Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Grinvo Private Limited and Ors. v. Micro Precession Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex parte injunction restraining use of a corporate name due to lack of pleadings and allowed the appellants to challenge the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
Kunal Jain v. DY. Labour Commissioner & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order directing payment of wages and compensation, affirming the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on uncontroverted evidence.
Nirupati Charan Sahoo v. Union of India and Others
The Delhi High Court directed the DG, ITBP to decide the petitioner's pending representation within two weeks, ensuring timely administrative action.
Gagandeep Kaur v. Rattandeep Singh Grover
The Delhi High Court held that a suit challenging ownership of properties allegedly held benami cannot be summarily dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when disputed factual issues and exceptions under the Benami Act exist, directing the suit to proceed to trial.
Bir Sen Rathi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.
The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to determine the rate of interest on retiral dues in accordance with the Full Bench’s decision while upholding the period for which interest is payable.
Gaurav Rajgaria v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited
The Delhi High Court held that an employment contract with an express termination clause is determinable and not specifically enforceable, rejecting the plaintiff's suit for reinstatement and excessive damages for wrongful termination.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that capital gains addition under Section 50C cannot be made based on a circle rate increased after the date of a registered agreement to sell executed at the earlier rate.
M/S INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PVT. LTD. v. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE 10(1) & ANR
The Delhi High Court set aside an order reopening income tax assessment for exceeding the scope of the notice under Section 148A(b), emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements in reopening proceedings.
Pradeep Kumar Lathar v. Advance Surfactants India Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of an auction sale under the SARFAESI Act due to mandatory procedural violations and selective relaxation of conditions violating Article 14.
Planet Advertising Private Limited v. MS Ambience Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that only claims supported by TDS payments within limitation are recoverable, rejecting exclusion of time spent in winding up proceedings and starting limitation from denial of payment.
National Project Constructions Corporation Ltd v. M/S S S Sharma and Company
The Delhi High Court set aside a non-speaking order dismissing a Section 34 challenge to an arbitral award and remanded the matter for fresh reasoned consideration on merits.
State v. Ramesh Chand & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal in a child kidnapping and murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Santosh Dochnia @ Guddi v. Late Smt Gindo Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court waived the costs imposed on the petitioner by the trial court on grounds of financial hardship without deciding the merits of the underlying application.
M/S. ACCUFIL AUTOMATION v. CHITKARA BEVERAGES & ORS.
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of a no cause of action application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that such issues require evidence and that supervisory interference under Article 227 is limited in commercial suits.
Vipin Wadhwa v. Prashant Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a suit challenging a consent decree on the basis of an unlawful compromise is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC even for strangers to the decree, and that a suit for specific performance filed beyond the three-year limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act is time-barred.
Deepanshu & Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308/34 IPC based on a voluntary and amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
Sulabh Arora v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 341, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties, holding that continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
Manish Pandey & Ors. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties, applying established Supreme Court principles.
Vinod Kumar @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting his claim of sudden fight exception and affirming the sufficiency of consistent eyewitness, medical, and forensic evidence.
Ajay Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406 and 498A IPC based on a bona fide amicable settlement between the married parties, promoting reconciliation and peace.