Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Ashok Kumar v. State; Versha Ritu v. State

06 Aug 2014 · Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:3740

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of serious offences, emphasizing the need to balance investigation integrity with protection against harassment in light of prior civil disputes and delayed FIR.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail Section 438 CrPC delay in FIR false implication

Shri Ram Gopal v. Shri Purshottam Dass

06 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3749

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction on bonafide necessity grounds, affirming landlord's ownership and ordering use and occupation charges against a tenant who withheld rent for 35 years.

property appeal_dismissed Significant bonafide necessity eviction petition Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ownership

Chand Ram v. State & Ors.

06 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3724-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 325 IPC for causing grievous injury but dismissed the appeal challenging acquittals under more serious charges due to lack of proof of intent to cause death and participation.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 307 IPC Section 325 IPC common intention grievous injury

Sushil Kumar @ Panditji v. State of Delhi

06 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3725-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions based on circumstantial evidence and recoveries for murder and destruction of evidence, modifying default sentences for fines as excessive.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC

Sushil Kumar @ Panditji v. State of Delhi

06 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3726-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the murder convictions based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, recoveries, and forensic reports, while modifying the sentences in default of fine.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC

Sushil Kumar @ Panditji v. State of Delhi

06 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3727-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the murder convictions based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, forensic reports, and call records, while modifying default imprisonment terms for fines.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC

Sushil Kumar @ Panditji v. State of Delhi

06 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3728-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the murder convictions based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, recoveries, forensic reports, and call records, while modifying default imprisonment terms for fines.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC

Kanhaiyalal & Ors. v. Hemant Kumar & Anr.

06 Aug 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3729

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of tenants on the ground of landlord’s bona fide need for the premises as a garage and parking space under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) bona fide need eviction

M/S VICTORIA MOTORS PVT. LTD. v. M/S RAI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS

06 Aug 2014 · NAJMI WAZIRI · 2014:DHC:3730

The Delhi High Court held that Delhi courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit despite a contractual jurisdiction clause favoring Kolkata, as the cause of action partly arose in Delhi due to statutory tax obligations under the Central Sales Tax Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant jurisdiction clause exclusion clause cause of action Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. LAKSHMI GARG & ORS.

06 Aug 2014 · JAYANT NATH · OPP 2014:DHC:3719

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's award of compensation in a motor accident claim, holding that civil liability can be established on preponderance of probabilities despite criminal acquittal of the driver.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim rash and negligent driving preponderance of probabilities criminal acquittal

Sinha Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Delhi North

06 Aug 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:3748

The Delhi High Court upheld the applicability of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act to Sinha Shipping Pvt. Ltd., holding that the company employed 20 or more employees engaged in covered activities and that the disputed persons were employees under the Act.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952 employee definition coverage under PF Act quasi-judicial authority

National Investor Forum Regd. v. Golden Forests India Ltd.

06 Aug 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:3721-DB

The Delhi High Court confirmed the sale of land to the highest bona fide bidder and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against a party who submitted a forged pay order to stall the sale confirmation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant sale confirmation bidding process earnest money deposit forgery

Abbu v. State N.C.T. of Delhi

06 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3723-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a homicide committed in a sudden fight without premeditation and undue advantage constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, modifying the appellant's conviction accordingly.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC culpable homicide not amounting to murder mutual fight sudden quarrel

State NCT of Delhi v. Rajender Garg & Anr

06 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3737-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a rape case due to material contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony and lack of corroborative medical evidence, emphasizing the need for consistent and credible evidence for conviction.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape prosecutrix testimony material contradictions medical evidence

Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

06 Aug 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Vibhu Bakhru · 2014:DHC:3720-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a dealer distributing drugs nationally qualifies as a distributor under DPCO 1995 and upheld the Government's demand for recovery of overcharged prices and interest from Ranbaxy Laboratories.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Drug (Price Control) Order 1995 Essential Commodities Act 1955 overcharging distributor definition

Saroj Impex Private Limited v. Elina Electrotech Private Limited

06 Aug 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:3760

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Saroj Impex Private Limited and Elina Electrotech Private Limited under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, directing transfer of assets and dissolution of the Transferor Company.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 Authorized share capital

LT COL A S CHAUDHARI v. Union of India

06 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:172-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Armed Forces Tribunal at Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain an original application where part of the cause of action arose there, overruling the Tribunal's contrary view based on Rule 6 of its Procedure Rules.

administrative petition_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction Armed Forces Tribunal Rule 6 Armed Forces Tribunal Procedure Rules 2008 cause of action

Puran Verma v. State (NCT) of Delhi

05 Aug 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:3707-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Puran Verma for the murder of his wife, relying on credible child witness testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative eyewitness accounts despite procedural delays.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder ligature strangulation child witness Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v. Union of India and Ors.

05 Aug 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3708-DB

The Delhi High Court held that service of the appellate order on the Commissioner of Central Excise constitutes due service under section 35FF, entitling the petitioner to interest on delayed refund at the prescribed rate.

tax petition_allowed Significant Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 35FF Interest on delayed refund Adjudicating authority

Anand J. Datwani v. Geeti Bhagat Datwani & Ors.

05 Aug 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:3709-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the rejection of a plaint for partition and declaration due to lack of cause of action, non-production of an unregistered Development Agreement, and limitation bar on the declaration claim.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cause of action limitation Development Agreement