Delhi High Court

97,209 judgments

Year:

State of U.P. v. Ram Kumar Sachan & Anr.

01 Jul 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; V. Kameswar Rao · 2013:DHC:3027-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision dismissing charges of ante-dating an order against a government officer, emphasizing the need for logical evidence in departmental inquiries.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant ante-dating order departmental inquiry handing over report contempt proceedings

V. B. Andley v. Motia Wanti

01 Jul 2013 · Veena Birbal · 2013:DHC:3029

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal, affirming the lower appellate court's decree for possession and mesne profits, holding that delay in appeal was rightly condoned, mesne profits could be awarded without inquiry, and the appellant failed to prove adoption or ownership.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay Section 5 Limitation Act Order 41 Rule 3A CPC mesne profits

Pioneer Products v. Alberto Culver International Inc.

01 Jul 2013 · Veena Birbal · 2013:DHC:3028

Delhi courts lack territorial jurisdiction to try the trademark infringement suit as the plaintiff failed to establish carrying on business in Delhi through an exclusive distributor, leading to setting aside of interim injunction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction trade mark infringement interim injunction exclusive distributor

Eaton Corporation & Anr v. BCH Electric Limited

01 Jul 2013 · Manmohan Singh · 2013:DHC:3012

The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction to Eaton Corporation restraining BCH Electric Limited from using the CUTLER-HAMMER and related trademarks, affirming plaintiffs' prior rights and rejecting defendant's claims of abandonment and estoppel.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Registered User Agreement Abandonment of trademark

Sh. Lalit Mohan Madhan v. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

01 Jul 2013 · Vipin Sanghi · 2013:DHC:3013

The Delhi High Court held that an unregistered lease is a month-to-month tenancy terminable by 15 days' notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits for unauthorized occupation after valid termination.

civil appeal_allowed Significant month-to-month tenancy termination notice mesne profits unregistered lease

Rakesh Muni Tyagi v. DTC

01 Jul 2013 · Vipin Sanghi · 2013:DHC:3010

The Delhi High Court held that termination of a daily wage Retainer Crew Conductor under terms permitting dispensation without notice does not amount to retrenchment or entitle the employee to regularization or compensation.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Retainer Crew Conductor daily wage employee regularization retrenchment

Raju Kapoor v. Management of M/s Janata Coop. Bank

01 Jul 2013 · Vipin Sanghi · 2013:DHC:3000

Termination of a probationary employee without confirmation does not amount to illegal retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

labor petition_dismissed Significant probation period termination retrenchment Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Mahesh Chand v. MGT. of M/s. Le Meridien

01 Jul 2013 · Vipin Sanghi, J. · 2013:DHC:2997
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

Termination of probationers in accordance with contract terms does not constitute retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, and thus does not attract Section 25-F protections.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant probationer termination retrenchment Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Section 2(oo)

Mahesh Chand v. Mgt. of M/s. Le Meridien

01 Jul 2013 · Vipin Sanghi, J. · 2013:DHC:3009

Termination of probationers' services in accordance with contract terms does not constitute retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus does not attract Section 25-F protections.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant retrenchment probationer Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2(oo)

Mahesh Chand v. Mgt. of M/s. Le Meridien

01 Jul 2013 · Vipin Sanghi, J. · 2013:DHC:3001

Termination of probationers in accordance with contract terms does not constitute retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus does not attract Section 25-F protections.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant retrenchment probationer Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2(oo)

Kiran Diwania v. Financial Commissioner, Delhi

01 Jul 2013 · Badar Durrez Ahmed, ACJ; Siddharth Mridul, J · 2013:DHC:3008-DB

The Delhi High Court held that probate conclusively establishes Will genuineness, set aside mutation based on false claims, and remanded the land mutation dispute for fresh decision excluding Will genuineness but considering title under land reform laws.

property appeal_allowed Significant probate Will genuineness mutation Bhumidhar rights

Pankaj Bajaj v. Meenakshi Sharma & Ors.

01 Jul 2013 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2013:DHC:3007

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that a cooperative society could not transfer title beyond its limited rights under a government agreement, and possession without lawful title cannot be protected.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sale Deed Cooperative Society Possession

Harbans Kaur v. Bhai Balbir Singh & Ors.

01 Jul 2013 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2013:DHC:3006
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit seeking declaration of share and injunction against an arbitral award as not maintainable when partition and probate suits are pending, holding that such relief must be sought in the partition suit.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitral award partition suit declaration of share Specific Relief Act Section 34

M/S GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA v. DR. MOHAN CHATURBHUJ JHAMVAR & ORS.

01 Jul 2013 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2013:DHC:3005

The Delhi High Court dismissed defendants' application for leave to defend a loan recovery suit under Order 37 CPC, affirming jurisdiction and limitation, and decreed recovery with interest and costs in favor of the plaintiff.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 37 CPC leave to defend territorial jurisdiction limitation

Satya Pal Gupta v. Sudhir Kumar Gupta

01 Jul 2013 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2013:DHC:3004 (a)
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that unregistered release of property shares and entries in balance sheets do not effectuate transfer of immovable property, dismissed SPG's suit for sole ownership, and decreed possession in favor of SKG.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Registration Act, 1908 family settlement

Satya Pal Gupta v. Sudhir Kumar Gupta

01 Jul 2013 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2013:DHC:3003

The Delhi High Court held that unregistered release of property shares between brothers does not transfer ownership under law, dismissed SPG's suit for declaration of sole ownership, and decreed possession in favor of SKG.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Registration Act, 1908 family settlement

Pradeep Jain v. Ameena Begum & Anr.

01 Jul 2013 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J · 2013:DHC:3002

The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit for specific performance due to the plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration on the agreed date.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness agreement to sell forfeiture

VALE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

01 Jul 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Manmohan Singh · 2013:DHC:2999-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award awarding damages to SAIL for breach of a coal supply contract, affirming that risk purchase damages under international long-term contracts must be interpreted in light of trade usages and waiver of notice requirements.

commercial arbitration appeal_allowed Significant risk purchase hard coking coal breach of contract arbitral award

VALE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

01 Jul 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Manmohan Singh · 2013:DHC:2998-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award awarding damages to SAIL for breach of a coal supply contract by VALE/AMCI, clarifying the application of risk purchase doctrine and waiver of notice in long-term commodity contracts.

commercial appeal_allowed Significant risk purchase hard coking coal breach of contract arbitration award

VALE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

01 Jul 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Manmohan Singh · 2013:DHC:2996-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding VALE/AMCI liable for breach of contract for non-supply of hard coking coal, affirming the applicability of risk purchase damages and waiver of notice requirements in international long-term supply contracts.

commercial appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration award risk purchase waiver breach of contract