Delhi High Court

48,408 judgments

Year:

Nardev @ Sonu v. The State & Anr.

10 Oct 2019 · Vibhu Bahru · 2019:DHC:5158

The Delhi High Court held that a genuine school leaving certificate is conclusive proof of juvenility under Section 7A of the JJ Act, 2000, and ordered trial of the accused before the Juvenile Justice Board, overruling the medical age report.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant juvenile justice age determination school leaving certificate bone ossification test

Prashant Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)

10 Oct 2019 · Vibhu Bakhrur · 2019:DHC:5159

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for armed robbery and criminal conspiracy based on credible eyewitness testimony, recoveries, and identification despite absence of public witnesses.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 392 IPC Section 120B IPC robbery snatching

Prashant Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)

10 Oct 2019 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2019:DHC:5160

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for armed robbery and criminal conspiracy based on credible eyewitness identification, recoveries, and consistent prosecution evidence despite absence of public witnesses.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 392 IPC Section 120B IPC robbery snatching

Prashant Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)

10 Oct 2019 · Vibhu Bakhrur · 2019:DHC:5161

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for armed robbery under Sections 392 and 120B IPC based on credible eyewitness identification and lawful recoveries, dismissing their appeals.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 392 IPC Section 120B IPC robbery identification parade

Islam v. State

10 Oct 2019 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2019:DHC:5162

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant due to material discrepancies in prosecution evidence and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in an attempted robbery case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 393 IPC Section 397 IPC Section 457 IPC Section 34 IPC

Manish Divedi v. Smt Jyotsana

10 Oct 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:5163

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's order granting ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the husband's obligation to maintain the wife despite her capacity to earn.

family appeal_dismissed Significant Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance ad-interim maintenance wife's right to maintenance

Vijay v. State

10 Oct 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:5164

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for penetrative sexual assault on a minor under POCSO and IPC, holding that consistent and credible child testimony suffices even without corroborative medical or forensic evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act penetrative sexual assault child victim testimony medical evidence

INOX AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. RATHI ISPAT LIMITED

10 Oct 2019 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2019:DHC:5165

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding leased plant as movable property, dismissed challenges based on res judicata and public policy, and addressed contempt allegations regarding removal of inventorised equipment.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitral award territorial jurisdiction movable property plant and machinery

Suresh Chand Goel & Sons (HUF) & Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

10 Oct 2019 · D.N. Patel; C. Hari Shankar · 2019:DHC:5180-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal directing maintenance of status quo and restraining respondents from constructing on disputed land after quashing of acquisition award and restoration of mutation entries in appellants' favor.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition mutation entry status quo construction injunction

Rakesh Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Radha Krishan Verma & Ors.

10 Oct 2019 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2019:DHC:5155

The Delhi High Court modified a partition decree to allow sale of property and equitable distribution of proceeds due to impracticality of physical partition and municipal restrictions, while protecting life interests under the Will.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition suit modification of decree life interest sale of property

Nand Ram v. Kanwal Singh & Anr.

10 Oct 2019 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2019:DHC:5156

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's partition suit relying on binding admissions of prior family settlements and held that such admissions bar reopening settled partition issues after decades.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partition suit family settlement judicial admissions Order XII Rule 6 CPC

Rajiv Gupta v. L. R. Gupta, HUF & Ors.

10 Oct 2019 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2019:DHC:5157

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application to set aside a compromise decree in a partition suit, holding that the defendant had knowledge of the suit and was not prevented from appearing, thus upholding the validity of the compromise.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order IX Rule 13 CPC Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC compromise decree service of summons

Basant Projects Ltd v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

10 Oct 2019 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2019:DHC:5142
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted a six-month extension for completion of arbitral proceedings and passing of the award under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, with the consent of both parties.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 29A(4) extension of time arbitral proceedings

Kings Furnishing & Safecompany v. Central University of Jharkhand

10 Oct 2019 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2019:DHC:5143

The Delhi High Court granted a seven-month extension for completion of arbitral proceedings and passing of the award under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, on mutual consent and ongoing proceedings.

civil appeal_allowed Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 29A(4) extension of time arbitral proceedings

M/S GILL ACQUA HYDRO POWER GENERATION COMPANY PVT.LTD v. M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

10 Oct 2019 · Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:5144

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate a dispute over the quantum of an insurance claim where liability was admitted but payment was withheld.

other appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12 Erection All Risk Insurance Policy

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ranjeet @ Ganja @ Sombar Roy

10 Oct 2019 · Manmohan; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:5145-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a POCSO case due to failure of the prosecution to prove the victim's minority and the unreliability of her testimony, emphasizing the limited scope of appellate interference in acquittals.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act minor consent immaterial acquittal

Sachin alias Chajja v. The State

10 Oct 2019 · Manmohan; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:5146-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, credible eyewitness testimony, and conclusive forensic proof, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the place of occurrence, witness credibility, and weapon recovery.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC Arms Act

Swami Suprakashananda & Ors. v. State & Ors.

10 Oct 2019 · Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:5147

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and granted probate of a duly executed Will, holding that probate proceedings concern only the genuineness of the Will and not property title or valuation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant probate Indian Succession Act Will execution attesting witnesses

Pankaj Kumar v. Tarak Mandal

10 Oct 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:5151

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition against eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, allowing stay of execution on the tenant's undertaking to vacate and pay dues by a specified date.

property appeal_dismissed eviction Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) bonafide necessity

Vesta Holding Private Limited v. AKM Enterprises Private Limited

10 Oct 2019 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2019:DHC:6578

The Delhi High Court held that AKM breached the MOU by failing to secure binding leases with anchor tenants, entitling Vesta to refund of earnest money with interest and denying AKM's claim to forfeit the amount or recover damages.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Memorandum of Understanding earnest money forfeiture breach of contract