Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Employees State Insurance Corp. v. Poonam Sharma & Ors.

16 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2022

The Delhi High Court held that Section 51(E) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 is a declaratory provision applying retrospectively to include commuting accidents as employment injuries even before its enactment in 2010.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 51(E) employment injury retrospective application

M/S B.T.M EXPORTS LTD. v. M/S ADHUNIK CORPORATION LTD.

16 Apr 2014 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:2021

The Delhi High Court held that a suit for refund of advance payment due to breach of contract is not maintainable under Order 37 CPC and must be tried as an ordinary suit, while affirming its territorial jurisdiction.

civil other Significant Order 37 CPC suit maintainability advance payment recovery liquidated demand

Suresh Kumar v. Border Security Force & Anr.

16 Apr 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:1992-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful dismissal of a BSF constable for repeated unauthorized absence, holding no enquiry was required under Rule 22 before dismissal and presuming service of the show cause notice sent by registered post.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Border Security Force Act, 1968 Rule 22 BSF Rules, 1969 dismissal from service unauthorized absence

Amrik Singh Saluja v. Union of India; Rajiv Gopalani v. The Director of Enforcement

16 Apr 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:1993
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld penalties and confiscation under FERA, holding that a retracted confessional statement under Section 40 FERA is admissible if voluntary and corroborated by independent evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 Section 40 FERA confessional statement voluntariness of statement

Kanwar Singh v. State

16 Apr 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:1989
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a public servant for accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, affirming the validity of trap proceedings and the presumption under Section 20, while modifying the sentence to the statutory minimum.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 20 presumption trap operation phenolphthalein test

D.T.C. v. Rajpal and Anr.

16 Apr 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:2018

The Delhi High Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal's award reinstating a removed employee, holding the domestic inquiry was valid and misconduct proved, thereby upholding the removal.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33-A domestic inquiry principles of natural justice

Shiv Kumar Giri v. The Management of M/s. Hotel Siddhartha Continental & Anr.

16 Apr 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:2016

The Delhi High Court upheld the removal of an employee for unauthorized absence under Certified Standing Orders, holding that such abandonment justifies termination without formal enquiry if opportunity to explain is given.

labor petition_dismissed Significant abandonment of service unauthorized absence Certified Standing Orders Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi

16 Apr 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1995-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the one-year limitation period for refund claims under the amending notification cannot be applied retrospectively to imports made before its issuance, and no limitation period applies to refund claims under the original notification for Special Additional Customs Duty.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Customs Tariff Act, 1975 Special Additional Customs Duty refund claims

Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Ashok Wadia

16 Apr 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1996-DB

The High Court upheld that income from sale of shares with infrequent transactions and shown as investments is Short Term Capital Gain, not business income.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Short Term Capital Gain business income share trading frequency of transactions

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. M/S Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd.

16 Apr 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1997-DB
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that income from sale of shares held as investments constitutes capital gains and not business income, emphasizing a holistic assessment of intention and relevant factors.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capital gains business income intention test stock-in-trade

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. M/S Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd.

16 Apr 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1998-DB
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that gains from sale of shares held as investments, determined by intention and overall facts, are capital gains and not business income.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant capital gains business income intention test stock-in-trade

NTPC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V

16 Apr 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1999-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner erred in invoking revisional power under Section 263 to revise NTPC's assessment order on provisional sales revision, restoring the AO's order while confirming that power generation does not qualify for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia).

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 263 Income Tax Act additional depreciation Section 32(1)(iia) provisional sales revision

Sher Mohammad @ Shera v. State

16 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2000
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court affirmed the appellant's conviction for kidnapping for ransom but modified the sentence considering his first-time offender status and substantial custody period already served.

criminal appeal_allowed kidnapping ransom Section 363 IPC Section 364-A IPC

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

16 Apr 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:1990-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the threshold for abatement of a sick company reference under SICA is distinct from the SARFAESI Act and remanded the matter for fresh examination of whether the secured creditor meets the higher threshold under SICA.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Sick Industrial Companies Act SARFAESI Act abatement of reference secured creditor

Deutsche Trustee Company Ltd. v. Tulip Telecom Ltd.

16 Apr 2014 · R. V. Easwar, J. · 2014:DHC:1991

The Delhi High Court refused to stay a Corporate Debt Restructuring scheme pending admission of a winding up petition, emphasizing the court’s discretion to favor company revival over liquidation while protecting unsecured creditors’ interests.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) scheme winding up petition Companies Act, 1956 foreign currency convertible bonds (FCCBs)

SERGI TRANSFORMER EXPLOSION PREVENTION TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD v. KUMAR PRATAP ANIL & ORS

16 Apr 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:2023

The Delhi High Court held that a patent infringement suit by an exclusive licensee is maintainable despite non-registration of the license agreement at the suit stage, directing the Patent Office to decide the registration application and refusing to dismiss the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant exclusive licensee patent infringement Indian Patents Act 1970 Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – II v. M/S ANKIT GARMENTS MANUFACTURING CO

16 Apr 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:2020-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Commissioner’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to set aside an assessment order completed without full information, rejecting the Tribunal’s finding of fishing enquiry.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 263 Income Tax Act revisional jurisdiction erroneous and prejudicial order assessment order

LE PASSAGE TO INDIA TOURS & TRAVELS PVT LTD v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

16 Apr 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:2015-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed the reassessment notice for AY 2006-07, holding that reopening under sections 147/148 requires tangible material beyond mere change of opinion, reaffirming the principles in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

tax petition_allowed Significant reassessment Income Tax Act 1961 section 147 section 148

Tejpal v. Deepak & Ors.

16 Apr 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:2006

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in a motor accident claim, holding that in absence of proof of actual income, compensation based on minimum wages is justified.

civil appeal_dismissed compensation motor accident claim minimum wages proof of income

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. v. RITU KAPOOR & ORS

16 Apr 2014 · SURESH KAIT, J. · 2014:DHC:2007

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation awarded for medical expenses and loss of income in a motor accident claim but set aside the Tribunal’s grant of lawyers’ fees as beyond its jurisdiction.

civil appeal_partially_allowed Significant Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation medical expenses Mediclaim policy