Latest Delhi Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
Justice Mini Pushkarna suspended the sentence of a DSIIDC dealing clerk convicted in a CBI trap case, noting that no money was recovered from him, no witness spoke of a demand by him and he had stayed on bail through the trial.
A Division Bench held that refusing 2011 correspondence tendered after the other side had finished its evidence did not deny a fair hearing, and that approval of invoices did not prove approval of revised rates. It dismissed Viceroy Engineering appeal against an award rejecting all its counterclaims.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld a Rent Controller's order granting leave to defend, because the landlord's own title documents, pleaded rent and disclosures left the existence of a tenancy open for evidence.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court noted that only High Courts and the Supreme Court can fix such terms after V. Sriharan, but dismissed the writ petition because the High Court itself had confirmed the sentence in 2013 and the Supreme Court had dismissed his special leave petition.
A Division Bench upheld the murder conviction of a woman accused of setting her daughter-in-law on fire in a Delhi jhuggi in 2000, relying on two consistent dying declarations, but set aside the cruelty convictions of her and her son.
A paper dealer lost its execution case because the buyer was not a member of the Paper Merchants Association. The Delhi High Court held that non-membership does not make the Association Executive Committee appointment of a sole arbitrator unilateral under Section 12(5), and sent the case back to the executing court.
Justice Tejas Karia granted an interim injunction to Jindal Composite Tubes, holding that JINDAL remains the dominant feature of GROJINDAL, that a surname defence fails because JINDAL is not the defendant name, and that Delhi has jurisdiction because the plaintiffs carry on business there.
Twenty-eight years after a woman was set on fire on Bhai Dooj, a Delhi High Court bench upheld murder convictions of her husband, a Delhi Police ASI, his mother and a sister-in-law on the strength of her dying declaration, and acquitted three women of cruelty on the benefit of doubt.
Justice Anish Dayal applied the multiplier method to nursing, attendants, physiotherapy and future treatment, rejected a three-year-old income finding, and refused loss of consortium because the man is alive.
Justice Anish Dayal enhanced compensation for a 21-year-old left in a vegetative state, applying a multiplier of 18 to nursing, attendant, physiotherapy and future medical costs, while rejecting the insurer plea to cut income and non-pecuniary heads.
A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary upheld a single judge who set aside the part of an arbitral award letting DDA keep interest on a fixed deposit made from an encashed bank guarantee the arbitrator held DDA had no right to invoke.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the trial court prima facie findings on four passages of Yes Man, but held that a pending-trial ban on the entire book tilts the balance against free speech, and moulded the injunction to cover only those passages.
Justice Tejas Karia held that Doosra prima facie used the recognition and commercial appeal of Sourav Ganguly to draw audiences, yet declined to stop screenings of a film already released, ordering a disclaimer in English and Hindi and an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 2 crore.
Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma held that a plea of mental illness under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and the Dhariwal ruling needs material, and that judicial review does not reopen the evidence in a departmental inquiry.
Justice Madhu Jain upheld the conviction, rejecting claims of tutoring, delay, a missing DNA profile and a loan-dispute motive, but held that the sentence is governed by Section 6 as it stood in June 2016, with a minimum of ten years.
Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside life sentences from 2002, holding that the sole eyewitness was unreliable and that the disclosure, the recoveries and a matching blood group could not complete the chain of circumstances.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar refused to disturb a single judge ad interim order, holding that Clause 8 of the shareholders agreement bars even the tabling of a Reserved Matter without written consent from Resilient.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain held that Customs may examine whether third-party remittances are sale proceeds of the exported goods, that a civil decree against a bank does not bind Customs, and that a missing Section 14 valuation does not bar a fraud inquiry.
Justice Madhu Jain upheld the discharge of a husband and his parents on dowry death charges, set aside the charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide against the husband, and held that neither a final message nor the Section 113A presumption can supply a missing ingredient.
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed an appeal against a conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a three-year-old child, holding that paralysis did not make the act impossible, that a motive of tutoring was unproved, and that a seven-month delay in the FIR was explained.
Justice Madhu Jain upheld the conviction of a man who took a minor schoolgirl away in December 2014 and held her for over two months, but cut the sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act from 30 years of simple imprisonment to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Justice Madhu Jain acquitted a neighbour of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and rape of a girl aged under six, holding that the child testimony proved sexual touching but not insertion, and upheld his conviction and five-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj found merit in the argument that the trial delay may violate Article 21, but left it to the NIA special court to weigh the delay, a key witness and new charges, giving accused no. 24 in a Kashmir terror conspiracy case liberty to seek bail afresh.
A division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar held that a Section 34 court cannot swap the arbitrator reading of the contract correspondence for its own, restored the award declaring the Hazrat Nizamuddin platform contract prematurely terminated, revived the Rs 2.40 lakh EMD refund, Rs 12.09 lakh for irrecoverable advances and Rs 2.
