PRASHID ESTATE PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

11 Nov 2014 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SIDDHARTH MRIDUL · 2014:DHC:5885-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years after the award.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition compensation non-payment

Poonam Bhatia & Anr v. Union of India and Ors

11 Nov 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:5886-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings