Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust v. Union of India

28 Apr 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:2197-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that executive orders mandating free treatment by hospitals allotted land at concessional rates lack statutory backing and cannot restrict fundamental rights without law, quashing such conditions imposed unilaterally.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Article 19(1)(g) Article 300A executive instructions free medical treatment

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. HB STOCKHOLDINGS LTD.

28 Apr 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2014:DHC:2196
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that proceedings before the Company Law Board under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act are maintainable despite prior complaints and adjudications by SEBI on related issues, as the jurisdictions and remedies are distinct.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Companies Act, 1956 Sections 397 and 398 Company Law Board SEBI Act

Satyander Aggarwal v. State & Ors

25 Apr 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:7493

The Delhi High Court disposed of a succession petition by recording a lawful family settlement partitioning the deceased's properties, binding the parties and avoiding further litigation.

civil petition_allowed family settlement Indian Succession Act Section 278 letters of administration

Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

25 Apr 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R. V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:2168-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that where no income accrues to the recipient company in India, the payer is not liable to deduct tax under section 195(2), invalidating reassessment and default notices against the payer.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 195(2) Section 201(1)

Shashi Garg v. M/S Shitiz Metals Ltd & Anr

25 Apr 2014 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:2167

The Delhi High Court decreed recovery of possession in favor of the buyer under a Sale Deed, holding that unpaid sale consideration does not affect the buyer's right to possession.

civil appeal_allowed Significant recovery of possession Sale Deed Transfer of Property Act unpaid sale consideration

Central Bank of India v. Sudershan Kapoor

25 Apr 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:2171

The Delhi High Court held that gratuity forfeiture under the Payment of Gratuity Act requires prior notice and opportunity to the employee, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

labor remanded Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 forfeiture of gratuity show cause notice natural justice

Sohan Lal v. State NCT of Delhi

25 Apr 2014 · Indermeet Kaur · 2014:DHC:2170

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act but reduced the sentence considering the appellant's age and medical condition.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7 PC Act Section 13(1)(d) PC Act Section 20 PC Act presumption

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi –I v. Agile Properties Pvt. Ltd.

25 Apr 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R. V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:2169-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue must prove by positive evidence any understatement of investment before enhancing its value, and upheld the rejection of enhancement based solely on a valuation report.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 69B Income Tax Act District Valuation Officer report burden of proof understatement of investment

Radials International v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

25 Apr 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:2173-DB

The Delhi High Court held that gains from shares held under a discretionary portfolio management scheme are capital gains, not business income, emphasizing a holistic assessment of intention and transaction nature.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Portfolio Management Scheme Capital Gains Business Income Intention to Trade

M/S. CENTRICA INDIA OFFSHORE PVTL. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

25 Apr 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:2172-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that reimbursements by an Indian subsidiary to overseas entities for seconded managerial employees constitute taxable income in India, creating a service permanent establishment under relevant DTAAs, and upheld tax deduction at source under Section 195.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant secondment agreement service permanent establishment fees for technical services economic employer

Delhi Development Authority & Anr. v. Raju@ Maya Ben & Ors.

25 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2176

The Delhi High Court upheld the principal employer’s liability under Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act for compensation to a contractor’s employee injured on duty, affirming total disablement and use of statutory wages for calculation.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 Section 12 liability principal employer contractor liability

Om Parkash Deceased Through LRS. v. Maha Singh Deceased Through LRS.

25 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2177

The Delhi High Court upheld possession decree for a landlord, ruling that civil courts have jurisdiction over constructed properties and tenancy can be validly terminated by 15 days' notice or service of summons despite technical defects in notice.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 Section 106 Transfer of Property Act tenancy termination civil court jurisdiction

Maqsood Ahmed v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

25 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2161

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction under Sections 392 and 397 IPC due to unreliable prosecution evidence and granted the appellant benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC benefit of doubt

M/S V.V. ENTERPRISES v. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD.

25 Apr 2014 · Vibhu BakhrU, J · 2014:DHC:2160

The Delhi High Court admitted a winding up petition against a company that raised a sham dispute to avoid payment of a debt evidenced by a dishonoured cheque, holding the company unable to pay its debts under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant winding up petition Companies Act 1956 Section 433(e) bona fide dispute

National Highways Authority of India v. Som Datt Builders-NCC-NEC (JV)

25 Apr 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2165

Delhi High Court upheld arbitral award granting reimbursement of Entry Tax on cement under subsequent legislation clause and validated JV representative's authority, dismissing challenge under Section 34 of Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Entry Tax reimbursement Subsequent legislation clause

Sarla Devi v. M/S GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD

25 Apr 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2166

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte arbitral award passed against a deceased person as a nullity, holding that such an award cannot be enforced without representation.

civil petition_allowed Significant arbitral award deceased party nullity of decree Section 34 Arbitration Act

Master Samin Chaudhary v. Chairman, Air Force School & Ors.

25 Apr 2014 · Manmohan · 2014:DHC:2157

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the admission process of a private unaided Air Force school, holding that the school lawfully admitted candidates based on a disclosed priority list and available vacancies.

civil petition_dismissed admission policy private unaided school reservation of seats priority categories

Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Prasad & Ors.

25 Apr 2014 · Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:2164

The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction restraining defendants from using the deceptively similar trademark 'AMAFORTEN' against plaintiff's prior registered trademark 'ANAFORTAN', holding the suit maintainable with proper jurisdiction and a prima facie case of passing off.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off interim injunction territorial jurisdiction

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sri Kishan

25 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2175

The Delhi High Court allowed the employer’s appeal, holding that a claim filed after 20 years is barred by limitation and that an accident during commuting in private transport does not arise out of and in the course of employment under the Employee’s Compensation Act.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 limitation condonation of delay course of employment

WOCKHARDT LTD. v. REMED HEALTHCARE PVT LTD. & ANR.

25 Apr 2014 · JAYANT NATH · 2014:DHC:2156

The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction to the registered proprietor restraining defendants from using the identical trade mark 'Mericobal' despite defendants' prior use, affirming that registration confers prima facie rights even before actual use.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Interim injunction Trademark infringement Section 18 registration