Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Vandana Kapoor v. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal
The Delhi High Court held that courts must prima facie evaluate both the complainant's case and accused's defence before granting interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
State v. Mohd Rashid
The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, emphasizing limited scope of appellate interference in acquittals and the necessity of proving foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt before triggering statutory presumptions.
JUST CLICK TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court allowed partial waiver of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for incentive income service tax demand, relying on a Larger Bench CESTAT precedent and exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in a rare and exceptional case.
Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd v. Berkley Beauty Brands Private Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court appointed an independent sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a car finance agreement, affirming the court's jurisdiction and the validity of the arbitration clause.
M/S COMBITIC GLOBAL CAPLET PVT LTD v. M/S AMBIKA REALCON DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
The Delhi High Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under an arbitration agreement and disposed of the Section 9 petition without expressing opinion on merits.
M/S COMBITIC GLOBAL CAPLET PVT LTD v. M/S AMBIKA REALCON PVT LTD
The Delhi High Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator and referred the dispute over entitlement under a commercial agreement to arbitration, dismissing the petition for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Major Anish Muralidhar v. Lt. Col. Manvir Sharma
The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order granting disability pension for Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis and other disabilities aggravated by military service, dismissing the Union of India's challenge.
Anil Kumar v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking retrospective seniority and pay fixation benefits, directing the petitioner to approach the Rajasthan High Court for relief.
Pranav Kumar v. Union of India through Ministry of Railways
The Delhi High Court directed the disciplinary authority to decide the pending inquiry within six weeks, refusing to quash the proceedings solely on account of delay.
Gopinathan T K v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that interest on delayed retiral benefits cannot be directed in contempt proceedings absent an explicit order, but the petitioner may seek such relief afresh before the Tribunal.
Sharma v. Ex Sgt Anil Sharma
The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Type II Diabetes Mellitus attributable to military service, limiting arrears to three years prior to the claim.
Amrit Lal Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to consider petitioners' claim for pay fixation and arrears in light of a prior judgment and decide within eight weeks, without expressing opinion on merits.
Yadav Exhibitors (P) Limited v. Karur Vysya Bank Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to condone delays in filing and re-filing, holding that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause or due diligence to overcome the limitation bar.
Sivankutty v. Harinder Kaur
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal challenging ownership and possession of a property, affirming that adverse possession and benami claims require clear evidence and that concurrent factual findings cannot be disturbed absent substantial questions of law.
Sh. Ramesh Kumar v. Sh. Balbir Singh
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the 1984 partition of ancestral property was complete and the appellants failed to prove co-ownership or entitlement to partition of the disputed property.
Shanti Devi v. Prem Chand & Jai Bhagwan
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership or possession of the property, and thus was not entitled to possession or permanent injunction.
Bhoora Mohammad v. Khakasha Bano
The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal challenging ownership and possession of property, holding that the appellant failed to prove forgery and no substantial question of law arose for interference.
Suncity Hi-Tech Infrastructures Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging an FIR as infructuous after the same FIR was quashed in a connected writ petition.
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi & Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advocates v. STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 13/2024 registered based on information shared by the ED under Section 66(2) PMLA, holding that the FIR disclosed prima facie cognizable offences and was lawfully registered.
Jackson Square Aviation Ireland Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int
The Delhi High Court set aside a Final Assessment Order passed without awaiting the Dispute Resolution Panel's decision on timely filed objections, affirming the mandatory procedure under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.