Delhi High Court judgments

Delhi HC held Section 122(1A) CGST Act applies to any person retaining benefit from fraudulent ITC, including non-taxable persons, and operates prospectively from 1 Jan 2021. The ruling quashes personal penalties on directors, clarifying the provision's scope and shielding taxpayers from retrospective liability.

The Delhi High Court ruled that an FIR in a matrimonial dispute cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC merely on the basis of compromise; a formal divorce decree is necessary. The petition was dismissed, but parties may refile after obtaining a divorce decree.

The Delhi HC ruled that under Section 439(1A) CrPC, the victim must be heard before bail, irrespective of the State’s presence. By quashing the accused’s bail, the court emphasized that victim participation is mandatory and non-waivable.

The Delhi High Court granted bail on a Rs 50,000 bond, holding that mere apprehension of repetition without explicit evidence, antecedents or seized machinery cannot deny bail in economic offences under the Health Security SE NSS Cess Act.

Tax proceedings can be initiated against a legal representative after a taxpayer's death under Section 93 CGST Act if conditions are met. The department must account for ₹15.4 lakh seized from the deceased's premises within three weeks.

The Delhi HC held that waiver of the right to object to an arbitrator’s appointment under Section 12(5) requires an express written agreement after the dispute; mere participation does not suffice. This clarifies the law for parties in arbitration.

The Delhi High Court held that counsel’s settlement statements bind the client, barring Equitas Small Finance Bank from reviving a dismissed NI Act complaint and upholding advocate-client ties and Lok Adalat finality.

Delhi HC upheld conspiracy and cheating charges under Sections 120B/420 IPC on circumstantial evidence, quashed forgery charges for lack of proof, and held circumstantial evidence suffices to frame conspiracy charges at charge stage in economic offences.

Delhi HC struck down trial court's prior permission condition for foreign travel, holding it cannot stand without bail, cognizance or summons; instead, two weeks' prior intimation suffices. This shields Article 21 travel rights for those not yet arrested or summoned.

The Court held that admissions of tenancy and rent payment in a written statement sustain a possession decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, removing the need for separate tenancy proof, and that an eviction suit itself is a valid notice to quit, simplifying landlord recovery.

The Delhi HC held that Section 9 interim measures continue until the arbitral tribunal is constituted, after which the matter shifts to Section 17 and the tribunal may modify or vacate them, clarifying shift of interim relief from courts to tribunals.

The Delhi HC held that an arbitral award lacking proper stamp duty must be impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but granted the decree holder liberty to withdraw the enforcement petition and re-file after paying the deficient stamp duty and any penalty. This clarifies that stamp deficiency is a curable defect, affecting parties seeking to enforce arbitral awards in Delhi.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a landlord claiming damages for lost rent must first mitigate the loss and establish the prevailing market rent at the time of breach, failing which the claim under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act fails. The decision affects landlords seeking compensation for tenant-induced utility theft, emphasizing the evidentiary burden on them.

Indian law governs the SAP support contract, the Delhi High Court held, rejecting the defendant's claim that EU sanctions excuse performance absent proof and ordering restoration of services to keep the refinery running.

The Delhi HC held that parties' consensus and an award lacking reasoning justify remand under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The ruling clarifies that mutual consent plus deficient awards triggers remission, affecting arbitrators and contracting parties in future disputes.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a litigant cannot amend its pleadings to contradict an earlier categorical denial, as doing so would undermine judicial discipline. This clarification reinforces the court’s discretion under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to prevent abusive pleading changes, affecting parties seeking to shift defences mid-trial.

The Delhi High Court upheld arrest warrants against an authorized representative for concealing bank assets during execution of an arbitral award, holding that Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC imposes personal liability despite the corporate veil.

The Delhi High Court upheld a GST search under Section 67 at an advocate's office, ruling that advocate-client privilege does not shield personal conduct from investigation. It directed safeguards for examining seized electronic data while permitting the probe to continue, affecting advocates facing tax inquiries.

A witness’s signature in testator’s presence remains valid even with advocate prompting the signing, and delay in filing for probate does not invalidate will absent a statutory limitation, benefiting executors and beneficiaries facing procedural delays.

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause letting one party curate the arbitrator panel breaches Section 18’s equal treatment mandate, appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11 and affecting contracts with similar party nominated panel clauses.

Delhi High Court held that knowledge of victim's caste suffices to frame charges under Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act. This lowers the threshold for invoking atrocity provisions at charge framing, impacting prosecutors and accused.

Under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a unilateral arbitrator appointment after a dispute is invalid without a post-dispute written waiver, the Delhi High Court held, adding that pre-dispute clauses cannot substitute the waiver.

Delay in an arbitral award alone does not vitiate it under Section 34 unless the delay is unexplained and adversely affects the findings. Thus, an award cannot be set aside just for delay; parties must prove unexplained delay affecting the findings.

A partition suit is not maintainable if plaintiffs lack actual or constructive possession and do not seek possession relief, the Delhi High Court ruled, placing the burden on challengers of registered documents to prove invalidity.