Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

M/S Gwalior -Jhansi Expressway Limited v. National Highway Authority of India

12 Mar 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:1371

The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction restraining NHAI from terminating a concession agreement pending arbitration, emphasizing the need for fairness and preservation of the contract's subject matter.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act interim injunction concession agreement termination notice

Pardeep @ Sandy v. State

12 Mar 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:1370

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC based on reliable identification and recovery evidence despite delay in FIR and TIP, reducing the sentence from ten to three years.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant robbery motorcycle theft Test Identification Parade delay in FIR

Pardeep @ Sandy v. State

12 Mar 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:1374

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC, ruling that delay in FIR and TIP was justified, refusal to join TIP warranted adverse inference, and recovery of stolen motorcycle under Section 27 Evidence Act was admissible.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant robbery motorcycle theft Test Identification Parade delay in FIR

Pardeep @ Sandy v. State

12 Mar 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:1368

The Delhi High Court upheld the robbery convictions of appellants, holding that delay in TIP and FIR was not fatal, refusal to join TIP warranted adverse inference, and recovery under disclosure statement was admissible.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Test Identification Parade Delay in FIR Section 392 IPC Robbery

Raj Vir Singh Mann v. UOI

12 Mar 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:1366-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the removal of a CISF officer for extortion based on logically probative departmental evidence despite non-examination of the complainant in the enquiry.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant departmental enquiry extortion CISF immigration clearance

Sabina Sablok v. Promila Mehra & Another

12 Mar 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:1364

The Delhi High Court held that mutation alone does not transfer ownership rights and the Plaintiff is entitled to her share of sale proceeds of ancestral property in absence of any registered transfer.

civil appeal_allowed Significant family settlement mutation ownership rights registered document

Union of India v. M/S Sri Krishna Paper Mills

12 Mar 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:1365

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award granting interest on delayed payment, holding that absent an explicit contractual prohibition, the arbitral tribunal has discretion to award interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 31(7)(a) interest on delayed payment contractual prohibition on interest

Nestle India Ltd v. State of Delhi & Anr

12 Mar 2014 · Indermeet Kaur · 2014:DHC:1387

The Delhi High Court held that until statutory alignment in 1997, compliance with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act sufficed to avoid prosecution under the Infant Milk Substitutes Act for labeling violations.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant IMS Act PFA Act statutory inconsistency lex non cogit ad impossibilia

M/S. Goodwill Super Markets v. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.

12 Mar 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1377

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award and dismissed the appeal, holding that courts cannot interfere with an arbitral award under Section 34 unless it is illegal or perverse.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 objections Section 37 appeal arbitral award

PADMINI TECHNOLOGY LTD. v. JYOTI SARUP MITTAL

12 Mar 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1378

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against an arbitral award for payment in a construction contract dispute, affirming limited judicial interference under the Arbitration Act and imposing costs for delay.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 objections Section 37 appeal Arbitral award

Mala Puri v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr.

12 Mar 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1379

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against an ex parte arbitral award, holding that due service of notice and non-appearance preclude re-examination of merits under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_dismissed arbitral award ex parte award service of notice Section 34 Arbitration Act

Chandra Prabha v. Shri Satish C. Sharma & Others

12 Mar 2014 · Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:1380

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint after framing of issues, holding that no due diligence was shown and the amendments were unnecessary for determining the real controversy.

civil petition_dismissed Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint Indian Trust Act 1882 trust administration

Sports Authority of India v. Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration

12 Mar 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:1381
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside a Labour Court award mandating absorption of contract labour based on the overruled Air India judgment and invalid 1976 notification, holding that contract labourers are not automatically entitled to absorption without proof of sham contracts.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 Section 10 notification Contract labour Principal employer

Sports Authority of India v. Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration and Ors.

12 Mar 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:1382
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside a Labour Court award mandating absorption of contract labour based on the overruled Air India judgment, holding that prohibition of contract labour does not automatically entitle absorption absent sham contracts.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 principal employer contract labour

Sports Authority of India v. Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration

12 Mar 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:1383
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside a Labour Court award mandating absorption of contract labour as employees, applying the Supreme Court's overruling of Air India case by Steel Authority of India Ltd., and held that prohibition of contract labour does not automatically entitle absorption absent sham contracts.

labor appeal_allowed Significant contract labour principal employer Industrial Disputes Act Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

Rajiv Singh v. M/S. Special Cables (P) Ltd.

12 Mar 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:1384

The Delhi High Court upheld reinstatement without back wages where employees failed to join duty at the transferred place despite repeated calls, holding such failure as abandonment of job.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant abandonment of job back wages reinstatement Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Rajiv Singh v. M/S. Special Cables (P) Ltd.

12 Mar 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:1385

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's award reinstating employees without back wages, holding that failure to join duty at the transferred place amounted to abandonment of job.

labor petition_dismissed Significant abandonment of job back wages reinstatement Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Lokesh Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi

12 Mar 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:1376-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of a father for raping his minor daughter, affirming that credible uncorroborated testimony of the victim and corroborative forensic evidence suffice for conviction under Section 376 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape prosecutrix testimony uncorroborated evidence medical evidence

Manoj Kumar Samdaria v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

12 Mar 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R. V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1396-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's finding that profits from frequent share transactions with short holding periods constitute business income, not short term capital gains under section 111A of the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant short term capital gain business income share trading intention test

Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd v. Aquafil Polymers Company Private Ltd.

12 Mar 2014 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:1395

The Delhi High Court held that a bank guarantee cannot be invoked on grounds not stipulated in its terms, and a suit for recovery of earnest money requires proof of damage or contractual entitlement, dismissing the plaintiff's claim based on forged documents.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bank guarantee earnest money deposit forfeiture invocation of bank guarantee