Delhi High Court Judgements

81130 Judgements Hosted as on 24/08/2023 SEARCH (FREE) READ DOWNLOAD

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION RAILWAYS

Inquest proceedings were conducted around 8:55 am on 05.01.2017, which mentions the recovery of a journey ticket dated 04.01.2017 — Mere delay in noticing and reporting the incident by a third party ought to have been appreciated in light of the fact that the incident statedly took place in the month of January – Matter remanded to tribunal for grant of compensation

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 27, 2023 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT Before: Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. FAO 442 of 2018 & CM APPL.38848 of 2018Reserved on: 23.02.2023 Decided on: 24.05.2023 Om Parkash & Anr. - Appellants Versus Union…

C P C EVIDENCE ACT

DB – Defamation — Nowhere in the pleadings or in the evidence did the appellant or its witnesses state that the amounts were not due — Respondent’s assertion of there being outstanding amounts which had not been paid by the appellant Company cannot be termed to be false or per se defamatory.

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 27, 2023 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT Before: Suresh Kumar Kait & Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ. RFA(OS) 3 of 2019 & CM APPL. 1031 of 2019 Reserved on: 10.04.2023 Decided on: 30.05.2023 India Skills…

C P C

“The process of the Court cannot be utilized for the purposes of gathering information as to the whereabouts or the other information in respect of the respondent/judgment debtor. It is the primary obligation of the petitioner/decree holder itself to obtain such information from wherever it is possible.

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 26, 2023 0 Comments

“The process of the Court cannot be utilized for the purposes of gathering information as to the whereabouts or the other information in respect of the respondent/judgment debtor. It is…

C P C

Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999), Section(s) 28(3), 30(2)(e), 134 – Refusal of application for rejection of plaint – Maintainability of appeal — No provision for filing an appeal from an order of refusal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC passed by a Court

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 25, 2023 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT Before: Manmohan & Saurabh Banerjee, JJ. FAO(OS) (COMM) 3 of 2023 CM APPL.1397-1398 of 2023 Decided on: 12.01.2023 Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant Versus…

CHEQUE BOUNCE

Vicarious liability of Chief Account officer – Officer,  non-signatory to cheque —  Specific averment that petitioner/ accused persuaded the complainant to enter into the transaction with the Company by showing the financial position of the Company as well as making them believe in the capacity of the same to repay the debts – Held, complainant has fulfilled the basic criteria

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 25, 2023 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT Before: Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. CRL.M.C. 5218 of 2019 Reserved on: 12.01.2023 Decided on: 17.01.2023 Anurag Gangwal - Petitioner Versus State & Anr. - Respondents Alongwith CRL.M.A.…

CHEQUE BOUNCE

Vicarious liability — Phraseology used in Section 141 of the Act of being in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of Company is a reference to an “executive activity” which imports an element of running day-to-day affairs of the Company and would not be extended to a role which is essentially supervisory, policy oriented, of oversight or regulatory i.e. non-executive in character

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 25, 2023 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT Before: Anish Dayal, J. CRL.M.C. 1409 of 2018 Reserved on: 13.03.2023 Decided on: 11.04.2023 Yashovardhan Birla - Petitioner Versus CECIL Webber Engineering Ltd & Ors - Respondents…

Next Page »

You Missed

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Evidence By Way Of Affidavit Not Mandatory When Documentary Evidence Sufficient For Determining Well-Known Status Of Trademark

DIRECT TAXATION MUNICIPAL LAWS

DB – services rendered by advocates are professional activities, and, therefore, they cannot be levied with taxes under the “commercial establishment” category

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION RAILWAYS

Inquest proceedings were conducted around 8:55 am on 05.01.2017, which mentions the recovery of a journey ticket dated 04.01.2017 — Mere delay in noticing and reporting the incident by a third party ought to have been appreciated in light of the fact that the incident statedly took place in the month of January – Matter remanded to tribunal for grant of compensation

C P C EVIDENCE ACT

DB – Defamation — Nowhere in the pleadings or in the evidence did the appellant or its witnesses state that the amounts were not due — Respondent’s assertion of there being outstanding amounts which had not been paid by the appellant Company cannot be termed to be false or per se defamatory.