Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Vikas Mehrotra v. VLS Capital Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that succession certificate proceedings do not affect the appellants' rights to challenge illegal transfer of shares in pending suits and dismissed their appeals seeking to restrain such proceedings.
NB SUB/SKT Chandra Prakash v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ seeking quashing of a transfer order due to non-disclosure of a prior dismissal of a similar petition and refused to impose costs in the interest of justice.
SANDISK LLC v. VASU TELECOM AND ORS
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit based on a settlement agreement acknowledging plaintiff's trademark rights and defendants' undertakings, proceeding ex parte against an absent defendant.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. v. MS. REKHA HEMAL
The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the respondent's promotion to Lecturer (Selection Grade) without a Master's Degree was valid under the applicable AICTE notification dated 05.03.2010 and GNCTD office orders.
Capt. Hemalatha V. S. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that the 1992 medical board's order declaring the petitioner unfit was not illegal but shall not bar her from civil employment, dismissing the petition due to delay.
Dole Nitin Madhukar v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court directed manual re-evaluation of the petitioner’s OMR answer sheet and allowed his selection for BSF Sub-Inspector by creating a supernumerary post or borrowing a vacancy, granting him seniority with the original batch.
Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) v. M/S R.P. Cargo Handling Services
The Delhi High Court held that under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, a show cause notice is validly issued when dispatched within ninety days of the offence report, irrespective of when it is received by the customs broker.
St. Marys Educational Society v. Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Assistant & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition quashing orders of eviction and demolition under the DLRA, holding that the petitioner’s land was used solely for agricultural purposes and that denial of hearing violated natural justice.
Rekha Uttamrao Tapse v. Pune Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court upheld the employer's decision rejecting candidates with Construction Supervisor qualifications as ineligible for Assistant Encroachment Inspector posts, emphasizing employer's discretion in determining qualification equivalence.
Meghna Sanjeev Ranade v. Sanjeev Vyankatesh Ranade & Ors.
The court held that the bank's liability to pay maintenance from sale proceeds is limited to dues outstanding as of the Supreme Court's 2008 order, dismissing the appellant's claim for subsequent maintenance amounts from the bank.
Parvati Dattatray Kumbhar v. Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Claims
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the invalidation of a caste claim, holding that inconsistent evidence and lack of Maharashtra residence on the deemed date justified denial of caste benefits.
Directorate of Enforcement v. Y. Gopal Reddy
The Supreme Court held that Section 45 of the PMLA bars anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for scheduled offences, setting aside the High Court's bail order in a money laundering case.
M.D. ITI Limited v. K. Muniswamy
The Supreme Court held that clause 17(7)(iii) of the Standing Orders grants discretionary power to the employer to continue employees beyond 58 years up to 60 years but does not confer a right, thereby upholding the rollback of retirement age from 60 to 58 years.
M.D. ITI Limited v. K. Muniswamy
The Supreme Court held that clause 17(7)(iii) of the Standing Orders grants discretionary power to the employer to continue employees beyond 58 years up to 60 years but does not confer any right on employees to claim continuation, thereby upholding the rollback of retirement age from 60 to 58 years.
M/S HORNBILL CONSULTANTS v. STATE OF PUNJAB
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed refund of earnest money where the appellant's payment delay was due to bank glitches and the government's forfeiture and cancellation were held arbitrary and unreasonable.
M/S HORNBILL CONSULTANTS v. STATE OF PUNJAB
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed refund of earnest money where payment delay was caused by bank technical issues and government forfeiture was held arbitrary and unreasonable.
edfeadf9b441327bc37703df35f6a5c0d0730755a0230808daa8f2575b06b3b7
The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the stay order and permitting the petitioners to proceed with their property suits in the Bengaluru courts, clarifying jurisdictional principles under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC.
Future Sector Land Developers LLP & Anr. v. Bagmane Developers P. Ltd. & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that suits involving rights to immovable property must be filed in courts having territorial jurisdiction over the property, and upheld the return of plaint on this ground while setting aside the order rejecting the plaint.
Future Sector Land Developers LLP v. Bagmane Developers Private Limited
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order returning the suit to the Bengaluru court for lack of territorial jurisdiction of Pune court, setting aside the dismissal application, and allowed the appellants to refile the suit in the proper court.
Future Sector Land Developers LLP v. Bagmane Developers P. Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld the return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for a suit concerning immovable property situated outside the court's jurisdiction, setting aside the High Court's order rejecting the plaint under Rule 11.