Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Mishri Lal v. Ramesh Chander

28 Feb 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:1125

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order based on the landlord’s bona fide need considering familial and social factors, rejecting subsequent evidence in revision and dismissing the tenant’s petition.

property appeal_dismissed Significant eviction bona fide need Delhi Rent Control Act leave to defend

Sanjay Kapur & Anr. v. Dev Agri Farms Pvt Ltd

28 Feb 2014 · Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:1127

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using packaging deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' distinctive tea packaging, recognizing the protectability of trade dress under passing off law.

civil appeal_allowed Significant passing off trade dress packaging interim injunction

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Satto Devi & Ors.

28 Feb 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:1098

The Delhi High Court allowed the insurer's appeal, reducing the compensation awarded under Section 166 to the statutory limits prescribed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 163A Section 166 Compensation

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yashwanti & Ors.

28 Feb 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:1099
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal's order directing the Insurance Company to pay deducted TDS directly to accident victims, holding that TDS deduction and deposit with the Income Tax Department was lawful.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Tax Deducted at Source Insurance Company Accident Compensation Tribunal Order

Mayar Health Resorts Ltd v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation

28 Feb 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:1103

The Delhi High Court restrained the respondent from evicting the petitioner or calling for tenders pending final adjudication, holding that automatic renewal of the license cannot be arbitrarily denied when conditions are met and disputes are pending arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant License Agreement Automatic Renewal Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9

Vijay Kalia v. State (NCT of Delhi)

28 Feb 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:1114-DB

Union of India v. Ram Sevak

28 Feb 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1118
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal's award of compensation to a passenger injured by falling from a train, rejecting the railway's appeal based on minor contradictions and negligence arguments.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 compensation bonafide passenger falling from train

Mahavir Singh v. Chairman/ Manager, Mazhrul Islam Secondary School

28 Feb 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:1111

The Delhi High Court held that a non-minority school cannot refuse a teacher's re-employment solely on linguistic grounds, setting aside the Managing Committee's resolution and directing re-employment subject to prescribed conditions.

administrative petition_allowed Significant re-employment linguistic discrimination constitutional secularism minority school

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Pappu Kumar @ Pushap Kumar & Ors.

28 Feb 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1113
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that an insurance company is liable to pay penalty and interest under Section 4A of the Employee’s Compensation Act unless it files the insurance policy proving exclusion of such liability, and dismissed the insurer’s appeal for non-filing of such policy.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 Section 4A penalty insurance company liability contractual liability

Sasken Communication Technology Ltd v. Cellcast Interactive India Pvt. Ltd

28 Feb 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2014:DHC:1101

The Delhi High Court dismissed the winding up petition against Cellcast Interactive India Pvt. Ltd., holding that a bona fide dispute over the debt and limitation barred the petition under the Companies Act, 1956.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant winding up petition bona fide dispute Companies Act 1956 Section 434(1)(a)

Abdul Malik v. State

28 Feb 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:1102

Delhi High Court upheld convictions under NDPS Act for possession of ganja in parcels addressed to accused, clarifying applicability of Sections 42 and 50 and rejecting challenges based on sample weight discrepancies, delay, and absence of public witnesses.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 50 NDPS Section 42 NDPS Search and seizure

Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)

28 Feb 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:1120-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions of appellants for robbery and murder based on reliable injured eyewitness testimony, corroborated medical evidence, and established common intention under Section 34 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant injured eyewitness common intention Section 34 IPC identification parade

Ajeet Singh @ Jeet Singh v. National Insurance Co Ltd.

28 Feb 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:1116

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by adding 50% towards future prospects for a 30-year-old disabled victim, overruling the Tribunal's denial due to lack of proof of permanent employment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant future prospects disability compensation motor accident claim enhancement of compensation

Asha Johri v. Neerja Mehta & Ors.

28 Feb 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:1124

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ownership and injunction over the terrace floor, holding that the terrace was never conveyed to her in original sale deeds or Will.

civil appeal_dismissed ownership terrace floor sale deed Will

Birender Singh v. Union of India

28 Feb 2014 · Manmohan · 2014:DHC:1110

Admission granted without fulfilling eligibility criteria is void ab initio and results obtained therein can be set aside; misleading the University bars equitable relief.

administrative petition_dismissed provisional admission eligibility criteria lateral admission diploma course

Sushma Jain v. M/S. Naveen Board Co. & Ors.

28 Feb 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1105

The Delhi High Court held that failure to object to arbitrator's jurisdiction under Section 16 during arbitration results in waiver of such objection, and an ex parte arbitral award cannot be set aside on jurisdictional grounds thereafter.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 16 jurisdiction objection Section 34 challenge Waiver of jurisdictional objection

Union of India v. CIMMCO LTD. AND ORS.

28 Feb 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1107-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a BIFR-sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under SICA binds the Railways by deemed consent, mandating preferential treatment to a sick company in tender evaluation despite its financial recovery.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 Sanctioned Scheme Section 18(8) SICA Section 19 SICA

Harminder Singh v. Saroj Devi

28 Feb 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1104

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree of specific performance, holding that the defendant's negligence and failure to appear despite knowledge of proceedings justified the ex parte decree.

civil appeal_dismissed ex parte decree specific performance special power of attorney Order 9 Rule 13 CPC

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited

28 Feb 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:1100

The Delhi High Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for infringement of an Indian process patent concerning manufacture for export, directing the plaint to be returned for presentation in the appropriate court.

civil appeal_allowed Significant process patent territorial jurisdiction Order VII Rule 10 CPC Section 48(b) Patents Act

Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 18(1) v. M/S Urban Mass Transit Ltd.

28 Feb 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:1112-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's finding that the assessee had commenced business and allowed deductions for interest paid on returned equity and consultancy fees as business expenditure under the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant commencement of business business expenditure interest paid professional fees