Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:
Showing 2024 — 8501 judgments found

Property Plus Realtors v. Union of India & Ors.

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:9023-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that penalty proceedings under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act must be initiated within the prescribed limitation period from the date of receipt of reference, setting aside a penalty order passed beyond that period.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 271DA Section 269ST Section 275 limitation

Property Plus Realtors v. Union of India & Ors.

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8987-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that penalty proceedings under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act must be initiated within limitation from the date of receipt of reference, and delayed penalty orders beyond this period are barred.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 271DA Section 269ST Section 275 limitation

Rahul v. United India Insurance Co Ltd & Ors

20 Nov 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:9332

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by increasing disability assessment, applying future prospects, and awarding higher damages for pain and suffering, while upholding income assessment based on minimum wages of claimant's residence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Permanent Disability Functional Disability Loss of Income

Hari Om Rai v. Directorate of Enforcement

20 Nov 2024 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1868
Cites 4 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a money laundering case, holding that prolonged incarceration without speedy trial violates constitutional rights despite stringent statutory bail conditions under the PMLA.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 45 PMLA bail Article 21 Constitution of India right to speedy trial

Matrix Cellular International Services Limited v. State NCT of Delhi

20 Nov 2024 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2024:DHC:8983

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR against Matrix Cellular for allegedly selling sub-standard oxygen concentrators during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that investigation must continue before adjudicating the merits.

criminal petition_dismissed quashing of FIR Section 420 IPC oxygen concentrators COVID-19 pandemic

M/S TDI Infrastructure Ltd v. Vikram Barwal & Ors.

20 Nov 2024 · Manoj Jain

The Delhi High Court upheld the NCDRC's dismissal of petitioners' applications for extension of time to file written statements, holding that statutory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are rigid and service with some dim annexures does not vitiate the limitation period.

consumer_protection appeal_dismissed Significant Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 38 Written statement Time limit

Shubham Saxena v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

20 Nov 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh, J · 2024:DHC:9150

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application, holding that quashing of FIR against co-accused does not constitute a change in circumstances and delay in trial is not a ground for bail given the serious charges and flight risk.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail application quashing of FIR change in circumstances delay in trial

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. CA Subhajit Sahoo

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8915-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the finding of gross negligence against a Chartered Accountant for issuing unverified utilisation certificates, affirming the disciplinary removal from the ICAI register for one year under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

professional_regulatory appeal_dismissed Significant professional misconduct gross negligence Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 utilisation certificate

VIVO MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu BakhrU; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8914-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the classification of MEMS Microphones under Customs Tariff Heading 8518 10 00 as microphones, rejecting the appellant's claim to classify them as Electronic Integrated Circuits under Heading 8542.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Customs Tariff Classification MEMS Microphone Electronic Integrated Circuit Multi-Component Integrated Circuit

Tirupati Narashima Murari v. Union of India and Ors.

20 Nov 2024 · Prateek Jalan · 2024:DHC:8952

The Delhi High Court held that the Election Commission has no power to deregister a political party for alleged violation of secularism once registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, dismissing the petition challenging AIMIM's registration.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Election Commission of India Political party registration Section 29A Representation of the People Act Secularism

Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Educational Society v. M/s Intec Capital Ltd.

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8950

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an arbitral award on a loan dispute, upholding the award's factual findings and interest rate while correcting a minor arithmetical error.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Section 37 appeal cash collateral

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8913-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court restored an arbitral award holding SAIL's claims barred by limitation, ruling that post-termination contractual clauses do not extend limitation and arbitration claims must be filed within the prescribed period.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Limitation Act, 1963 International commercial arbitration Contract termination

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. M/S Agroha Fincap Ltd.

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu BakhrU; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8919-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The High Court held that reassessment under Section 147/148 is valid in absence of jurisdictional satisfaction under Section 153C, allowing the Revenue's appeal and restoring the matter to ITAT.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Section 153C

Daisy Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1) New Delhi

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8920-DB

The Delhi High Court held that in absence of material handed over from a searched person, the Assessing Officer can validly reopen assessments under Section 148 and is not restricted to proceedings under Section 153C.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 153C search proceedings

Sukhvinder Kumar Bhardwaj v. Smt Vinita

20 Nov 2024 · Girish Kathpalia · 2024:DHC:8993

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's suo motu preliminary decree for recovery of possession in a residential tenancy dispute, rejecting the appellant's jurisdictional and procedural objections.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC suo motu decree tenancy jurisdiction commercial tenancy

Mohd Amin Deceased through LRs v. Mohd Iqbal Deceased through LRs

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu BakhrU; Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8912-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award directing reversion of disputed land and costs, applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude time spent in execution proceedings, but set aside compensation for demolished constructions due to lack of evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Limitation Act, 1963 Section 14(1) Limitation Act Execution proceedings

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sh. Satya Pal Gupta

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bahru; Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8968-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld escalation claims under contract wage revision clauses but set aside damages for loss of profit due to delay for lack of evidence, limiting judicial interference in arbitral awards.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Escalation Clause 10C Loss of profit damages

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Delhi v. Naveen Kumar Gupta

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu BakhrU; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8917-DB

The Delhi High Court held that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act applies only if its conditions are met and does not bar reassessment under Section 147 where those conditions are not satisfied.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act Section 147 Income Tax Act Reassessment Search and Seizure

Vineet Taneja v. Ritu Taneja

20 Nov 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna

The Delhi High Court held that court-appointed counsellors in guardianship cases are not witnesses subject to cross-examination, but parties may cross-examine opposing party witnesses, emphasizing the child's welfare as paramount.

family appeal_allowed Significant guardianship visitation rights court-appointed counsellors cross-examination

Aktivortho Private Limited v. Dilbagh Singh Sachdeva

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:8963-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an arbitral award upholding rent payment obligations under a commercial lease with a lock-in period, emphasizing limited judicial interference in arbitration awards.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration Act Lease Deed Lock-in Period