Delhi High Court

46,774 judgments

Year:

Pulin Comtrade Limited v. The Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd.

22 Oct 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8309

The Delhi High Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes remanded by a prior order setting aside part of an arbitral award.

civil appeal_allowed Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointment of Sole Arbitrator arbitral award set aside Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act

M S SIS LIMITED v. M S LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED

22 Oct 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8304

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after parties failed to mutually agree, directing arbitration under DIAC rules.

other petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6)(a) Appointment of sole arbitrator Arbitration clause

Luminous Power Technologies Private Limited v. SIS Limited

22 Oct 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8305

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after parties failed to mutually agree, directing arbitration under DIAC rules.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12 sole arbitrator appointment

CARS 24 FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SANJAY MATHEWS PROPRIETOR OF M/S BENKUS MOTORS AND ANR.

22 Oct 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8370

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing arbitration of disputes arising from a Credit Facility Agreement due to respondents' default and non-response.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Sole Arbitrator appointment Arbitration clause

Dr Shama Mohamed v. Smt Sanju Verma and Ors.

22 Oct 2024 · Vikas Mahajan · 2024:DHC:8354

The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from broadcasting and sharing defamatory statements against a political spokesperson, balancing freedom of speech with the right to reputation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant defamation ad-interim injunction freedom of speech right to reputation

Rohit Singh v. Parimal Bhattacharjee

22 Oct 2024 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · (2014) 211 DLT 516 (DB)

The Delhi High Court held that a decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits cannot be granted under Order XII Rule 6 CPC beyond the relief of possession prayed for, setting aside such reliefs while upholding the possession decree.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC Order XV-A CPC possession decree relief beyond pleadings

Rajhans Realtors Pvt Ltd v. Rajinder Kumar Goyal & Another

22 Oct 2024 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8477

The Delhi High Court allowed the landlord’s eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that bona fide requirement for possession is to be assessed from the landlord’s perspective and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord’s business needs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) bona fide requirement eviction petition

Smt. Anu Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54(1) Delhi

22 Oct 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8266-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on credible information suggestive of escaped income through off-market share transactions and accommodation entries.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 148 Section 148A Accommodation entries

Yogesh Kumar Goel & Anr. v. Saurabh Bhardwaj

22 Oct 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:8627

The Delhi High Court allowed the revision petition, holding that the suit was filed within the extended limitation period granted due to COVID-19, setting aside orders dismissing the suit on limitation grounds.

civil appeal_allowed Significant limitation period COVID-19 pandemic Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3/2020 Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC

Commissioner CGST Delhi South v. Air India Ltd

22 Oct 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2018 (12) TSTL 368 (Del.)

The Delhi High Court held that the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked without specific allegations of deliberate suppression of facts or fraud in the Show Cause Notice.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 73(1) Finance Act 1994 extended limitation period suppression of facts CENVAT credit

STIC Travels Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

22 Oct 2024 · Vibhu BakhrU; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8652-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a 14-year delay in adjudicating a service tax Show Cause Notice renders the proceedings barred by limitation and quashed the re-initiation notice issued in 2023.

tax petition_allowed Significant service tax limitation Section 73 Finance Act 1994 Show Cause Notice

Surender Kumar Badhwar v. Abhay Pratap Singh Raghuwanshi

22 Oct 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:8896

The High Court dismissed the revision petition upholding the trial court's order rejecting a decree on admissions in an ejectment suit due to absence of clear admissions and presence of disputed factual defenses.

civil appeal_dismissed Order XII Rule 6 CPC decree on admissions landlord-tenant relationship ejectment suit

Manoj Arora v. Shri Jatinder Jain & Ors.

22 Oct 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:8962

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that court fee assessment depends on the relief granted and cannot be contested at the preliminary stage.

civil appeal_dismissed Order VII Rule 11 CPC court fee assessment valuation of suit property mandatory injunction

Kamal Mahajan & Ors. v. The State Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

22 Oct 2024 · Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:8190

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC amicable settlement

Anand Singh Panwar and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

22 Oct 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8221-DB

The Delhi High Court directed retrospective grant of replacement pay scale benefits from 01.01.1996 to similarly placed CAPF personnel, following earlier judicial precedents, subject to limitation on arrears.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant replacement pay scale 5th Central Pay Commission retrospective pay fixation Central Armed Police Forces

Harish Chand & Ors. v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

22 Oct 2024 · Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:8189

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC read with Dowry Prohibition Act following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Dowry Prohibition Act amicable settlement

Vikash @ Vicky v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

21 Oct 2024 · Amit Mahajan · 2024:DHC:8110

The Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused charged with commercial quantity narcotics offences under the NDPS Act due to prolonged pre-trial custody and procedural lapses, emphasizing that statutory bail restrictions do not bar bail where trial delay violates fundamental rights.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS Act bail commercial quantity

Neeraj Mittal v. Subhash Sachdeva & Ors.

21 Oct 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:8203

The Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of the State Consumer Commission to procure records from the District Forum to facilitate hearing of a seven-year pending appeal, without imposing a strict timeline for disposal.

civil other Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission appeal delay record production Registrar duties

Kumeshwar Dayal Sammi v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors.

21 Oct 2024 · Prathiba M. Singh; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:8206-DB

The Delhi High Court declared an earlier family settlement and relinquishment deed null and void and directed fresh execution of documents to give effect to a court-recorded family settlement under Order XXXII A CPC.

civil petition_allowed Significant family settlement relinquishment deed Order XXXII A CPC Article 226 Constitution

KKH FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. JONAS HAGGARD & ORS.

21 Oct 2024 · Jasmeet Singh · 2024:DHC:8116
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, only a prima facie view on the existence of arbitration agreement and non-signatories' status is required, leaving complex jurisdictional issues to the arbitral tribunal, and dismissed the petition seeking appointment of arbitrator against non-signatories and consolidation of proceedings.

arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Non-signatories Group of Companies Doctrine