Delhi High Court
28,224 judgments
Union of India v. Kolli Uday Kumari
The Delhi High Court upheld that widowed daughters are eligible for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, overruling exclusionary guidelines and affirming binding precedent from the Supreme Court.
Parmeshwar Jana v. Lakhan Singh
The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory 120-day period for filing written statements under the Commercial Courts Act, rejecting pandemic-related extensions beyond that period.
Northern India Paint Color and Varnish Co. LLP v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a restrainment order barring construction on a property lawfully conveyed to the petitioner, holding that the property is not enemy property and the petitioner’s possession is lawful.
Premwati v. District Magistrate North & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the rejection of the petitioner's application for alternate plot allotment as time barred, holding that COVID-19 lockdown suspension of limitation and correct filing dates warranted reconsideration on merits.
Allergan Inc v. Controller of Patents
Delhi High Court allowed amendment of patent claims from method to product claims for intracameral implants, holding that claims must be construed with specifications under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act.
Sachin & Ors. v. Central Reserve Police Force & Anr.
Delhi High Court granted a three-year age relaxation as a one-time measure for CRPF Head Constable recruitment due to administrative delay in conducting examinations since 2016.
Delhi Government v. Ritu Ram
The Supreme Court clarified that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed under the 2013 Act only if possession was not taken and compensation not paid for five years before 2014, setting aside the High Court's contrary order.
Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Pruthi & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act do not fail merely due to non-possession caused by a court stay if compensation is paid, overruling earlier precedent and allowing the appeal of Delhi Development Authority.
Delhi Vikas Pradhikaran v. Diwan Chand Pruthi
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was prevented by court injunction or compensation was paid, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Delhi Development Authority v. Nemchand Sharma & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act do not lapse if possession of land is taken, even if compensation is unpaid, overruling earlier precedent to clarify the interpretation of 'or' in the statute.
Delhi NCT Government v. Ratitram and Ors.
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not lapse if possession is taken even without payment of compensation, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Delhi NCT Government v. Ratiram & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition does not lapse if either possession is taken or compensation is paid within five years, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Rashtriya Rajdhani Kshetra Delhi Sarkar v. Rituram
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition lapses only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid for five years or more, overruling earlier contrary precedent and allowing the appeal.
Indore Development Authority v. Manohara & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings initiated before the 2013 Act but completed after its commencement are governed by Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, ensuring compensation rights are preserved even if possession was taken post-2014.
Delhi Vikas Pradhikaran v. Shyam
The Supreme Court held that acquisition under the 1894 Act does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken, even if compensation was unpaid, and set aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
Delhi Development Authority v. Nemchand Sharma & Ors.
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act lapse only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid, allowing the Delhi Development Authority's appeal and setting aside the High Court's order.
Delhi Development Authority v. Nem Chand Sharma
The Supreme Court clarified that acquisition proceedings pending as of January 1, 2014, are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act only if both possession was not taken and compensation was not paid for five years or more, and upheld the validity of acquisitions where possession and compensation were completed.
Bhoomi Evam Bhavan Vibhag, Rashtriya Rajdhani Kshetra Delhi Sarkar v. Dilli Vikas Pradhikaran
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition completed by possession and handing over before the 2013 Act's enforcement cannot be declared ineffective under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act despite non-payment of compensation.
Kailash & Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial offence FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 34, and 354 IPC following a genuine settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties.
Ankush Rai & Ors. v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes upon the parties' voluntary and amicable settlement, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.