Delhi High Court

92,849 judgments

Year:

SRG Infotech Ltd. & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India

23 Sep 2014 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2014:DHC:4923
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that limitation for taking cognizance under the SEBI Act starts from the date of approval of the investigation report by SEBI, and directors can be summoned only if shown to be in charge and responsible, dismissing the petitioners' challenge to the summoning order.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant limitation SEBI Act cognizance Section 468 Cr.P.C.

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Anil Kumar & Ors.

23 Sep 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:4919

The Delhi High Court held that Ketamine Hydrochloride is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, set aside bail granted to accused involved in large-scale drug trafficking, and directed their surrender for trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Ketamine Hydrochloride NDPS Act psychotropic substances Section 8 NDPS Act

Ankit Yadav v. State & Anr

23 Sep 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:4905

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act for electricity theft after the outstanding dues were paid and the complainant withdrew prosecution, relying on its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Supreme Court precedent.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR electricity theft Section 135 Indian Electricity Act

Shashi Kant Singh v. Union of India

23 Sep 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:4930-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that vacancies arising from non-joining of General Category candidates in the CAPF Assistant Commandant Examination cannot be filled from the reserved list unless the examination rules explicitly provide for it.

administrative petition_dismissed UPSC CAPF Assistant Commandant Examination reserved list vacancies due to non-joining

MCD v. Mahender Pratap Singh

23 Sep 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:4907

The Delhi High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award granting second ACP benefits to a workman based on the existence of a promotional hierarchy under the ACP Scheme, dismissing the employer's challenge.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP promotional hierarchy isolated post

M/S THE BALUSSERY BENEFIT CHIT FUND PVT. LTD. v. SMT. MEETA KUMAR

23 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4906

The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory 15-day limitation for filing leave to defend in eviction proceedings, dismissing the tenant's petition for being time-barred based on the date of summons service.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 leave to defend application 15-day limitation period eviction petition

M/S MONEYLINE CREDIT LTD. v. SH. SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS.

23 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4920

The Delhi High Court held that without deposit of original title deeds, no equitable mortgage is created, and bona fide purchasers without notice acquire valid title, dismissing the appellant's execution appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant equitable mortgage deposit of original title deeds Transfer of Property Act, 1882 bona fide purchaser

Devender Kumar Sharma v. Santosh & Ors.

23 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4921

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition permitting a co-owner in possession to replace doors and install electricity in a jointly owned shop, holding such acts incidental to possession and protected under Section 151 CPC.

civil petition_allowed Significant co-ownership possession Section 151 CPC injunction against dispossession

Wanti Bai v. Baldev Raj Ahuja

23 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4922

The High Court upheld the trial court's order allowing amendment of the plaint to challenge a Will, holding that such amendment does not prejudice the defendant's rights and that preliminary issues can be decided subsequently.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India Order XIV Rule 2 CPC Amendment of plaint Will challenge

Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri with Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocates. v. ANIL BATRA & ANR .....

23 Sep 2014 · JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R 23.09.2014 · 2014:DHC:4914
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that directors of a company can be prosecuted under Section 276-B of the Income Tax Act without separate show cause notices if the complaint treats them as principal officers, convicting the directors and granting them probation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 276-B Income Tax Act Section 278-B Income Tax Act principal officer directors liability

Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri with Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocates. v. ANIL BATRA & ANR .....

23 Sep 2014 · JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R 23.09.2014 · 2014:DHC:4916
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that directors of a company can be prosecuted under Section 276-B of the Income Tax Act without separate notices if the complaint treats them as principal officers, setting aside their acquittals and convicting them with benefit of probation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 276-B Income Tax Act directors liability principal officer show cause notice

Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri with Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocates. v. ANIL BATRA & ANR .....

23 Sep 2014 · JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R 23.09.2014 · 2014:DHC:4917
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that directors of a company can be prosecuted under Section 276-B of the Income Tax Act without separate notices if the complaint treats them as principal officers, convicting the directors and granting them probation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 276-B Income Tax Act Section 278-B Income Tax Act principal officer director liability

American Express Foreign Exchange Services India Ltd. v. American Express Services India Ltd.

22 Sep 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:4870

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between two American Express companies, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and creditors due to their consent and absence of objections under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

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

The Haryana State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority v. M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

22 Sep 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:4871-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a consent order restraining prosecution against Maruti Suzuki for non-obtaining prior environmental clearance, affirming the State's discretion in prosecution and the binding nature of consent orders in writ proceedings.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 Environment (Protection) Act 1986 prior environmental clearance ex post facto clearance

Kusum v. State

22 Sep 2014 · Indermeet Kaur · 2014:DHC:4888

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant for non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act relating to secret information, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory requirements in narcotics cases.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 42(2) secret information strict compliance

Santosh Sharma v. State

22 Sep 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:4891

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 380 and 448 IPC based on a bona fide settlement between parties, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences in appropriate cases.

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

Jatin Walia & Ors. v. State & Anr.

22 Sep 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:4890

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

Gainda Raikwal v. Kundan Lal Menghani

22 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4889

The Delhi High Court held that jurisdictional objections not raised in the suit or appeal cannot be raised in execution proceedings, dismissing the petition challenging possession decree execution.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India execution proceedings jurisdiction objection waiver possession decree

V2 CORP & ANR. v. INNOVATIVE TECHPACK LIMITED

22 Sep 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:4893
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction in a design infringement suit, allowing the defendant limited use of prior known design features while restraining use of novel features, affirming principles of novelty and originality under the Designs Act, 2000.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Designs Act 2000 design infringement registered design novelty and originality

Urmila Devi Sharma & Ors. v. Pramod Kumar Sharma

22 Sep 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:4878

The Delhi High Court re-framed issues and reversed onus in a property dispute involving alleged joint family ownership, emphasizing burden of proof principles and compliance with court directions.

civil other Significant Hindu Undivided Family joint family property burden of proof benami ownership