Delhi High Court

48,936 judgments

Year:

State v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja

08 Jul 2019 · Vipin Sanghi; I.S. Mehta · 2019:DHC:3239-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that each act of cheating individual investors under a criminal conspiracy constitutes a separate offence requiring separate FIRs and charges, rejecting the amalgamation of all transactions into a single FIR.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant same transaction separate offence criminal conspiracy FIR

Kadhirvel v. Vinod Kumar

08 Jul 2019 · Rekha Palli · 2019:DHC:3238

The Delhi High Court allowed leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC where the defendant raised a plausible defence, setting aside the Trial Court's rejection and remanding the suit for trial subject to deposit conditions.

civil appeal_allowed Significant summary suit Order XXXVII CPC leave to defend plausible defence

Jipta & Anr v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr

08 Jul 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:3257

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308, 34, and 341 IPC after the parties settled their dispute, applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent futile criminal proceedings.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction settlement of dispute

Manoj & Anr v. GNCT of Delhi & Anr

08 Jul 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:3258

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement in a matrimonial dispute, applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC matrimonial dispute

Inderjeet & Ors v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

08 Jul 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:3256

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 354B, and 34 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement between parties, applying inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction amicable settlement

Mohd. Riazuddin v. State of NCT of Delhi

08 Jul 2019 · Hima Kohli; Vinod Goel · 2019:DHC:3251-DB

The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, holding that the killing occurred in the heat of sudden provocation without premeditation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC culpable homicide murder

Dhanesh v. The State

08 Jul 2019 · Manmohan; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:3255-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the murder convictions of Vikrant and Dhanesh based on presence at the crime scene, forensic evidence, and failure to rebut incriminating circumstances, while dismissing dowry-related charges and acquitting Ajit Singh.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC common intention dowry death Section 113B Evidence Act

Dinesh Sharma v. Krishna Kainth

08 Jul 2019 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:1454

The Delhi High Court upheld a preliminary decree passed on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in a landlord-tenant dispute, holding that unregistered mortgage and sale claims cannot defeat a suit for ejectment.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC Judgment on admission Landlord-tenant dispute Mortgage and sale agreement

Sushant & Ors. v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.

08 Jul 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:1593
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that amendments limiting re-enrolment rights for Ph.D. students cannot be applied retrospectively, quashing circulars imposing deadlines on students deregistered before the amendments.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Ph.D. Ordinance re-enrolment retrospective application administrative circular

M/S SMC Integrated Facility Management Solutions Ltd. v. Quantum Naturals India Private Limited

08 Jul 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1754
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the Section 11(6) petition directing reference of the dispute to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing an arbitrator through DIAC due to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and failure of the respondent to participate.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 21 notice arbitration agreement

Prem Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

05 Jul 2019 · S. Muralidhar; R. K. Gauba · 2019:DHC:7493-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed review petitions to recall dismissal orders for lack of locus standi, restored the writ petitions, and permitted withdrawal with liberty to file fresh petitions demonstrating locus standi.

constitutional appeal_allowed locus standi writ petition review petition withdrawal of petition

Gladwin Dass v. SFATL

05 Jul 2019 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2019:DHC:7323

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of bail applications by accused who cooperated with investigation and complied with Section 41A CrPC, dismissing the applications with liberty to approach the trial court.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail application Section 41A CrPC charge sheet cooperation with investigation

Pooja Verma v. State (NCT of Delhi)

05 Jul 2019 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:7321

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of assault causing injury, emphasizing cooperation with investigation and procedural fairness.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail assault injury Section 323 IPC

Santlal Gupta v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

05 Jul 2019 · R. K. Gauba · 2019:DHC:7316

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail applications of accused in a cheating case, emphasizing that false undertakings and prima facie dishonest conduct justify denial of bail despite the fundamental right to personal liberty.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail anticipatory bail Section 420 IPC Section 406 IPC

M/S DIMENSIONS INVESTMENT & SECURITIES LIMITED v. SH. UDAY DUTT & ORS.

05 Jul 2019 · Jayant Nath · 2019:DHC:3230

The court held that a director's resignation is effective upon communication without requiring acceptance or Form 32 filing, and thus a resigned director prior to winding up proceedings cannot be held liable to file statements or be arrayed as a party.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant director resignation Form 32 Companies Act 1956 Section 303

Nitin Kumar Garg v. Delhi Development Authority

05 Jul 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:3231-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld DDA's discretionary rejection of single bids in e-auctions but directed payment of interest for delayed refund of earnest money deposits.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant e-auction Delhi Development Authority single bid rejection discretionary power

M/S Lunar Electricals v. National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd

05 Jul 2019 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2019:DHC:3229

Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award based on the last undisputed RA bill, rejected refund of retention money due to incomplete contract, and affirmed interest awarded from the first arbitrator's appointment date.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration Act 1940 Running Account Bill Retention Money Breach of Contract

Rakesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors.

05 Jul 2019 · Vipin Sanghi; Rajnish Bhatnagar · 2019:DHC:3223-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the continuation of suspension of a senior government officer under investigation for corruption, holding that suspension may be extended without a charge sheet where serious allegations and ongoing investigations justify it.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant suspension of government employee continuation of suspension charge sheet corruption investigation

M/S SUPERIOR ELECTRIC STORE v. SANT LAL

05 Jul 2019 · J.R. Midha · 2019:DHC:3221

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding of continuous employment and illegal termination, dismissing the employer’s challenge and confirming compensation to the workman.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant illegal termination continuous employment industrial dispute labour court

DLF Home Developers Limited v. Chander Mohan Lall

05 Jul 2019 · S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh · 2019:DHC:3217-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Single Judge’s partial interference with an arbitral award, clarifying the seller’s obligation to inform about occupancy certificate and limiting compensation for delayed possession to the period before the buyer’s conduct contributed to delay.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Occupancy Certificate Real estate possession