Delhi High Court

98,981 judgments

Year:

Mohd. Junaid v. The State & Anr

30 Apr 2013 · Kailash Gambhir · 2013:DHC:7343

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 IPC, holding that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and the FIR prima facie disclosed cognizable offences.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA v. BASANTI DEVI NURSING HOME & ANR

30 Apr 2013 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2013:DHC:6696

The Delhi High Court decreed recovery of loan amounts under Order 37 CPC against defendants who defaulted and failed to file leave to defend, awarding interest at a reasonable commercial rate.

civil appeal_allowed Order 37 CPC loan agreement recovery suit leave to defend

Rahul v. M/S. Allied Reality Private Ltd. and Ors.

30 Apr 2013 · Manmohan J · 2013:DHC:2195

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for cancellation of property documents on grounds of res judicata and suppression of prior suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove minority or fraud and imposed heavy costs for frivolous litigation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant res judicata fraud minority power of attorney

Savita v. Central Board of Secondary Education

30 Apr 2013 · G. S. Sistani · 2013:DHC:2191

The Delhi High Court held that marks of 59.33% cannot be rounded off to 60% for CTET qualification as the fractional part is less than one half, dismissing the petitioner’s writ petition.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant rounding off marks CTET qualifying marks percentage calculation

Vani v. University of Delhi

30 Apr 2013 · G. S. Sistani · 2013:DHC:2190

Provisional admission does not confer a vested right if eligibility criteria are unmet by the cut-off date, and admission cancellation under such circumstances is valid.

constitutional petition_dismissed provisional admission eligibility criteria vested right mandamus

Dr. A.W. Sohoni v. Union of India & Ors.

30 Apr 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:2192

The Delhi High Court held that an employee refusing to occupy official accommodation is not entitled to House Rent Allowance, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking HRA.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant House Rent Allowance official accommodation refusal to occupy writ petition

Uma Kant Dubey v. Chairperson, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farms Rights Authority

30 Apr 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:2193

The Delhi High Court held that subordinate rules cannot override the parent Act empowering the Authority to create posts and appoint officers by direct recruitment, quashing termination notices and directing regularization of petitioners’ services.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 Rule 20 of PPV & FR Rules, 2003 Section 6 PPV & FR Act direct recruitment

Payal Garg v. Union of India & Another

30 Apr 2013 · Sanjiv Khanna; Ved Prakash Vaish · 2013:DHC:2194-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a COFEPOSA detention order for non-placement of vital retraction letters before the detaining authority, emphasizing the necessity of considering retractions of confessional statements relied upon.

criminal petition_allowed Significant COFEPOSA detention order confessional statement retraction

Sunni Mal v. Brahm Pakash

30 Apr 2013 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2013:DHC:2182

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging summons service and held that valid service by multiple modes and failure to file leave to defend warranted dismissal of the petition.

civil petition_dismissed service of summons leave to defend presumption of service registered post

Sanjay Shankar Swami v. State (NCT) of Delhi

30 Apr 2013 · Mukta Gupta · 2013:DHC:2179

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for armed robbery under Sections 392/397 IPC, ruling that identification at arrest and use of weapons suffice even without TIP or weapon recovery.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC Test Identification Parade Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Manmohan Singh v. Kushwant Kaur

30 Apr 2013 · V.K. Shali · 2013:DHC:2196

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s interim maintenance order fixing ₹12,500 per month based on reasonable income estimation despite lack of exact proof, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge under Article 227.

family petition_dismissed Significant interim maintenance Hindu Marriage Act Article 227 income estimation

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Central-III v. Nirmal Bansal

30 Apr 2013 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Vibhu Bakhru · 2013:DHC:2183-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's deletion of capital gains addition, ruling that exemption under section 2(14)(iii) requires agricultural land beyond 8 km from municipal limits and the Tribunal cannot reopen issues without factual basis.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income-tax Act, 1961 Section 2(14)(iii) Agricultural land Capital gains

Satya Infrastructure Ltd & Ors. v. Satya Builders Pvt Ltd

30 Apr 2013 · Manmohan · 2013:DHC:2175

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to plaintiffs for trademark infringement and passing off against a defendant using the identical mark "SATYA" in the same business sector.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Trade Marks Act 1999 Permanent injunction

Sanjay Shankar Swami v. State (NCT) of Delhi

30 Apr 2013 · Mukta Gupta · 2013:DHC:2180

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and 10-year sentence of appellants for armed robbery under Sections 392/397 IPC, ruling that identification at arrest and use of deadly weapons justified the conviction despite procedural defects.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC Test Identification Parade

Anand J. Datwani v. Geeti Bhagat Datwani & Ors.

30 Apr 2013 · V.K. Shali, J. · 2013:DHC:2189

The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 does not apply to land that has ceased to be agricultural by reason of residential construction and use, thus civil courts have jurisdiction over partition suits relating to such land.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 agricultural land civil court jurisdiction Section 185

Rajesh Kumar Saxena v. DDA

30 Apr 2013 · V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:2170

The Delhi High Court allowed the legal heir's petition for transfer and allotment of a flat originally allotted to his deceased father, rejecting DDA's hyper-technical objections to delayed document submission and permitting payment at prevailing rates.

property appeal_allowed Significant legal heir mutation allotment Delhi Development Authority

Sudarshan Sharma v. DDA

30 Apr 2013 · V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:2171

The Delhi High Court held that improper service of a demand letter by DDA invalidated charging 2009 prices, directing payment based on 2003 prices with interest.

property petition_allowed Significant demand-cum-allotment letter service of notice Delhi Development Authority mutation of registration

Rajpal and Ors. v. D.D.A.

30 Apr 2013 · V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:2172

The Delhi High Court held that disputed factual questions regarding land demarcation and acquisition cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and must be adjudicated by Civil Courts.

property appeal_dismissed writ petition land acquisition Khasra No. 94 Khasra No. 95/2

PACE DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS PVT LTD v. GOVT. OF NCT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS

30 Apr 2013 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2013:DHC:2174

The Delhi High Court set aside a government circular prohibiting registration of conveyances based on GPA, Will, or Agreement to Sell, holding that genuine transactions cannot be denied registration and must be examined on merits in line with Supreme Court precedent.

administrative petition_allowed Significant General Power of Attorney Will Agreement to Sell Registration

Centre for Development of Telematics v. Instrumentation Ltd

30 Apr 2013 · Manmohan Singh · 2013:DHC:2198

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve a royalty payment dispute where the respondent failed to concur in the arbitrator's appointment.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of arbitrator arbitration agreement