Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

M/S. RALSON INDIA LTD. v. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

03 Jan 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:54-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment under Section 148 requires new tangible material and cannot be based on mere change of opinion or failure to record satisfaction with explanations during original assessment.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 147 Reopening of assessment

Wool Worth (I) Ltd. v. UOI & Others

03 Jan 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:53-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of excise duty exemption on cement used for factory construction by a 100% Export Oriented Unit, holding such inputs do not qualify as capital goods under Notification No. 1/95 CE.

tax petition_dismissed 100% Export Oriented Unit excise duty exemption Notification No. 1/95 CE capital goods

Sh. Tejbir Singh Dagar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

03 Jan 2014 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:55
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed stepping up of pay for senior RPF employees to match their juniors' pay, affirming the principle that no junior in the same rank can be paid more than a senior, overriding conflicting provisions in ACP and MACP Schemes.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme pay parity senior-junior anomaly

Suresh Kumar & Anr v. Dileshwari Devi

03 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:39

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the trial court's refusal to set aside an ex parte decree where the defendants failed to show sufficient cause for their non-appearance based on an unsubstantiated assurance by the plaintiff.

civil appeal_dismissed Order IX Rule 13 CPC setting aside ex parte decree sufficient cause non-appearance

Veena Behl & Anr. v. M/S Vasari India Pvt Ltd

03 Jan 2014 · Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:40

The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's appeal for condonation of delay in filing written statement but struck off its defense for non-payment of rent under Order XVA CPC and granted possession to the plaintiffs due to termination of lease on dishonor of cheques.

civil appeal_allowed Significant lease agreement possession arrears of rent dishonor of cheques

Union of India v. Mecano Exportimport S.A.

03 Jan 2014 · Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:50

The Delhi High Court set aside parts of an arbitral award for ignoring contract novations and failing to provide reasons for reducing liquidated damages, while upholding other portions, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned awards under the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration Act Novation of contract Liquidated damages

Rajender Singh v. State Bank of India

03 Jan 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:5656

The Delhi High Court allowed early release of compensation funds deposited as FDR under a Lok Adalat award, setting aside the Tribunal's refusal, based on the petitioner's genuine financial need.

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

Sandeep Kumar Mangla v. Geeta Bajaj

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:11

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of the petitioner's defence and upheld the trial court's refusal to set aside the ex parte order due to valid service and absence of sufficient cause.

civil petition_dismissed ex parte proceedings Order 9 Rule 7 CPC setting aside ex parte order service of summons

Sandeep Kumar v. Nihal Chand

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:12

The Delhi High Court set aside an eviction order after finding the landlord suppressed possession of other suitable shops, negating bona fide requirement under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act eviction bona fide requirement possession

Harish Kumar Sharma & Ors v. JK Chopra

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:13

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of tenants on bona fide requirement grounds, limiting its revisionary interference to jurisdictional errors and affirming the landlord's choice in requiring premises for personal office use.

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

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/S. Gurbachan Singh & Sons

02 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:18

The Delhi High Court held that arbitration claims filed beyond the contractual and statutory limitation period are barred, upheld certain claims under the contract, and set aside perverse awards lacking evidence or contrary to contract terms.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Limitation Act, 1963 Construction contract Cause of action

State v. Ravi@ Ravinder & Anr.

02 Jan 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:17-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal under Section 307 IPC, ruling that appellate interference is unwarranted absent perverse findings despite prosecution's challenge.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 307 IPC Acquittal Benefit of doubt Appellate review

AERO TRADERS PVT LTD v. MOHAN SINGH

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:8

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant based on the landlord's bona fide requirement of the premises for starting a new business, affirming limited revisional interference under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

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

Laxmi Devi v. Babulal Verma

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:10

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's order allowing the tenant to defend the eviction petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a bona fide requirement and no jurisdictional error was committed.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 25-B(8) eviction petition leave to defend

Chaman Lal v. Batuk Prasad Jaitly

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:6

The Delhi High Court set aside an eviction order for failure to grant leave to defend where triable issues existed regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement and availability of suitable accommodation under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction bona fide requirement reasonably suitable accommodation

Employee Provident Fund Organization v. Sewa International Fashions

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:7

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order allowing amendment of appeal pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, holding that amendments necessary for adjudication of the real dispute should not be denied absent injustice or jurisdictional error.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Article 227 Constitution of India Employees Provident Fund & MP Act amendment of pleadings

Paltoo Ram v. Uma Devi

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:9

The Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenging interlocutory execution orders and upheld the substitution of legal heirs based on a registered Will, reaffirming the limited scope of revision jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 115 CPC revision jurisdiction interlocutory order substitution of legal representatives

Pulkit Khurana v. National Law University, Delhi

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan J · 2014:DHC:4

The Delhi High Court upheld the respondent university's authority to mandate a residential B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) program and dismissed the petition challenging the hostel rules and fee structure.

constitutional petition_dismissed mandatory residential requirement autonomous university B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) fee structure challenge

Delhi Development Authority v. Mathura Singh

02 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:16

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's rejection of a belated amendment application seeking to alter admissions in the written statement after 15 years, emphasizing that such amendments causing prejudice are impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant amendment of pleadings Order VI Rule 17 CPC withdrawal of admissions delay in amendment

M/S. RALSON (INDIA) LTD. v. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

02 Jan 2014 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2014:DHC:20-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed the reopening notice under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 1990-91, holding that the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons relating to that year and the notice was time-barred.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Reopening of assessment