Delhi High Court judgments

The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s summons to a former director, ruling that without explicit allegations tying him to the cheque-bounce offence, vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be presumed. Plaintiffs must detail the director’s personal role to sustain a summons. The decision limits blanket liability of resigned directors in NI-Act proceedings.

The Delhi High Court affirmed the trial court’s power to recall a witness under Section 311 CrPC to examine a promissory note, rejecting the Section 482 petition. This clarifies that procedural objections cannot bar recall when the evidence is vital, affecting parties in ongoing criminal trials.

The Delhi High Court ruled that fees charged by an advocate serving as an interim resolution professional are subject to GST under the normal forward-charge mechanism, rejecting the IBBI’s reverse-charge classification. Consequently, such professionals must issue GST-compliant invoices and remit tax themselves, affecting all lawyer-insolvency professionals and the corporate debtors they handle.

A photocopy of a collaboration agreement cannot be treated as a dutiable instrument, so the stamp duty and penalty imposed were set aside and refunded with interest. This clarifies that only original, registered instruments attract stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, affecting parties filing such agreements.

The Delhi High Court ruled that co-accused statements, call-detail records and modest money transactions do not constitute substantive proof of a drug-kingpin, granting regular bail where no narcotics were seized and the charge sheet is unfiled. This narrows the evidentiary bar for bail in NDPS prosecutions.

The Delhi High Court affirmed the teacher’s conviction, ruling that a trustworthy child’s statement, even without corroborative evidence, meets the evidentiary threshold under the POCSO Act. It further held that the statutory presumption of guilt in Section 29 remains valid when the child’s testimony is reliable, strengthening the evidentiary position of minor victims in future cases.

A Delhi High Court ruling confirms that an employee who voluntarily retires after 25 years of service remains eligible for post-retirement medical facilities, declaring the 2010 amendment that removed ‘resignation’ from Rule 8.4 of the Medical Attendance Rules 2009 void. The decision obliges the Centre for Railway Information Systems to activate and fund the scheme for the retiree and spouse, setting a precedent for similar public-sector bodies.

The Delhi High Court upheld a Look Out Circular restraining a garment exporter, holding that review is confined to the circular's legality and a reasonable belief of economic loss, not the adequacy of the underlying material. This narrows judicial scrutiny of LOCs, impacting exporters and others subject to travel bans under the economic-interest clause.

Delhi High Court refused to quash summons issued to the directors of Dev Bhoomi Automobiles, holding that a prima facie case under Sections 138 and 141 NI Act suffices at the pre-trial stage. The court clarified that directors can be held vicariously liable for the company’s dishonoured cheques without proving they signed the instrument. Consequently, lack of signatory status cannot shield directors from criminal summons in NI Act matters.

A divorce settlement clause that the husband ‘will have to give’ a flat imposes a binding duty to transfer ownership, not just a right to reside. The Delhi High Court set aside the Family Court’s dismissal, holding that such clauses are enforceable as property transfers, enabling spouses to compel title conveyance.

Delhi HC rejected NHAI’s Section 34 challenge, confirming the arbitral award of 10% p.a. interest compounded monthly. It held that jurisdictional objections must be raised promptly and that consent to arbitrate precludes later attacks. The decision safeguards interest awards and clarifies procedural timing for parties in arbitration.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a claim of residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act does not stay a civil suit for possession, as the Act offers only protective relief, not a bar to eviction. Property owners can therefore proceed with eviction even when the occupant invokes a residence right under the DVA. This clarifies the limited scope of Section 17 in property disputes.

The Delhi High Court struck down NHAI’s two-year debarment of SAI Consulting, ruling that blacklisting is an extraordinary sanction that can be imposed only after showing serious misconduct and affording a fair hearing. The decision limits agencies to use debarment proportionately, protecting contractors from punitive bans for mere contractual lapses.

A Delhi High Court set aside a 2022 award, declaring it a nullity because the sole arbitrator had been appointed solely by one party without an express written waiver of the ineligibility bar under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The ruling makes clear that any such unilateral appointment invalidates the award, affecting parties relying on sole arbitrator clauses.

The Delhi High Court confirmed that the Industrial Disputes Act governs a nursing orderly employed under CCS rules, upholding the Labour Court’s finding of an illegal termination. It reduced the back-wage award to 50% of salary and ordered payment within twelve weeks, clarifying IDA coverage for CCS employees and the calculation of back-wages.

The Delhi High Court held that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) 2018 makes prior governmental sanction a pre-condition for taking cognizance, and that the amendment operates only prospectively, leaving cases where cognizance was taken before 26 July 2018 untouched. This confines the amendment’s effect to pending and future prosecutions of public servants.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a petitioner's claim of having resigned before the alleged offences makes the question of his directorship a factual matter for trial, not a ground for invoking Section 482 to halt the case. Consequently, revision petitions seeking a stay were dismissed, signalling that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to pre-empt trial on director-status questions. This impacts directors and companies facing criminal complaints under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act.

The Delhi High Court set aside murder convictions where the prosecution could not prove a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence or correctly identify the accused, reducing some to culpable homicide. This ruling stresses that without an unbroken evidentiary link and reliable identification, a murder charge cannot be sustained, impacting pending murder appeals.

Delhi High Court granted condonation of an 855-day filing delay, stressing that the Railways Act’s remedial purpose warrants a liberal approach. It also ruled that a passenger’s loss of a ticket does not bar a claim and that an accidental fall from a train constitutes an ‘untoward incident’ under the Act, expanding compensation eligibility for railway passengers.

The Delhi High Court held that a mere police complaint does not satisfy the ‘steps to prosecute’ requirement of Paragraph 19.3 of the Bipartite Settlement, so the employee’s reinstatement order was set aside and the bank’s dismissal for misappropriating funds was affirmed, shaping future disciplinary actions in industrial disputes.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that a pregnancy of a girl under 18 cannot be terminated without the written consent of her guardian and that any such termination must be reported under the POCSO Act. This clarifies the dual pre-condition of guardian approval and statutory reporting for medical practitioners. The ruling binds doctors, hospitals and magistrates handling minor pregnancy cases.

Partial payment of the purchase price does not invalidate a sale deed, the Delhi High Court ruled, applying Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act to uphold the deed, possession and rent-arrears claims. This safeguards parties in property transactions from having agreements undone solely due to incomplete consideration.

The Delhi High Court, hearing T-Mobile’s petition, ordered the Patent Office to use new guidelines for applying the Section 3(m) mental-act exclusion. The guidelines set evidentiary standards and steps to separate non-technical mental steps from patent-eligible inventions, affecting all software-related patent applicants and examiners.

The Delhi High Court restored the ‘BLUE CHIP’ trademark, holding that removal without the Section 25(3) notice is unlawful. It clarified that the renewal window under Rule 64(3) begins from the registration date, not the filing date. Trademark owners now have clearer protection against improper removal.