Delhi High Court

69,037 judgments

Year:

Dev Raj v. State

28 Nov 2016 · Gita Mittal; Anu Malhotra · 2016:DHC:7673-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, holding that credible eyewitness and forensic evidence proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 302 IPC Section 27 Arms Act murder eyewitness testimony

M/S. MALANA POWER CO.LTD. v. DIR. GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (POLICY)

28 Nov 2016 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; DEEPA SHARMA · 2016:DHC:7672-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of an amendment denying terminal excise duty refund on capital goods supplied to power projects, ruling it neither arbitrary nor ultra vires the Foreign Trade Act and rejecting promissory estoppel claims.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 Export Import Policy Hand Book of Procedure deemed exports

Jasmeet Singh v. Narinder Singh

28 Nov 2016 · Vipin Sanghi · 2016:DHC:8525

The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a Section 138 NI Act complaint for non-prosecution, emphasizing adjudication on merits where the accused admitted liability and assured payment.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act non-prosecution dismissal in default mediation

Rajbir v. State & Anr

28 Nov 2016 · A. K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:8527

The High Court set aside the dismissal in default of a Section 138 NI Act complaint due to a bona fide mistake in noting the hearing date and restored the complaint for trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act dismissal in default non-appearance hearing date error

Mahitap Singh Bisht v. Union of India & Ors.

28 Nov 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2016:DHC:7689-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order quashing the petitioner's reversion for violation of natural justice and directed fresh disciplinary proceedings with proper hearing.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant principles of natural justice disciplinary inquiry sexual harassment complaint show cause notice

Pratibha Sharma & Ors v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors

28 Nov 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:8985

The Delhi High Court set aside the Trial Court's order directing FIR registration under SC/ST Act and IPC, holding that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and verify ownership and complaint veracity before ordering police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. FIR registration Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ownership dispute

Bhagat Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

28 Nov 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:7683-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where compensation remains unpaid for over five years after the 2013 Act commenced, are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse compensation non-payment

Syed Sallauddin Pasha v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

28 Nov 2016 · A.K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:9150

The Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs arising from matrimonial discord following a voluntary settlement between the parties, emphasizing the interest of justice and absence of coercion.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute settlement agreement withdrawal of complaint

The Principal St. Marys School & Anr. v. Rajendra Pratap Singh & Ors.

28 Nov 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:7664

The Delhi High Court held that a school employee completing three years of probation is deemed confirmed unless grave and exceptional circumstances justify extension, and termination beyond this without confirmation is unlawful.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant probation period deemed confirmation Rule 105 Delhi School Education Rules termination of service

Pankaj Oswal v. State

28 Nov 2016 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:9078

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking protection from coercive action without anticipatory bail, directing petitioners to file anticipatory bail applications and reserving liberty to seek quashing of the FIR later.

criminal petition_dismissed anticipatory bail coercive action quashing of FIR criminal miscellaneous petition

Dinesh Elhence v. Delhi Development Authority

28 Nov 2016 · Manmohan J · 2016:DHC:7663

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking refund from DDA on the ground of delay and laches, holding that the petitioner abandoned the right by not seeking refund earlier.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant delay and laches refund claim writ petition Delhi Development Authority

Sh. Ved Prakash v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

28 Nov 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:7665

The Delhi High Court held that reemployment up to 62 years is not a prescribed monetary benefit under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and dismissed the petition seeking such benefit.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Delhi School Education Act, 1973 Section 10 prescribed benefits reemployment

Sat Prakash Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

28 Nov 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:7686-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years of the Act's commencement.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquisition proceedings

Ajay Sahni v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

28 Nov 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:7685-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act and pending without possession or compensation for over five years are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquisition proceedings

Brijesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors

28 Nov 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:7684-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition possession

Parminder Singh v. Inderjeet Singh & Anr

28 Nov 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:7660

The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a civil suit for non-production of evidence due to procedural irregularities and revived the trial to allow the plaintiff one final opportunity to lead evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant non-production of evidence closing of evidence binding down witness dismissal of suit

Sanjay Singh v. Union of India

28 Nov 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:7687-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings non-payment of compensation

Joint Commissioner of Police v. Constable Phool Singh

28 Nov 2016 · G. S. Sistani; Vinod Goel · 2016:DHC:7690-DB

The Delhi High Court held that disciplinary penalties imposed after the Tribunal quashed earlier orders for lack of evidence are void, and restored the respondent's service and salary rights.

administrative petition_allowed Significant disciplinary inquiry Central Administrative Tribunal no evidence service dismissal

Kiran Shoes Manufacturers v. M/S Maruti Footwear Company

28 Nov 2016 · Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:7674

The Delhi High Court held that suits valued above Rs. 20 lakhs but below Rs. 1 crore pending as on 26.10.2015 remain within its pecuniary jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and recalled the transfer order accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant pecuniary jurisdiction Commercial Courts Act 2015 Section 7 proviso Delhi High Court

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Smt Jagroshni & Ors.

28 Nov 2016 · J.R. Midha · 2016:DHC:7679

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and upheld the motor accident compensation awarded to the deceased's family, confirming the multiplier and future prospects applied were justified based on official salary records.

civil appeal_dismissed motor accident claim compensation loss of dependency multiplier