Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Ankur Gauri @ Ankur & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354(B), 509, 506, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and the victim's unwillingness to proceed, exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.
Roop Singh @ Rupesh Kumar & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a noncompoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498A IPC on the ground of amicable settlement, exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.
Vikrant Mathur & Anr. v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 377, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the ground of amicable settlement and absence of prosecution interest, exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.
Saleem Ahmad v. The State, NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed compounding of a Section 138 NI Act offence after conviction and dismissal of appeal upon amicable settlement, imposing costs as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Shangri-La International Hotel Management Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax)-3, Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner’s revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, setting aside the impugned order and directing consequential relief, rejecting the respondent’s reliance on a pending Supreme Court decision.
Shangri-La International Hotel Management Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax)-3 Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, setting aside the impugned order and directing consequential relief, relying on binding precedents and closure of related Supreme Court proceedings.
Amit Singh & Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498A IPC based on an amicable settlement, exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of court process.
M/S MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD v. MR. RAJEEV GUPTA PROPRIETOR OF GRANITE GALAXY
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the court’s role is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement without delving into arbitrability or merits.
Axis Finance Limited v. Avinash Yerramsetty
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the Court’s role is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement without delving into arbitrability or validity.
Axis Finance Limited v. Dr. Mahesh S
The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the Court’s role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed the sole arbitrator accordingly.
Proactive Data Systems Pvt Ltd v. Planex Interior Design Solutions LLP
The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court's role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed the sole arbitrator despite the respondent's refusal to consent.
M/S. SINGH FINLEASE PVT. LTD. v. M/S. TRICITY EDUCATORS PVT. LTD.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing a sole arbitrator after prima facie finding the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, limiting judicial scrutiny to existence and not validity or arbitrability.
Pooja Mourya v. Adwait Gupta
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing an arbitrator upon prima facie finding of an arbitration agreement in a rent dispute, limiting judicial scrutiny to existence of the arbitration clause.
ANKUSH RANA AND ORS v. ICAR-INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ORS
The Delhi High Court held that fixation of cut-off dates for Ph.D. admissions by ICAR is a policy decision not subject to judicial interference unless arbitrary, and dismissed the petition seeking extension of the cut-off date.
Sukhvinder Singh Rathi Security Agency v. Sunita Sharma and Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte reinstatement award for lack of proper service of summons, emphasizing the mandatory nature of procedural fairness under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Mahender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that directing a BSF personnel to return to his parent Battalion after acquittal in a GSFC trial is lawful and not harassment, emphasizing the need for written communication of decisions and reserving rights against any unlawful retrial.
Umesh S v. Priti S
The Delhi High Court modified interim orders allowing the wife to reside in a leased matrimonial home until lease expiry and eviction, directing expeditious adjudication of alternate accommodation while dismissing attempts to vacate interim stay based on alleged financial misrepresentation.
Deepika Talwar & Anr v. Shalini Chodhary Sharma
The Delhi High Court modified an interim order to grant appellants access to disputed terrace keys, balancing co-owners' rights pending final trial adjudication.
M/S CHAMUNDESHWARI PHARMACY v. M/S SARASWATI ENTERPRISES
The Delhi High Court held that a dispute resolution clause ambiguously referring to arbitration as a preliminary step before court proceedings does not mandate exclusive arbitration, and dismissed the appeal seeking referral to arbitration.
Om Prakash v. The Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed the rejection of premature release of a life convict for non-application of mind and directed reconsideration in accordance with prison rules and legal principles.