Delhi High Court

48,408 judgments

Year:

Lal Mohammed v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

12 Mar 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:1993

The Delhi High Court held that a life convict maintaining good conduct is entitled to furlough as a reformative right, and rejected a blanket denial based solely on the nature of the offence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant furlough parole life imprisonment heinous offence

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Jagdish & Ors.

12 Mar 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:1943

The Delhi High Court held that triple riding on a motorcycle constitutes contributory negligence, reducing the insurer's liability by 50% in a motor accident claim.

motor_accident_claims appeal_allowed Significant contributory negligence motor accident claim triple riding motor vehicles act

Ajay Purnanand Chitnis v. DSC Limited

12 Mar 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:2036

The Delhi High Court transferred a nascent winding up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 to the NCLT in light of the Companies Act, 2013 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, holding that such proceedings must be adjudicated by the NCLT.

corporate other Significant winding up Companies Act, 1956 Companies Act, 2013 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Gurmail Singh @ Gela v. Narcotics Control Bureau

12 Mar 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:1998

Anticipatory bail was denied to the accused in a narcotics case due to destruction of evidence and lack of cooperation, with custodial interrogation deemed necessary.

criminal petition_dismissed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C NDPS Act destruction of evidence

R.S. Tyagi v. N.T.P.C. Ltd

12 Mar 2024 · Tushar Rao Gedela · 2024:DHC:1988
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed disciplinary proceedings and penalty imposed on an NTPC engineer due to inordinate delay and lack of cogent evidence of negligence, emphasizing the need for timely and fair administrative action.

administrative petition_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings inordinate delay stale cause of action Article 14 equality

Devender & Ors. v. Savita Jindal & Ors.

12 Mar 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:2100

The Delhi High Court dismissed defendants' applications to reject the plaint, holding that the suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deeds concerning ancestral land is maintainable with proper court fee and within limitation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 7 Rule 11 CPC court fee valuation declaration suit cancellation of sale deed

Singla Enterprises v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax

12 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:2060-DB

The Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires objective satisfaction and cogent reasons, setting aside retrospective cancellation from 2017 and fixing cancellation effective from the Show Cause Notice date.

tax appeal_allowed Significant GST registration cancellation retrospective cancellation Section 29(2) CGST Act Show Cause Notice

Vinod v. State of NCT of Delhi

12 Mar 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:1992

The Delhi High Court allowed furlough to a life convict despite previous late surrender during emergency parole, emphasizing rehabilitative correctional principles and satisfactory conduct.

criminal petition_allowed Significant furlough parole life imprisonment late surrender

Gulshan @ Sandeep @ Monu v. State (NCT of Delhi)

12 Mar 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:1990
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside major punishments awarded to a prisoner without due process under prison rules and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry, deferring furlough relief pending compliance.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Prison Rules 2018 punishment ticket show cause notice natural justice

Mohd Qasim Mansoori v. The State of Delhi

12 Mar 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:1994

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of an accused in a murder case where recovery of the murder weapon and forensic evidence linked him to the crime, holding that bail is not warranted at this stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 302 IPC Section 439 CrPC bail application murder

Rishab Dwar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

12 Mar 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:1997
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

Anticipatory bail was denied to an accused under the POCSO Act who was declared a proclaimed offender and deliberately misled the Court and investigation regarding crucial mobile phone evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. POCSO Act proclaimed offender

Vikash @ Aalu v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Mar 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:2251

The Delhi High Court held that a Jail Superintendent cannot reject a parole application without forwarding it to the competent authority and directed compliance with Delhi Prison Rules, allowing the petitioner to seek parole to file an SLP.

criminal petition_allowed Significant parole Delhi Prison Rules 2018 Jail Superintendent jurisdiction convict vs undertrial

Shri Inderjit Walia & Anr. v. Dr. Amitabh Parti & Anr.

12 Mar 2024 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6236

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve a lease deed dispute, affirming the arbitration clause specifying New Delhi as the seat and rejecting an unproven oral agreement to change it.

civil petition_allowed arbitration clause Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act appointment of arbitrator seat of arbitration

Kinshuk Goel prop. M/s Ganesha International v. Ministry of Defence, Government of India

12 Mar 2024 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6826
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that limitation objections cannot be raised at the Section 11(6) stage and appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes under a Supply Order arbitration clause, leaving all substantive issues to the arbitral tribunal.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12(5) Appointment of arbitrator

M/S ROHAN BOOK COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA

11 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:1980-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court set aside orders disposing Show Cause Notices solely for non-submission of reply and remitted the matter for re-adjudication after granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

administrative appeal_allowed Show Cause Notice natural justice opportunity to be heard Goods and Service Tax Act

M/S MAURYA INDUSTRIES v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR

11 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:1984-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court held that GST registration cancellation with retrospective effect must be based on objective satisfaction and proper procedure, modifying the cancellation date to the petitioner's voluntary application date.

tax appeal_allowed Significant GST registration cancellation Section 29(2) CGST Act retrospective cancellation Show Cause Notice

Manoj Diwakar v. Union of India and Anr.

11 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:1979-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 60

The Delhi High Court set aside defective GST adjudication orders lacking reasoning and directed fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and to file supplementary replies.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice Scrutiny Notice Goods and Services Tax non-application of mind

Commissioner of Central Excise v. Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd.

11 Mar 2024 · Yashwant Varma; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:1959-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the CESTAT majority order dismissing excise duty demands and penalties against Kuber Tobacco for lack of credible evidence of clandestine removal, emphasizing the preponderance of probabilities standard and the need for corroborated proof.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant clandestine removal central excise duty preponderance of probabilities Section 14 statement

Pushpa Devi v. Pawan Sehrawat

11 Mar 2024 · Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:1950

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's discretion to recall an order closing defence evidence under Section 151 CPC, emphasizing circumspect use of inherent powers and dismissing the petition challenging the same.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 151 CPC inherent powers recall of order closing of evidence

Sudhir Power Project Ltd. v. Prime Meiden Pvt. Ltd.

11 Mar 2024 · Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:1939

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to place a belatedly discovered relevant document on record under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC but refused to admit an affidavit of admission/denial at the evidence stage, emphasizing the balance between procedural rules and substantial justice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC additional documents affidavit of admission/denial liquidated damages