Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Raju v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

22 Jan 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:369

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of robbery charges due to material contradictions in prosecution evidence and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery apprehension recovery of stolen property contradictory evidence

Shalender Kaushik v. Securities & Exchange Board of India

22 Jan 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:370

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of company directors for operating an unregistered collective investment scheme in violation of SEBI Act and Regulations, acquitting non-responsible parties.

criminal appeal_allowed and appeal_dismissed Significant SEBI Act 1992 Section 12(1B) collective investment scheme certificate of registration

Brijinder Makkar v. S.P. Kalia

22 Jan 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:371

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of directors for operating an unregistered collective investment scheme in violation of SEBI Act and Regulations, acquitting those not shown to be responsible.

criminal appeal_allowed and appeal_dismissed Significant SEBI Act 1992 Section 12(1B) collective investment scheme certificate of registration

Gulati & Co. P. Ltd. v. Ram Chander Through L.Rs & Ors.

22 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:396

The court upheld the landlord's suit for possession against the tenant, rejecting adverse possession and acquisition claims, and dismissed delayed applications for additional evidence and issues.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant adverse possession tenant lease expiry possession suit

Hoshiar Singh & Ors. v. DDA

22 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:394

The Delhi High Court held that upon completion of land acquisition proceedings, ownership vests in the government and unauthorized occupants cannot restrain possession or demolition by the acquiring authority.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 16 Land Acquisition Act physical possession acquisition proceedings

M/S MOSER BAER PHOTO VOLTAIC LTD v. M/S MAS PROJECT ENGINEERS PVT LTD

22 Jan 2014 · G.S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:395

The Delhi High Court decreed the plaintiff's suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of outstanding payment and interest due to the defendant's failure to enter appearance and default on a binding settlement.

civil appeal_allowed Order 37 CPC memo of appearance deemed admission commercial transaction

Jagan v. State

22 Jan 2014 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2014:DHC:390

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for kidnapping and raping a minor girl, holding that consent of a minor is immaterial and the prosecutrix's credible testimony alone suffices for conviction.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape minor consent Section 366 IPC

State v. Babli @ Bawli & Anr.

22 Jan 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:387

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's petition challenging the acquittal of accused in a kidnapping case due to material contradictions in the prosecutrix's evidence and doubts about her minority.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant kidnapping prosecutrix minor contradictory statements

Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Sunrise Tooling System Pvt. Ltd.

22 Jan 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:393-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's deletion of an addition on alleged bogus purchases, holding that survey statements under Section 133A lack evidentiary value and the department must prove transactions are bogus when the assessee produces supporting evidence.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 133A Income Tax Act bogus purchases evidentiary value onus of proof

Commissioner Income Tax-I v. CHD Developers Ltd.

22 Jan 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:392-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision allowing tax deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a housing project approved before 1.4.2005, holding that the completion certificate requirement is prospective and directory, and non-issuance beyond the assessee's control does not disentitle the deduction.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 80-IB(10) Income Tax Act, 1961 completion certificate prospective amendment

Central Warehousing Corporation v. CIT

22 Jan 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:391-DB

The Delhi High Court remanded the matter to the ITAT to specifically determine whether reopening of assessment under Sections 147/148 was based on a mere change of opinion or valid grounds following a Supreme Court ruling on exemption under Section 10(29).

tax appeal_allowed Significant reopening of assessment Section 10(29) Income Tax Act mere change of opinion Sections 147/148 Income Tax Act

MANKIND PHARMA LTD v. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD

22 Jan 2014 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:715

The Delhi High Court granted injunction restraining use of the deceptively similar trademark 'MECOKIND PLUS' in pharmaceutical products, affirming stricter protection for prior registered marks incorporating generic words with acquired distinctiveness.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement pharmaceutical products deceptive similarity prior user rights

Mr. C.L. Gupta & Mr. Akashdeep Verma, Advocates v. STATE .....

21 Jan 2014 · O R D E R; FIRs i.e. FIR No. 102/1990 and FIR No. 103/1990.... · 2014:DHC:360

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants charged with dacoity and illegal arms possession due to failure of prosecution to produce a key witness and discrepancies in seizure evidence, extending benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 399 IPC Section 402 IPC Section 25 Arms Act benefit of doubt

Mr. C.L. Gupta & Mr. Akashdeep Verma, Advocates v. STATE .....

21 Jan 2014 · O R D E R; FIRs i.e. FIR No. 102/1990 and FIR No. 103/1990.... · 2014:DHC:359

The High Court acquitted appellants of dacoity and arms offences due to failure of prosecution to prove essential ingredients, absence of key witness, and discrepancies in evidence, granting benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 399 IPC Section 402 IPC Section 25 Arms Act benefit of doubt

ANITA SHARMA v. KULACHI HANSRAJ MODEL SCHOOL

21 Jan 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:347

The Delhi High Court directed the Director of Education to conduct an enquiry into the petitioners' claim of employment and termination under the EWS Scheme, ensuring due process before any decision on regularization or reinstatement.

labor other Procedural mandamus regularization of employment Economically Weaker Sections Scheme writ petition

Krishan Kumar v. Canara Bank & Anr

21 Jan 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:348

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging cancellation of provisional allotment for a bank post due to ineligibility, holding that the final appointment decision rests with the participating organization and no enforceable right arises from provisional allotment.

administrative petition_dismissed provisional allotment eligibility criteria appointment re-allotment

Ilyasuddin v. State

21 Jan 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:345-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for unnatural sexual assault and murder of a 2½-year-old child based on circumstantial and forensic evidence, while modifying the sentence to life imprisonment subject to remission powers.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 377 IPC Section 302 IPC sexual assault

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS

21 Jan 2014 · SURESH KAIT · 2014:DHC:346

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and upheld the compensation awarded to the claimants based on the deceased's qualifications and prospects despite lack of proof of actual salary.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim compensation future prospects notional income

Ashwani Bahl & Ors. v. Air India Ltd.

21 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:353

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award granting liquidated damages for premature termination of a pilot training contract, holding such damages enforceable under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act where actual loss is difficult to prove.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant liquidated damages penalty Section 74 Indian Contract Act Arbitration Act 1940

Ashish Kapoor v. Krishna Kumari

21 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:352

The Delhi Rent Control Act applies only to areas specifically notified under the Act, and mere urbanization does not extend its applicability, making the landlord's suit for possession maintainable before civil courts.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 urbanization notification under Section 1(2) possession suit