Delhi High Court

92,849 judgments

Year:

Gurtej Singh v. The State and Ors.

14 Oct 2014 · A.K. Pathak · 2014:DHC:5362

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a duly executed Will dated 31st July, 2003 and dismissed the appeal challenging the grant of Letter of Administration, holding the petition was not barred by limitation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Letter of Administration Validity of Will Indian Succession Act Attesting witnesses

None v. Rambir Singh

14 Oct 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:5360

The Delhi High Court clarified that appeals from suits valued up to Rs. 1,000 decided by Civil Judges lie before Senior Civil Judges, while appeals from orders of Senior Civil Judges lie before District Judges, with no special appellate forum for government party suits.

civil other Significant Punjab Courts Act, 1918 Section 39(3) appellate jurisdiction Senior Civil Judge

Manish Muggal v. State & Anr.

14 Oct 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:5355

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 498A IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the ground of an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, affirming the High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences in such cases.

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

Washan Singh & Ors. v. State & Anr.

14 Oct 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:5357

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 307/323/34 IPC on settlement between close relatives, applying its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC after prima facie assessment of the offence and injuries.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR Section 307 IPC non-compoundable offences

Rohit Yadav @ Sunny v. Shakuntala @ Babli & Ors.

14 Oct 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:5356

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 451, 356, and 379 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement and compensation paid, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the early investigation stage.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR amicable settlement non-compoundable offence

Jagdish v. The State & Anr.

14 Oct 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:5344

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial disputes Section 498A IPC

M/S Rakesh and A Realtors (P) Ltd v. The Registrar of Companies

14 Oct 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:5334

The Delhi High Court allowed restoration of the petitioner company’s name struck off for non-filing of statutory documents upon payment of costs and compliance with filing requirements under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.

corporate appeal_allowed Companies Act, 1956 Section 560(6) restoration of company name Registrar of Companies

H & B Stores Ltd. v. Regional Director (Northern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs

14 Oct 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:5335

The Delhi High Court allowed H & B Stores Ltd.'s petition confirming reduction of share capital by cancelling shares and writing off losses under Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with Section 101(2) procedure as no payment to shareholders was involved.

corporate petition_allowed reduction of share capital Companies Act 1956 Sections 100 to 104 writing off accumulated losses

Pankaj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. Vice-Chancellor University of Delhi & Anr.

14 Oct 2014 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:5319-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioners' challenge to the LL.B. admission process, holding that category corrections based on valid certificates are permissible, the carry forward principle is inapplicable, and admissions must follow the prescribed merit and schedule.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant University admissions category correction carry forward principle Right to Information Act

Rajinder Prasad & Anr. v. Basudeo Roy & Ors.

14 Oct 2014 · JAYANT NATH · 2014:DHC:5343

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by accepting the deceased's income tax returns, applying the multiplier based on the deceased's age, and increasing damages for loss of love and affection.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation enhancement income tax returns multiplier

Union Public Service Commission v. Renuka Tyagi

14 Oct 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:5359-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that penalties imposed after the relevant vacancy year cannot be considered to deny promotion for that year, affirming that promotion consideration must be based on the employee's record as it existed at the time of the vacancy.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant promotion Departmental Promotion Committee penalty service record

M/S SHUBHAM MARKETING v. COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX

14 Oct 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:5323-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner of VAT lacks jurisdiction to impose fines punishable under Section 70(5) of the Delhi VAT Act, which can only be imposed by criminal courts, and quashed the impugned penalty notices.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 Section 70(5) fine vs penalty jurisdiction to impose fine

M/S SHUBHAM MARKETING v. COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX

14 Oct 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:5327-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner of VAT lacks jurisdiction to impose fines punishable under Section 70(5) of the Delhi VAT Act, which is a power vested exclusively in criminal courts, and quashed the impugned penalty notices.

tax petition_allowed Significant Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 Section 70(5) fine penalty

Harish Kohli and Ors v. Union of India

14 Oct 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:5326-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a Section 6 declaration issued beyond the statutory time limit, even after quashing of an earlier declaration, is invalid and the acquisition proceedings must be quashed.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 6 declaration Section 4 notification time limit

Pilani Soft Labs Pvt Ltd v. Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd

14 Oct 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:5346

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, sanctioning a Scheme of Amalgamation with dispensation of certain meetings and exemption from sending notices to small unsecured creditors under court supervision.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Section 391 Section 394

Pankaj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. Vice-Chancellor University of Delhi & Anr.

14 Oct 2014 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:5318-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioners' challenge to the University of Delhi's LL.B. admission process, holding that category corrections during admission are permissible and admissions cannot be granted based on previous year's merit list.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant University admissions category correction carry forward principle Right to Information Act

Daljeet Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

14 Oct 2014 · G. Rohini; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:5316-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed review petitions seeking to recall its order disposing of a PIL alleging corruption in BIFR, clarifying that the order did not direct the CBI investigation and did not violate natural justice.

administrative petition_dismissed Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction public interest litigation CBI investigation Prevention of Corruption Act

Delhi Development Authority v. M/S Bansal Traders & Anr.

14 Oct 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:5322

The Delhi High Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced under the 1940 Act but governed by parties' agreement and conduct under the 1996 Act must be adjudicated under the 1996 Act, dismissing the suit filed under the 1940 Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration Act 1940 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 14(2) Arbitration Act 1940 Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar v. Union of India

14 Oct 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:5315-DB

The Delhi High Court held that Veterinary Officers are entitled to the Dynamic Assured Career Progression scheme based on the principle of complete parity with medical officers, and denial of such benefit violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Dynamic Assured Career Progression Veterinary Officers Central Pay Commission Parity

Kusum Lata Singh v. Union of India and Anr.

14 Oct 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:5321-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's decision denying ante-dated promotion to an SC candidate, affirming the application of DOPT roster rules for small cadres and the validity of promotions against reserved vacancies.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant post-based roster reservation small cadres DOPT Office Memorandum 02.07.1997