Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Kavita v. The State (GNCT Delhi)

05 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6486

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of cheating by promising employment abroad, considering her minor role, lack of direct money receipt, and family circumstances.

criminal appeal_allowed regular bail Section 420 IPC Section 34 IPC cheating

Vishwas Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi

05 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6487

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged assault and allowed amendment of the bail application to include Section 174-A IPC, emphasizing non-prejudice to investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed bail regular bail false implication amendment of prayer clause

Avdesh Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi)

05 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6488

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a robbery case due to weak prosecution evidence and lack of direct connection to the offence.

criminal appeal_allowed bail Section 392 IPC robbery disclosure statement

Vijay @ Vinay @ Bable v. State

04 Oct 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:9366

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for robbery and conspiracy against appellants involved in a dacoity, clarifying that Section 395 IPC applies when five or more persons are involved and only the person armed with a deadly weapon can be convicted under Section 397 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery dacoity Section 395 IPC Section 397 IPC

DHARAMPAL@BABLOO@JUGAD v. STATE(GOVT.OF NOT OF DELHI)

04 Oct 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:8430

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s bail application, holding that contradictions in prosecution evidence do not warrant bail when prima facie evidence implicates the accused.

criminal petition_dismissed bail contradictions in evidence prosecution case common intention

Roman v. State (NCT of Delhi)

04 Oct 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:8429

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused in an assault case where custodial interrogation was unnecessary and co-accused had been granted bail, imposing conditions to ensure investigation integrity.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail custodial interrogation grievous injury Section 323 IPC

Pradeep v. State NCT of Delhi

04 Oct 2018 · S. Muralidhar; Vinod Goel · 2018:DHC:6441-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of murder and wrongful restraint charges due to insufficient and unreliable prosecution evidence, emphasizing the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 341 IPC interested witness dying declaration

Vijay Krishan v. The State Trading Corporation

04 Oct 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:6440
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that gratuity cannot be forfeited without actual termination of service under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and quashed the order withholding the petitioner's gratuity post-retirement.

labor petition_allowed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 4(6) forfeiture of gratuity termination of service

Vijay Kumar Puri v. Rajinder Nath Puri

04 Oct 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:6439

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's decree for mesne profits against the appellant, rejecting his claims of ownership based on intestate succession and HUF status, affirming the validity of the probated Will disinheriting him.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant mesne profits Hindu Undivided Family probated Will intestate succession

Krishna Gupta v. Vipin Kumar & Anr.

04 Oct 2018 · Anu Malhotra · 2018:DHC:6438

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that acceptance of rent estops a tenant from denying landlord's title and bona fide requirement justifies eviction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) bona fide requirement landlord-tenant relationship

Ram Sumer & Anr. v. State & Ors.

04 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6456

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 341, 308, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and the complainants' refusal to prosecute further.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR settlement Section 323 IPC Section 341 IPC

Pushpa & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

04 Oct 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:6437

The Delhi High Court modified convictions from robbery to dacoity under Section 395 IPC involving five accused, upheld conspiracy charges, and clarified that hurt does not exclude Section 395 applicability.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dacoity robbery Section 395 IPC Section 394 IPC

Pushpa & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

04 Oct 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:6435

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for dacoity under Section 395 IPC involving five accused, clarified the applicability of Section 397 IPC only to the armed accused, and affirmed conspiracy liability under Section 120B IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dacoity robbery Section 395 IPC Section 394 IPC

Pushpa & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

04 Oct 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:6436

The Delhi High Court modified convictions to dacoity under Section 395 IPC with conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, upheld the conviction of the armed accused under Section 397 IPC, and maintained sentences, clarifying the applicability of Sections 394 and 395 IPC in cases involving hurt and multiple offenders.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dacoity robbery Section 395 IPC Section 394 IPC

National Highways Authority of India v. North Bihar Highway Limited

04 Oct 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:6478
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that parties are bound by agreed institutional arbitration rules including fee structures, and unilateral attempts to alter such terms post-constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal are impermissible, refusing to terminate the Tribunal's mandate.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 14 Arbitral Tribunal mandate ICADR Rules

Ayush Hotels & Resorts LLP v. Nitin Dev

04 Oct 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:6477

The Delhi High Court held that objections regarding non-registration and inadequate stamping of a lease agreement do not affect the maintainability of an arbitration petition and such issues are to be decided by the arbitrator.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration petition lease agreement non-registration inadequate stamping

Deepanshi & Ors. v. State & Anr.

04 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6445

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 380, 411, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between related parties and the complainant's decision not to prosecute further.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR settlement Section 380 IPC Section 411 IPC

Gaurav Sachdeva & Anr v. State & Anr

04 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6446

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial discord on the basis of a full settlement and mutual divorce between the parties.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC matrimonial dispute settlement

Davinder Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

04 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6447

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial discord based on a settlement and reconciliation between the parties.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC settlement

Subhash v. State

04 Oct 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:6448

The Delhi High Court quashed the simultaneous initiation of process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC against the petitioner for non-compliance with procedural safeguards and directed him to appear before the Investigating Officer.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 82 CrPC Section 83 CrPC Proclaimed Offender non-bailable warrant