Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Kapil Mohan Sharma

22 Jul 2014 · JAYANT NATH · 2014:DHC:3425

The Delhi High Court upheld a motor accident compensation award, ruling that an insurer's liability towards third parties is unlimited despite policy limits, and affirmed substantial compensation for future medical treatment based on credible medical evidence.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor insurance liability third party claim insurance policy limit future medical treatment compensation

Sunita & Anr v. Ajay Singh Yadav @ Satbir & Ors

22 Jul 2014 · Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:3426

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by rejecting contributory negligence and applying res ipsa loquitur to hold the driver liable, while excluding insurance company liability due to the deceased being a gratuitous passenger.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act res ipsa loquitur contributory negligence gratuitous passenger

Kishori Lal v. Ram Saran

22 Jul 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3406

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on the ground of landlord's bonafide necessity, rejecting vague claims of alternative accommodation and affirming that leave to defend can be denied in absence of triable issues.

property appeal_dismissed Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction petition bonafide necessity leave to defend

Faridabad Manufacturing (Engineering Products) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Yashpal Arora & Anr.

22 Jul 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3409

The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory 15-day period under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for filing leave to defend, dismissing the petition challenging eviction for delay beyond this period.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 25B leave to defend eviction petition

Md. Irfan v. Jamuna Devi & Ors.

22 Jul 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3408

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction on bonafide necessity grounds where the landlords proved ownership, tenancy, and lack of alternative premises, dismissing the tenant's revision petition.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bonafide necessity landlord-tenant relationship oral partition

Shinichoro Ishikawa & Ors. v. Narender Kumar Sehgal & Ors.

22 Jul 2014 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:3404-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a plaint against company directors cannot be rejected at the threshold merely for lack of specific allegations, as their liability depends on evidence to be adduced at trial.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action directors' liability company law

Javed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

22 Jul 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:3410-DB

The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, relying on credible dying declarations and medical evidence, and sentenced him to the period already served.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration culpable homicide not amounting to murder Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC

State v. Raj Kumar

22 Jul 2014 · Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:3411

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's leave to appeal against acquittal in a molestation and assault case, holding that material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and absence of substantial reasons precluded interference.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 354 IPC Section 323 IPC Section 341 IPC Section 509 IPC

Vikash & Ors. v. State & Ors.

22 Jul 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3419

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 427, 452, 323, 506, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to maintain peace and prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences settlement agreement

Ashwani Kumar v. State & Anr.

22 Jul 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3418

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR arising from matrimonial disputes under Sections 498-A, 323, 342, and 506 IPC based on a settlement between the parties and the remote possibility of conviction.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute settlement agreement

Shobha Jain & Anr. v. Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

22 Jul 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3417

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC in a Chit Fund dispute on the basis of settlement and repayment to subscribers, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences settlement between parties

Comverse Networks Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-XVI & Anr

22 Jul 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3413-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a person can be treated as a representative assessee under Section 163 of the Income Tax Act only if the income in the relevant assessment year belongs to a non-resident, and since Mr. Daly was resident during the relevant year, the petitioner cannot be treated as his representative assessee.

tax appeal_allowed Significant representative assessee Section 163 Income Tax Act non-resident income assessment year

Balbir Singh Kohli v. Suman Verma

22 Jul 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3416

The Delhi High Court held that tenancy rights can be surrendered by some legal heirs to others and are inheritable property rights under succession law, dismissing the petition challenging this principle.

property petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act tenancy rights inheritance of tenancy surrender of tenancy

M/S Anantji Gas Service v. Indian Oil Corporation

22 Jul 2014 · Ms. G. Rohini; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:3405-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against refusal of interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, holding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case against the penalty imposed by Indian Oil Corporation.

civil appeal_dismissed Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act interim relief prima facie case penalty imposition

Delhi Diocesan Trust Association v. Edwin William & Anr

22 Jul 2014 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:7111

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's orders dismissing the petitioner's claim of fraudulent suit withdrawal, holding that the power of attorney was not legally revoked and no prima facie fraud was established.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant power of attorney revocation withdrawal of suit Section 115 CPC

M/S R.B. SETH JESSA RAM & BROS v. M.K. GAUR & ORS

21 Jul 2014 · Vibhu BakhrU, J · 2014:DHC:3365

The Delhi High Court held that dismissal without approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is void, recovery under Section 33C(1) requires a valid award, and the question of workman status must be decided by the Industrial Tribunal.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(2)(b) Section 33A Section 33C(1)

Jai Singh v. The State & Ors.

21 Jul 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3390-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of family members for dowry death due to lack of specific evidence and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the husband for cruelty and abetment to suicide.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dowry death Section 304B IPC Section 302 IPC Section 498A IPC

Dev Chander Sood & Ors. v. H.L. Sud & Ors.

21 Jul 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:3385

In a partition suit, defendants who have not filed written statements are entitled to cross-examine plaintiff witnesses and lead evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case, given the unique nature of such suits.

civil other Significant partition suit written statement cross-examination Order 8 Rule 5 CPC

CCS Infotech Ltd & Ors. v. State & Anr

21 Jul 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:3378

The Delhi High Court held that the demand notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was validly issued within thirty days excluding the date of dishonor information, and Delhi courts have jurisdiction to try the complaint.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Demand notice Computation of limitation period

RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

21 Jul 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2014:DHC:3366

The Delhi High Court held that the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to restore an appeal dismissed for non-appearance if the restoration application is filed within thirty days from communication of the dismissal order under Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules, and set aside the Tribunal’s order rejecting restoration on limitation grounds.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant restoration of appeal limitation period Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal non-appearance