Delhi High Court
49,110 judgments
Vaibhav Singhal v. The Principal Commissioner of GST and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act ceases after one year if not extended, directing the bank to restore operation of the petitioner's account.
Seema Gupta v. The Principal Commissioner of GST and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act ceases after one year if not extended, directing release of the petitioner's bank account embargo.
Shree Bankey Bihari Tarding Company v. Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires objective satisfaction and proper notice, setting aside cancellation from a retrospective date and fixing it from the Show Cause Notice date.
Aashna Singhal v. The Principal Commissioner of GST and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act ceases after one year if not extended, directing release of the petitioner's bank account embargo.
Konica Singhal v. The Principal Commissioner of GST and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act ceases after one year unless renewed, and directed the bank to allow operation of the petitioner's account.
Sarthak Jha v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a person with intellectual disability is entitled to PWD reservation in self-financing institutions under the DPCIA and quashed GGSIPU's denial of such reservation and cancellation of admission.
Manoj Rana v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the order directing framing of charges under Sections 506, 509, and 34 IPC, holding that a prima facie case existed and the Trial Court erred in discharging the accused at the charge framing stage.
Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited v. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld the infringement of the registered trademark 'Liv.52' by the appellant's use of 'Liv-333', dismissing the appeal against permanent injunction while staying damages and costs pending deposit.
Pushyam Pandla & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the NTA to examine and decide the petitioners' grievances regarding question paper replacement during NEET UG-2024 within ten days, preserving their right to approach the court thereafter.
Veeneta Gupta LRs v. Jyoti Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Respondent as sole Class-I heir is entitled to the estate under the Hindu Succession Act, and unregistered customary documents do not confer title or substitution rights to the Appellants.
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sukhwinder Singh
The Delhi High Court upheld bail granted to the accused in an NDPS case due to non-compliance with mandatory Section 52A procedures and prolonged incarceration, emphasizing the necessity of Magistrate-certified sampling for valid primary evidence.
Pawan Dhanpatrai Malhotra v. Mahender Khari
A single complaint under Section 138 NI Act for multiple cheques issued in a single transaction and covered by one notice is maintainable despite Section 219 Cr.P.C. limiting consolidation to three offences.
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court set aside a cryptic GST demand order for lack of proper adjudication and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after allowing the petitioner to file further reply and be heard.
Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited v. Goods and Service Tax Officer Ward 203 & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order for failure to consider the taxpayer's detailed replies and remanded the matter for re-adjudication with opportunity for personal hearing and a speaking order.
Noyal Data Ram @ Babu Ram v. Bhushan & Ors.
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to admit belated documents not supported by pleadings in a partition suit, emphasizing the need for due diligence and reasonable explanation under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC.
M/S Apeksa International & Anr. v. Employee State Insurance Corporation
The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking quashing of complaints under Section 85(g) of the ESI Act for failure to timely register employees, holding that disputed factual issues require trial and employer registration alone does not absolve statutory duties.
Veena Malhotra v. Gurminder Singh
The Delhi High Court held that a drawer who signs a cheque is prima facie liable under Section 138 NI Act despite others filling cheque particulars, and quashing of complaint is not warranted at the notice stage.
Dr Shilpa Jain v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the Competent Authority to consider the petitioner's eligibility under UGC guidelines with a liberal interpretation of 'and/or' and to afford her a personal hearing before passing any adverse order.
Sarika Chaturvedi v. Agarwal Auto Traders
The Delhi High Court held that the arbitrator's mandate had not expired and dismissed the petition for substitution, directing continuation of arbitration with the same arbitrator and imposing costs on the respondents for causing delays.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Kavita and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against a motor accident claim award, upholding the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving based on credible eyewitness and police evidence.