Latest Delhi Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upholds the rejection of a partition suit under Order VII Rule 11, holding that a plaintiff who has known of the Wills since 2014 needed a declaration and the limitation for one had long expired.
Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar say they are unable to agree with Ram Sarup Lugani, Delhi Gymkhana Club and Manhar Sabharwal, and refer three questions on Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules and the Registrar's powers for consideration by a Larger Bench.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sets aside the Bar Council of India's removal of an advocate's name, holding that the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act requires a nexus between the wrongful act and the enrolment obtained — and reprimands her for the fabricated certificate anyway.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held a study leave bond clause unenforceable against the Study Leave Rules, and found recovery barred by Rafiq Masih in any event.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav refused an interim injunction over Delhi Law House titles, holding a claim to a share of revenue is compensable in damages, not by restraint.
Justice Madhu Jain sets aside a Special Judge's refusal and directs a written complaint against six CBI officers, holding that successive drafts and file notings supply the reasonable foundation Section 340 requires.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia reject a vires challenge to the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules and hold that eviction proceedings do not depend on a claim for maintenance.
Justice Madhu Jain finds the accounts of the complainant and her mother irreconcilable on where she was found and how often, with no corroborating medical evidence, and allows the appeal.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia hold that a vigilance advice never placed before the disciplinary authority did not vitiate the charge, there being nothing left to reconsider.
Justices Navin Chawla and Arun Bhardwaj release a man accused of funding a separatist organisation, with 42 of 161 witnesses examined and a protected witness's account resting on hearsay.
The Supreme Court has referred the Article 21 and Section 43D(5) question to a larger Bench. Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja decline to wait, applying the law as it stands and releasing a man accused of arranging four pistols.
A DMRC finance officer was appointed sole arbitrator in March 2015. Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar hold that Section 12(5), inserted seven months later, cannot be read back into an arbitration already under way.
A Rs 3.15 crore IGST refund had been sanctioned on appeal and then withheld. Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain hold that Section 54(11) rests on two cumulative limbs, and that an ongoing investigation is not the same thing as a show cause notice.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee holds that neither criminal breach of trust nor cheating is made out where donors parted with ownership and no complainant claimed to have been deceived.
Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja answer a reference, holding that examining the complainant and hearing the accused both precede cognizance, with notice issuing only after the evidence.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani set aside the Special Court's order restoring attached assets to the insolvency professional and appointed a monitoring committee to verify all 1,650 Greenopolis homebuyers.
The Supreme Court excluded 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 from every limitation period. The Delhi High Court holds that exclusion enlarges time over and above what the statute gives — and a suit filed 19 months later was in time.
A Rs 1,347 crore termination payment claim turned on whether a contractual cost cap could be displaced by one party's notification. The Delhi High Court upholds the setting aside of the award.
A fixed-price contract that expressly allowed adjustments for labour, materials and fuel. The Delhi High Court sets aside the rejection of a price variation claim as patently illegal, and leaves the parties to a fresh arbitration on quantum.
Section 12(5) can only be waived by an express written agreement made after the dispute arises. The Delhi High Court holds that nothing else will do — not pleadings, not counter-claims, not silence.
That is why the Delhi High Court believes it. A life sentence for a 1995 murder is quashed on a finding of juvenility, the conviction left standing, and a man who had already served nearly eight years is released.
Thirteen years after conviction, the Delhi High Court sets it aside: an MLC history that contradicted the charge, a forensic report that found no blood on clothes said to be soaked in it, and an age proved by a school register nobody could vouch for.
A bribe for releasing a judo coach's kit allowance, and a defence built on the sequence of events. The Delhi High Court finds the demand continued after the work was done, and upholds the conviction.
Sixteen years after the FIR, the Delhi High Court refuses to quash an order on charge over forged supply certificates — those weaknesses go to appreciation of evidence, not to whether a trial should happen.
