Delhi High Court

92,849 judgments

Year:

Ganesh Pandurang v. State

07 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3757-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Ganesh Pandurang for murder, rejecting claims of denial of legal aid and mental unfitness to stand trial, relying on forensic evidence and witness testimony.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant legal aid mental fitness fair trial Section 313 CrPC

Guddu Ram v. State NCT of Delhi

07 Aug 2014 · Sunita Gupta, J. · 2014:DHC:3775

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for kidnapping a minor girl under Sections 363 and 366 IPC but reduced the substantive sentence to the period already served, maintaining the fines imposed.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant kidnapping abduction minor girl Section 363 IPC

Krishan Kumar Diwedi & Ors. v. State & Anr.

07 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3774

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement and the complainant's disinclination to prosecute.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

Rajesh Tandon and Ors. v. M/s Magiq Intershoppe Pvt Ltd & Ors.

07 Aug 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:3773

The Delhi High Court decreed possession in favour of the plaintiffs on a suit for recovery of property, holding that vague and unsubstantiated tenancy pleas do not warrant framing of issues or trial.

civil appeal_allowed Significant possession recovery tenancy claim vague plea Order XXV CPC

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi v. M/s Vikas Chemicals

07 Aug 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:3767-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a redemption fine paid in a bona fide commercial transaction without blameworthy conduct is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant redemption fine allowable expenditure Section 37 Income Tax Act Explanation to Section 37

Shri Sudhir Sabharwal v. Shri Rajesh Pruthi

07 Aug 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3761

The Delhi High Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell does not terminate a landlord-tenant relationship and allowed the landlord's summary decree for possession against the tenant despite the tenant's claim of sale.

civil appeal_allowed Significant landlord-tenant relationship agreement to sell unregistered agreement Section 53-A Transfer of Property Act

Vivekananda Kendra International & Anr. v. N.P. Suri

07 Aug 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3762

The Delhi High Court allowed a limited extension to file a Written Statement beyond 90 days, setting aside the Trial Court's order striking off the defence, emphasizing that procedural timelines serve justice and can be relaxed in exceptional cases.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VIII Rule 1 CPC extension of time written statement striking off defence

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

07 Aug 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3781-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that an Assessing Officer must record a clear and reasoned satisfaction that seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person before issuing a notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, failing which the notice is invalid and liable to be quashed.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act satisfaction note statutory presumption Section 132(4A)(i)

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

07 Aug 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3777-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that issuance of notices under Section 153C requires a clear, reasoned satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person, and quashed notices lacking such satisfaction.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act satisfaction note statutory presumption Section 132(4A)(i)

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

07 Aug 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3778-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to conclusively satisfy that seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person, thereby quashing the impugned notices issued to Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act satisfaction note statutory presumption Section 132(4A)(i)

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

07 Aug 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3779-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for lack of valid satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that seized documents belonged to a person other than the searched person.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act satisfaction note statutory presumption seized documents

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

07 Aug 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3780-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that an Assessing Officer must record a clear and reasoned satisfaction, supported by material, that seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person before issuing a notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, failing which the notice is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act satisfaction note statutory presumption Section 132(4A)(i)

Anuradha Shastri v. Religare Securities Ltd.

07 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3772

The Delhi High Court held that a six-month limitation clause in NSE bye-laws for arbitration reference is void under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, restoring the trial court's order directing arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 8 application Member-Client Agreement NSE bye-laws

Service Bureau of India v. Aarti Phull

07 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3771

The High Court upheld the amendment of an eviction petition to correct a typographical error in the date of the legal notice, holding that such amendments are permissible when no prejudice is caused and powers under Article 227 are to be exercised sparingly.

civil petition_dismissed Significant amendment of pleadings typographical error Article 227 Constitution of India Delhi Rent Control Act

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

07 Aug 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3766-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for lack of proper satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that seized documents belonged to a person other than the searched person.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act satisfaction note statutory presumption search and seizure

Dinesh Sharma v. Laxmi Narayan

07 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3768

The High Court held that a person in physical possession of property must be added as a party in a possession suit against another defendant disclaiming possession to prevent eviction without a chance to contest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 1 Rule 10 CPC necessary party possession suit physical possession

Shri Digambar Singh Rana v. Sh. Janam Singh Dhariwal & Anr.

07 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3769

The Delhi High Court set aside the leave to defend granted to tenants based on unsupported claims and decreed eviction on bona fide requirement grounds under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 25B(8) leave to defend eviction petition

State (Central Bureau of Investigation) v. R.P. Tiwari

07 Aug 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:3765

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of a public official accused of accepting a bribe, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the money accepted was a legitimate payment.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act bribery benefit of doubt trap and recovery

Kuchhal Enterprises v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

07 Aug 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:3764-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the appellant was not required to deposit 10% of the penalty amount as a pre-condition for hearing the VAT appeal, given prior tax payments and legal contentions.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Value Added Tax Penalty deposit Pre-condition for appeal Adjustment of tax and interest

Sharad P. Jagtiani v. M/s. Edelweiss Securities Ltd.

07 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3754-DB

The Delhi High Court held that raising an arbitration clause in the written statement suffices to invoke Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and parties must be referred to arbitration even without a formal application.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 8 application Arbitration agreement Statutory arbitration