Delhi High Court
47,108 judgments
Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd v. Additional Director of Income Tax
The Delhi High Court held that profits attributable to a Permanent Establishment in India must be determined independently of the enterprise's global profit or loss, affirming taxability under Article 7 of the DTAA even when the enterprise incurs a global loss.
Prakash Godbhole v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court directed the Investigating Officer to provide reasonable notice to the petitioner, a government servant residing outside Delhi, to prevent harassment during investigation under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120B IPC.
Amandeep Gill & Anr v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that cognizance under Section 174-A IPC requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., setting aside prior contrary rulings and quashing charges framed without such complaint.
Siddharth Talwar & Ors. v. Sarika Talwar
The Delhi High Court upheld interim maintenance orders granted to the wife and minor daughter under the Domestic Violence Act, refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact on the husband’s financial capacity and rejecting his challenge based on alleged unemployment and passport issues.
Arun Kumar Gupta v. Tama Jawahar
The Delhi High Court set aside the acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, holding that the respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act that the cheques were issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt evidenced by a valid MoU.
InterDigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
Delhi High Court directs full disclosure of patent license agreements to defendants' in-house employees within a Confidentiality Club, subject to confidentiality safeguards, to enable proper FRAND assessment and defense in SEP infringement suits.
Jaspal Singh v. Rajender Paul Vermani
The Delhi High Court granted the defendant a final opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness and lead evidence subject to payment of costs and adherence to time-bound directions, emphasizing the Court's discretionary power to balance procedural compliance and fair trial.
Shri Manish Sharma v. Anita Luthra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that the 120-day statutory time limit for filing written statements in commercial suits is mandatory and cannot be extended, dismissing the petition filed for condonation of a one-day delay.
MS Sumana Dutta (Paul) v. The Chief Executive Officer, M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd, Kolkata
The Delhi High Court held that jurisdiction under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the cause of action arises and permitted withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach the Calcutta High Court.
Ashu Sharma & Anr. v. Framework Interiors
The Delhi High Court held that directors of a judgment debtor company cannot be coercively punished in execution proceedings absent justifiable reasons and that the company cannot evade execution by relying on a sale proclamation from separate recovery proceedings.
PARKWOOD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. SANJEEV KUMAR BANOTRA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 227 challenging an NCDRC order when the cause of action arose outside Delhi, allowing withdrawal with liberty to approach the correct High Court.
MD Sadab & Anr. v. Mehtab Ahmad Saifi
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's closure of defendants' right to lead evidence due to repeated non-appearance and non-payment of costs, affirming limited interference under Article 227.
Nitish Taneja v. Ayushi Arora
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Family Court's refusal to grant early hearing in a maintenance case, emphasizing limited interference under Article 227.
Shantivijay Jewellers v. M/S Goyal Modes
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of defendants' application to examine an additional witness after closure of evidence in a 26-year-old recovery suit, emphasizing procedural finality and expeditious disposal.
Sh. Rishi Kumar v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted letters of administration under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 based on an authenticated copy of a Will already proved and probated by a competent court, allowing administration of estate properties beyond territorial limits.
Staff Selection Commission and Ors. v. Teekam Singh Meena
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's direction for a re-medical examination of the respondent by an independent medical board, with the report to be final and binding, ensuring fairness in the recruitment process.
Navita Arjun Vohra v. Nitin Arjun & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to amend her Evidence by way of Affidavit to correct factual inaccuracies discovered through RTI, holding that such amendments are permissible under Section 151 CPC and do not cause prejudice if the opposing party is allowed cross-examination.
M/S GURU EXIM v. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ANR
The Delhi High Court held that an interim status quo order on a bank account does not restrain recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and allowed the bank to continue recovery while reserving the amount corresponding to goods supplied.
Ankur Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting extension of time to file counter reply and imposed costs, holding that judicial interference in such interlocutory orders is unwarranted.
Govind Ram v. State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a 64-year-old accused charged under the POCSO Act and IPC, holding that the presumption of guilt under Section 29 POCSO is rebuttable and bail cannot be denied solely on the seriousness of the offence or unsubstantiated allegations.