Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Bhola Shanker & Ors. v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

14 Feb 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:867

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside convictions under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to contradictory evidence and defective investigation, granting the appellants benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 304 Part-II IPC benefit of doubt contradictory evidence defective investigation

Shakila v. The State of NCT of Delhi

14 Feb 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:866

The Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction of appellants for possession of counterfeit currency under Section 489C IPC but modified their sentences considering the period already served and mitigating factors.

criminal sentence_modified counterfeit currency Section 489C IPC possession of fake currency sentence modification

Shakila v. The State of NCT of Delhi

14 Feb 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:865

The Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction of appellants for possession of counterfeit currency under Section 489C IPC but modified their sentences considering the time already served and mitigating factors.

criminal sentence_modified counterfeit currency Section 489C IPC conviction sentence modification

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonia & Ors.

14 Feb 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:874

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal, holding it liable to pay compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act for the death of an employee killed during employment duties, despite the absence of a valid driving licence, due to lack of specific pleading and proof.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 employer-employee relationship arising out of and in the course of employment insurance liability

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saroj Singh and Ors.

14 Feb 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:873
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company’s appeal, holding that liability for interest and penalty under the Employee’s Compensation Act depends on the insurance contract terms and that non-appearance after service precludes challenge to the Commissioner’s order.

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

Sh. Karan Singh & Others v. Sh. Gian Chand & Others

14 Feb 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:872

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding the validity of a registered sale deed executed without fraud and not violating the Delhi Land Reforms Act, while imposing costs for frivolous litigation.

civil appeal_dismissed sale deed fraud Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 Section 33 DLR Act

Rasalika Trading and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

14 Feb 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R. V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:869-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the reassessment notice under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for being based on material already available at the time of original assessment, holding such reopening as impermissible change of opinion.

tax petition_allowed Significant reassessment section 147 Income Tax Act section 148 Income Tax Act change of opinion

Master Anil v. State

14 Feb 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:870

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal permitting the natural guardian to sell the minor's share in agricultural land for the minor's welfare, directing deposit of sale proceeds in a fixed deposit with regulated withdrawals.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 minor's property natural guardian sale of minor's immovable property

Manoj Kumar Goyal v. Jagdish Prashad Modi

13 Feb 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:862

The court held that where an acknowledgment of debt stipulates a payment period, the limitation period restarts from the expiry of that period, thus the suit filed after the last acknowledgment was within limitation.

civil other Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Section 18 Acknowledgment of debt Cause of action

Onassis Axles Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax

13 Feb 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:850-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the addition of Rs. 80 lakhs as unexplained share application money under Section 68, holding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 68 share application money unexplained cash credit income tax

Usha Rani Gautam & Others v. Devender Gautam

13 Feb 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:852

The Delhi High Court decreed partition of a property among siblings, defining equal shares and directing joint sale or execution of the decree if sale fails.

property appeal_dismissed partition suit property division legal heirs registered sale deed

Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Suneel Kumar Rajput & Anr

13 Feb 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:851

The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff's 'Rajnigandha' trademark is well-known and granted permanent injunction restraining defendants from using confusingly similar marks and domain names.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant well-known trademark trade mark infringement passing off unfair competition

MK MAHAJAN & ANR v. INDO ROLLHARD INDUST. LTD.

13 Feb 2014 · Vibhu BakhrU, J · 2014:DHC:844

The Delhi High Court held that a winding up petition admitted on merits must be advertised before hearing, and appointed the Official Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator to take possession of the company's assets, affirming the finality of the admission despite procedural challenges.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant winding up petition Companies Act 1956 Company Court Rules 1959 advertisement of petition

Bijender @ Naushad v. State

13 Feb 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:845

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for robbery with use of a deadly weapon, holding that carrying a visible deadly weapon during robbery amounts to its use under Section 397 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant robbery deadly weapon iron rod Section 397 IPC

Om Prakash Gupta v. State

13 Feb 2014 · Veena Birbal · 2014:DHC:860

The Delhi High Court set aside the summoning order under Section 138 NI Act for lack of prima facie evidence on cheque presentation within six months and remanded the matter for proper pre-summoning evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Cheque presentation period Return memo Summoning order

Manju Jain v. Kirori Mal College and Anr

13 Feb 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:861

The Delhi High Court directed appointment of the petitioner as Administrative Officer after the first empanelled candidate declined, affirming the right of the next candidate on a valid selection panel to appointment.

administrative petition_allowed Significant selection committee appointment administrative officer empanelment

Kuldeep Singh v. M/S Lucky Gold Star International Corporation

13 Feb 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:847

The Delhi High Court held that while the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to grant interest under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the High Court can grant equitable interest relief under Article 226, enhancing interest from 6% to 9% from the date of resignation.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Section 33(C)(2) Industrial Disputes Act Labour Court jurisdiction interest on awarded amount Article 226 Constitution of India

Sunita Devi v. The Management of M/S IIT Haus Khas New Delhi

13 Feb 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:849

The Delhi High Court held that termination without following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal if the workman has worked 240 days in any continuous 12-month period preceding termination and awarded compensation to the legal representative after the workman's death.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25F illegal termination 240 days continuous service

Rajesh v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

13 Feb 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:848

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for robbery under Sections 392 and 397 IPC but set aside the fine imposed under Section 397 IPC, dismissing the appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC conviction

Deepak @ Rohit v. State

13 Feb 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:846

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction for robbery under Sections 392 and 397 IPC based on reliable eyewitness identification and corroborative medical evidence despite non-recovery of robbed articles.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC identification