402 Delhi High Court judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 4 of 17.
Directors of a Delhi-based electronics trading firm cannot bypass the CGST appellate remedy by alleging defective notice service and denial of personal hearing; the Delhi HC held such factual disputes fall outside Article 226 jurisdiction, dismissing challenges to a Rs. 27.11 crore penalty under Section 122(1A) CGST Act.
The Delhi HC held that anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on unverified telephonic calls without interception, stressing that liberty under Section 438 CrPC needs substantive evidence. It shields NDPS accused whose case relies only on call logs lacking corroboration.
Delhi HC ruled that Section 151 CPC cannot be used to file additional documents after the 15-day period for leave to defend under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 expires, reinforcing the strict deadline for tenants and landlords in rent-control eviction suits.
A payer’s residence alone does not trigger tax under Sec 5(2)(b) absent a business connection in India, the Delhi HC ruled, quashing Rs 783 crore of TDS demands on pharma firms. The ruling clarifies source rule, shielding payments from unjust tax claims.
The Delhi High Court held that Section 17A PC Act’s prior sanction requirement does not apply to demands for illegal gratification, letting the charge framing stand. It clarifies that sanction is required only for acceptance, not demand, of bribes, guiding corruption prosecutions.
The Delhi High Court held that relatives’ testimony is not interested and that a dowry demand satisfies proximity requirement under Section 304B IPC, clarifying evidentiary standards in dowry death cases and guiding trial courts on witness credibility.
Delhi HC directed the MCD to find alternative vending space for the petitioner within two weeks, requiring cart vending, a gas cylinder, hygiene compliance and non-obstruction, thereby protecting the vendor’s livelihood and addressing MCD safety concerns.
The Delhi High Court held that a claim of commercial disparagement succeeds only if the advertisement conveys a false or misleading overall impression to the average consumer, not when it isolates truthful statements about ingredients. The ruling clarifies the standard for comparative ads affecting FMCG brands and advertisers.
The Delhi High Court ruled that MSME registration under Section 18 operates prospectively, so pre-registration claims are not maintainable before the Facilitation Council. A party cannot abandon arbitration and later obtain MSME registration to invoke MSEFC jurisdiction - this constitutes forum hunting. Territorial jurisdiction of MSEFCs is also strict, preventing forum shopping.
The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation under Section 20(3)(ii) of the Minimum Wages Act cannot exceed the statutory limit of Rs 10, setting aside the Authority's award of 50% compensation on overtime arrears. The court substituted the excess compensation with simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of claim accrual. This clarifies the ceiling on penal compensation for minimum wage violations, impacting employers and workers in sectors like private security.
The Delhi High Court restored a specific performance suit dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d), holding an unregistered agreement to sell admissible under Section 49's proviso where full consideration was paid and possession delivered. Stamp duty deficiency is curable by paying a 10x penalty, ensuring the suit proceeds on merits rather than technical dismissal.
The court ruled that a secured creditor in a SARFAESI auction must disclose known material encumbrances like unearned increase (UEI) charges, holding that an 'as is where is' clause does not override this statutory duty. Indian Bank was directed to pay UEI charges for four auctioned plots, with conveyance deeds to follow within four weeks. The ruling safeguards auction purchasers from hidden liabilities and mandates transparency in distressed asset sales.
The Delhi HC ruled that "last resided together" under Section 19(iii) HMA means the final joint residence - a four-year Gurugram stay displacing an earlier 18-month Delhi residence. The divorce petition was rightly returned for want of jurisdiction, and the appeal dismissed on maintainability (wrong respondent) and merits.
A tenant who unequivocally denies the landlord's title and claims ownership forfeits the lease under Section 111(g) TPA, losing Delhi Rent Control Act protection. The court upheld the decree for possession, rent arrears (Rs. 20/month at 9% interest), and mesne profits (Rs. 1,000/month), confirming that title repudiation extinguishes all statutory tenant safeguards.
The Delhi High Court set aside an IOCL Chief Manager's dismissal, holding that the disciplinary authority cannot adopt findings more adverse than the inquiry officer's without reasons and a hearing. The Chairman's dual role as disciplinary and appellate authority violated natural justice, and the penalty was grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct of backdating and shared negligence.
The Delhi High Court granted bail to two UAPA accused after nearly five years of pre-trial detention during which only 21 of 359 witnesses were examined, ruling that Article 21 constitutional protections prevail over Section 43D(5) statutory bail restrictions when trial delay is inordinate and the accused's role is peripheral. The decision reinforces that prolonged incarceration without trial progress cannot be justified solely by the severity of UAPA allegations.
The Delhi High Court held that a SARFAESI auction sale becomes final upon full payment within the Rule 9(4) period, extinguishing the borrower's redemption right irrespective of pending sale certificate registration before the DRT. The ruling secures auction purchasers' rights and clarifies that procedural delays in registration cannot reopen redemption.
The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹8.4 lakh decree for a commission agent, holding that an internal account statement not filed with the plaint is inadmissible under Order VII Rule 14 CPC. The agent must independently prove actual supply of X-ray films to government departments to claim commission; a limitation plea raised for the first time in appeal was rejected.
The Delhi High Court held that input tax credit blocked under Rule 86A cannot be used to satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) for filing a GST appeal. The court granted the petitioner four weeks from the judgment date to file the appeal with interim protection from coercive recovery.
The Delhi High Court quashed the ECI's mandate requiring Booth Level Agents to undertake verification of enumeration forms in Special Intensive Revision, holding that Section 31 RP Act confines BLA liability to photograph matching. The court deemed the blanket undertaking requirement arbitrary as the statutory duty to verify electoral rolls rests with Booth Level Officers, not party-appointed agents.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Indian courts can entertain civil suits to recover fraud-derived funds held in Indian banks, rejecting a forum non conveniens plea under the CPC. It also clarified that the limitation period for such monetary claims is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, commencing from the date the fraud is discovered. This decision guides foreign governments and claimants seeking cross-border fraud restitution in India.
The Delhi High Court reinstated the arbitral award, ruling that a claim of patent illegality fails when the award correctly interprets the contract and statutory provisions. This limits parties from overturning awards on that ground, reinforcing the narrow scope of judicial interference in arbitration.
Delhi High Court holds that pre-CIRP customs duties not filed during insolvency are extinguished once the IBC resolution plan is approved, quashing the customs order.
The Delhi High Court affirmed that payments made to outside agencies for dealing, dyeing and fabrication do not qualify as basic wages for provident fund purposes. Consequently, employers cannot be compelled to treat such contractor payments as PF wages, impacting firms that outsource these operations.