Delhi High Court

48,408 judgments

Year:

Amit Agrawal and Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

16 Jul 2024 · Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:5243
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

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

Prakash Singh Rajpurohit v. M/S OP AND SONS TRADER PVT. LTD.

16 Jul 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:5732
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that territorial jurisdiction and cause of action are mixed questions of law and fact not decidable at the plaint rejection stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and upheld the trial court's order refusing to reject the plaint.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC territorial jurisdiction cause of action rejection of plaint

Lava Kishore Malhotra v. Nivedita Vermani & Ors.

16 Jul 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:5939
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the plaint discloses a sufficient cause of action regarding unauthorized construction and that the High Court cannot interfere under Section 115 CPC without jurisdictional error.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action unauthorized construction civil revision petition

Karam Bir v. All India Council for Technical Education

16 Jul 2024 · MANMOHAN, ACJ; TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J · 2024:DHC:5378-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking rounding off of marks in a remedial examination conducted by AICTE following a Supreme Court order invalidating certain distance learning engineering degrees.

administrative appeal_dismissed AICTE distance learning degree remedial examination rounding off marks

M/S VK TRADERS v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, MANDOLI DIVISION, EAST DELHI

16 Jul 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:5234-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a vague and unreasoned GST registration cancellation order for violating natural justice and directed restoration of registration.

administrative petition_allowed Significant GST registration cancellation show cause notice natural justice retrospective cancellation

NIVA BUPA HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA

16 Jul 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:5319-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court set aside an unreasoned GST tax demand order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing statutory limits on extension of limitation periods under Section 168A of the CGST Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant GST Section 168A CGST Act limitation tax demand

Mukesh Kumar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

16 Jul 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:5353

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust in a land purchase case, citing completed investigation, delay in trial, and no flight risk.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail under Section 439 CrPC economic offences cheating criminal breach of trust

Harish Jindal v. Garima Jindal

16 Jul 2024 · Rajiv Shakdher; Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:5314-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the father's appeal to vary the family court order permitting him to have weekly WhatsApp video calls with his son, emphasizing child welfare and maintaining parental contact through virtual means.

family appeal_allowed Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 custody visitation rights child welfare

Dinesh Bhagat v. Residents Welfare Association CA Block

16 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5279

The High Court held that limitation being a mixed question of law and fact cannot be decided at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and must be adjudicated at trial.

civil petition_dismissed Order VII Rule 11 CPC limitation mixed question of law and fact suit rejection

Atul Punj v. IDBI Bank

16 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:5188

The Delhi High Court held that an individual bank cannot unilaterally classify a borrower's account as 'fraud' without consortium consensus and must afford an opportunity of hearing before such classification.

administrative other Significant RBI Master Directions fraud classification consortium banking opportunity of hearing

Vinod Yadav & Ors. v. Mamta Yadav

16 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:5190

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte summary suit decree, holding that the petitioners failed to establish special circumstances under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC despite COVID-19 and personal hardships.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XXXVII CPC special circumstances summary suit setting aside ex parte decree

Sh Dadaso Jagtap and Anr. v. Smt Satwant Kaur Sarna and Ors.

16 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:5193

The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court's order allowing amendment of the plaint that introduced a new cause of action and parties, holding such amendment impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint new cause of action rectification of instrument

T.R. Sawhney Shopping Pvt. Ltd. v. Nagender Singh & Anr.

16 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:5195

The Delhi High Court held that exclusion of limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act requires prosecution of prior proceedings with due diligence and good faith, and mere wrong legal advice does not justify exclusion, setting aside the Trial Court's order and dismissing the suit as time-barred.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 14 Limitation Act due diligence good faith consumer protection

Rajkumar Sukhdevsinhji & Anr. v. IDBI Bank

16 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:5186
Cites 3 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that banks must provide borrowers an opportunity of hearing and supply forensic audit reports before classifying accounts as fraud, quashing the impugned Show Cause Notices issued without such compliance.

administrative other Significant Show Cause Notice audi alteram partem natural justice Master Directions on Frauds

Mangal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

16 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:5191
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioners' claim of lawful possession over agricultural land in the Yamuna floodplains, holding their occupation unauthorized and permitting eviction for ecological restoration and public projects.

property petition_dismissed Significant Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 Yamuna floodplains Delhi Development Authority ecological restoration

Chander Bhan v. Delhi Development Authority

16 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:5197

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging DDA's repair of boundary walls on government land in Yamuna floodplains, holding the petitioner lacked title and concealed material facts.

property petition_dismissed Significant Public Premises Act Unauthorized Occupation Yamuna Floodplains Master Plan of Delhi 2021

Amrit Kaur & Anr. v. State & Ors.

16 Jul 2024 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2024:DHC:5232

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking probate of a disputed Fourth Will, holding it forged and upholding the validity of the earlier registered Will and Codicil.

family petition_dismissed Significant Indian Succession Act, 1925 Will validity testamentary capacity forgery of Will

Jawahar Singh v. Naresh Kumar Thr. Lrs.

16 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5272

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to allow belated witness evidence after a five-year delay, holding no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court's order.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India Order XVI Rule 1 CPC supervisory jurisdiction delay in filing witnesses

Gauri Sharma v. Seema Sharma

16 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5274

The High Court directed the Trial Court to grant the petitioner one effective opportunity to cross-examine seven witnesses, imposing costs for delay, thereby balancing fair trial rights with procedural discipline.

civil petition_allowed cross-examination civil procedure trial court discretion costs for delay

Gauri Sharma v. Seema Sharma

16 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5276

The Delhi High Court granted the petitioner one effective opportunity to lead defendant’s evidence with a cost imposed for delay, leaving procedural details to the Trial Court’s discretion.

civil petition_allowed defendant’s evidence opportunity to lead evidence trial court discretion cost for delay