Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Tata Capital Limited v. Sumo Life Care Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding that judicial scrutiny at this stage is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving merits and frivolity of claims to the arbitral tribunal.
Sanofi India Limited v. Union of India
Delhi High Court quashed criminal complaint against Sanofi India Limited and its Managing Director for filing beyond limitation, rejecting other grounds including right to retesting and vicarious liability.
M/S CLOUD ENTERPRISES v. CDS INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED
The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the contract.
Suhavni Devi v. Union of India
The High Court allowed compensation to the appellant for death of her son in an accidental fall from a moving train, holding him a bona fide passenger and the incident an untoward incident under the Railways Act.
Government of NCT Delhi v. Priya Kaim
The Delhi High Court held that courts cannot determine equivalence of educational qualifications or compel employers to relax prescribed eligibility criteria in recruitment, setting aside the Tribunal's order allowing a candidate's appointment.
M/S LANDMARK LABELS AND ACCESSORIES LLP v. M/S WYN APPARELS & ANR.
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on Haryana courts and dismissed the appeal challenging the return of plaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Ahmad v. Amita Singh
The Delhi High Court held that CrPC, not BNSS, governs pending defamation proceedings initiated before BNSS commencement, dismissing petitions challenging summoning without BNSS notice.
Abdul Gaffar v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order due to invalid service of notice on an inaccessible portal tab and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving the validity of the impugned notification pending before the Supreme Court.
M/S A.S. Builders v. Union of India & Anr.
Delhi High Court allowed procedural relief to petitioner against GST demand orders while leaving the validity of extension notifications under Section 168A of the GST Act open pending Supreme Court decision.
Abdul Gaffar v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order passed without proper notice and hearing, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of the impugned notifications to the Supreme Court.
M/S PRIME INTERGLOBE PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
The Delhi High Court set aside ex-parte GST adjudication orders due to ineffective notice via a less visible portal tab, remanding the matter for fresh hearing while leaving the validity of extension notifications to the Supreme Court.
Cristoo Arora v. Union of India and Anr
Delhi High Court set aside ex-parte GST demand order for lack of opportunity to reply, granting petitioner time to file reply and appear for hearing, while leaving validity of extension notifications to Supreme Court.
Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court directed adjudication of the petitioner's appeal on merits without limitation bar, while leaving the validity of notifications extending limitation periods under the CGST Act open pending Supreme Court's decision.
M/S GRILLED ROTI v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order against a petitioner denied portal access due to retrospective registration cancellation, granting time to file replies and personal hearing, while leaving the validity of limitation-extending notifications pending before the Supreme Court.
Superb Galaxy v. Commissioner of DGST
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order for violation of natural justice, granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, while leaving the validity of related GST notifications open pending Supreme Court adjudication.
Korea Marine Transport Co Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 204 & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte tax demand order for failure to consider the petitioner's detailed reply and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with personal hearing, leaving the validity of GST notifications pending before the Supreme Court.
M/S Krishna Enterprises v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court remanded a tax adjudication matter for fresh hearing due to lack of signature and opportunity to reply, leaving the validity of GST notifications pending before the Supreme Court.
Aayushi Hygiene and Care Private Limited v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to improper communication of the show cause notice and remanded the matter for fresh hearing, leaving the validity of related GST notifications pending before the Supreme Court.
M/S. SHUDH HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER WARD- 44, DELHI
Delhi High Court permitted belated appeal against GST adjudication order while leaving the validity of extension notifications under judicial consideration before the Supreme Court.
Damanpreet Singh v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order for lack of proper hearing and remanded the matter, leaving the validity of the impugned notification pending before the Supreme Court.