Delhi High Court
65,128 judgments
Rattan Singh & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor possession taken, allowing the petitioners who neither received compensation nor accepted rehabilitation benefits to reclaim their land.
Sonali Badhe v. Ashish Chandra Singh DLA, New Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court held that a complainant of sexual harassment has locus standi and the right to be impleaded as a party in disciplinary appeal proceedings before the Tribunal arising from her complaint.
Alok Kumar Ranjan v. Rama Arora
The Delhi High Court held that the Santro car was driven by the owner’s driver, not the owner, affirming the owner’s vicarious liability but setting aside insurer’s recovery rights based on breach of insurance terms.
Alok Kumar Ranjan v. Rama Arora
The Delhi High Court held that the vehicle owner was not driving at the time of the accident but remains vicariously liable, setting aside the insurer's recovery rights based on breach of policy terms due to invalid driving licence.
Telecom Watchdog v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice as premature since the respondents had not yet taken a final view on the notice or complaints.
Indira Gandhi National Open University v. Dr. T.R Srinivasan
The Delhi High Court held that administrative staff of IGNOU are not "teachers" under the Act and Statutes and thus not entitled to superannuation at 65 years or Career Advancement Scheme benefits, setting aside the Single Judge's contrary decision based on an invalid Ordinance.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Bala Devi & Ors
The Delhi High Court reduced compensation and interest awarded in motor accident claims in line with Supreme Court's Pranay Sethi ruling, rejecting contributory negligence and disallowing certain non-pecuniary heads.
Purnima Jain v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid or deposited in court before the New Act's commencement, entitling the landowner to compensation under the 2013 Act.
Mohinder Kumar v. Board of Governors in Super-Session of Medical Council of India
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking mandatory biometric faculty monitoring in medical colleges, upholding the regulatory amendments notified by the Government and directing implementation while declining to entertain challenges to the amended faculty qualification norms in this petition.
Jagran Prakashan Ltd and Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an order asserting jurisdiction over employee claims related to a Noida establishment, directing the parties to approach the appropriate authority in Noida.
HONSHU BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED v. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORP. & ANR.
The Delhi High Court held that an ineligible arbitrator cannot appoint a substitute arbitrator and appointed DIAC to nominate a Sole Arbitrator in disputes between Honshu Buildcon and North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
Sanjay Kumar Gaur v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation has not been paid or deposited in court despite possession being taken, and directed payment of compensation to the petitioners.
EV MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ANURAG AGARWAL AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit seeking injunction and damages against an ex-director for alleged misuse of information post-termination, holding such restraint violates Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act and no legal cause of action was made out.
Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate v. STATE
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of six policemen for custodial murder, affirming that injuries inflicted in custody caused death and that common intention under Section 34 IPC was established through reliable eyewitness and medical evidence.
Inderpal @ Mandhu v. State
The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant in a murder case due to significant contradictions in the prosecution's circumstantial evidence and hostile witnesses, emphasizing the necessity of a complete and conclusive chain of evidence for conviction.
Naveen Kumar Gupta v. Bharat Bhushan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld that all disputes relating to right, title, interest, and damages arising in execution proceedings must be adjudicated within those proceedings under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, dismissing the appellant's separate suit challenging the decree and claiming compensation.
Tapas Kumar Datta v. The Appellate Authority and Chairman, Steel Authority of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding the suit for declaration challenging dismissal from service barred by limitation and rejected the appellant's claim of non-supply of the dismissal order.
Mukesh Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a juvenile is not required to disclose juvenile proceedings in government service applications and quashed the discharge order based on non-disclosure of such juvenile case.
Dirshan Vanmali Patel v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that Indian Family Courts have jurisdiction to decide custody disputes involving a child born abroad, dismissing a habeas corpus petition seeking the child's return to South Africa and emphasizing the paramountcy of the child's best interests.
M/S SAMAR POLYTEX PVT LTD v. BRIJ MOHAN GUPTA
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of the application to set aside an ex parte decree, holding that the application was time-barred and the petitioner failed to explain consistent defaults.