402 Delhi High Court judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 8 of 17.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a judge’s order extending custodial investigation under UAPA’s Sec 43D(2)(b) is merely interlocutory, so an appeal under Sec 21 of the NIA Act is barred. Parties must instead seek a revision under CrPC Sec 482. This limits immediate appellate relief in NIA investigations.
Delhi High Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act does not arise automatically. Material inconsistencies in the victim’s statements created reasonable doubt, mandating the benefit of doubt. The decision narrows the scope of the presumption, impacting future POCSO prosecutions.
By finding the Director General lacked authority under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the Delhi High Court struck down the charge-sheet against the senior ICMR deputy director-general and nullified the whole inquiry. The ruling clarifies that only the authority expressly designated by the CCS (CCA) Rules can initiate disciplinary proceedings, impacting all government servants subject to similar rules.
Delhi High Court ruled that a plaintiff can obtain a Section 12A exemption when a continuing IP infringement case demands urgent interim relief, permitting the court to order release of title deeds against cash security. This clarifies that mediation waiver is available for time-sensitive IP disputes, affecting commercial litigants seeking swift injunctive relief.
The Delhi High Court held that a permissive licence does not create adverse possession or trigger the Limitation Act’s time bar, leaving the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the lease-hold suit property. Licensees cannot claim possession on that basis, clarifying rights in lease-hold disputes.
Landlords cannot rely on a claimed bonafide requirement for eviction if the need is not genuine or if they later secure alternative premises or move abroad. The Delhi High Court set aside dismissal orders in three eviction cases, ruling that such subsequent events defeat the Section 25-B(8) defence. Tenants in similar disputes gain protection.
When a title deed is declared void, the court applied the 12-year limitation under Article 65 for a declaration suit, overturning the lower court’s dismissal on limitation grounds. This establishes that possession claims cannot rely on a shorter limitation, guiding litigants seeking declaratory relief in property disputes.
The Delhi High Court set aside two FIRs lodged for the same Independence Day procession, holding that successive FIRs for a single continuous transaction breach the test of sameness and double-jeopardy safeguards. The ruling prevents duplicate FIR filings on identical facts, protecting accused persons from multiple prosecutions.
Delhi High Court affirmed that bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act can be denied unless the prosecution shows a fresh or ongoing unlawful act by the alleged syndicate, reflecting the stringent threshold of Section 21(4). This narrows bail relief for individuals, including elected representatives, charged under MCOCA.
Delhi High Court clarifies the burden of proof for bona fide passengers and defines untoward incidents under the Railways Act, setting aside a Tribunal order.
Delhi High Court partially set aside the arbitral award, ruling that damages awarded without establishing actual loss and interest counted as damages breach Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The decision restricts arbitral tribunals to grant only loss-based compensation, with interest payable separately, affecting future construction and contract disputes.
Delhi High Court ruled that an arbitral award not incorporated into an approved IBC resolution plan is legally extinguished, and ordered the return of the petitioner’s security deposit of INR 5.52 crore with accrued interest. The decision clarifies that Section 34 petitions become infructuous when the award is omitted from the resolution plan, impacting parties in corporate insolvency arbitrations.
The Delhi High Court partially vacated the NHAI-Louis Berger award, finding that the tribunal’s grant of operation-and-maintenance relief exceeded the matters arbitrable under the contract and breached the equal-treatment rule of Section 18. The construction-payment portion of the award remains intact, signalling that arbitral tribunals cannot extend relief beyond the defined scope in infrastructure consultancy disputes.
The Delhi High Court lifted a stay on a Section 138 complaint, ruling that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’s moratorium does not extinguish criminal liability for cheque bounce. This ensures borrowers cannot evade prosecution by invoking insolvency protection, affecting all parties in pending IBC cases.
The Delhi High Court overturned the lower court’s decree, granting a permanent injunction against Saurashtra Aaj Tak and confirming that a party with prior use of a name can pursue a passing-off action without a registered trademark. This protects established brands from later entrants using deceptively similar titles.
The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause remains enforceable even when a party does not appear, and it may appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6). This allows loan-assignment disputes to proceed in arbitration without delay, affecting lenders and assignees.
The Delhi High Court ruled that street vendors without a valid provisional certificate of vending cannot be compelled to take part in any future NDMC surveys, and such participation does not confer any right to continue vending at the same sites. This limits the ability of unauthorized vendors to influence municipal data collection and reinforces NDMC’s authority to enforce vending regulations.
Delhi High Court dismisses statutory bail petition, holding that commercial quantity of methamphetamine precludes bail under the NDPS Act.
The Delhi High Court affirmed that the executive alone may adjust reservation allocations, barring the de-reservation of OBC-reserved DNB seats for unreserved candidates after counselling. This safeguards OBC candidates’ entitlement in medical postgraduate admissions and limits unilateral seat reallocation by institutions.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a director’s resignation is a disputed factual question that must be examined during trial, not through interlocutory revision. Resignation alone cannot shield a director from Section 138 NI Act prosecution.
Delhi HC set aside the 2005 Industrial Tribunal award that regularised a DTC driver, holding that mere continuity of service does not create a right to regularisation. The decision means employers need a statutory basis, not just tenure, to regularise temporary staff, affecting public-sector transport bodies and their workmen.
The Delhi High Court held that a trial court returning a plaint under Order VII Rule 10 can only adjudicate its own territorial jurisdiction, not that of other Delhi courts. This limits lower courts from pre-emptively deciding jurisdictional questions in commercial suits, affecting litigants and counsel across Delhi’s civil docket.
The Delhi High Court affirmed that a trademark’s earlier filing date under Section 18 overrides any later party’s prior-market-use defence under Section 34, confirming the registrar’s grant of ‘20-20’ to the first applicant. This clarifies that prior use does not defeat an earlier filing, guiding businesses on the primacy of registration dates in trademark disputes.
The NCDRC ruled that the insurer, not the claimant, must establish that a pre-existing disease was concealed when the policy was taken. This shifts the evidential burden onto insurers in death-claim disputes, safeguarding policyholders from arbitrary refusals.