Delhi High Court
65,687 judgments
Dr. Suraj Munjal v. Chandan Munjal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that inheritance of ancestral property after 1956 does not create HUF property and dismissed the suit for lack of proper pleadings establishing existence or creation of an HUF.
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Govt. of People’s Republic of Bangladesh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held defendant no.2 liable to refund payment received under a Letter of Credit for non-delivery of rice despite subcontracting shipment, dismissing claims against shipping company and agent for lack of privity.
Santesh Kumar Ray v. Govt of NCT Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that recruitment matters under the Directorate of Education fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed immediate transfer of the writ petition thereto for urgent adjudication.
Swapan Kumar Pal v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for relief regarding non-extension of his tenure as Director (Finance) at NBCC, holding that ACC-related appointment matters fall within CAT's jurisdiction.
Bhagirathlal Mittal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not tendered or deposited in court, and mere deposit in government treasury is insufficient.
M/S IMPERFECTO v. SDMC AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging license revocation after the petitioner complied with regulatory conditions as confirmed by SDMC's inspection and order.
Balkeshwar v. State
The Delhi High Court modified murder convictions to culpable homicide not amounting to murder for two appellants in a violent attack case, upheld other convictions, and highlighted the importance of premeditation, common intention, and fair trial rights.
Suman Chhabra v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor possession taken, even where compensation is deposited in government treasury, and allowed the petitioner’s writ petition accordingly.
MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. MANKIND ADVERTISING
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to Mankind Pharma Limited against the defendant for trademark infringement and passing off of the mark 'MANKIND ADVERTISING'.
Mahant P. L. Mangal Dass alias Piare Lal v. Ravi Kumar Juneja & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed substitution of legal heirs as plaintiffs in a civil suit by condoning delay in filing the application, holding that genuine reasons justified the delay and the cause of action survived.
M/S SHIV CHARAN DAS & SONS & ORS v. DHARMINDER KUMAR DECD. THR.LRs
The Delhi High Court dismissed the eviction petition for failure to prove exclusive residential tenancy and misuse or unsafe premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Arun Dayal v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not tendered or paid as prescribed under the 1894 Act, entitling the petitioner to compensation under the 2013 Act.
Dashmesh Hospital & Ors. v. Harpal Singh & Ors.
The High Court upheld the grant of leave under Section 92 CPC allowing beneficiaries to sue for mismanagement of a public charitable trust despite objections on locus standi and cause of action.
Sh. H.C. Sachdeva & Ors. v. Shri Ved Prakash
The Delhi High Court dismissed defendants' applications to reject the plaint on limitation grounds, holding that limitation against newly impleaded defendants is a mixed question of fact and law not decidable under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without trial.
Poonam Khanna v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially quashed the FIR against Mrs. Poonam Khanna under Section 482 CrPC due to lack of evidence and an amicable settlement with the complainant in a private property dispute.
Raj Kumar v. State and Others
The Delhi High Court held that a document containing incorrect facts is not forged under Section 465 IPC and upheld the discharge of accused from forgery and cheating charges.
Anjumnissa v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that refusal to perform vidaai unless dowry demands are met amounts to cruelty under Section 498-A IPC and set aside orders discharging accused at charge framing stage, directing trial to proceed.
Anjumnissa v. State & Ors.
The High Court held that prima facie allegations of dowry demand and refusal to perform matrimonial ceremonies unless demands are met constitute cruelty under Section 498-A IPC and directed framing of charges against the accused.
Gopi Nisha Mallah v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s closure of defence evidence against an accused in custody, granting an opportunity to lead defence witnesses to ensure a fair trial.
Anil Jindal v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that a complainant is entitled to a redacted copy of the charge-sheet against juveniles to pursue legal remedies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., balancing juvenile confidentiality with victim rights.