Delhi High Court
48,408 judgments
R C Anand v. Joginder Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to allow amendment of the plaint after trial commencement, holding that the petitioner failed to show due diligence and the amendment would prejudice defendants by altering the suit property.
Munish v. State
Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused in serious matrimonial offence case based on amicable settlement, imposing strict conditions to safeguard investigation.
THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. v. UOI & ORS.
The Delhi High Court held that the respondent abandoned her services and was adequately compensated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, dismissed her application for release of excess amounts as an abuse of process, and upheld non-restitution of amounts paid under Section 17B and litigation expenses.
Lalita v. State
The Delhi High Court held that victims have a statutory right under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to appeal acquittals by Magistrates before the Sessions Court without requiring leave of the High Court, restoring the criminal appeal for hearing on merits.
M/S Mukesh Agencies v. Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that objections under the DVAT Act are deemed allowed if the Commissioner fails to decide within 15 days of a Section 74(8) notice, quashing the tax demand and directing refund with interest.
Har Kishore Sharma v. The Mgmt. of G.F.R. Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court enhanced the compensation awarded for illegal termination from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 4 lakhs considering the petitioner's long service and inadequacy of the original award.
Janak Datwani v. CNA Exports Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court held that a suit originally filed in the High Court but transferred due to pecuniary jurisdiction can be transferred back under Section 24 CPC to proceed from the earlier stage, overriding procedural technicalities.
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Vimal Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court modified the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by applying Supreme Court precedents to adjust amounts for loss of consortium, love and affection, funeral expenses, and dependency.
Lal Chand v. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that the insurance company must pay compensation first in motor accident claims and applied the correct multiplier and compensation principles as per Supreme Court precedents, allowing the appeals.
Lal Chand v. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that the insurer must pay compensation upfront in motor accident claims, applying correct multipliers and enhanced heads of damages as per Supreme Court precedents.
Kamar Jahan and Ors. v. National Ins Co Ltd and Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 due to failure to prove involvement of the respondent’s vehicle in the fatal accident.
Kamar Jahan and Ors. v. National Ins Co Ltd and Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed compensation claims under Section 163A Motor Vehicles Act due to failure to conclusively identify the offending vehicle involved in the fatal accident.
Kamar Jahan and Ors. v. National Ins Co Ltd and Anr.
Compensation claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed due to lack of conclusive evidence identifying the offending vehicle involved in the fatal accident.
Shriram GIC Insurance Co Ltd v. Kamla Shankar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the MACT's compensation award assessing 80% functional disability over 58% physical disability and applying minimum wages for a non-matriculate claimant, dismissing the insurer's appeal.
Lal Chand v. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that the insurance company must pay motor accident compensation first and recover from the vehicle owner, applying correct multipliers and heads of damages as per Supreme Court precedents.
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports v. Swiss Timing Ltd
The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award rejecting the Ministry's counter claims and affirmed the cost award to Swiss Timing Ltd., dismissing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Roop Chand v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking pro-rata pension as the petitioner’s net qualifying service was less than the mandatory 10 years under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and delay in claim coupled with lack of credible evidence precluded pension entitlement.
Om Prakash v. Amit Choudhary & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that under Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC, a defendant's partial admission does not entitle the plaintiff to compel the defendant to lead evidence first, affirming the general rule that the plaintiff must prove its case.
Haji Zafrudddin v. Firozuddin
The High Court set aside the Trial Court's interlocutory order appointing a Local Commissioner to execute a sale deed, holding that final relief of specific performance cannot be granted without a formal decree after due consideration of all factors.