Delhi High Court

92,849 judgments

Year:

North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Shiv Kumar & Ors.

04 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4401

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging eviction on bonafide necessity grounds, holding that the statutory 15-day period for leave to defend is mandatory and alternative accommodation facts not pleaded within this period cannot be considered.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bonafide necessity eviction Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 leave to defend

Sapna Infracoloniser Pvt. Ltd. v. Dee Pearls (India) Pvt. Ltd.

04 Sep 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:4411

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Sapna Infracoloniser Pvt. Ltd. and Dee Pearls (India) Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, finding all statutory requirements fulfilled and no objections raised.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 Transferor Company

RPS Vikas Castings Private Limited v. GarimaVikas Metals Private Limited

04 Sep 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:4414

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of secured creditors based on consents but directing court-supervised meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation.

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

Pranjal Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. v. Electronica Finance Ltd.

04 Sep 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:4413

The Delhi High Court allowed a Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of stakeholders based on consents and condoning delay in filing a Board Resolution.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 Board Resolution

Gopal Singh & Ors. v. Lt. Governor & Ors.

04 Sep 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:4421-DB

Judgment text insufficient to extract substantive details; refers to another order for detailed reasoning.

other other

Gopal Singh & Ors. v. Lt. Governor & Ors.

04 Sep 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:4422-DB

Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Anr. v. Shri Yog Raj Singh

04 Sep 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:4420-DB

The Delhi High Court held that service prior to passing the mandatory stenography test is ad-hoc and cannot be counted for ACP benefits, setting aside CAT's order granting second financial upgradation from the initial appointment date.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme seniority regular service ad-hoc service

Satya Dev v. M/S. Gaurav Financiers

04 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4410

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the execution order attaching the salary of the judgment debtor to enforce a final ex parte arbitral award for loan repayment.

civil petition_dismissed ex parte arbitral award execution proceedings warrant of attachment salary attachment

Yogindar Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. v. Shashibala & Ors.

04 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4409

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order on bonafide necessity grounds allowing a landlady to settle her sons separately in residence and business despite locality objections.

property appeal_dismissed Significant bonafide necessity eviction petition Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e)

Anil Kumar Gupta v. Balbir Shergill

04 Sep 2014 · V.K. Shali · 2014:DHC:4425

The Delhi High Court held that a settlement recorded before the Mediation Centre without follow-up statements in court does not constitute an undertaking enforceable under the Contempt of Courts Act, and dismissed the contempt petition for non-payment under such settlement.

civil petition_dismissed Significant contempt of court mediation settlement undertaking to court consent decree

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III v. M/S. ANANT OVERSEAS P. LTD

04 Sep 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:4415-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed without concealment or inaccurate particulars of income with mens rea, especially where the assessee disclosed all material facts and maintained separate accounts for investment and trading shares.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 271(1)(c) Income Tax Act 1961 penalty for concealment inaccurate particulars

Ram Gopal & Anr v. Lt Governor, Govt of NCT & Ors

04 Sep 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:4416-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a government notification transferring employee quarters to successor distribution companies on license basis, allowing them to initiate eviction proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act, while leaving jurisdictional questions to the Magistrate.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 Notification No.F-11/99/2001 Section 630 Companies Act licensee rights

Cement Corporation of India Ltd v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.

04 Sep 2014 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. · 2014:DHC:4397-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of the appellant as an unauthorized occupant under the PP Act, holding that an unexecuted lease agreement without specific performance does not confer tenancy rights.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 unauthorized occupant lease agreement specific performance

Dhananjay Kumar @ Pyare Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi

04 Sep 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:4396-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence and the failure to provide a plausible explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder circumstantial evidence Section 106 Indian Evidence Act last seen together

Anwar Ul Haque v. State NCT of Delhi

04 Sep 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:4395-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of Anwar Ul Haque for abduction and sexual assault of a minor, affirming the admissibility of the child's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and corroborative medical evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 164 Cr.P.C. sexual assault child victim medical evidence

Ajay Tiwari v. State (NCT of Delhi)

04 Sep 2014 · Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:4418

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for theft under Section 379 IPC based on reliable sole testimony and possession of stolen goods, rejecting acquittal despite investigative lapses.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant theft Section 379 IPC sole testimony possession of stolen goods

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. SEEMA JHAMB

04 Sep 2014 · JAYANT NATH, J. · 2014:DHC:4424

The Delhi High Court upheld composite negligence liability on both vehicles' insurers and enhanced compensation by recalculating loss of dependency with future prospects and correcting deductions.

civil appeal_allowed Significant composite negligence motor accident claim loss of dependency future prospects

DIG K.P.S. Raghuvanshi v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Sep 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:4398-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the clandestine amendment of promotion criteria applied retrospectively was illegal and directed a fresh promotion board to consider the petitioner’s promotion under the unamended rules.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Departmental Promotional Committee Annual Confidential Report Coast Guard Order Promotion Rules

Nnadi K. Iheanyi v. Narcotics Control Bureau

04 Sep 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:4399
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction under NDPS Act due to prosecution's failure to produce the panch witness and unexplained discrepancies in heroin purity reports, granting benefit of doubt to the accused.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 21(c) panch witness heroin purity

Timberland Company v. Rohit Bajaj & Ors.

04 Sep 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:4423

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and awarded compensatory and punitive damages to Timberland Company against defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods infringing its registered trademarks.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement passing off permanent injunction punitive damages