Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
MS Fiberfill Engineers & Anr. v. MS Rampur Engineering Company Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that civil revision petitions and Article 227 petitions against interlocutory orders of Commercial Courts are barred by Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and such jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly to uphold legislative intent.
M/S TULIKA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. v. M/S ALLIED TUBES PVT. LTD.
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's discretion to allow additional documents in a commercial suit before framing of issues, dismissing the petition under Article 227 for lack of any gross illegality.
SURAJ KAPUR v. SUBODH GUPTA
The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s valuation of a suit for injunction reliefs and dismissed the petition challenging it, holding that valuation by the plaintiff must be accepted unless shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
UDAANSURE PRIVATE LIMITED v. MS SAPNA GOYAL
The High Court allowed the petitioner’s belated written statement to be taken on record with costs, emphasizing discretion to condone delay caused by unavoidable circumstances while ensuring expeditious trial.
Goodrich Maritime Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Rashvinz Exports
The High Court allowed the petitioner to examine an additional witness despite the witness not being listed, emphasizing fairness and the absence of objection from the respondent.
Vinod Kumar Sharma v. Punjab National Bank
The Delhi High Court granted limited interim protection restraining the bank from proceeding under the SARFAESI Act to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal once it became functional.
Rajesh Sharma v. Akhil Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the Trial Court to prioritize and expeditiously dispose of the petitioner’s pending application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC to protect his rights to perform religious duties.
Malik Traders v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to denial of proper notice and hearing, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of extension notifications to the Supreme Court.
Hari Singh v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court set aside the Sentence Review Board’s rejection of premature release for a life convict, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions considering reformative potential beyond the gravity of the offence.
R Archith Sai v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court directed a Review Medical Board to reassess the petitioner’s fitness for Navy Flying Branch appointment post-hernia surgery, with the decision to be binding on both parties.
Kishor Prabhakar Patwardhan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the period of an interim restraint order must be excluded from the limitation period under Section 23 of the Registration Act, allowing registration of documents presented after such restraint is lifted.
Kishor Prabhakar Patwardhan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the period of a court restraint order must be excluded from the limitation period under Section 23 of the Registration Act, allowing registration of documents presented after the statutory period due to bona fide delay.
Kamlesh Mishra v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 354-B and 506(II) IPC as the allegations were inherently improbable and motivated by malice, applying its inherent powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC.
Srinwati Mukherji v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a flat booked but not yet possessed does not qualify as a "Shared Household" under the DV Act, and relief directing payment of installments under Section 19 is not maintainable.
Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act cannot be granted against a third party deleted from enforcement proceedings and against whom the foreign arbitral award is not enforceable.
Dilawar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed an application to correct its earlier order by recording the appearance of the respondents' Counsel, issuing a corrigendum to maintain accurate court records.
MR AJAY & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 377, 406, and 34 IPC on the basis of a mutual settlement and divorce by consent, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Sh Giri Nish Kumar alias Girnesh alias Bobby and Ors v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, holding that continuing criminal proceedings would be unfair and an abuse of process.
Rakesh Kumar v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on an amicable settlement between the parties, reaffirming the principle that criminal cases can be ended in the interest of justice when disputes are resolved voluntarily.
Rajender Kumar Verma and Others v. Government of NCT Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and related proceedings under IPC and SC/ST Act based on a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties, applying the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.