Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

M/S ASRA BUILDTECH PVT LTD v. PANKAJ CHAUDHARY & ORS

24 Apr 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2155

The Delhi High Court held that a written settlement agreement signed during court-referred mediation is binding and enforceable under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, and parties cannot resile from it or introduce oral evidence to contradict its terms.

civil appeal_allowed Significant settlement agreement mediation Order 23 Rule 3 CPC binding settlement

Ashok Kumar Ahluwalia v. Chairman & Managing Director National Fertilizers Limited

24 Apr 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:2145

The Delhi High Court held that gratuity and leave encashment dues cannot be withheld pending criminal proceedings once the employee is exonerated in departmental enquiry, as Rule 35A does not cover criminal proceedings.

administrative petition_allowed Significant gratuity withholding leave encashment Rule 35A NFL Employees Rules Payment of Gratuity Act 1972

Chandan @ Babar v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

24 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2139

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for robbery under Sections 392 and 120-B IPC based on reliable witness identification but set aside the conviction under Section 397 IPC due to lack of evidence of use of deadly weapon, reducing the sentence accordingly.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC Section 120-B IPC

Ram Prabhu Sharma v. State

24 Apr 2014 · Indermeet Kaur · 2014:DHC:2146

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of rape charges due to failure of the prosecution to establish his identity beyond reasonable doubt and improper reliance on investigating officer's testimony over unrebutted witness denials.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 376 IPC rape identity of accused prosecutrix identification

Kuldeep Kumar v. UOI & Ors.

24 Apr 2014 · The Chief Justice; Pradeep Nandrajog · 2014:DHC:2142-DB

The Delhi High Court held that removal from service is disproportionate and arbitrary if the gravest charge is unproven, directing reinstatement of a CISF employee with discretion to impose appropriate lesser penalty.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings removal from service proportionality of penalty Article 14 Constitution of India

Icon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Aggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd.

23 Apr 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:2123

The High Court upheld acquittal under Section 138 NI Act, holding that no legally enforceable debt existed at cheque issuance and stop payment instructions were bona fide, thus no criminal liability arose.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act stop payment instructions legally enforceable debt

M/S CHANDERKANT & CO v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

23 Apr 2014 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SIDDHARTH MRIDUL · 2014:DHC:2125-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking enlargement of time for making an arbitral award due to gross delay and lack of authority of the appellant's representative under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Indian Partnership Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration Act, 1940 Section 28 enlargement of time First Schedule

Pratima Keshwani & Ors. v. Shanta L Keshwani

23 Apr 2014 · Chief Justice; Pradeep Nandrajog · 2014:DHC:2134-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the respondent was the true owner of the disputed property, rejecting the appellants' benami claim due to lack of evidence and upheld the decree for possession and damages.

civil appeal_dismissed benami property sale deed Section 91 Indian Evidence Act gratuitous licensee

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

23 Apr 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2132

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to Cadila Healthcare Ltd. against Medipol Pharmaceutical for infringing its registered trademark "PANTODAC" by using the deceptively similar mark "PANTOPOL" on pharmaceutical products.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Trade Marks Act 1999 Permanent injunction Deceptively similar mark

Hindalco Industries Limited & Anr. v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Mirzapur and Ors.

23 Apr 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:2126-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed a retrospective excise duty demand under Section 11D against Hindalco, holding the provision prospective and requiring natural justice compliance.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 11D Central Excise Act natural justice retrospective operation excise duty

Mahinder Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

23 Apr 2014 · Hima Kohli · 2014:DHC:2131

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking permission for construction on disputed land, holding that factual disputes over patta validity and possession cannot be decided under Article 226 and must be resolved through appropriate legal proceedings.

property petition_dismissed patta certificate land allotment writ petition Article 226

DAYA KISHAN JOSHI & Ors. v. DYNEMECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.

23 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2130

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that a fatal accident occurring while the employee was returning home after work did not arise out of and in the course of employment under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 arising out of and in the course of employment commuting accident theory of notional extension

Shaival Sahay v. Govind Verma & Ors.

23 Apr 2014 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:2112

The Delhi High Court granted defendants leave to defend a suit under Order 37 CPC, holding that disputed facts and agreements involving land sale and loan repayment require trial and cannot be summarily decided.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 37 CPC leave to defend summary judgment loan agreement

Vijay Shankar Goel v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.

23 Apr 2014 · Manmohan J · 2014:DHC:2116

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner could use the licensed shop at Red Fort but not the adjoining tin shed as a restaurant, upholding ASI’s authority to protect the heritage site.

property petition_allowed Significant licence agreement protected monument Archaeological Survey of India Red Fort

Mohd. Yusuf @ Chumma v. State (GNCT of Delhi)

23 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2117

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for robbery with hurt under Sections 392/394 IPC but reduced the sentence from seven to five years considering mitigating factors.

criminal appeal_allowed robbery with hurt Section 392 IPC Section 394 IPC typographical error in charge

UNISTRAW HOLDINGS PTE LTD v. NITIN AGARWAL & ANR

23 Apr 2014 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:2121

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions and ordered destruction of infringing goods against defendants copying the plaintiff's patented flavoured drinking straw technology and registered designs in an ex-parte suit.

civil appeal_dismissed patent infringement design infringement trade dress permanent injunction

Richa Devi v. Ram Dass

23 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2122

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the lower courts' decrees that the original allottee retained possession and ownership of the property as no valid cancellation or transfer was effected.

civil appeal_dismissed allotment possession mesne profits transfer of property

Neksi Devi & Ors. v. Union of India

23 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2124

The Delhi High Court allowed appeals and remanded railway accident claim petitions for fresh adjudication after permitting additional crucial evidence to be recorded.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Railways Act, 1989 claim petition Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Section 165 Evidence Act

Anil v. State, NCT Govt. of Delhi

23 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2113

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld his conviction for robbery at knife point and illegal possession of arms, affirming the trial court's reliance on prompt FIR, eyewitness testimony, and recovery of stolen articles.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery knife point recovery of stolen articles false implication

Brijesh Kumar Shukla v. Union of India & Ors.

23 Apr 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:2115-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the petitioner's conviction and dismissal from service for impersonation due to lack of evidence and upheld the validity of retrial after the first trial was set aside.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Summary Security Force Court BSF Act 1968 Section 75(1) retrial