Delhi High Court

48,761 judgments

Year:

Ambience Private Limited & Anr. v. Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.

03 Jul 2024 · Mini Pushkarna · 2024:DHC:4932

The Delhi High Court held that a bank cannot arbitrarily withdraw a One Time Settlement after full payment by the borrower and emphasized the binding nature of OTS sanction terms and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

civil petition_allowed Significant One Time Settlement OTS withdrawal Non Performing Asset Legitimate Expectation

Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora & Anr.

03 Jul 2024 · Mini Pushkarna · 2024:DHC:4931
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt petition against respondent no. 1, holding that non-payment of EMIs and alleged asset disposal were not willful disobedience due to financial inability and ongoing insolvency proceedings.

civil petition_dismissed Significant contempt of court willful disobedience Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

Captain Deepak Kumar v. Election Commission of India

03 Jul 2024 · Manmohan, ACJ; Tushar Rao Gedela, J · 2024:DHC:4928-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant’s letters patent appeal challenging the dismissal of his writ petition containing unsubstantiated and mala fide allegations, and directed local authorities to monitor his mental health under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

constitutional appeal_dismissed writ petition unsubstantiated allegations mala fide Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

International Management Group (UK) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, International Taxation, New Delhi

03 Jul 2024 · Yashwant Varma; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2024:DHC:4893-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that income earned by IMG not attributable to its Indian PE is taxable in India as fees for technical services under the India-UK DTAA and Income Tax Act, rejecting IMG's challenge to bifurcation and the 'make available' test.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Permanent Establishment Fees for Technical Services India-UK DTAA Section 9(1)(vii)

Kostub Investments Ltd. v. Reinz Talbros Ltd.

03 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:4902

The Delhi High Court held that claims of secured debenture holders in company liquidation must be adjudicated up to the date of appointment of the provisional liquidator, not the final winding up date, dismissing the petitioner's challenge.

corporate petition_dismissed Significant Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 provisional liquidator final winding up secured creditor

Kamal Singh Alias Kamal Singh Rawat v. Jai Kumar Sharma & Anr.

03 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:4914
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that receipt of benefits under the Employees State Insurance Act does not bar a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries caused by a third party, allowing the appeal and remanding for fresh assessment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Employees State Insurance Act Motor Vehicles Act Section 53 ESI Act compensation

Genesis Finance Service Co Limited v. Usha Bansal and Anr

03 Jul 2024 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:4910

The Delhi High Court dismissed a purported tenant's belated application to obstruct auction of mortgaged properties in execution of a money decree, holding such applications under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC are maintainable only by decree-holders or auction purchasers.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XXI Rule 97 CPC execution proceedings mortgage property auction tenancy claim

Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar and Ors.

02 Jul 2024 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2024:DHC:4948

The Delhi High Court directs domain name registrars to block infringing domain names and recognizes RBI's beneficiary name lookup facility as a key enforcement tool in trademark infringement disputes involving domain names.

intellectual_property other Significant domain name infringement trademark rights domain name registrar beneficiary name lookup

NORTH EASTERN CARRYING CORPORATION LTD v. DO BEST INFOWAY

02 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:4945

The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory 120-day limit for filing written statements in commercial suits and counter-claims, dismissing the petition seeking condonation of a one-day delay.

civil petition_dismissed Significant written statement counter-claim commercial suit 120 days limitation

NORTH EASTERN CARRYING CORPORATION LTD v. GOYAL IMPEX AND INDUSTRIES LTD

02 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:4944

The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory 120-day limit for filing written statements in commercial suits and counter-claims, dismissing the petition seeking condonation of a one-day delay.

civil petition_dismissed Significant written statement counter-claim commercial suit time limit

NORTH EASTERN CARRYING CORPORATION LTD v. HLG TRADING

02 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:4942

The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory 120-day limit for filing written statements in commercial suits and counter-claims, dismissing the petition seeking condonation of a one-day delay.

civil petition_dismissed Significant commercial suit written statement counter-claim mandatory timeline

Anurag Mahajan v. Tumlare Travels Private Limited

02 Jul 2024 · The Acting Chief Justice; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2024:DHC:4929-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking to set aside an ex parte decree due to unexplained delay and lack of sufficient cause, affirming the dismissal of applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Order IX Rule 13 CPC Section 5 Limitation Act ex parte judgment condonation of delay

Navneet Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

02 Jul 2024 · Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:4898

The Delhi High Court quashed a dowry harassment FIR under Section 482 CrPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of court process.

criminal petition_allowed Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Dowry Prohibition Act

Mukesh Udeshi v. Jindal Steel Power Ltd

02 Jul 2024 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2024:DHC:4886

The Delhi High Court held that only parties to an arbitration agreement or proceedings under INDRP can challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, dismissing a beneficial owner's petition for lack of locus standi.

other petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 INDRP Domain name dispute

KG Marketing India v. Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr.

02 Jul 2024 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2024:DHC:4887

The Court held that fabrication of newspaper advertisements to obtain ex-parte injunction constitutes a serious offence warranting Court-initiated proceedings under Section 340 CrPC and vacated the injunction granted to KG Marketing.

civil appeal_allowed Significant fabrication of evidence Section 340 CrPC Section 195 CrPC forgery

Associated Broadcasting Company Private Limited v. Sreedevi Digital Systems Private Limited & Ors.

02 Jul 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:4895

The Delhi High Court dismissed contempt petitions alleging disruption of TV9 Telugu telecast, directing the dispute to be adjudicated by the TDSAT as the competent authority.

administrative petition_dismissed Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India TDSAT Interim orders

Speedacc Learning Systems Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Satyasai Panigrahy

02 Jul 2024 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:4866

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that a director and authorized signatory is prima facie liable under Section 141 and disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act quashing petition Section 482 CrPC

Sanyam Bhushan v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

02 Jul 2024 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:4868

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking quashing of complaints under Section 138 NI Act on grounds of delay and laches, holding disputed factual issues must be decided by the trial court and resignation from directorship does not absolve liability.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 482 CrPC quashing petition delay and laches

Jitin Mittal & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

02 Jul 2024 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:4863

Section 202 Cr.P.C. does not apply to applications under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act as these are civil proceedings, and the complaint cannot be quashed at the initial stage for lack of inquiry or jurisdiction.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 202 Cr.P.C. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12 DV Act jurisdiction

M/S Books Cybertech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Satyasai Panigrahy

02 Jul 2024 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:4865

The Delhi High Court held that service of notice under Section 138 of the NI Act on the director who signed the cheque constitutes valid notice to the drawer company, and dismissed petitions seeking quashing of complaints on defective notice grounds.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Notice of demand Director as drawer Quashing petition