Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Ankit Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another

26 May 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:2798

The Delhi High Court upheld bail granted to accused Gopal Goyal Kanda in a suicide case, emphasizing that cancellation of bail requires cogent proof of misuse, and restrained prejudicial media reporting to ensure fair trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail cancellation of bail presumption of innocence Section 306 IPC

GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS v. ROHTAS SINGH

26 May 2014 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:2815-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's order directing reinstatement of a police officer acquitted on appeal and treating his dismissal period as spent on duty, ensuring parity with similarly situated co-accused.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant reinstatement period spent on duty criminal conviction set aside parity in service benefits

Sunil Aggarwal v. State & Anr.

26 May 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:2808

The Delhi High Court set aside an onerous condition in an anticipatory bail order prohibiting the petitioner from contacting the complainant, holding that courts must impose only relevant and just conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. conditions of bail harsh conditions

S.S. Sandhu v. State

26 May 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:2806

The Delhi High Court restored the Magistrate's order directing FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., affirming the Magistrate's judicial discretion to order police investigation upon a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. FIR registration Judicial discretion Cognizable offence

Artsy Infrastructure & Projects Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Vatsal Infraprojects Pvt Ltd

26 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2825

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, clarifying RBI no-objection requirements and affirming directors' liability for RBI violations.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 sections 391 to 394 Reserve Bank of India

ANK MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD v. The Sixth Element Sports & Entertainments Pvt Ltd

26 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2822

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, holding that a separate petition for capital reduction under sections 100 to 104 is not required when substantial compliance is demonstrated.

corporate petition_allowed Significant Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 sections 391 to 394 capital reduction

Rohtash Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

26 May 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:2794-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a BSF constable found guilty of manhandling colleagues and unauthorized possession of ammunition, ruling that procedural lapses did not vitiate the conviction supported by strong ocular evidence.

criminal petition_dismissed Border Security Force unauthorized possession of ammunition disciplinary proceedings Summary Security Force Court

Union of India v. Shambhaji Rao

26 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2796

The Delhi High Court upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal's award granting Rs. 80,000 compensation per fracture under the Railway Accident Compensation Rules, dismissing the Railway's appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Railway Claims Tribunal Act Railway Accident and Untoward Incident Compensation Rules compensation for fractures multiple fractures

M/S NEW ERA INDUSTRIES v. M/S STAR ALUBUILD PVT LTD & ANR

26 May 2014 · G.S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2797

The Delhi High Court held that an unconditional bank guarantee cannot be restrained from encashment except in cases of egregious fraud or special equity, and dismissed the plaintiff's injunction application against encashment of the bank guarantee.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bank guarantee injunction Order 39 CPC unconditional bank guarantee

Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra

26 May 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:2818-DB

The court upheld the custodial mother’s discretion to choose the minor child’s school, dismissing the father’s appeal to transfer the child’s admission to a different school.

family appeal_dismissed Significant custody welfare of child education custodial parent discretion

Drive Fast Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Suridhi Retail Pvt Ltd

26 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2824

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and allowed exemption from a separate petition for reduction of capital integral to the scheme.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 sections 391 to 394 reduction of capital

Ankit Infowed Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Regional Director, Northern Region

26 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2823

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, clarifying that RBI no-objection is not mandatory prior to court approval and that directors remain liable for RBI violations despite the sanction.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 sections 391 to 394 Reserve Bank of India

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

26 May 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:2809

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding the Government liable for service tax payment and directed the Service Tax Department to refund amounts not payable to the decree-holder.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Service Tax Arbitral Award Execution Petition

Aschraj Lal Sahni & Others v. Mukesh Sahni

26 May 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2810

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve partnership disputes under arbitration clauses, upheld enforcement of interim orders despite obstruction, and held immovable property disputes require consent for arbitration reference.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Partnership dispute Section 9 interim relief Section 11 appointment of arbitrator

Avantha Realty Limited v. Biltech Building Elements Limited & Ors.

26 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2820

The Delhi High Court allowed a first motion application under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with shareholder meetings due to consent and directing creditor meetings under court supervision for a Scheme of Amalgamation.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391-394 dispensation of meetings

Airwaves Telefilms Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Dolf Leasing Limited

26 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2819

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for amalgamation of multiple companies after finding all procedural compliances fulfilled and no objections raised.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Arrangement Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 and 394 Amalgamation

Gobind Ram Arora & Ors v. Union of India and Ors

25 May 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:4696-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 8

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years before the 2013 Act, even for subsequent purchasers.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings subsequent purchasers

Shilpi Jain and Ors. v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

24 May 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:2793

The Delhi High Court quashed a sealing and demolition order passed without notice or hearing to the affected shop owners, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of natural justice.

administrative petition_allowed Significant natural justice sealing order demolition notice Section 349 DMC Act

Rajiv Chhikara v. Sandhya Mathur

24 May 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Yogesh Khanna · 2016:DHC:7894-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld divorce on grounds of mental cruelty, holding that unilateral withdrawal of mutual consent after settlement and an apology letter admitting cruelty justified dissolution of marriage.

family appeal_dismissed Significant mental cruelty divorce Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1)(ia)

Pranesh Gupta & Anr. v. Jagdish Bansilal Khurana

23 May 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2787

The Delhi High Court decreed recovery of Rs. 9.93 crores with interest against a defendant who defaulted on multiple loans and dishonoured a repayment cheque.

civil appeal_allowed loan agreement promissory note dishonoured cheque Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act