Delhi High Court
94,906 judgments
Amit Sharma v. Rama Goyal
The Delhi High Court held that sentences in multiple Section 138 NI Act complaints arising from a single transaction must run concurrently and allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing concurrent sentences.
UBTECH PVT. LTD. v. PASHCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, rejecting limitation objections under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, and held the dispute arising from rural electrification contracts to be arbitrable.
Manjeet Singh v. Guru Harkrishan Public School and Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the Directorate of Education to decide the petitioner's pending representation on pay scale fixation by passing a reasoned order within four weeks, allowing the writ petition.
State NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Kumar
The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the release of seized articles after TIP proceedings, allowing parties claiming unidentified goods an opportunity for identification, and declined to interfere with ongoing investigation.
Vayoo Nandan Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26 (1), Delhi
The Delhi High Court set aside the order and notice under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act for failure to grant statutory reply time and furnish material, directing a de novo hearing with compliance to procedural safeguards.
Raju Riyazuddin and Ors. v. The State and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC in a matrimonial dispute based on a voluntary settlement between the parties, emphasizing judicial encouragement of amicable resolutions.
Gurcharan Singh Anand and Ors. v. The Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi and Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR and proceedings arising from a neighborly dispute after the parties amicably settled and the complainant withdrew the complaint.
Mansi Sharma & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 66(D) IT Act arising from matrimonial disputes following a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties.
SH HARI GOPAL v. SH SUSHIL KUMAR & ANR.
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, holding that the landlord's bona fide need was established and the tenant failed to raise a triable issue to defend.
Sh. Naresh @ Ranjan and Anr. v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for electricity theft after the parties amicably settled the civil liability, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
Dharampal Gupta v. Laxmi Devi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging possession suit decree, holding that an unregistered Agreement to Sell without enforceable rights under Section 53A cannot defeat co-owner's possession claim, and refused to reopen defence evidence closed voluntarily.
Dinesh Chahal & Ors. v. State by Dabri Police Station & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a voluntary and amicable settlement between estranged spouses in a matrimonial dispute.
MS Bridge Building Construction Co Pvt Ltd v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd
The Delhi High Court set aside arbitral awards on the ground that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed and failed to make mandatory disclosures, holding that such awards are without jurisdiction and cannot be validated by implied waiver.
Kapil S/O Harprashad v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court held that an accused granted bail cannot be kept in custody solely for inability to furnish sureties and directed release on personal bond without sureties, emphasizing the constitutional ethos against property-based denial of bail.
Captain G. Raghavendra Reddy v. Air India Limited
The Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to Air India Limited post-disinvestment, dismissing the petition as not maintainable and granting liberty to approach appropriate forums.
Nirdosh Kumar v. Sonu & Ors
The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation for a motor accident victim by recognizing higher functional disability, adjusting future prospects, increasing amounts for pain and suffering, and allowing for future artificial limb replacements.
APAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. SH RUMMY CHHABRA
The Delhi High Court upheld an ex-parte interim injunction restraining the appellant from using the trademark "VELLO" based on binding undertakings to cease use, withdraw conflicting applications, and dispose of existing stock.
Dr. Jitendra Pal Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the BSF to constitute a Special Review Medical Board to assess the petitioner's suitability for promotion and decide on his case within a specified timeframe.
M/S EUREKA FORBES LIMITED v. VAIBHAV AGRO INDUSTRIES
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction against defendant’s use of the deceptively similar "AquaSure" mark, recognizing plaintiff’s prior trademark rights and passing off claim, but dismissed copyright infringement and damages claims.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sima Devi and Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the territorial jurisdiction of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner and the imposition of penalty on the insurer for delayed compensation payment under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.