Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

M/S Pragun Buildtech (P) Ltd v. Sarla Aggarwal & Ors.

03 Jan 2014 · G.S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:45

The Delhi High Court held that a superstructure on leased land can be physically partitioned without DDA permission despite lease cancellation, directing partition as per preliminary decree.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition suit leasehold property Delhi Development Authority physical partition

Surender Kumar Arora & Anr. v. State & Anr.

03 Jan 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:44

The Delhi High Court held that it has territorial jurisdiction to try offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC where part of the cause of action arises in Delhi, and refused to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 CrPC territorial jurisdiction cause of action continuing offence

Kamlesh Kumari & Anr v. Rohtas Goyal & Ors

03 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:42

The Delhi High Court held that unnecessary impleadment of parties opposing their inclusion and lacking legal interest in a mandatory injunction suit is impermissible and set aside the trial court's order allowing such impleadment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mandatory injunction locker nominee impleadment Order I Rule 10 CPC

Rakesh Kumar v. Nitin Garg & Anr

03 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:43

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of impleadment of a former partner in eviction proceedings, holding that tenancy rights do not continue post partnership dissolution without assertion and impleadment of all joint tenants is not mandatory.

civil petition_dismissed Significant eviction petition joint tenancy partnership dissolution impleadment

Baldev Raj Arora v. Mohinder Lal Sahgal

03 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:38
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction on landlord's bonafide requirement for his son's business, dismissing tenant's revision petition and granting one year to vacate.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 25B(8) bonafide requirement eviction

Sheila Devi & Anr. v. Santosh Devi

03 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:49

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding the validity of a 1971 registered sale deed proved under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, holding that a suit for possession can be decreed without the plaintiff's personal examination when title is duly proved and objections to mode of proof are waived if not timely raised.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 90 Indian Evidence Act sale deed proof possession suit onus of proof

Bhawani Shanker v. Bakshish Singh

03 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:48

The Delhi Rent Control Act does not apply to the Sagarpur area without a specific notification, and civil courts have jurisdiction over possession suits in such areas; abuse of process by contradictory legal positions is impermissible.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 507 Delhi Municipal Corporation Act notification urbanization

Sat Narain Gupta and Anr. v. Unknown

03 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:47

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeals upholding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the suit property's location and that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

civil appeal_dismissed Order 7 Rule 3 CPC Article 65 Limitation Act adverse possession onus of proof

A.N. Rastogi v. Central Bank of India

03 Jan 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:51

The Delhi High Court upheld compulsory retirement of a bank officer for failing to obtain transfer of all securities as mandated, affirming that disciplinary proceedings can continue post-superannuation and related penalties and withholding of benefits are lawful.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant compulsory retirement disciplinary proceedings superannuation bank employee misconduct

Krishan Dutt Sharma v. Saket District Court Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee

03 Jan 2014 · Manmohan · 2014:DHC:37

The Delhi High Court held that eligibility for allotment of chambers at Saket Courts requires advocates to primarily practice through actual court appearances at Patiala House Courts, dismissing a petition by an advocate relying on chamber practice alone.

administrative petition_dismissed lawyer's chamber allotment practicing advocate Saket District Court Lawyers’ Chambers Rules 2010 court appearances

Brij Mohan v. Ishwari Prasad Nigam

03 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:34

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on the landlord's bonafide residential requirement, affirming limited revisional interference under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_dismissed Significant eviction bonafide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act landlord-tenant relationship

Mahender Tiwari v. Ishwari Prasad Nigam

03 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:35

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on the landlord’s bona fide residential requirement under the Delhi Rent Control Act, affirming limited supervisory revisionary jurisdiction and granting the tenant six months to vacate.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 25B(8) eviction bona fide requirement

R V Ahirwal v. K.K. Sachan & Anr.

03 Jan 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:32

The Delhi High Court quashed defamation proceedings against a public servant for lack of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., holding that prosecution without such sanction is barred when the alleged offence arises from official duty.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 197 Cr.P.C. prior sanction public servant defamation

Laxmi Narain v. Krishan Kumar

03 Jan 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:33

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a police officer for destroying evidence without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC, emphasizing mandatory protection for public servants and the court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 197 CrPC Section 201 IPC prior sanction public servant prosecution

Rajender Singh v. State Bank of India

03 Jan 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:31

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner’s plea for premature release of compensation amount held in FDR under a Lok Adalat award, citing genuine financial need.

civil petition_allowed Lok Adalat compromise award Fixed Deposit Receipt release of compensation

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha

03 Jan 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:29

The Delhi High Court held that an insurer remains liable to pay third party compensation despite dishonor of premium cheque and cancellation of the cover note, with remedy lying against the insured.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant insurance liability premium cheque dishonor cover note cancellation Motor Vehicles Act

Mahender Singh v. Jagjit Singh

03 Jan 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:30

The Delhi High Court allowed enhancement of compensation for conveyance and special diet expenses incurred during prolonged hospitalization in a motor accident claim appeal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation medical expenses conveyance charges

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. JASBIR SINGH

03 Jan 2014 · SURESH KAIT, J. · 2014:DHC:36

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against a small compensation award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without issuing notice, holding that similar issues in a connected appeal would be decided separately.

civil appeal_dismissed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation quantum insurance company appeal dismissal of appeal

Neo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Neo Milk Products Pvt. Ltd.

03 Jan 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:26

The Delhi High Court upheld the interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the trademark 'Neo' for milk products, affirming the Plaintiff's exclusive rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, during the pendency of the suit.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Interim injunction Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 29(4)

Dabur India Ltd. v. Real Drinks Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

03 Jan 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:27

The Delhi High Court upheld the Plaintiff's right to restrain Defendant No.1 from using the identical mark 'REAL' outside Goa, holding that the suit for trademark infringement is maintainable despite Defendant's registrations and granted an interim injunction accordingly.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 134(1)