Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Shri Goverdhan Singh v. M/S Alisha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

02 Jul 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:3023-DB

The Delhi High Court held that interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act cannot decide disputed factual issues like unauthorized amalgamation of leased premises, and allowed the tenant to continue renovations pending arbitration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 interim relief Lease Deed Renovation consent

Shri Goverdhan Singh v. M/S Alisha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

02 Jul 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:3024-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld interim reliefs allowing a tenant to continue renovations and use of leased premises despite landlord's objections, holding that disputed factual issues must be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 interim relief lease agreement

Dharmender Sharma & Anr. v. Sriram Transport Finance Co Ltd & Anr.

02 Jul 2014 · V.K. Shali · 2014:DHC:3028

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award granting interest at 18% per annum, rejecting appellants' plea to reduce it to 10%, emphasizing that contractual interest rates agreed by parties prevail unless legally invalid.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 37 Interest rate

Narain Singh v. The State

02 Jul 2014 · V.K. Shali · 2014:DHC:3029

The Delhi High Court set aside letters of administration granted on a Will not validly executed and attested under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of attestation and the need for affirmative evidence of execution.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Indian Succession Act Section 63 Will execution Attestation

Vijay Sethi & Ors. v. State & Ors.

02 Jul 2014 · V.K. Shali · 2014:DHC:3030

The Delhi High Court set aside probate granted on a Will bearing only thumb impression without signature, emphasizing the need to prove testamentary capacity and satisfactorily explain suspicious circumstances including delay in filing.

civil appeal_allowed Significant probate Will Indian Succession Act testamentary capacity

Kohli One Housing & Development Pvt. Ltd. v. C.S. Aggarwal & Ors.

02 Jul 2014 · V.K. Shali · 2014:DHC:3031

The Delhi High Court rejected the plaint against certain defendants for lack of cause of action and mala fide amendment attempts, holding that lifting the corporate veil requires proper pleadings and that collusion to obtain interim relief amounts to abuse of process.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC Order VI Rule 17 CPC cause of action privity of contract

Maya John and Anr. v. University of Delhi & Ors.

02 Jul 2014 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:3048-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the university's amendment to the Teaching Assistant Scheme requiring UGC NET clearance within two years and dismissed the appellant's challenge to termination and HRA deduction.

administrative appeal_dismissed University Teaching Assistant Scheme Appointment letter amendment UGC NET examination Ph.D. programme

Union of India v. M/S. J.D. Construction and Anr.

02 Jul 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3047

The court held that forfeiture of security deposit as liquidated damages cannot be claimed in addition to damages awarded for the same incomplete and defective work under the Contract Act, dismissing the Union of India's appeal against the arbitral award.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Contract rescission Security deposit forfeiture Damages under Contract Act

Prem Singh v. Dharm Singh

02 Jul 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3046

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on bona fide requirement grounds, holding that the tenant failed to make out a prima facie case for leave to defend under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction petition leave to defend bona fide requirement

Shri Jitendra Prasad Agarwal v. Associated Tubewell (India) Ltd

02 Jul 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2014:DHC:3044

The Delhi High Court appointed an administrator to manage Associated Tubewell (India) Ltd due to mismanagement and misuse of company funds and assets by majority shareholders, restraining the managing director from drawing benefits pending investigation.

corporate other Significant mismanagement oppression Companies Act 1956 Section 403

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Global Associates

02 Jul 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vibhu Bakhru · 2014:DHC:3043-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the Revenue's appeal reinstating penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars where the assessee's explanation was not bona fide.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 271(1)(c) Income Tax Act penalty for inaccurate particulars liquidated damages income tax assessment

P L Singla v. UOI and Anr

02 Jul 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:3040

The Delhi High Court directed payment of pension and arrears to a retired judicial officer as per the Shetty Commission recommendations accepted by the Supreme Court, without requiring exemption under Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCS Pension Rules.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Shetty Commission pension entitlement judicial officers qualifying service

Allahrakha & Anr. v. Allahwala & Anr.

02 Jul 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3041

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, ruling that tenants cannot challenge landlord's title while in occupation and paying rent, and bona fide need for residential use justifies eviction.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) eviction landlord-tenant relationship

Allahrakha & Anr. v. Allahwala & Anr.

02 Jul 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3042

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, ruling that tenants cannot challenge landlord's title during tenancy and bona fide need justifies eviction.

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

Saraswti Devi v. Santosh Kumari

02 Jul 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3038

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of a tenant on the ground of landlord's bonafide need under the Delhi Rent Control Act, emphasizing that tenants must raise all defenses upfront and that changed circumstances justify eviction.

property appeal_dismissed Significant bonafide need eviction Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 leave to defend

Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. Sh. Sunil Gupta & Ors.

02 Jul 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3039

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on the landlord's bonafide need, holding that the tenant paying rent is estopped from disputing ownership and no triable issue was raised to defend eviction.

property appeal_dismissed Significant eviction bonafide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 Section 116 Indian Evidence Act

M/S. SAMRAT INDUSTRIES v. UOI AND ORS.

02 Jul 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; VIBHU BAKHRU · 2014:DHC:3050-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition challenging penalty and debarment for importing rapeseeds without prior approval under the Import-Export Policy, holding that the contested orders cannot stand in view of the pending CEGAT order interpreting the policy.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Import-Export Policy 1985-88 para 197(2) canalised items prior approval

Shahid Ali v. Union of India & Anr

02 Jul 2014 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:3045-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL challenging UPSC's exclusion of Arabic and Persian from Civil Services optional subjects, holding the petitioner lacked locus standi and UPSC's decision was lawful and discretionary.

administrative petition_dismissed Public Interest Litigation locus standi UPSC Civil Services Examination optional subjects

Akhil Bhartiya Railway Mal Godam Mazdoor Kalyan Sanstha v. Union of India & Ors.

02 Jul 2014 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:3025-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that Railway Mal Godam workers engaged as contract labour by consignors/consignees are not entitled to absorption into Railway or FCI employment, but basic amenities mandated by Railway Board must be provided.

labor petition_dismissed Significant contract labour regularization absorption basic amenities

Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India

02 Jul 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:763-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court held that enhancement of disciplinary punishment after the original penalty period expired is impermissible and quashed the order removing the petitioner from service.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Rule 29(d) CRPF Rules 1955 enhancement of punishment reasonable time double punishment