Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shamsher Singh
The Supreme Court restored the trial court's conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder by holding that firing a firearm causing grievous injuries with knowledge of its lethality satisfies the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death.
Elite Housing LLP v. The Spectrum CHS Ltd
The court granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act directing possession of disputed flats for redevelopment despite ongoing family disputes, balancing collective redevelopment interests with individual rights.
Prakash Narayan Dhobale v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that employees cannot be penalized for employer's erroneous exemption from mandatory departmental exams discovered post-retirement, and allowed their writ petitions restoring promotions and benefits.
Kaushik Rameshchandra Thakkar v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that despite procedural irregularities in arrest and delayed production, the petitioner’s judicial remand was valid, rendering the writ of habeas corpus not maintainable and dismissing the petition.
Prakash Narayan Dhobale v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that employees cannot be penalized for administrative errors granting exemption from mandatory departmental exams discovered post-retirement, and restored their promotions and benefits.
Chalabbi v. Government of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to issue a show cause notice and, if justified, conduct a special audit of Asha Deep CGHS accounts post-elections under Rule 80 of the 2007 Rules, allowing elections to proceed as scheduled.
Ashish Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that candidates on a wait list do not have a right to appointment beyond advertised vacancies and that fresh recruitment is permissible once the select list is exhausted.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court held that a complaint under Section 138 NI Act is maintainable against a partner who admits issuing the cheque in a particular capacity, and quashing is not warranted solely for non-impleading the partnership firm.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that the accused's admission as proprietor estops denial and vicarious liability requires the firm to be impleaded as primary offender.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that a proprietor issuing a cheque is liable even if the entity is a partnership firm, and misjoinder does not warrant quashing at the initial stage.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that a proprietor is personally liable for dishonoured cheques issued in the name of a proprietorship, and vicarious liability under Section 141 applies only when the firm is the primary offender.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that misdescription of accused as proprietor instead of partner is not a ground for quashing where the accused admits issuing the cheque in that capacity.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against a partner arrayed as proprietor, holding that non-impleadment of the partnership firm does not warrant quashing where the accused admits issuing the cheque.
M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd v. Mehta Prashantbhai Mukundray Prop M/s Coal Corporation
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, holding that the proprietor is personally liable and the complaint is maintainable despite the business being a partnership firm.
Radha Kushwaha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to grant pardon to the petitioner as an approver due to contradictory affidavits and prosecution opposition, emphasizing judicial discretion and the need to protect the prosecution's case.
Aditi Singh v. Amarendra Dhari Singh
The Delhi High Court set aside the summoning order in a Section 138 NI Act complaint filed beyond limitation and remanded the matter to the trial court to consider condonation of delay afresh.
Pradeep Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim maintenance order of Rs. 13,000 per month for wife and minor child, emphasizing the husband's admitted income and wife's current unemployment due to childcare.
Vipin Kumar Mittal v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to file appeals against GST demand orders with a limited pre-deposit due to possible duplication of demand amounts, leaving the issue for adjudication by the Appellate Authority.
MS STESALIT LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Delhi High Court admitted the writ petition challenging the GST classification circular on Roof Mounted Package Unit air conditioners, directing adjudication to proceed with judicial oversight.
M/S Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Ltd v. Additional Commissioner (Adjn.) CGST Delhi North & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order for ignoring the petitioner’s timely reply and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with proper hearing.