Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Sudershan Kumar v. Harish Chand Garg

13 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:2982

The Delhi High Court held that tenants raising prima facie triable issues on the landlord's bonafide requirement and alternative accommodation are entitled to leave to defend eviction petitions under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant bonafide requirement leave to defend Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction petition

Sudershan Kumar v. Harish Chand Garg

13 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:2983

The Delhi High Court held that eviction petitions on bonafide requirement grounds must be tested for triable issues at the leave to defend stage, granting leave where genuine disputes exist and emphasizing objective assessment of alternative accommodation.

property appeal_allowed Significant bonafide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 leave to defend eviction petition

Union of India v. M/S Track Innovations (India) Pvt Ltd

11 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2980

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award applying lower tender rates from the date of acceptance and limited interest to post-award period, emphasizing restricted judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Arbitral Award Clause 1.12 contract interpretation

Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

11 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2981

The Delhi High Court held that disputes over the mode of computation of copper prices under a broad arbitration clause are arbitrable and set aside the arbitrator's order terminating proceedings without deciding arbitrability.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitrability Section 16 Arbitration Act price variation copper price computation

Amina Bharatram v. Sumant Bharatram & Ors.

09 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:2977

The Delhi High Court referred to a larger Bench the question of whether its original civil jurisdiction is ousted by the Family Courts Act, 1984, in matrimonial and maintenance suits, given conflicting judicial precedents.

civil other Significant Family Courts Act, 1984 jurisdiction High Court original civil jurisdiction District Court definition

M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. M/S AFCONS-APIL (JV)

09 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2978

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award applying uniform price escalation indices at the final bill stage, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 price escalation Dispute Review Expert

M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. M/S R.N SHETTY & COMPANY

09 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2979

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award granting additional costs and interest to a contractor due to employer's delay in handing over site, affirming limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Additional Cost Compensation Events Clause 44

Neha Gupta v. State of Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

09 Jun 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog · 2016:DHC:9230

Delhi High Court dismissed bail cancellation petition and modified charge from Section 308 IPC to Section 323 IPC based on medical evidence of superficial injury.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail cancellation Section 308 IPC superficial injury medical evidence

Ritika Prasad v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

06 Jun 2014 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:1927
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed the university to issue educational degrees reflecting both parents' names, affirming gender equality and compliance with the UGC circular mandating inclusion of mothers' names on academic certificates.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant gender equality educational certificates parents' names University Grants Commission circular

ISCO TRACK SLEEPERS PVT LTD v. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT LTD

04 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2973

The Delhi High Court restrained encashment of performance bank guarantees invoked without contractual compliance, holding that judicial intervention against unconditional bank guarantees is exceptional and justified only in cases of fraud or irretrievable harm pending arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Significant Performance Bank Guarantee Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 Interim injunction

ISCO TRACK SLEEPERS PVT LTD v. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT LTD

04 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2976

The Delhi High Court restrained encashment of performance bank guarantees invoked without contractual compliance, holding judicial interference in invocation is limited to cases of fraud or irretrievable harm, pending arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Significant Performance Bank Guarantee Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 Interim injunction

Yogesh Jain & Ors. v. Rakesh Jain & Ors.

04 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2974
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award begins only upon proper delivery of a signed copy of the award as mandated by law, and sending it by speed post without registered AD or personal delivery does not constitute valid service.

civil other Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 31(5) Section 34 Limitation period

Yogesh Jain & Ors. v. Rakesh Jain & Ors.

04 Jun 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2975
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 starts only upon delivery of a duly signed copy of the award, and mere dispatch by speed post without registered AD or personal delivery does not suffice, allowing the petitions to proceed on merits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 31(5) Section 34 limitation service of arbitral award

Maruti Insurance Distribution Services Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax

30 May 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:2953-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer cannot disallow genuine commission payments to dealers based on arbitrary percentage limits, affirming the exclusive commercial discretion of the enterprise under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant commission disallowance business expenditure Section 37(1) Section 40A(2)

AEZ Infratech Pvt Ltd v SNG Developers Ltd

30 May 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:2961

The Delhi High Court held that where an arbitration agreement is admitted and relied upon in the suit, the court must refer the matter to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act despite non-filing of the original or certified copy, and that an exclusive jurisdiction clause does not negate a mandatory arbitration clause.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arbitration agreement exclusive jurisdiction clause reference to arbitration

Saroj v. Kusum Devi

30 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2932

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal against concurrent findings that the appellant failed to prove title over the property, holding the suit barred under the Benami Transactions Act and no substantial question of law arising under Section 100 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed title ownership Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Section 100 CPC

Ravi Kumar & Ors. v. State

30 May 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:2970-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of four accused for the murder of Kuldeep, affirming that credible testimony of close relatives corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence suffices to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant honour killing ocular evidence related witnesses grave and sudden provocation

Prabhu Dayal Sharma v. The State of NCT of Delhi

30 May 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2949

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under Sections 325/34 IPC based on reliable injured witness testimony, rejected alibi pleas, affirmed acquittal in cross-case, and modified sentence by granting probation to the aged appellant.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant injured witness testimony grievous hurt Section 325 IPC Section 308 IPC

Kanchan Singh v. State

30 May 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2947

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for grievous injuries based on credible eyewitness and medical evidence, rejected the alibi plea for lack of proof, but reduced the sentence and ordered compensation to victims.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant FIR alibi ocular testimony medical evidence

Nutan Kumar v. Rajesh Arora

30 May 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Indermeet Kaur · 2014:DHC:2971-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition challenging the probate of a registered will, holding that the evidence was properly appreciated and no error apparent on record justified review.

civil petition_dismissed Significant review petition probate will Indian Succession Act