Delhi High Court

92,849 judgments

Year:

Sitab Ali Chaudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi)

08 Aug 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:3798
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under Section 397 IPC, ruling that mere possession and display of knives during robbery suffices as 'use' of deadly weapons, even without recovery or medical evidence linking the weapons to injuries.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 397 IPC robbery with deadly weapon use of deadly weapon identification evidence

Sitab Ali Chaudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi)

08 Aug 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:3799
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under Section 397 IPC holding that mere possession and display of knives during robbery suffices to attract the offence, even without recovery or medical evidence linking the weapon.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 397 IPC robbery with deadly weapon use of knife identification parade

Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd. v. Real Video Impact Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

08 Aug 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:3792

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction against defendants using the mark 'NOW' in their TV channel name, recognizing plaintiff's well-known trademark rights and accepting defendants' undertaking to cease use.

civil appeal_allowed trademark infringement passing off permanent injunction well-known trademark

Union of India and Ors. v. Rajinder Singh

08 Aug 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:3807-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that pension gratuity cannot be withheld or adjusted against unassessed dues for unauthorized occupation without following statutory adjudicatory procedures and within limitation periods.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993 Unauthorized occupation Public Premises Act, 1971

Suresh Kumar Anand v. Suman Bala

08 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3805

The court held that a tenant who accepts rent receipts acknowledging the landlord's ownership is estopped from disputing title, and eviction on bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is valid without absolute proof of ownership.

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

M/S HIM TRADERS PVT LTD v. SH. S.K. GUPTA

08 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3804

The Delhi High Court upheld dismissal of a leave to defend application filed beyond the 15-day period under the Delhi Rent Control Act, confirming strict adherence to limitation and valid service on a company through its Director.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 leave to defend 15-day limitation service on company

Nishant Hannan & Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

08 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3806

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioners to file unimpeachable additional documents during trial, setting aside the trial court's order dismissing their application, emphasizing procedural rules serve justice and permit correction of mistakes unless grave prejudice occurs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 7 Rule 14 CPC Section 151 CPC unimpeachable documents filing additional documents

Shiv Kumar Giri v. Management of Hotel Siddharth Continental

08 Aug 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; S. P. Garg · 2014:DHC:3810

The Delhi High Court held that prolonged unauthorized absence beyond sanctioned leave amounts to abandonment of service, justifying lawful removal without formal enquiry or reinstatement.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant abandonment of service unauthorized absence certified standing orders termination without enquiry

Nanak Chand v. Ram Kishan & Ors.

08 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3793-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a kidnapping case due to unexplained delay in FIR, contradictions in prosecution evidence, and plausible defense establishing false implication.

criminal appeal_dismissed delay in FIR benefit of doubt Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement kidnapping

Ramesh Kumar Chandwani v. Hari Om Sharma

08 Aug 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:3803

The Delhi High Court quashed an ex parte Labour Court award and remanded the matter for fresh hearing on back wages, directing reinstatement and payment of litigation expenses.

labor petition_partly_allowed ex parte award Labour Court Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstatement

Mehboob Khan & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

08 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3801

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act on settlement between parties in a matrimonial dispute, applying its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR domestic dispute matrimonial offence

Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.

08 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3802

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC arising from a domestic dispute on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

Rajeev Kumar Goyal v. State through C.B.I.

08 Aug 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:3783

The Delhi High Court acquitted the Branch Manager for lack of evidence but upheld convictions of other appellants for conspiracy and cheating in fraudulent marine insurance claims, holding misjoinder of charges a curable irregularity without failure of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant misjoinder of charges criminal conspiracy fraudulent insurance claims Prevention of Corruption Act

THE INSTALMENT SUPPLY LTD v. KHAITAN HOTELS PVT LTD. & ANR

08 Aug 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:3795

The Delhi High Court condoned delay in filing written statements by defendants in a suit for possession, emphasizing strict but discretionary adherence to procedural timelines under Order VIII CPC and allowing the defendants' pleadings subject to costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Order VIII Rule 10 CPC condonation of delay written statement

SH. RAM ABHILAKH v. SH. RAM PHAL TYAGI

08 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3794

The Delhi High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition, upholding eviction on the ground of landlord's bonafide requirement of premises for business, rejecting claims of alternative accommodation.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bonafide requirement eviction alternative accommodation

Rakesh Kumar Giri v. Union of India

08 Aug 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3812-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Central Government's exemption of the BSF from Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, dismissing the petitioner's claim for retention in service despite disability.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 Section 47 exemption Border Security Force disability discrimination

Prabhakar Singh v. Union of India

07 Aug 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:3763-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging seniority in the Indian Legal Service, holding that seniority is determined by substantive appointment date and vacancies must be filled as per prescribed recruitment rotation.

administrative petition_dismissed Indian Legal Service Rules, 1957 seniority direct recruitment promotion

Harita Pandey v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

07 Aug 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:3758

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition directing mutation of property wrongly notified as forest land, emphasizing compliance with prior judicial directions for de-notification.

property appeal_allowed Significant mutation forest land notification de-notification Bhumidars

Ashok Aggarwal v. M/S Amitex Polymers Pvt Ltd

07 Aug 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:3759

The Delhi High Court dismissed a winding up petition under Section 433(e) due to disputed factual issues requiring trial, directing the parties to resolve their dispute in a pending civil recovery suit.

corporate petition_dismissed Significant winding up petition Section 433(e) Companies Act disputed questions of fact summary proceedings

Arvind Garg v. Neeta Singhal

07 Aug 2014 · G. P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:3776

The Delhi High Court allowed limited amendments to the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, holding that such amendments are permissible if they do not alter the suit's basic nature or cause prejudice before trial begins.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Section 151 CPC Amendment of plaint Prejudice