Delhi High Court
48,408 judgments
Sharad Saxena v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to circumvent the bar on second revision petitions under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and upheld the refusal to direct police investigation where the complainant had access to evidence.
Nitin Gupta v. M/S Aakash Metal Industrial
The Delhi High Court held that non-framing of a formal notice under Section 251 CrPC in a summons case does not vitiate the trial unless the accused suffers real prejudice or failure of justice.
Nitin Gupta v. M/S Aakash Metal Industrial
The Delhi High Court held that non-framing of a formal notice under Section 251 CrPC in a Section 138 NI Act case does not vitiate trial proceedings absent prejudice to the accused, dismissing the petition seeking quashing on this ground.
Kursid Ali v. State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR and proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the parties and the complainant's unwillingness to prosecute.
Suraj Lal & Ors. v. The State of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the parties and the complainant's refusal to prosecute further.
Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the parties and the complainant's consent to discontinue prosecution.
Mukut Pathak & Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that directors disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 for defaults including the financial year ending 31.03.2014 are disqualified prospectively without prior hearing, must vacate office under Section 167(1)(a), and that blocking of DINs and DSCs is valid.
Mukut Pathak & Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that disqualification of directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 is automatic, prospective, does not require prior hearing, and includes defaults where filing deadlines fall after the Act's commencement, while setting aside disqualifications based on defaults prior to the Act.
Mukut Pathak & Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that director disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 applies prospectively including defaults with filing deadlines after 01.04.2014, does not require prior hearing, and results in vacation of office and blocking of DIN and DSC.
Mukut Pathak & Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that directors disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 for defaults in filing returns including for FY 2013-14 are automatically disqualified without prior hearing and demit office under Section 167(1)(a), dismissing challenges to the disqualification lists.
Manju Sipayya v. Directorate of Education and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that an employee promoted within the ACP Scheme eligibility period is not entitled to financial upgradation under ACP, and the MACP Scheme does not automatically apply to private unaided schools absent specific government directives.
Manju Sipayya v. Directorate of Education and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that a private unaided school employee who received promotion within 12 years is not entitled to further financial upgradations under ACP or MACP Schemes absent specific government directives mandating implementation in such schools.
Khan Paan Vendors Welfare Association v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court upheld the Railway Administration's policy discontinuing train side vending passes in favor of station-based E-catering, dismissing the petitioners' claim as neither arbitrary nor illegal.
Rahul Mehta & Anr. v. The State, Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute following an amicable settlement and divorce decree.
Court on its own motion v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ordered a judicial inquiry into police firing on advocates at Tis Hazari Courts Complex, directed interim relief to injured advocates, and mandated suspension and transfer of police officers pending inquiry.
M/S Shreebhagwan Hosiery v. Tarun Wadhwa
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against refusal of waiver of costs for summoning records in eviction proceedings but allowed exhibition of certified copies subject to conditions, directing expeditious trial and cautioning against unnecessary adjournments.
L.MADHUSUDHAN RAO Petitioner Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Rajat Malhotra,Mr.Aditya Malhotra,Mr.Uday Arora and Mr.Vaibhav Mishra,Advocates v. ICICIBANKLIMITED AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court held that the DRAT lacks jurisdiction to impose a blanket travel ban on a guarantor pending appeal, setting aside such an order and affirming the limits of tribunal powers under the RDDBFI Act.
Rajenuerkumar Rekhan and Anr v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions as withdrawn following an amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondents.
Rajender Pershad Bhardwaj v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the termination order of a Workshop Superintendent, holding that fresh grounds must be raised before the Tribunal despite an earlier order granting continuation till age 65.
Jhabbu Lal Gupta v. Laxmi Narayan
The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition against eviction on bonafide necessity grounds, staying execution until the tenant vacates the premises by undertaking payment of use and occupation charges.