Delhi High Court judgments

The Delhi High Court held that magistrates must independently apply their judicial mind before issuing summoning orders at the cognizance stage, upholding the summons against a director accused of diverting business proceeds under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC. This ruling reinforces procedural safeguards against mechanical issuance of process and affects magistrates, accused, and complainants in criminal proceedings.

The Delhi High Court stayed a promoter’s termination, holding that dismissal in breach of the shareholders agreement warrants interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, protecting promoter rights pending arbitration.

Delhi HC held that the defendant-wife could reside in the suit property under Section 39 TPA, noting that a Mohammedan will bequeathing over one-third share needs heir consent and an unregistered surrender declaration is void. This clarifies spousal residence rights in property disputes.

The Delhi High Court held a writ petition maintainable against an ARC for alleged fraud in security-interest creation, despite SARFAESI’s remedy. It directed exclusion of the petitioner’s one-third share from the e-auction.

The Delhi HC set aside the Special Court’s dismissal of a disability harassment complaint, holding that ignoring post-RPwD Act allegations made the order unsustainable. It remanded the case for a fresh review under Sections 92 and 84 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash an FIR for serious injuries such as a skull fracture, even if the parties have settled, the Delhi High Court held. The judgment emphasizes that grave bodily harm outweighs compromise, limiting the use of Section 482 in violent offences and guiding future quashal petitions.

The Delhi High Court held that interest on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs from the date of dispossession and cannot be denied due to delay in filing amendment applications.

The Delhi High Court held that a widow's right to reside in the matrimonial home under Section 17 of the DV Act is independent of the husband's ownership, requiring alternate accommodation or ₹15,000/month rent before eviction. This strengthens protection for widows against arbitrary dispossession.

Delhi HC quashed an FIR under Section 174A IPC after finding that summons were sent to the wrong address, meaning the accused was wrongly declared an absconder. The ruling stresses that under Section 82 CrPC, a court must objectively verify residence before labelling someone an absconder and issuing a proclamation.

The Delhi HC held that a Section 34 petition is barred only if filed after 90 days from receipt of the award, not its date, and directors are liable only with a personal guarantee or fraud, clarifying limitation and narrowing director exposure in loan agreements.

A never-consummated marriage with 84 days’ separation and a MOU settlement showing no reconciliation amounts to exceptional hardship, permitting waiver of the one-year period under HMA Sec 14(1) for an immediate divorce petition, as held by Delhi HC.

Delhi HC quashed a ₹70 crore stamp duty demand on Freecharge Payment Technologies, ruling that Notification No.13 of 1937 exempts intra-group amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiaries from stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The decision benefits corporate groups undertaking internal restructurings by removing stamp duty on such schemes.

A unilateral arbitrator appointment violating Section 12(5) renders award non-est, the Delhi HC held, requiring setting aside despite Section 34 challenge, meaning flawed appointments cannot be cured partially, affecting parties relying on awards.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation awarded under Section 357(3) CrPC for pain and suffering cannot be set off against MACT awards for loss of dependency, as they compensate different heads of loss. It directed that the criminal compensation amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending the outcome of the criminal appeal, benefitting victims' families by preserving both recoveries.

The Delhi High Court held that a tenant’s unequivocal denial of the landlord-tenant relationship triggers forfeiture under Section 111(g) TPA, overcoming the Section 50 DRC Act bar. The decision lets landlords regain possession on repayment of the security deposit, impacting tenants who deny the tenancy.

A transfer after execution notice does not defeat execution under Section 52 TPA, Delhi HC upheld the auction sale of an undivided share for ₹84.5 lakh. The ruling confirms pendente lite transfers cannot stall execution, affecting judgment debtors and transferees.

The Delhi High Court quashed a Bank of Baroda Look Out Circular after the CBI completed its investigation, holding that an LOC cannot be maintained merely because trial is pending and affects individuals facing travel restrictions during trial.

Delhi HC held that under Sections 101 and 111 Evidence Act, the burden to prove good faith in a fiduciary transaction lies on the party in confidence. It cancelled a daughter’s sale deed for inadequate consideration, restoring possession to legal heirs.

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction provisions under the Senior Citizens Act, confirming that tribunals may direct a respondent to vacate premises to protect a senior citizen’s life and property. It clarified that such orders do not infringe the Domestic Violence Act’s shared household safeguard, impacting seniors facing abuse from co-habitants.

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even though the respondent did not appear, holding that the court’s inquiry is confined to whether a valid arbitration agreement prima facie exists. This clarifies that a party’s absence does not bar appointment and limits judicial scrutiny at this stage, affecting contractors and respondents in arbitration disputes.

The Delhi HC held that a prima facie case under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act warrants interim relief, directing arbitration and restraining the respondent from dealing with the sub-leased premises, aiding landlords to secure interim measures.

Delhi HC appoints sole arbitrator under Section 11 of Arbitration Act, 1996; inquiry limited to prima facie arbitration agreement; claim Rs.85,35,069/-.

Under BNSS Sec 223(1), Delhi HC held that a magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses on oath before issuing notice to accused in a complaint, making examination prerequisite to cognizance and strengthening procedural safeguards for accused.

A homebuyers' association is not a 'claimant' under PMLA Sec 8(8), the Delhi HC held, and cannot seek restitution before charges are framed, limiting restitution to persons directly aggrieved by money-laundering offences.