Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Heera Devi & Ors.

30 May 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:4535
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that proof of negligence is mandatory under Section 166 MV Act to fix liability in motor accident claims and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry allowing additional evidence.

motor_accident_claims appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 Negligence Motor accident claim

Azim Khan v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

30 May 2016 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:4512-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including last seen theory and failure to explain the death under Section 106 Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory Section 302 IPC Section 106 Evidence Act

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Manisha Sharma & Ors.

30 May 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:4534
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

Delhi High Court held that future prospects should not be added to compensation for deceased employees earning fixed salaries and rejected contributory negligence, enhancing compensation and interest in a motor accident claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim contributory negligence future prospects fixed salary

Narender v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

30 May 2016 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2016:DHC:4499

The Delhi High Court acquitted one accused due to unreliable identification but upheld convictions of two others for gang rape of a minor, affirming principles on juvenility determination and evidentiary standards.

criminal appeal_allowed (for Narender), appeal_dismissed (for Vikram and Tekram) Significant Identification parade Juvenile Justice Board Age determination Rape of minor

Narender v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

30 May 2016 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2016:DHC:4500

The Delhi High Court acquitted one accused due to unreliable identification but upheld convictions of two others for gang rape of a minor, affirming proper juvenile age determination and evidentiary standards.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant identification evidence juvenile justice rape of minor consent immaterial

Saroj Bala Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

30 May 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:4522-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years before the new Act's commencement.

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

State v. Shiv Dass @ Sandeep

30 May 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:4501

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's revision petition upholding the Trial Court's lawful order directing supply of call detail records to the accused for effective defense under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 91 Cr.P.C. call detail records preservation of evidence supply of documents to accused

Manoj Kashyap & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

30 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:4502-DB

The Delhi High Court held that eligible Senior Hindi Translators must be considered for promotion to Assistant Registrar posts under the extant 1975 Rules, setting aside ad hoc appointments of lower category employees and directing regular promotion committees to be held.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Assistant Registrar Recruitment Rules 1975 Departmental Promotion Committee

Manoj Kashyap & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

30 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:4503-DB

The Delhi High Court held that eligible Senior Hindi Translators must be considered for promotion to Assistant Registrar under the extant 1975 Rules, directing regular DPCs and setting aside adhoc promotions bypassing them.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Assistant Registrar Promotion Recruitment Rules 1975

Department of Telecommunications v. Satya Prakash & Ors.

30 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:4504-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's decision that government servants appointed on probation to another department do not lose lien on their parent department posts unless immediately permanently absorbed.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant lien retention permanent absorption Fundamental Rules 13 and 14A probation clause

Ram Naresh v. Union of India & Ors.

30 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:4505-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld compulsory retirement imposed on a railway employee for unexplained excess cash found during vigilance check, affirming the validity of disciplinary proceedings despite non-production of certain documents and belated defence claims.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary inquiry compulsory retirement Railway Service Conduct Rules Cash Check Memo

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. VIMAL DEVI

30 May 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:4539

The insurer cannot avoid liability to a third party claimant despite the driver’s invalid license, but may recover compensation from the insured owner.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor vehicular accident insurance policy breach third party rights driving license invalid

State v. Dharmender @ Tittu & Ors.

30 May 2016 · G.S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:4533-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's leave to appeal petition, upholding the acquittal of accused in a murder case due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and insufficient corroborative evidence.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant sole eyewitness testimony benefit of doubt acquittal Section 302 IPC

Narender v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

30 May 2016 · Mukta Gupta, J. · 2016:DHC:4486

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of two accused for gang rape based on reliable in-court identification and forensic evidence, while acquitting the third accused due to failure of identification and benefit of doubt, and affirmed the Juvenile Justice Board's age determination procedure.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant in-court identification juvenile justice age determination gang rape

Vinod Kumar & Ors v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

30 May 2016 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:4511-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court modified murder convictions to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC for two appellants, acquitted two others of murder charges, and upheld convictions for lesser offences, emphasizing absence of premeditation and intention to cause death.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC common intention grave and sudden provocation

Satpal Malhotra v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr

30 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:4546-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR alleging forgery and cheating under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 based on an amicable settlement between parties in a private property dispute, subject to compensation to the victim.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement private offences

Vishwajeet Rana v. The State

30 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:4545-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes and the complainant's withdrawal of prosecution.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC

Sunder v. State

30 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4519

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants accused of rape due to inconsistencies in prosecutrix's statements, unexplained FIR delay, and evidence of consensual marriage, emphasizing the need for reliable and corroborated evidence in sexual offence cases.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape prosecutrix testimony Section 376 IPC Section 109 IPC

Ramnik Yadav v. State

30 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4518

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of sexual assault charges after holding that the prosecutrix was above the age of consent and the relationship was consensual within a runaway marriage.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant age determination consent Section 376 IPC runaway marriage

Raj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi

30 May 2016 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:4506-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for double murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, recovery of weapon, and forensic proof, dismissing the appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory Section 302 IPC Section 25 Arms Act