Delhi High Court

93,075 judgments

Year:

Union of India v. Suraj Bhan & Ors.

10 Nov 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:5803

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's delayed appeal against a land acquisition compensation award due to unexplained delay and upheld the compensation granted to the respondents.

civil appeal_dismissed condonation of delay bureaucratic lethargy Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation

Union of India v. Krishna Rani Sharma & Anr.

10 Nov 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:5802

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal as time barred due to unexplained delay and upheld the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

civil appeal_dismissed condonation of delay Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation bureaucratic lethargy

Union of India v. Ram Saroop & Ors.

10 Nov 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:5801

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 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

property appeal_dismissed condonation of delay bureaucratic lethargy Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation for land acquisition

Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. Jamshyad Sethna and Anr

10 Nov 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:5855

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's amendment of plaint to include trademark infringement claims based on registrations obtained during the suit, emphasizing a liberal approach under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to determine real controversies and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant amendment of plaint Order VI Rule 17 CPC trademark infringement passing off

M/S FAR EAST MARKETING (P) LTD v. M/S KHURANA ELECTRICALS & ORS

10 Nov 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:5857

The Delhi High Court held that dishonoured cheques and a written acknowledgment of debt create a presumption of liability, dismissing the defendants' leave to defend and arbitration plea, and decreed recovery with interest in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXXVII CPC summary suit leave to defend acknowledgment of debt

Jagdish Kumar v. Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd.

10 Nov 2014 · Hima Kohli · 2014:DHC:5854

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging termination of a contractual employee for unauthorized absence, holding that the contractual terms were binding and the petitioner failed to disclose material facts.

employment_contract petition_dismissed Significant contractual appointment termination without notice unauthorized absence Article 226

Union of India & Ors. v. Prem Pal Singh; Union of India & Ors. v. Shyam Pyare Yadav & Ors.

10 Nov 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:5811-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that temporary railway service followed by substantive appointment is fully reckonable for pension, and half the period of casual labour service after attaining temporary status counts for pension benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 qualifying service temporary employment casual labour

Union of India & Ors. v. Prem Pal Singh; Union of India & Ors. v. Shyam Pyare Yadav & Ors.

10 Nov 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; VIPIN SANGHI · 2014:DHC:5815-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld CAT orders allowing railway employees to reckon entire temporary service and half casual labour service for pension under Rule 20 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 qualifying service temporary employment casual labour

Rattan Lal Raina v. India Meteorological Department and Anr.

10 Nov 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2014:DHC:5810

The Delhi High Court held that displaced government employees are not entitled to indefinite occupation of government accommodation post-retirement, balancing fundamental rights with the State’s property rights and rehabilitation principles.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Article 21 right to shelter displaced persons government accommodation

Amit v. State NCT of Delhi

10 Nov 2014 · Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:5797

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions based on reliable injured witness testimony despite investigative lapses and delay in FIR, but acquitted one appellant due to unreliable identification.

criminal appeal_allowed (for Amit), appeal_dismissed (for others) Significant injured witness testimony delay in FIR defective investigation Section 325 IPC

Abhay Singh Yadav v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

10 Nov 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:5798

The Delhi High Court held that anticipatory bail granted for a lesser offence does not continue when a more serious offence like murder under Section 302 IPC is added, allowing police to arrest the accused without prior bail cancellation.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant anticipatory bail Section 302 IPC murder bail cancellation

Sukhinder Kaur & Anr. v. Vaneet Kaur

10 Nov 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:5799

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s order impleading a party claiming ownership via succession certificate in a matrimonial property dispute, affirming the widow’s absolute vesting in her deceased husband’s share.

civil petition_dismissed Significant impleadment permanent injunction succession certificate widow's property rights

Ashok Kumar v. Praveen Kumar Gupta

10 Nov 2014 · Najmi Waziri, J. · 2014:DHC:5800

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order, ruling that the five-year bar under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act runs from initial co-ownership acquisition and that tenants cannot challenge landlord's ownership in eviction proceedings.

property petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(6) eviction petition bona fide need

Shree Nirman Limited v. Regional Director (Northern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs

10 Nov 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:5816

The Delhi High Court allowed Shree Nirman Limited's petition to reduce its share capital under the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with certain procedural requirements given no creditor interests were affected.

corporate petition_allowed reduction of share capital Companies Act 1956 Section 101(2) preference shares

Magic Tradelink Private Limited v. Vikas Polymerland Private Limited

10 Nov 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:5814

The Delhi High Court allowed a scheme of amalgamation application, dispensing with certain creditor and shareholder meetings based on consents and directing court-supervised meeting of secured creditors.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 dispensation of meetings

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & ANR. v. SIEMENS SOLUTIONS

10 Nov 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:5813

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and punitive damages against the defendant for infringing the well-known SIEMENS trademark and using a confusingly similar domain name, reinforcing protection of intellectual property rights.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement passing off well-known trademark permanent injunction

Laxman Singh v. Land & Building Department

10 Nov 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:5812

The Delhi High Court quashed the mechanical rejection of an alternative plot application and directed reconsideration after proper verification of relinquishment deeds among legal heirs.

property petition_allowed alternative plot allotment land acquisition relinquishment deed legal heirs

Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. GAIL (India) Limited

10 Nov 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:5824

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the arbitrator's refusal to grant injunction against encashment of bank guarantees, holding that prima facie fraud and lack of special equities justified encashment.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bank guarantees interim injunction fraudulent invocation special equities

M/S RCK DEVELOPERS (P) LTD v. Union of India

10 Nov 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:5825-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid by tendering to the landowner.

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

Yogesh Kumar Gupta & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

10 Nov 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:5831-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in court without offering it to the landowner does not constitute payment.

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