Delhi High Court

48,408 judgments

Year:

Avish Gupta & Anr v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr

18 Mar 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:1633

The Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs under various IPC sections on the ground of amicable settlement between neighbors, applying inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent oppressive criminal proceedings.

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

Banarsi Lal Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)

18 Mar 2019 · R.K. Gauba · 2019:DHC:1640

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 431 IPC, holding that minor hairline cracks in a public road, explained by expert evidence as non-threatening, do not constitute intentional damage to public property.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 431 IPC damage to public property hairline cracks cancellation report

Varsha v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

18 Mar 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:1620

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner not specifically named in the FIR, emphasizing her cooperation with investigation and lack of direct allegations.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail false implication IPC Sections 354, 354(A), 379, 506, 323, 34 investigation cooperation

Preetam Saini v. State

18 Mar 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:1621

The Delhi High Court granted limited custodial permission to an accused under Sections 302/34 IPC to arrange funds and attend to his mother's medical treatment at AIIMS under police custody.

criminal petition_allowed interim bail custodial permission medical treatment Section 302 IPC

Ram Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

18 Mar 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:1622

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of cheque forgery and fraud, holding that the material on record was insufficient to deny bail pending trial.

criminal appeal_allowed regular bail forgery cheque fraud confessional statement

Anil Gulati v. State

18 Mar 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:1623

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under multiple IPC sections in a matrimonial dispute, emphasizing the totality of facts and safeguarding investigation interests.

criminal petition_allowed anticipatory bail matrimonial dispute false implication Section 498A IPC

Pooja Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

18 Mar 2019 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2019:DHC:1617-DB

The Delhi High Court directed coordinated rehabilitation and provision of minimum shelter and amenities to residents displaced by unlawful demolition of jhuggies, emphasizing compliance with statutory protections and prior judicial directions.

administrative other Significant Jhuggi Jhopri basti demolition rehabilitation DUSIB Act

Pratap Narain v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta

18 Mar 2019 · Anu Malhotra · 2019:DHC:1637

The Delhi High Court held that a suit for mandatory injunction against licensees must be valued based on the market value of the property, and an arbitrarily low valuation renders the suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction, warranting return of the plaint for proper valuation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC mandatory injunction licensee valuation of suit

Dinesh Chand v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

18 Mar 2019 · Anu Malhotra · 2019:DHC:1638

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor child under IPC and POCSO Act, affirming the reliability of child witness testimony and statutory presumptions despite absence of medical evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant child sexual abuse Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 child witness competency Section 367 IPC

Deepak Goyal v. State, NCT of Delhi & Anr

18 Mar 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:1631

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 354D, 506, and 509 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement between parties, applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Sh. Gopal Mishra v. State & Anr.

18 Mar 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:1630

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

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 482 CrPC

Prashant Sareen v. State

18 Mar 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:1629

The Delhi High Court directed the investigating authority to keep investigation notices in abeyance pending a reasoned response to the petitioner’s request to record his statement in Delhi, emphasizing procedural fairness and leaving territorial jurisdiction open.

criminal other Significant Section 160 Cr.P.C. territorial jurisdiction recording statement quashing of notice

Kanchan Bhattacharya and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

18 Mar 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:1632

The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement between parties under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Ajay Maken & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

18 Mar 2019 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2019:DHC:1616-DB

The Delhi High Court held that forced eviction of Shakur Basti slum dwellers without prior survey, notice, and rehabilitation violated constitutional and statutory rights, mandating coordinated relief and a detailed eviction protocol.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant forced eviction jhuggi jhopri basti Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 right to adequate housing

Urmila v. Sushma & Ors.

18 Mar 2019 · A.K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:1627

The Delhi High Court held that a registered owner who sold the vehicle prior to an accident and had no control over it at the time is not liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim registered owner liability transfer of ownership vicarious liability

Leayan Global Pvt Ltd v. Bata India Ltd

18 Mar 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:1628-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging interlocutory orders relating to interim injunction and adjournment of an application to dispose of existing stock bearing the disputed trademark, emphasizing procedural compliance and non-interference with interlocutory orders.

civil appeal_dismissed interim injunction Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC Order XXXIX Rule 2 CPC Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC

Deepak Kumar & Ors. v. Manoj Gupta

18 Mar 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:1642-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award dismissing claims as barred by limitation, confirming that limitation issues may be decided by the Arbitrator if not adjudicated by the Court at appointment stage, and limited judicial interference under Section 37.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of Arbitrator Limitation Act, 1963 Jurisdiction of Arbitrator

Anil Sharma v. State

18 Mar 2019 · Hima Kohli; Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2019:DHC:1625-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of murder due to insufficient and unreliable circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of proof and proper examination under Section 313 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC murder last seen evidence circumstantial evidence

M/S RUCHI ENTERPRISES AND ORS. v. M/S FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LTD.

18 Mar 2019 · Vipin Sanghi; Rekha Palli · 2019:DHC:1624-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a lender need not issue a fresh Section 13(2) notice under the SARFAESI Act upon borrower default under an MOU and dismissed the petitioners' challenge to possession proceedings.

civil petition_dismissed Significant SARFAESI Act Section 13(2) Section 17 Section 18

Gopal Ji Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.

18 Mar 2019 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2019:DHC:1626

The Delhi High Court held that a trademark cannot be removed without mandatory notice under Section 25(3), and renewal applications cannot be rejected as time-barred absent such notice, directing the Registrar to consider the petitioner’s renewal application.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trademark renewal Section 25(3) Trade Marks Act Notice in Form O-3 Removal of trademark