Delhi High Court

92,849 judgments

Year:

M/S. Shamken Multifab Ltd. v. Satyam Packers

19 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4847

The High Court set aside an ex parte decree after finding that the defendant had filed appearance which was not recorded due to court staff negligence, allowing the suit to proceed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC ex parte decree appearance filing

Hemdendra Agarwal & Anr. v. State & Ors.

19 Sep 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:4846

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under multiple IPC sections on the ground of a settlement between parties, applying its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a non-compoundable offence case.

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

Planet M Retail Ltd v. Select Infrastructure Pvt Ltd

19 Sep 2014 · Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:4840

The Delhi High Court held that a determinable licence agreement validly terminated cannot be reinstated by interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, and disputes over breach and termination must be resolved by arbitration.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Licence Agreement Interim injunction Section 9 Arbitration Act Determinable contract

Mohd Firoz v. State & Anr.

19 Sep 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:4845

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 406, 498-A, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on 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

M/S Dunlop India Limited & Anr. v. Dr. Kamal Mitra Chenoy & Anr.

19 Sep 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:4867-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the joinder of two related causes of action and parties in one suit arising from the same transaction, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the suit's maintainability and valuation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant joinder of parties cause of action Order 1 Rule 1 CPC Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

Sandeep Kumar v. State

19 Sep 2014 · Indermeet Kaur · 2014:DHC:4850

The High Court of Delhi delivered judgment on a bail application filed by Sandeep Kumar in a criminal matter on 19.09.2014.

criminal bail application criminal revision High Court of Delhi petition for bail

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Ram Lal Saroj & Ors.

19 Sep 2014 · Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:4865

The Delhi High Court reduced compensation for loss of earning capacity in a motor accident claim involving a government employee continuing to draw salary post-injury, while enhancing other heads of damages, allowing the insurer's appeal partly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loss of earning capacity permanent disability compensation motor accident claim

Rajesh Mittal v. Sumer Chand & Anr.

19 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4860

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging trial court orders allowing amendment of plaint and rejecting objection to amended plaint, holding that amendment allows case to be put forth for trial and a party cannot challenge two distinct orders in one petition.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India amendment application amended plaint estoppel

Virender Singh v. Land & Building Department

19 Sep 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:4833

The Delhi High Court directed the Land & Building Department to decide petitioners' applications for allotment of alternative plots strictly by seniority and policy within fixed procedural timelines, disallowing out-of-turn allotments.

administrative petition_allowed allotment of alternative plots seniority Land & Building Department Delhi Development Authority

Union of India & Ors. v. Aurangzeb Choudhary & Anr.

19 Sep 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:4857-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the refund of excess lease money collected by Railways beyond the prescribed enhancement, emphasizing enforcement of final judgments and prevention of unjust enrichment by State entities.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant lease extension Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy refund of excess amount judicial compliance

Kishor Kumar v. Manoj Kumar

19 Sep 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:4869

The Delhi High Court decreed recovery of Rs. 35,83,704 with interest in favor of the plaintiff for breach of loan agreement involving sale of property without consent.

civil appeal_allowed loan agreement recovery suit immovable property breach of contract

Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. M/S. SPICE DISTRIBUTION LTD.

19 Sep 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:4851-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that advertisement expenses are revenue expenditures deductible in the year incurred and dismissed the revenue's appeal seeking disallowance and penalty.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant advertisement expenses deferred revenue expenditure revenue expenditure capital expenditure

Inder Prakash Kohli v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

19 Sep 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:4868

Bail was denied to the mastermind of a gold smuggling operation due to his attempt to flee, incomplete investigation, and serious nature of the offence under the Customs Act.

criminal petition_dismissed bail smuggling gold Customs Act

MS. CHANDER MUKHI & ORS. v. SH. PARVEEN GOSWAMI

19 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4854

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order on grounds of bonafide necessity, rejecting tenants' claim of ownership by adverse possession due to lack of hostile possession and affirming landlord's title.

property appeal_dismissed Significant bonafide necessity eviction Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 adverse possession

MS. REKHA RANI @ REKHA v. SH. ADITYA SARAF

19 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4853

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction on bonafide necessity grounds, emphasizing strict adherence to the 15-day period for filing leave to defend applications and confirming landlord ownership based on title documents.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bonafide necessity eviction leave to defend application Section 14(1)(e)

Rajiv Chanana v. Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement

19 Sep 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2014:DHC:4858

Attachment of property under the PMLA must be vacated upon acquittal of the accused in the scheduled offence forming the basis of such attachment.

criminal other Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act attachment of property proceeds of crime scheduled offence

Satbir Singh v. State & Anr.

19 Sep 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:4862

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal proceeding under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the basis of an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, applying 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

Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Sons (HUF) v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr.

19 Sep 2014 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:4841

Delhi High Court allowed electricity disconnection at premises occupied by a person liable for dues to compel payment, emphasizing courts must prevent abuse of process even within limited review jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant electricity dues disconnection of electricity supply review petition abuse of process

Sanjeev Kumar @ Rajeev & Ors. v. State & Anr.

19 Sep 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:4863

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the ground of an amicable settlement between the parties, applying its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

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

Golden Strand Pvt Ltd v. Timeless Fashions Pvt Ltd

19 Sep 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:4839

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between three companies under the Companies Act, 1956, affirming the validity of the appointed date and addressing statutory concerns without requiring its alteration.

corporate petition_allowed Significant Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 appointed date sanction of scheme