Delhi High Court

59,406 judgments

Year:

Mr. Rohit Kumar v. M/S SJVN LIMITED

27 Aug 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5413

The Delhi High Court dismissed a time-barred execution petition seeking enforcement of a Disputes Review Board recommendation treated as an arbitral award, holding that the 12-year limitation period under the Limitation Act runs from the date of the recommendation and cannot be extended by later judicial clarifications.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Article 136 Disputes Review Board Arbitral award

NAV SHAKTI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. LAXMAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY & ORS

26 Aug 2018 · Yogesh Khanna · 2019:DHC:4149

The Delhi High Court held that a petition under Article 227 is maintainable against a remand order passed by the appellate court in a civil suit where no second appeal lies, and set aside the impugned remand order for lack of proper exercise of remand power.

civil petition_allowed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India Order IX Rule 13 CPC Order XLI Rule 23 CPC Order XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC

Vipul Rohilla & Ors v. State of Delhi & Anr

24 Aug 2018 · A. K. Pathak · 2018:DHC:8375

The Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs arising from matrimonial disputes following an amicable settlement between the parties, holding that continuing criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement Section 498-A IPC

Rajesh Sharma @ Pintoo & Ors. v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

24 Aug 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:5347

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from matrimonial discord based on a mutual settlement and divorce, holding that continuation of prosecution would be futile.

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

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

24 Aug 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:5342

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against petitioners based on an amicable settlement and the complainant's consent to discontinue prosecution.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR settlement Section 452 IPC Section 427 IPC

Pradeep Kumar v. State & Ors.

24 Aug 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:5356

The Delhi High Court upheld dismissal of a criminal complaint alleging forgery of a power of attorney due to lack of evidence and refused to allow further evidence under revisional jurisdiction.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 203 Cr.P.C. Section 391 Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C. Forgery

Kulwinder v. State (NCT of Delhi)

24 Aug 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:5336-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for culpable homicide and offences under the SC/ST Act in the Mirchpur riot case, affirming selective liability and rejecting the prosecution's claim of premeditated murder.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant communal riot culpable homicide not amounting to murder Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act unlawful assembly

Ajay Singh Chautala v. The Central Bureau of Investigation

24 Aug 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:5355

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's discretion to allow the prosecution to place additional evidence on record after charge-sheet filing, emphasizing the need to balance justice and fair trial under Sections 173 and 311 CrPC.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 173 CrPC Section 311 CrPC additional evidence charge-sheet

Amira Pure Foods Pvt Ltd v. Canara Bank & Ors.

24 Aug 2018 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2018:DHC:5362

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking mandamus directing banks to accept the petitioner's resolution plan, holding that such commercial decisions lie within the banks' discretion and are not subject to judicial interference.

civil petition_dismissed Joint Lenders Forum Resolution plan Mandamus Commercial wisdom

Kapil Gaur @ Kapil & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Anr.

24 Aug 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:5357

The Delhi High Court upheld the revisional court's order setting aside discharge and directing trial based on prima facie evidence of forgery and criminal conspiracy revealed during pre-charge inquiry.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant pre-charge evidence discharge order revisional jurisdiction criminal conspiracy

Kuhu Pandya & Anr v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors

24 Aug 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:5358

The Delhi High Court held that a prima facie case for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC was made out against the parents-in-law for non-return of stridhan and directed framing of additional charges, while refusing to prosecute other relatives lacking specific evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC charge framing

Azad Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

24 Aug 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:5361

The Delhi High Court directed verification of property status in abadi area before rejecting alternate plot allotment applications in land acquisition cases and mandated reconsideration upon proper verification.

property other Significant land acquisition abadi area alternate plot allotment property status verification

GAIL (India) Limited v. Newton Engineering & Chemicals Ltd.

24 Aug 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:5359

The Delhi High Court held that unconditional contract extensions without notice preclude liquidated damages for the extended period, upheld the amended liquidated damages rate, and affirmed the arbitral award on disputed deductions.

civil appeal_allowed Significant liquidated damages Section 55 Indian Contract Act No Waiver clause contract extension

Darshan Lal v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

24 Aug 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:5365

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, holding that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and payment of penalty does not justify quashing economic offence prosecutions.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings Section 135 Electricity Act 2003 theft of electricity

Rakesh Mittal v. State

24 Aug 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:5364

The High Court held that criminal courts cannot interfere with civil auction disputes and allowed the bank to use the frozen auction proceeds subject to an indemnity bond, restoring the Magistrate's order and setting aside the Sessions Court revision.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 420 IPC Section 102 CrPC auction proceedings freezing of bank account

Rakesh Mittal v. State

24 Aug 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:5363

The High Court held that criminal courts cannot interfere with civil auction proceedings and allowed the bank to deal with frozen funds subject to an indemnity bond pending investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 420 IPC Section 102 CrPC auction proceedings freezing of bank account

New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Laxmi & Ors.

24 Aug 2018 · J.R. Midha · 2018:DHC:5366

The Delhi High Court allowed the insurer's appeal to reduce compensation in a motor accident claim by applying minimum wages with future prospects and disallowing loss of love and affection, following Supreme Court precedent.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation loss of dependency minimum wages

Binod Kumar @ Bindu v. State

24 Aug 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:5351
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant under Section 20 NDPS Act due to insufficient evidence linking him to the seized ganja and procedural infirmities in sampling and investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 20 NDPS Section 67 NDPS statement admissibility

M/S FRESH & HEALTHY ENTERPRISES LTD. v. M/S R.K.BROTHERS

24 Aug 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:5352

The Delhi High Court held that a suit based on an open, mutual and current account is not barred by limitation if filed within three years from the end of the financial year of the last transaction, setting aside the trial court's dismissal of the suit as time barred.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 open mutual and current account Section 3 Limitation Act Article 1 Limitation Act

Mohit Sharma v. Union of India

24 Aug 2018 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2018:DHC:5353

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner, admitted under the 2016-17 SPDC Scheme guidelines, was entitled to continue receiving the scholarship despite residing in India, as the eligibility criteria did not restrict residency and the respondent was estopped from denying the benefit.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Scholarship Programme for Diaspora Children SPDC Scheme Persons of Indian Origin Non-Resident Indians