Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Respondent No.1

30 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2303

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company’s appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, upholding the Commissioner’s award of compensation based on minimum wages including food allowance and rejecting procedural and evidentiary objections.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 Section 30 appeal minimum wages food allowance

Harsha Capital Services Ltd v. Ravinder Kaur Narang

30 Apr 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:2309

The High Court upheld the conversion of a summary suit under Order 37 CPC into a regular suit due to lack of clear admission of liability and disputed factual issues requiring trial.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 37 CPC summary suit admission of liability photocopy admissibility

Palm Greens Infrastructures Private Limited & Ors. v. Arcon Properties Private Limited & Ors.

30 Apr 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2308

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and creditors based on their written consents.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Section 391 Section 394

Imperia Homes Pvt Ltd v. Imperia Structures Ltd

30 Apr 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2307

The Delhi High Court allowed a Scheme of Amalgamation between a wholly owned subsidiary and its holding company, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and creditors under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, where no rights were affected and no new shares issued.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Section 391 Section 394

Jasjiv Singh Anand v. Office of Commissioner of Industries

30 Apr 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:2300

The Delhi High Court dismissed contempt proceedings for non-compliance with its order, holding that pending an application for recall/modification, contempt cannot be initiated.

civil petition_dismissed Significant contempt of court non-compliance recall of order modification of order

V.K. Shamra v. State Farms Corporation of India Limited & Anr.

30 Apr 2014 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:2304-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the retirement of an employee under statutory rules after finding sufficient material and no mala fide in the decision, limiting judicial review to the presence of valid basis.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant retirement Fundamental Rules 56(j) Staff Regulation 52 judicial review

Triumphant Institute of Management Education v. Time Coaching/Education & Ors.

30 Apr 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2302

The Delhi High Court held that the defendants' use of the mark 'TIME' and domain name www.timeforedu.com infringed the plaintiff's well-known trademark 'T.I.M.E', granted injunction, damages, and ordered cancellation of the infringing domain.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Well-known mark Trade Marks Act 1999

M/S COMPLETE DEWATERING SYSTEMS PVT LTD v. M/S DSC LIMITED

30 Apr 2014 · G.S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2301

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement due to insufficient grounds and decreed the suit for recovery in favor of the plaintiff.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VIII Rule 1 CPC condonation of delay written statement extension of time

PepsiCo Inc & Anr. v. Aqua Mineral (India) & Anr.

30 Apr 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2299

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to PepsiCo for infringement of its registered trademark and copyright in AQUAFINA against defendants using the deceptively similar mark AQUAFINE.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Copyright infringement Permanent injunction

Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Nath Memorial Educational Society

30 Apr 2014 · The Chief Justice; Pradeep Nandrajog · 2014:DHC:2247-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a notification exempting certain educational and social welfare institutions from additional FAR charges operates retrospectively, entitling those who paid under protest to refunds with interest.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Floor Area Ratio Additional FAR charges Retrospective operation Doctrine of fairness

Rama Kant Jindal v. Union of India & Anr.

30 Apr 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:2298-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of security deposit and expenditure ceiling provisions under the Representation of People Act, 1951, affirming that the right to contest elections is a statutory right subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Representation of People Act, 1951 security deposit election expenditure ceiling right to contest election

Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Nath Memorial Educational Society

30 Apr 2014 · THE CHIEF JUSTICE; PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. · 2014:DHC:2250-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a notification exempting educational and social welfare societies from additional FAR charges operates retrospectively, entitling those who paid charges under protest to refunds with interest.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Floor Area Ratio Additional FAR charges Retrospective operation Doctrine of fairness

Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Nath Memorial Educational Society

30 Apr 2014 · THE CHIEF JUSTICE; PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. · 2014:DHC:2249-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the notification exempting educational and social welfare institutions from additional FAR charges applies retrospectively, entitling those who paid under protest to refunds with interest.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Floor Area Ratio Additional FAR charges Retrospective operation Doctrine of fairness

Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

30 Apr 2014 · THE CHIEF JUSTICE; PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. · 2014:DHC:2248-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the petitioner’s conviction for murder by a General Security Force Court, holding that procedural rules were complied with and the evidence conclusively established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant General Security Force Court Staff Court of Inquiry BSF Rules 1969 Rule 45 inquiry

Sh. Nathi Lal & Anr. v. Union of India

30 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2291

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's rejection of a compensation claim for death due to an alleged train accident, holding that the claim lacked credible evidence and proof of passenger status.

civil appeal_dismissed Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 compensation claim railway accident burden of proof

M/S. BIHAR CARRYING CO. PVT. LTD. v. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

30 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2293

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against refusal to set aside an ex parte decree, holding that unsubstantiated claims of counsel's absence and unexplained delay do not justify reopening ex parte proceedings.

civil appeal_dismissed ex parte decree Order 9 Rule 13 CPC Section 5 Limitation Act Carriers Act 1865

Union of India v. Vikram Bahadur Chand

30 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2292

The Delhi High Court upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal's award of compensation to a passenger injured after falling from an overcrowded moving train, affirming the Railway's liability under the Railways Act, 1989.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Railways Act, 1989 untoward incident bona fide passenger

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Naushad & Ors.

30 Apr 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:2290-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under Sections 304 Part I and 308 IPC, affirming that injuries caused in a sudden fight without premeditation attract Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, reducing murder charges to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC culpable homicide not amounting to murder sudden fight premeditation

Amna v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

30 Apr 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:2289-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant in an acid attack case due to lack of evidence proving her involvement in conspiracy with the co-accused, emphasizing the necessity of clear and corroborated proof for conspiracy convictions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant acid attack criminal conspiracy Section 120B IPC juvenile offender

Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal and Anr. v. Shashi Jain

30 Apr 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:2253

The court upheld the Trial Court's order directing the defendant to lead evidence first in a possession suit, holding that the onus shifts to the defendant when the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by a registered sale deed.

civil petition_dismissed Significant burden of proof onus of proof Section 101 Evidence Act oral gift