Delhi High Court

65,510 judgments

Year:

Dr. Vidya Sagar Garg v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

05 Feb 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:894

The Delhi High Court held that rejection of an Insolvency Professional registration application due to pending criminal proceedings is premature and allowed reconsideration if the discharge application is granted.

administrative petition_dismissed Insolvency Professional fit and proper person Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India discharge application

M/S RHA ENTERPRISES v. Union of India

05 Feb 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:896

The Delhi High Court directed the DGFT to seek timely clarification from the DRI and issue duty credit scrips to the petitioner if no response is received within four weeks, emphasizing expeditious administrative action.

administrative other Foreign Trade Policy Duty Credit Scrips Directorate General of Foreign Trade Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Balvir Singh v. Securities & Exchange Board of India

05 Feb 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:895

The Delhi High Court set aside SEBI Recovery Officer's attachment order for non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements under the Income Tax Act, directing issuance of fresh notice and opportunity to the petitioner.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant SEBI Act, 1992 Income Tax Act, 1961 Second Schedule Recovery Officer

Joginder Kaur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

05 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:891-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if neither possession is taken nor compensation is paid or deposited in court, clarifying the meaning of 'paid' compensation.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation Section 24(2) 2013 Act payment of compensation

Inderbir Singh v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

05 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:892-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging cancellation of parking site allotment and forfeiture of earnest money due to admitted Benami bids, allowing the petitioner to challenge the cancellation through appropriate legal remedies.

administrative petition_dismissed Benami bids earnest money forfeiture tender cancellation Article 226

Dhruv Bhasin & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

05 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:889-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor deposited in court as mandated under the 1894 Act, entitling petitioners to compensation under the new law.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation Section 24(2) of 2013 Act payment of compensation

Kamal Kant Bansal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

05 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:890-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that non-payment of compensation to landowners and failure to deposit it in court leads to lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation Section 24(2) of 2013 Act payment of compensation

Shiv Dutt Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

05 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:893-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor deposited in court, even if possession is taken.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation Section 24(2) of 2013 Act payment of compensation

Baba Balbir Singh v. Delhi Development Authority

05 Feb 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:851

The Delhi High Court upheld that possession taken by the government under the Land Acquisition Act vests ownership in the government, and the 2007 Act does not protect encroachments on such acquired land.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 16 possession National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2007 unauthorised colony

Rahul Narang v. Harinder Singh

05 Feb 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:853

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's decree for recovery of a dishonoured cheque amount where the underlying commercial agreement was held valid and the drawer failed to prove otherwise.

civil appeal_dismissed dishonoured cheque post-dated cheque commercial agreement recovery suit

Ashok Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

03 Feb 2018 · S.P. Garg; C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:847-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl, relying on consistent victim testimony and DNA evidence, but modified the sentence to be under Section 376 IPC alone as per POCSO Act provisions.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sexual assault child victim POCSO Act Section 376 IPC

Sukhjinder Singh v. Union of India & Anr

02 Feb 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:9193
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed writ petitions directing issuance of passports to persons who had previously sought political asylum, following a binding Division Bench ruling.

administrative petition_allowed Significant political asylum passport issuance Government of India writ petition

Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

02 Feb 2018 · Hima Kohli; Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:9192-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of three petitions as not pressed after the respondents granted the relief sought by the petitioners.

other other Procedural petition disposed relief granted Indo-Tibetan Border Police Delhi High Court

Through Ms Jamine Damkewala v. Director General of Civil Aviation

02 Feb 2018 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2018:DHC:9136

The Delhi High Court directed the DGCA to reconsider and revise its Civil Aviation Requirement on cabin crew duty and rest periods in light of amended rules and safety concerns, providing petitioners a hearing before issuing fresh regulations.

administrative other Procedural DGCA Civil Aviation Requirement Aircraft Rules 1937 Rule 42A

ALFA BHOJ LTD. v. MAHIPAL SINGH

02 Feb 2018 · Vinod Goel · 2018:DHC:9135

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by Alpha Bhoj Ltd. for non-appearance and non-prosecution.

civil petition_dismissed writ petition non-appearance non-prosecution dismissal in default

Pramta Kundra v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

02 Feb 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:8196

The Delhi High Court dismissed the third anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners, holding that no new circumstances were shown beyond those already considered by the Court.

criminal petition_dismissed anticipatory bail changed circumstances status report dismissal of bail application

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. v. RAM ROOP & ORS.

02 Feb 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:828

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurer liability does not extend to unauthorized drivers, disallowed future prospects addition, and modified compensation accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 163A insurer liability future prospects

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Khushi Ram & Ors.

02 Feb 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:827

The Delhi High Court partially allowed the insurer's appeal to reduce non-pecuniary compensation in a motor accident claim, aligning the award with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation loss of dependency non-pecuniary damages

Ayush Lohia and Anr v. Land Acquisition Collector (South) and Anr

02 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:826-DB

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor deposited in court and possession not taken, and persons interested including power-of-attorney holders have locus standi to seek such declaration.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) 2013 Act compensation payment possession

Pallav Mongia v. Union of India & Anr.

02 Feb 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:824

The Delhi High Court held that the Civil Aviation Requirement does not permit overbooking and does not restrict passengers' rights to claim compensation for denied boarding beyond the prescribed immediate relief.

administrative petition_dismissed overbooking denied boarding civil aviation requirement compensation