Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Industria de Diseno Textil S A v. Oriental Cuisines Pvt Ltd & Ors

25 Apr 2014 · Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:2162

The Delhi High Court modified an ex parte injunction in a trademark dispute over 'ZARA', permitting defendants limited use of 'ZARA TAPAS BAR' while restraining use of 'ZARA' per se, finding no deliberate fraud despite prima facie contradictory pleadings.

civil other Significant ex parte injunction trademark infringement suppression of facts Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC

Nasiruddin @ Guddu v. State

25 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2163

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Nasiruddin @ Guddu for attempt to murder under Section 307/34 IPC but reduced his sentence from ten to seven years considering mitigating factors.

criminal sentence_modified Section 307 IPC attempt to murder injured witness testimony medical evidence

M/S NIMBUS HARBOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD v. M/S MIND & SOUL FITNESS PVT. LTD

25 Apr 2014 · Vibhu BakhrU, J · 2014:DHC:2158

The Delhi High Court dismissed a winding-up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, holding that a bona fide disputed debt is not an admitted debt warranting winding up.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant winding up petition Companies Act 1956 Section 433(e) Section 434(1)(a)

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

25 Apr 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:4538-DB

Government of NCT of Delhi v. M/S Shonkh Technologies International Ltd.

25 Apr 2014 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:9092
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding that the Consortium Agreement for smart card vehicle registrations was valid till 2017, termination without a proper cure notice was invalid, and awarded damages to the respondents for unlawful termination.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Consortium Agreement Efflux of time Material breach

PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. v. TATA STEEL LIMITED

24 Apr 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; R. V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:2143-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a BIFR order despite change in Bench composition, holding no breach of natural justice where the later Bench had full benefit of earlier proceedings and no prejudice was caused.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant BIFR Sick Industrial Companies Act rehabilitation scheme hearing by one, decision by another

Jaipal Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

24 Apr 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:2144-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on delayed compensation paid directly by the Land Acquisition Collector without deposit in Court.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 34 interest compensation payment possession date

Meenu Upadhyay v. Kanwar Pal Singh & Anr

24 Apr 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2153

The Delhi High Court vacated an interim injunction restraining sale of property in a recovery suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove grounds under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) CPC for such relief.

civil appeal_allowed interim injunction Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) CPC temporary injunction agreement to sell

National Investor Forum Reg. v. Golden Forests India Ltd.

24 Apr 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:2148-DB

The Delhi High Court directed appointment of an expert to assist in equitable disbursement of funds from sale of Golden Forests India Ltd's assets, emphasizing non-discriminatory treatment of investors and detailed asset disclosure.

civil other Significant Golden Forests India Ltd winding up investor claims asset management

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Late Kabool Chand Maithal & Ors.

24 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2152

The Delhi High Court held that a suit for possession or compensation is barred by limitation if filed beyond 12 years from dispossession, and liability lies with the colonizer who caused dispossession, not the Government.

civil appeal_allowed Significant limitation possession compensation alternative plot

M/S CREDO BRANDS MARKETING PVT LTD v. STORE ONE RETAIL INDIA LTD

24 Apr 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2014:DHC:2141

The Delhi High Court held that a winding up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act cannot be maintained on a debt barred by limitation, dismissing the petition accordingly.

corporate petition_dismissed Significant Companies Act 1956 Section 433(e) debt barred by limitation winding up petition

Raj Kumar v. State

24 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2140

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for robbery under Sections 392/397 IPC and Arms Act but set aside the conviction under Section 411 IPC, rejecting the claim of false implication due to lack of evidence.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC Section 411 IPC

Shree Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth Mandir Karamchari Welfare Association & Anr. v. Shree Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth (Mandir) Trust & Ors.

24 Apr 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:2149

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an employees' association seeking terminal benefits from a public trust, holding that writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for disputed factual issues and that delay and lack of individual claims barred the petition.

administrative petition_dismissed writ petition Article 226 public trust terminal benefits

Union of India v. Tirupati Texco Products (P) Ltd.

24 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2151

The Delhi High Court restored an arbitral award granting damages for breach of contract, holding that a concluded contract existed by acceptance of an offer to extend delivery period and that risk purchase damages were justified despite lower tenders.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 objections Section 37 appeal concluded contract

Smt. Vimlesh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr.

24 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2137

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal by compounding the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, acquitting the appellant on settlement considering her economic hardship.

criminal appeal_allowed Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135 compounding of offence economic hardship

M/S OLAM AGRO INDIA LTD v. M/S MOTHER V IMPEX PVT LTD

24 Apr 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2014:DHC:2136

The Delhi High Court admitted a winding up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, holding that the respondent's belated disputes were not bona fide and the company was unable to pay its debts.

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

R Ramamurthy & Ors. v. ITC Limited & Ors.

24 Apr 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:2147

The Delhi High Court held that partners of a firm can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheques issued by the firm if their status and involvement are specifically averred, dismissing the petitioners' challenge to cognizance orders.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Partnership firm liability

Union of India v. Birharamwati @ Birmati

24 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2150

The High Court allowed the Railway's appeal, holding that the claimant failed to prove the deceased was a bonafide passenger who fell from the train, and set aside the compensation awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Act untoward incident bonafide passenger accidental fall from train

Mr. S.S. Gandhi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akshay Anand, Advocate. v. SPECIAL DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE .....

24 Apr 2014 · JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR O R D E R 24.04.2014 · 2014:DHC:2138

The Delhi High Court allowed appeals against penalty orders under FERA, holding that retracted confessional statements without corroboration and denial of cross-examination violate natural justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 retracted confessional statements cross-examination principles of natural justice

Megha Sachdeva v. Sanjeev Narula

24 Apr 2014 · A. K. Pathak · 2014:DHC:2154
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for specific performance of sale agreements involving immovable properties situated outside Delhi, directing the suit to be filed in courts where the properties are located.

civil other Significant specific performance territorial jurisdiction immovable property Section 16 Code of Civil Procedure