Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
MY PREFERRED TRANSFORMATION AND HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. v. PANCHDEEP CONSTUCTION LIMITED
The Delhi High Court held that the court at the seat of arbitration has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, overruling a conflicting exclusive jurisdiction clause.
M/S. FIBERFILL ENGINEERS v. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award for lack of evidence supporting full and final settlement, emphasizing that accord and satisfaction requires proof of payment acceptance after deductions.
Kasim v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court’s dismissal of a belated application to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for prompt reporting of threats and judicial discretion exercised to prevent abuse of process.
Mahadev Prasad v. Union of India and Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme as the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for promotion to Sub Inspector.
Mrs Tejinder Pal Gujral v. S Manjinder Singh Sirsa & Ors.
Delhi High Court holds DSGMC officials guilty of contempt for wilful non-compliance of orders directing payment of salaries and arrears under 6th and 7th CPC to GHPS employees, directing administrative action to enforce compliance.
Abdul Basit v. Jawaharlal Nehru University and Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed JNU to decide the petitioner's appeal against ICC sexual harassment recommendations within four weeks, ensuring natural justice and interim protection.
M/S Yash Fans and Appliances Ltd v. M/S Ottomate International Private Limited
The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court must refer disputes to arbitration if a valid arbitration agreement exists and the petition is timely, without examining the merits of the dispute.
Cdr Seema Chaudhary v. Union of India and Others
The Supreme Court directed a fresh, stand-alone consideration of the petitioner’s Permanent Commission application in strict adherence to its prior binding judgment, rejecting the tribunal’s grouping with later batches and allowing a one-time proportional vacancy increase.
Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. Assam State Electricity Board
The Supreme Court held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of curative petitions solely because the review petition was dismissed in open court, emphasizing that maintainability must be judicially determined by a Bench, not administratively by the Registry.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. M/s. B. Arunkumar Trading Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that payments for storage tanks do not constitute rent under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, and TDS on such payments is deductible under Section 194C, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
Gufran Suleman Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
The Bombay High Court held that the Municipal Corporation cannot arbitrarily refuse further redevelopment permissions based on unchanged road width after initially granting permission, applying promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and principles of administrative law.
Samita Rajendra Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a coordinate bench order permitting bridge construction, holding that allegations of fraud and suppression of facts were unsubstantiated and the proper remedy was review or appeal, not collateral writ petition.
Shrikant Chimaji Jahagirdar v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted a public servant accused of corruption, holding that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence without direct proof is insufficient.
~ v. ~
The Bombay High Court upheld MHADA's No Objection Certificate and the SRA's authority in a slum redevelopment dispute, dismissing petitions challenging redevelopment orders and emphasizing no fundamental right to trespass on public land.
Bahar Infocons Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2 & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner’s revisional powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act can be exercised to rectify inadvertent double taxation errors even after the time limit for filing revised returns has expired, allowing the petitioner’s revision applications.
Bahar Infocons Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2 & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner has revisional powers under Section 264 to rectify bona fide mistakes in income tax returns even after the time limit for filing revised returns has expired, allowing the petitioner’s revision applications for correction of double taxation of excess bonus provisions.
Bahar Infocons Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2 & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner has wide revisional powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act to rectify bona fide mistakes even after the time limit for filing revised returns has expired, and set aside the rejection of the petitioner’s revision applications on this ground.
Raj Kumar Batra v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
The Delhi High Court held that interest is payable on the entire refundable redemption fine and penalty amount retained by Customs, quashing the corrigendum that limited interest to the statutory pre-deposit amount.
M/S HARI DASHAN SEVASHRAM PVT. LTD. v. M/S PAUL SALES PVT. LTD.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's amendment application and the plaintiff's application for judgment on admission, holding that running account entries do not constitute clear admissions and amendments introducing irrelevant claims are impermissible.
Sunil Sethi v. M/S Hero Fincorp Ltd.
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award due to invalid unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator barred under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.