Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

High Court Upholds Eviction Order and Rejects Challenge on Service of Summons

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

This rent control revision petition was filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, challenging an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) which had dismissed the petitioners’ application seeking leave to defend and issued an eviction order in favor of the respondent-landlord. The petitioners contended that they were out of town during the relevant period, that the service of summons was defective due to discrepancies in the process server’s report, and that their application for leave to defend was wrongly ignored. The Delhi High Court evaluated its supervisory revisional jurisdiction, noting that it cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate facts or substitute views where no jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or perversity exists. Finding that the ARC had already considered these exact arguments—which were subsequently re-agitated and rightly rejected in a review petition—the High Court dismissed the petition as meritless.

  • Factual Background:
    • The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition (RC/ARC 232/2024) under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for a property in Paharganj, New Delhi.
    • The ARC passed an eviction order on February 28, 2026, after noting that the statutory requirements were met and the tenants were deemed to have admitted the landlord’s bona fide need.
    • The petitioners subsequently filed a review petition, which was dismissed by the ARC on July 20, 2026.
  • Arguments & Contentions:
    • Petitioners’ Arguments: Argued that they were out of town, the summons was not duly served, there were discrepancies in the process server’s report, and their leave to defend application was erroneously not taken on record.
    • Respondent’s Arguments: Pointed out that the identical issues regarding service and absence from town had already been raised before and rejected by the ARC both in the main order and the subsequent review petition (MISC RC ARC No. 75/26).
  • Court Observations & Legal Parameters:
    • Re-emphasized settled Supreme Court jurisprudence (Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, Sarla Ahuja, etc.) that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is strictly supervisory and revisional, not appellate.
    • Highlighted that the High Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry or re-appreciate factual evidence unless there is a patent jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or perversity apparent on the face of the record.
    • Observed that the petitioners were merely trying to re-litigate the same arguments concerning service of summons that had already been thoroughly addressed and adjudicated by the ARC.
  • Final Judgment:
    • The Delhi High Court found no jurisdictional infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders.
    • The revision petition, along with all pending applications (including stay and delay condonation applications), was dismissed.

2026 DHC 6417

Kusum Sharma & Anr. vs. Gurpreet Singh Sawhney (D.O.J. 07.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6417 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

High Court Appoints New Sole Arbitrator for Fresh Adjudication

August 12, 2026 No Comments

The present petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the re-appointment of a sole arbitrator. Although an earlier arbitral award had granted a principal amount of Rs. 15,12,253 to the Petitioner, the Section 34 court set it aside solely with respect to pre-reference and pendente lite interest, directing that the interest claim be adjudicated afresh. With the Respondent offering no objection to the reference, Justice Om Prakash Shukla allowed the petition and appointed Ms. Abha Malhotra, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator to decide the limited issue of interest and related deductions under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

  • Nature of Petition: The petition was brought under Section 11 of the Act for the appointment of a new arbitrator following a partial setting aside of a previous arbitral award.
  • Scope of Remand: The Section 34 court had upheld the principal amount awarded to the Petitioner but remanded the matter back exclusively for the fresh adjudication of pre-reference and pendente lite interest claims along with related deductions.
  • Existence of Arbitration Agreement: Noting that the scope of enquiry under Section 11 is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, the Court observed that a valid arbitration clause between the parties was undisputed.
  • Respondent’s Consent: Counsel for the Respondent raised no objection regarding the reference of the disputes back to arbitration.
  • Appointment of Arbitrator: Abha Malhotra, Advocate (Mobile No. 9810777876), was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the remaining disputes independently.
  • Procedural Directions: The arbitration will be conducted under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), with fees regulated as per the DIAC Schedule of Fees, and the arbitrator is required to furnish statutory disclosures under Section 12(2) within three weeks.

2026 DHC 6497

Suri International v. Union of India (D.O.J. 07.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6497 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Moratorium Halts Enforcement: High Court Disposes of Execution Petition Amid Personal Insolvency Proceedings

August 12, 2026 No Comments

The present execution petition was brought before the Delhi High Court by the Decree Holder, Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd., against the Judgment Debtors, Mr. Krishan Dhingra and Anr. At the outset of the proceedings, counsel representing both parties jointly informed the Court that the Judgment Debtors were currently undergoing personal insolvency proceedings, under which a statutory moratorium was in active operation. In light of this development, Justice Om Prakash Shukla disposed of the execution petition while granting liberty to the Decree Holder to approach the Court by filing a fresh enforcement petition as and when the situation warrants.

  • Nature of Proceedings: The matter concerned an execution petition (OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 15/2019) filed by the Decree Holder.
  • Insolvency and Moratorium Status: Counsel for both sides jointly reported that the Judgment Debtors are subject to personal insolvency proceedings and that a moratorium is currently in effect.
  • Disposal of Petition: Acknowledging the operation of the moratorium, the High Court disposed of the execution petition.
  • Liberty Granted: The Court granted liberty to the Decree Holder to revive or file a new enforcement petition when circumstances permit in the future.

2026 DHC 6494

Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Krishan Dhingra & Anr. (D.O.J. 10.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6494 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Pursuit of Representation Leads to Withdrawal of Arbitration Petition

August 12, 2026 No Comments

The present arbitration petition was brought before the Delhi High Court, where the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a formal representation dated 07.08.2026 had been made to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. In light of this representation, the Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the arbitration petition. With the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for the Respondent offering no objections, Justice Om Prakash Shukla granted the requested leave and liberty, dismissing the petition as withdrawn.

  • Filing of Representation: The Petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.08.2026 to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India.
  • Withdrawal Request: Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present arbitration petition so that the Petitioner could actively pursue the aforesaid representation.
  • Respondent’s Stance: Chetan Sharma, learned ASG representing the Respondent, stated that he had no objections to the withdrawal.
  • Judicial Order: The High Court granted the requested leave and liberty, dismissing the arbitration petition as withdrawn.

2026 DHC 6492

Indian Polo Association v. Union of India Through Ministry of Housing Finance and Urban Land Development Office (D.O.J. 10.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6492 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Ensuring Continuity in Land Compensation Arbitration: High Court Extends Arbitrator’s Mandate

August 12, 2026 No Comments

The present petition was filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator to adjudicate land compensation disputes arising from the acquisition of the Petitioners’ land for the construction of NH-344M under the National Highways Act, 1956. Although pleadings before the erstwhile arbitrator were completed, the proceedings were transferred to a newly appointed arbitrator (the Secretary, Land and Building) on 28.07.2023, who subsequently observed that his mandate had expired. With the Respondent having no objection to the extension, Justice Om Prakash Shukla granted a joint request from the parties and extended the mandate of the sole arbitrator by a further period of six months from the date of the order, while also regularizing the intervening period.

  • Nature of Petition: The petition was brought under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to secure an extension of the arbitral mandate.
  • Origin of Dispute: The underlying dispute relates to the enhancement of land compensation awarded under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, following the acquisition of the Petitioners’ land for NH-344M.
  • Transfer of Proceedings: Proceedings were transferred to a newly appointed arbitrator, the Secretary (Land and Building), vide an order dated 28.07.2023, during which it was noted that the mandate had lapsed and required formal judicial extension.
  • Respondent’s Stance: The Respondent, represented through counsel, submitted that they had no objection to the extension of the arbitral mandate.
  • Final Order and Relief: Acting on the joint request of both parties, the High Court extended the mandate of the sole arbitrator by six months and regularized the intervening period up to the date of the order, disposing of the petition accordingly.

2026 DHC 6488

Sh. Sube Singh & Anr. v. National Highway Authority of India (D.O.J. 10.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6488 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins