Delhi High Court

92,849 judgments

Year:

Manoj v. The State & Anr.

13 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3887

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal proceeding under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a domestic dispute on the ground of settlement and mutual divorce, applying its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR domestic dispute settlement

M/S. Gulati Trading Company v. Shri Man Mohan Verma & Anr.

13 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3880

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction on bona fide necessity grounds, holding the respondents as lawful landlords and rejecting the tenant's ownership and limitation challenges.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bona fide necessity eviction petition ownership dispute

REINFORCED EARTH INDIA P. LTD v. SCC PROJECTS PVT LTD AND ANR.

13 Aug 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:3873

Delhi High Court granted ex-parte decree for recovery of outstanding contractual dues with interest against defendants who failed to pay and appear.

civil appeal_dismissed contractual recovery ex-parte decree jurisdiction Delhi courts

NEWGEN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. THE CONTROLLER, ASMTS, GMCH

13 Aug 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:3874

The Delhi High Court decreed recovery of earnest money deposit and advances with interest against a defendant who failed to perform or refund, based on unrebutted evidence in an ex-parte civil suit.

civil appeal_allowed Earnest Money Deposit Recovery suit Wrongful withholding Pendentelite interest

Rajeev Surana v. M/S OCM India Ltd & Ors.

13 Aug 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:3875

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's amendment to quantify damages related to non-allotment of shares, holding that such amendment does not alter the cause of action and facilitates proper adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint quantification of damages cause of action

University of Delhi v. Sharwan Kumar Gupta and Ors.

13 Aug 2014 · Suresh Kait, J. · 2014:DHC:3872

The Delhi High Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to University of Delhi employees despite the Delhi University Act, 1922, dismissing the University's challenge to gratuity payments under the Act.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Delhi University Act, 1922 Section 14 overriding effect Section 5 exemption

University of Delhi v. Sharwan Kumar Gupta and Ors.

13 Aug 2014 · Suresh Kait, J. · 2014:DHC:3871

The Delhi High Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to University of Delhi employees until exemption is granted, dismissing the University's challenge to gratuity payment orders.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Delhi University Act, 1922 Section 14 overriding effect Section 5 exemption

University of Delhi v. Sharwan Kumar Gupta and Ors.

13 Aug 2014 · Suresh Kait, J. · 2014:DHC:3870

The Delhi High Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to University of Delhi employees until exemption is granted, directing payment of gratuity difference accordingly.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Delhi University Act, 1922 Section 14 overriding effect Section 5 exemption

University of Delhi v. Sharwan Kumar Gupta and Ors.

13 Aug 2014 · Suresh Kait, J. · 2014:DHC:3869

The Delhi High Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to University of Delhi employees despite its own statutory provisions, dismissing the University's challenge to gratuity difference payments.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Delhi University Act, 1922 Section 14 overriding effect Section 5 exemption

Rohit Gupta & Anr v. State & Anr

13 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3879

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC on the basis of a bona fide compromise between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Angoori Gupta v. The State & Anr.

13 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3878

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a domestic dispute based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to maintain domestic harmony.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences matrimonial dispute

DANISCO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

13 Aug 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2014:DHC:3865

The Delhi High Court held that mandatory labelling requirements under the Packaging and Labelling Regulations apply only to pre-packaged foods for personal consumption, exempting industrial use food additives, and quashed FSSAI's refusal to issue a No-objection certificate accordingly.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Packaging and Labelling Regulations, 2011 Food Additives Pre-packaged food

Prem Chand Gupta v. Chief Postmaster

12 Aug 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:3842

The Delhi High Court quashed a recovery notice issued without prior notice or hearing, emphasizing the requirement of natural justice before recovery under the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

administrative petition_allowed Significant natural justice recovery notice Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 Section 67

Beetashok Chatterjee v. Lovely Chanda & Anr.

12 Aug 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:3858

The Delhi High Court held that a power of attorney holder is not personally liable for contracts executed on behalf of the principal, and thus rejected the plaintiff's suit for damages against the agent under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Power of Attorney Section 230 Indian Contract Act Order VII Rule 11 CPC Agency

Synthes Medical P. Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson Limited

12 Aug 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:3855

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Synthes Medical Pvt. Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Ltd. under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, holding that FEMA compliance was not required as no shares were issued to non-resident shareholders.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 FEMA compliance

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. UOI & Anr.

12 Aug 2014 · Gita Mittal · 2014:DHC:3857

The Delhi High Court held that custody and care of minors rescued from trafficking must be governed exclusively by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, not the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, emphasizing the primacy of the Child Welfare Committee and the best interest of the child.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Juvenile Justice Act Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act Child Welfare Committee Custody of minors

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Punjab Tractor & Ors.

12 Aug 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:3860-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the DRAT's dismissal of a belated appeal filed by an assignee, holding that delay was unjustified and pendency of impleadment applications did not excuse the delay.

civil petition_dismissed Debt Recovery Tribunal Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal delay in filing appeal condonation of delay

State v. Nirale Miyan & Ors.

12 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3861-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of accused in a rape case due to inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 376(2)(g) IPC rape delay in complaint prosecutrix credibility

Sh. Saurabh A Prakash v. The Projects & Equipments Corporation of India Ltd.

12 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3854

The High Court held that payments under a money decree must be appropriated first towards interest and costs as per Supreme Court precedent, setting aside the executing court's contrary order.

civil appeal_allowed Significant money decree mesne profits payment appropriation interest and costs

Mohd. Umar & Anr. v. Mohd. Islam & Ors.

12 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3856

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction on bonafide necessity, holding that respondents are lawful owners entitled to evict tenants despite pending ownership disputes.

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