402 Delhi High Court judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 9 of 17.
Delhi HC confirms tenancy rights over ownership claims, upholds eviction decree and awards Rs. 5,000/month mesne profits from Feb 2022. Landlords can enforce possession even if tenant disputes title transfer.
Delhi High Court sustained a Family Court directive for ₹15,000 monthly maintenance to the wife and ₹10,000 to the child, with a 5% annual increment, affirming the husband's capacity to pay under Section 125 CrPC. The ruling reinforces judicial discretion in adjusting maintenance for inflation and changing circumstances.
Delhi High Court rules that police cannot conduct further investigation after charge-sheet without prior judicial approval under BNSS Section 193(9), safeguarding against arbitrary executive action. The ruling reinforces judicial oversight in criminal proceedings under the new code.
Delhi State Consumer Commission affirms insurer cannot unilaterally appoint a second surveyor under Section 64-UM without justification, ordering payment of Rs. 10.99L IDV with 7% interest from 2019. Ruling reinforces consumer rights against deficiency in service.
Delhi State Consumer Commission directs HDFC Life to pay Rs. 15 lakh death claim with 9% interest from 2013, ruling that non-disclosure of job termination was immaterial to the insurance contract. Upholds District Forum’s order, rejecting insurer’s plea under the principle of utmost good faith.
Delhi HC allows plaintiffs to notify ISPs and DoT to block mirror/alphanumeric rogue websites infringing copyright, expanding Dynamic+ injunction scope while retaining judicial oversight. A landmark ruling for online IP enforcement.
Delhi HC affirms that an irrevocable General Power of Attorney coupled with interest survives the principal’s death, upholding a possession decree and mesne profits award under Section 202 of the Contract Act. The ruling clarifies agency continuity in property disputes.
Delhi State Consumer Commission set aside an order striking off Emaar India's right to file a written statement, ruling that the limitation period for filing begins only after receipt of complete complaint documents. The decision underscores the necessity of verifying the completeness of complaint documents before imposing procedural penalties.
The NCDRC has set aside a State Commission order for failing to examine critical evidence - including affidavits and the operation theatre register - in a medical negligence complaint. This reinforces that procedural fairness in consumer forums demands full appreciation of all material evidence, even when parties dispute involvement. Healthcare providers and insurers must now ensure all documentary defenses are formally recorded and evaluated.
NCDRC rules that insurance repudiation is valid where surveyor reports question claim documents without concrete evidence. The judgment underscores that insurers cannot rely on mere suspicion to reject claims, setting a precedent for fair assessment standards under consumer protection laws.
Delhi State Consumer Commission dismisses ₹57.5 lakh insurance claim, ruling the claimant failed to establish ownership of the Breguet wristwatch, the cash transaction, or the snatching incident with credible evidence. The judgment reinforces that insurance claims under the principle of utmost good faith require strict documentary proof, shifting the burden entirely on the claimant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismisses a complaint alleging battery range deficiency in a Mercedes EQC 400, ruling that mere mileage discrepancy without expert evidence fails to establish a manufacturing defect under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The decision underscores the burden of proof on consumers to substantiate claims with technical expertise, impacting electric vehicle litigation and consumer rights enforcement.
Axis Bank has been held liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for losing a borrower’s original sale deed, constituting a clear deficiency in service. The Delhi State CDRC awarded Rs. 15 lakh in compensation, setting a precedent that financial institutions owe a fiduciary duty to safeguard title documents entrusted to them, with consequential liability for financial and emotional harm caused by their negligence.
Borrowers availing housing loans for personal use are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, and lenders cannot unilaterally extend loan tenures without consent - doing so amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This ruling empowers home loan borrowers to challenge arbitrary loan modifications and holds financial institutions accountable for transparent contractual conduct.
The Central Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled that pre-agreement conduct cannot override statutory requirements for tax classification; only Form F compliance and agreements executed after August 1, 1995, determine whether a transaction qualifies as consignment or inter-state sale. This clarifies a critical compliance threshold for manufacturers and traders dealing with multi-state stock transfers under the CST Act.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holds builders strictly liable for 'deficiency in service' under Section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection Act for delayed possession and arbitrary charges. The ruling mandates 6% interest on payments and Rs. 1.5 lakh compensation, setting a precedent for homebuyers against unfair builder practices.
Delhi State Consumer Commission rules that buying a single residential plot for personal use-even through a broker-falls under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, entitling buyers to remedies for deficiency in service. This clarifies the scope of consumer rights in real estate transactions, reinforcing protections for individual plot buyers against unfair trade practices.
Delhi State Consumer Commission rules that machinery purchases for self-employment livelihood do not constitute 'commercial purpose' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The ruling clarifies that small-scale entrepreneurs are protected as consumers, ensuring access to consumer forums for disputes.
The Delhi High Court has affirmed that compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) is lawful when grounded in a holistic assessment of an officer’s entire service record, including uncommunicated adverse entries, as long as the decision reflects reasoned application of mind and lacks mala fides. This reinforces that procedural fairness in service law does not require prior disclosure of every adverse remark, but demands substantive justification and absence of arbitrariness-critical for public sector employees facing administrative review.
Delhi High Court rules that an insurer remains liable under the Employees' Compensation Act if an additional premium was paid for cleaner/driver coverage, even without a formal employment contract. The court held that the employer’s admission of the deceased’s role and premium payment triggered the insurer’s indemnity obligation, ensuring compensation for workplace fatalities.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that conviction under Section 304A IPC cannot rest solely on eyewitness accounts of high speed or vague allegations; the prosecution must establish both the accused’s identity as the driver and the rash or negligent nature of driving through credible, corroborated evidence. This sets a critical precedent for road accident prosecutions, raising the bar for circumstantial proof in cases lacking forensic or documentary support.
The Delhi High Court ruled that deliberately hurling a burning effigy at a guarded security room, knowing occupants are inside, amounts to attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC - protest intent cannot shield intentional acts likely to cause death. This sets a critical precedent for distinguishing legitimate dissent from lethal aggression in public demonstrations.
The Delhi High Court upheld a conviction under PoCSO despite the non-verbal child victim not being examined, ruling that medical certification of cerebral palsy and consistent testimony from family members and the MLC suffice to establish guilt. This sets a critical precedent for prosecuting sexual crimes against children with disabilities where direct testimony is impossible, reinforcing that evidentiary flexibility must align with justice, not procedural rigidity.
Delhi State Consumer Commission rules that insurers cannot deny claims based on vague allegations but must substantiate deficiencies with documented proof. The Commission also mandates settlement within a reasonable timeframe, reinforcing consumer protection in mediclaim disputes.