Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Urmila Rani v. Manjit Kaur & Anr.

20 Mar 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1519

The Delhi High Court held that under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, an insurance company is not liable for penalty under Section 4-A unless the insurance policy expressly covers such liability, and thus upheld the penalty against the employer.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 Section 4-A penalty insurance company liability compensation

C.J. International Hotels Ltd. v. Hotel Mazdoor Union

20 Mar 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:1539

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction restraining an unrecognized trade union and its members from entering a 5-star hotel premises and conducting disruptive activities, holding that such actions unlawfully interfere with business operations despite fundamental rights claims.

civil appeal_allowed Significant permanent injunction trade union unlawful trespass hotel business

Sanjay v. Ajit Singh Bajaj

20 Mar 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:1541

The High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that mixed questions of fact and law including limitation cannot be decided without trial and the plaint disclosed a cause of action.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cause of action limitation mixed question of fact and law

M.D., Punjab State Bus Stand Management Company Ltd v. Bindu

20 Mar 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:1520

The Delhi High Court set aside a motor accident compensation award for failure to frame issues and discuss negligence, remanding the matter for a fresh enquiry.

civil appeal_allowed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation award framing of issues negligence

Raju v. State

20 Mar 2014 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2014:DHC:1521

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of rape charges due to inherent improbabilities in the prosecution's case, contradictions in witness testimonies, and lack of supporting medical evidence, granting benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape Section 376 IPC benefit of doubt medical evidence

R.K. Kwatra v. State

20 Mar 2014 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2014:DHC:1525

The Delhi High Court quashed a delayed and maliciously instituted FIR filed as a counterblast to an earlier case, emphasizing the Court's power to prevent abuse of the criminal justice process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR inordinate delay malafide prosecution counterblast FIR

Bhule Bisre Kalakar Co-operative Industrial Production Society Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

20 Mar 2014 · Hima Kohli · 2014:DHC:1532

The Delhi High Court directed the DDA to consider residents' representations on eligibility and redevelopment plans ensuring compliance with the Master Plan and lawful, voluntary relocation without restraining the redevelopment project.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant In-situ slum redevelopment Kathputli Colony Delhi Development Authority Delhi Master Plan 2021

Cargill India Pvt Ltd v. Quality Agro Mills Pvt Ltd

20 Mar 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:1542

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to Cargill India Pvt Ltd against Quality Agro Mills Pvt Ltd for infringement and passing off of the registered trademark "NATUREFRESH" in relation to food products.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 29

M/S GLYPH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA

20 Mar 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:1540-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the CESTAT retains appellate jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, over refund and rebate claims despite the 2012 amendment incorporating Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act into Section 83.

tax appeal_allowed Significant service tax refund claim rebate claim CESTAT jurisdiction

Ram Lal & Ors. v. Ramkesh Gupta and Ors.

20 Mar 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:1524

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, holding that proof of accident involving the vehicle suffices for compensation without establishing negligence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 163-A compensation motor accident claim

Rajender Prasad Gupta v. Rajeev Gagerna

20 Mar 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:1543

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, affirming bona fide need for possession for a landlord’s professional daughter and denying leave to defend to the tenant.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) bona fide need eviction

Yogesh Sharma v. Shyam Singh & Ors.

20 Mar 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:1523

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by adding 50% towards future prospects and awarding damages for disfigurement and future medical treatment to a 32-year-old driver with 40% permanent disability.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compensation enhancement future prospects permanent disability loss of disfigurement

Commodore T S Khurana & Anr. v. Vice Admiral I S Khurana (Retd.)

19 Mar 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:1479-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a holograph Will executed by a deceased with testamentary capacity, holding the disputed property as self-acquired and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for partition.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Will validity testamentary capacity holograph Will ancestral property

Hari Om Maheshwari v. M/S. GE CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION FINANICAL SERVICES LTD

19 Mar 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:1481-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a final arbitration award operates as res judicata and bars subsequent litigation on the same issues, including in cases involving contingent contracts under Section 35 of the Contract Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration award res judicata contingent contract Section 35 Contract Act

Jaswant Singh v. Atma Singh

19 Mar 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:1480-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's suit for specific performance due to failure to prove payment of balance sale consideration and assignment of rights to a third party, emphasizing proper pleadings and readiness to perform contractual obligations.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance agreement to sell Memorandum of Understanding readiness and willingness

Purform Limited v. OK Play India Ltd & Anr

19 Mar 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:1487

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act directing return of proprietary moulds to the petitioner through its authorized representative and restrained the respondent from manufacturing pending arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 interim relief intellectual property license agreement

Sonu @ Ranjha v. State

19 Mar 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:1488

The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Sonu @ Ranjha by referring to a detailed common judgment in a related case.

criminal appeal_dismissed Procedural criminal appeal conviction appeal dismissed Delhi High Court

Gurmeet Singh @ Situ v. State

19 Mar 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:1489

The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Gurmeet Singh @ Situ by referring to a detailed common judgment in a related case.

criminal appeal_dismissed appeal dismissal criminal appeal Delhi High Court common judgment

Shravan @ Sonu v. State NCT of Delhi

19 Mar 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:1490

The Delhi High Court allowed the criminal appeal of Shravan @ Sonu by referring to a detailed common judgment in a related case.

criminal appeal_allowed criminal appeal conviction Delhi High Court appeal allowed

Juber Khan @ Guddu v. State

19 Mar 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:1492

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of three appellants for armed robbery under Sections 392 and 397 IPC but acquitted one appellant due to insufficient evidence and benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC deadly weapons