Delhi High Court
64,846 judgments
Satish Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court set aside the appellant's conviction for conspiracy and robbery but upheld his conviction for possession of stolen property under Section 411 IPC based on recovery and identification of stolen goods.
Pawan Mehta v. Sunil Malik & Anr.
The Delhi High Court restored a complaint dismissed for non-prosecution due to bona fide non-appearance, allowing the petitioner to lead pre-charge evidence upon payment of costs.
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding the employer responsible for delay in contract completion where extension of time was granted without liquidated damages, affirming that courts will not interfere with factual findings of arbitrators absent perversity.
M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd v. Chandan Kumar & Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld the imposition of a penalty on the principal employer under the Employees Compensation Act for failure to provide timely assistance to an injured subcontractor employee.
Rajesh Kumar v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for murder based on reliable dying declarations and corroborative evidence despite the victim's severe burn injuries and procedural challenges in recording the statements.
DDA v. Bansal Traders
The Delhi High Court dismissed DDA's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, rejecting condonation of delay due to inadequate notice and non-bonafide pendency of a prior petition under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Surinder Kumar v. State
The Delhi High Court modified murder convictions to culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the accused did not share the intention to kill and the killing occurred in the heat of passion.
Suraj Bhan & Ors. v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed cross-FIRs arising from a neighborly quarrel after the parties amicably settled their dispute, emphasizing the court's discretion to end futile criminal proceedings to restore peace.
Suraj Bhan & Ors. v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed cross FIRs arising from a neighborly quarrel after the parties amicably settled their dispute and undertook to maintain peace.
Rahul & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR arising from matrimonial discord after the parties settled their disputes and obtained a mutual divorce, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile.
Manish & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial discord after the parties settled their disputes and obtained a mutual consent divorce.
Mohd. Arif v. State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC read with the Dowry Prohibition Act based on a bona fide settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, emphasizing restoration of peace and ends of justice.
Haresh v. State
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a theft case after credible CCTV evidence showed he was not present at the crime scene.
Subrahmanium v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for abducting a minor child under Sections 363 and 364A IPC based on credible child testimony and circumstantial evidence.
Krishna Devi v. Kartar Singh Bidhuri
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Second Appeal against decrees for specific performance, holding that no substantial question of law arose and that appreciation of evidence by lower courts cannot be re-examined in a Second Appeal.
PUNJ LLOYD LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX
The Delhi High Court held that once the limitation period under Section 34 of the DVAT Act expires and no fresh assessment order is passed after remand, the petitioner’s refund claim crystallizes and must be granted, quashing the department’s order rejecting the refund.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Rajesh Bansal
The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff's Indian Patent No. 184753 is a valid standard essential patent and that the defendants infringed it by manufacturing and selling DVD players without license, entitling the plaintiff to relief.
M/S. MOTHERSON SUMI ELECTRIC WIRES v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court held that a Domestic Tariff Area supplier who paid excise duty via CENVAT credit on goods supplied to a 100% EOU is entitled to refund of Terminal Excise Duty for the period prior to the 2013 amendment introducing ab initio exemption.
Inspector Ajay Sharma v. State of Not of Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition challenging the deduction of Rs. 1,000 cost from the petitioner's salary for delay in filing a medical report, setting aside the deduction and directing a refund.
Sonu v. Premlata
The petitioner withdrew the petition, and the High Court dismissed it as withdrawn, disposing of the connected application.