Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
T J Commodities Private Limited v. Indo European Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation of four transferor companies into a transferee company under the Companies Act, 1956, finding no objections and compliance with statutory requirements.
Clear2Pay India Private Limited v. Fidelity Information Services India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for sanctioning a Scheme of Amalgamation between Clear2Pay India Private Limited and Fidelity Information Services India Private Limited under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Kishanpura Hotels Private Limited v. Praraj Enterprises Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Arrangement due to unanimous board approval and overwhelming written consents.
Logical Apps Solutions Private Limited & Ors. v. Oracle India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for a Scheme of Amalgamation where all parties gave written consent and no secured creditors or pending proceedings existed.
Nitin Manchanda & Ors. v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal proceeding under Section 498-A IPC arising from matrimonial disputes upon an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Denso Auto Body Parts India Private Limited v. Denso Haryana Private Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between two companies under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing the transferor company to dissolve without winding up.
Unison Developers Private Limited v. Unison Infratech Private Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Unison Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Unison Infratech Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing the transferor company to dissolve without winding up.
Impeccable Investments Private Limited; Madan Lal Bajaj Investments Private Limited; Golu Dev Estate Private Limited v. Jasola Estates Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for a Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, based on unanimous consents and compliance with statutory requirements.
Shriram Alpine Sales Private Limited v. Shriram Automotive Products Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation between two companies based on unanimous written consents.
Air Factory Energy Limited v. Anest Iwata Motherson Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for a Scheme of Amalgamation between a wholly owned subsidiary and its holding company based on unanimous written consents.
Manish Jaglan & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498-A IPC based on an amicable settlement, affirming the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Futuristic Sales Private Limited v. Globe Panel Industries India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Arrangement for demerger between Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, after addressing accounting and procedural objections.
Lite Eat Out Foods Private Limited v. Lite Bite Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Lite Eat Out Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dissolving the transferor company without winding up.
Kanchenjunga Services Private Limited v. Kanchenjunga Management Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a demerger Scheme under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, based on unanimous written consents.
Omni Wear Private Limited v. Super Overseas Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors for approving a Scheme of Amalgamation where all such parties had given written consent.
Modtech Projects (India) Private Limited v. Modtech Material Handling Projects Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed the application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation where requisite consents were obtained in writing.
Sube Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector/A.D.M.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid, and mere deposit of compensation in court does not constitute payment.
N.M. Marenmai v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that CRPF personnel posted in Jammu & Kashmir, northeastern states, or left wing extremist areas are entitled to retain family accommodation allotted at peace stations like Delhi, quashing eviction notices and penal rent demands contrary to this entitlement.
N.M. Marenmai v. Union of India
Delhi High Court held that CRPF personnel posted in disturbed areas are entitled to retain family accommodation at peace stations like Delhi, quashing eviction notices and penal rent demands contrary to this entitlement.
Ex Flight Cadet Mohit Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside the termination of a flight cadet for theft, holding that disciplinary authorities must consider mitigating factors and proportionality before imposing the harshest penalty under Air Force Order 05/2012.