Delhi High Court

64,846 judgments

Year:

INDIAN HIGHWAYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD. v. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) PVT LTD

20 Feb 2024 · Prateek Jalan · 2024:DHC:1399

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award by the MSME Facilitation Council for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a non-MSE respondent providing services and retaining ownership of equipment does not qualify as a 'supplier' under the MSME Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 MSME Act jurisdiction supplier definition MSME Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34

Balbir Singh v. Union of India

20 Feb 2024 · V. Kameswar Rao; Saurabh Banerjee
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that retired CISF employees are not entitled to notional promotion when their juniors are promoted prospectively after their retirement, dismissing their petitions for retrospective promotion benefits.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant notional promotion Departmental Promotion Committee retirement prospective promotion

KESRI STEELS LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

20 Feb 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:1431-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the order rejecting Kesri Steels Limited's refund application due to non-availability of records on the portal after original documents were verified, and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

tax appeal_allowed refund application default assessment tax interest DVAT Portal

Maneesh Trivedi v. Pallavi Trivedi

20 Feb 2024 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2024:DHC:1791

The Delhi High Court upheld the family court’s order granting Rs.40,000 monthly maintenance to the minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C., dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to the quantum and findings of cruelty.

family appeal_dismissed Significant maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. minor child maintenance summary proceedings allegations of cruelty

Prakash Kaur & Anr v. State (Government of NCT Delhi) & Anr

20 Feb 2024 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:1443

The Delhi High Court directed equitable distribution of ex-gratia compensation among siblings for a 1984 riot victim's death, emphasizing constitutional principles over personal laws.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant ex-gratia compensation 1984 Sikh riots next of kin equitable distribution

Sharad Gupta & Ors. v. Shri Vinayak Infraland Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

20 Feb 2024 · Jasmeet Singh · 2024:DHC:1743
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The court dismissed the application to refer the suit to arbitration under Section 8 as the suit involved non-signatory parties and the defendants failed to initiate arbitration within the limitation period.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 8 Arbitration clause Limitation Act, 1963

R.K. Sharma v. Union of India

20 Feb 2024 · V. Kameswar Rao; Saurabh Banerjee · 2024:DHC:1555-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a BSF officer convicted for possessing disproportionate assets, holding that the disciplinary proceedings were fair and no interference under Article 226 was warranted.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 disproportionate assets Border Security Force Rules

Shruti Katiyar v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court

20 Feb 2024 · Rajiv Shakdher; Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:1437-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a flawed answer key in the Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary Examination, holding that a time-barred claim cannot be claimed as set-off without qualifying conditions and awarding the petitioner marks accordingly.

administrative petition_allowed Significant answer key challenge Delhi Judicial Services Examination equitable set-off legal set-off

M/S Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.

20 Feb 2024 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:1462-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award on the ground that it was based on speculative calculations without evidence, reaffirming the limited scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

commercial_arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration Act Patent Illegality Subsequent Legislation

Naushad Ali v. Union of India & Ors.

20 Feb 2024 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:1309-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld a preventive detention order against a narcotics trafficker, ruling that delay in execution due to absconding does not invalidate the order if the detaining authority's satisfaction is based on sufficient material and procedural safeguards are met.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant preventive detention PITNDPS Act NDPS Act live and proximity link

Sara Abode Private Limited v. Nath Brothers Exim International Limited

20 Feb 2024 · Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:1619

The Delhi High Court held that the statutory 120-day period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit is mandatory and cannot be extended by excluding mediation time, dismissing the petition challenging the trial court's closure of the petitioner's right to file the written statement.

civil petition_dismissed Significant written statement commercial suit Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Order VIII Rule 10 CPC

Balbir Singh Inspector v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

20 Feb 2024 · Jyoti Singh · 2024:DHC:2404
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that courts cannot direct suspension or disciplinary action against police officers without due process and must exercise judicial restraint in passing adverse remarks affecting their reputation.

criminal petition_allowed Significant judicial restraint disciplinary action police officer natural justice

M/S D PAULS TRAVEL & TOURS LIMITED v. JAMAL SIDDIQUI & ANR

20 Feb 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:1649

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's amendment of the plaint to substitute specific performance with recovery of possession following termination of the agreement to sell, holding such amendment permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint specific performance recovery of possession

M/S Kirti Plastics v. GST Officer/Avato, Ward 63, Delhi & Anr.

20 Feb 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:1406-DB

The Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) CGST Act requires objective satisfaction and cogent reasons, modifying the cancellation date to the proprietor's death date and allowing the petitioner to claim GST credits.

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

M/S SHUBH BALL BEARINGS COMPANY v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

20 Feb 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:1403-DB

The Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires objective justification and procedural fairness, modifying the cancellation to the date of business discontinuation.

tax appeal_allowed Significant GST registration cancellation retrospective cancellation Section 29(2) CGST Act Input Tax Credit

Anuj Nath v. Narender Nath

20 Feb 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:1650

The Court passed a Final Decree directing sale of the suit property and distribution of proceeds when physical partition was not possible, subject to pending litigation.

civil appeal_allowed partition suit preliminary decree final decree sale by auction

Vivek Keshavan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

20 Feb 2024 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:1418
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash charges of criminal conspiracy and cheating against the petitioner, holding that prima facie evidence justified framing of charges and that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. criminal conspiracy Section 120-B IPC impersonation

Aakash Educational Services Ltd v. M/S Lotus Education & Ors.

20 Feb 2024 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2024:DHC:1449

The Delhi High Court held that invalidity of the arbitrator appointment procedure does not void the arbitration agreement and allowed re-appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, leaving limitation and other objections for the arbitral tribunal to decide.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of arbitrator Unilateral appointment of arbitrator Section 12(5) declaration

Hikmatullah Hikmati v. Narcotics Control Bureau

20 Feb 2024 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:1263
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused in a narcotics case due to procedural lapses and delay in sample drawing under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which vitiated the prosecution's primary evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 52A NDPS Act sampling procedure bail Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

SGT Muralidhar Pakal AF Fit v. Union of India and Others

20 Feb 2024 · V. Kameswar Rao; Saurabh Banerjee · 2024:DHC:1558-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of an Air Force Airman's application for NOC and discharge to join civil service due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Air Force Order 33/2017.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Air Force Order 33/2017 No Objection Certificate Discharge Order Skill Grade A