Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

18 May 2016 · Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:4062

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing the doctrine of forum conveniens and directing petitioners to approach the Allahabad High Court where the majority of the cause of action arose.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant forum conveniens territorial jurisdiction writ petition Article 226

Dev Raj v. State; Neeraj Pal v. State

18 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog · 2016:DHC:4036

The Delhi High Court upheld Neeraj Pal's conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC but acquitted Dev Raj due to lack of clear evidence implicating him.

criminal appeal_allowed (Dev Raj), appeal_dismissed (Neeraj Pal) Significant attempt to murder Section 307 IPC benefit of doubt injury

Umesh v. State

18 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:4044

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of murder due to unreliable witness testimony, contradictory forensic evidence, and planted weapon, emphasizing the need for fair investigation and credible proof.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant murder post-mortem report weapon of offence planted evidence

DDA v. Shalini Kanwar

18 May 2016 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:4085
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a victim must obtain leave of the High Court under Section 378(3) CrPC before appealing against an acquittal order, dismissing revision petitions filed without such leave as not maintainable.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant revision petition order of acquittal victim's right to appeal Section 372 CrPC

Raman v. State

18 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog · 2016:DHC:4037

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions and seven-year sentences of three appellants for armed robbery causing grievous injuries, affirming the sufficiency of victim identification and evidence despite minor procedural lapses.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery grievous hurt deadly weapon identity

ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

18 May 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:4061-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed the final assessment and penalty orders for AY 2009-10 as they were not passed within the statutory limitation period nor properly dispatched to the assessee's updated address, emphasizing the necessity of timely dispatch for validity.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Assessment order Section 144C limitation Dispatch and service of orders

M/S. SHIVALI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. v. JOINT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, LUCKNOW

18 May 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:4042

The Delhi High Court directed the appellant to file a fresh stay application before the PMLA Tribunal and ordered revival of the status quo order until disposal of the fresh application, after it was vacated due to irrelevant facts in the original stay application.

criminal appeal_dismissed status quo order stay application Provisional Attachment Order Prevention of Money Laundering Act

Ruchika Arora & Ors. v. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

18 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:4080

Delhi High Court enhanced motor accident compensation by applying correct multiplier and future prospects, rejecting insurer's challenge to income assessment and rental income claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim loss of dependency multiplier future prospects

Vinod Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

18 May 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:4043

The Delhi High Court held that judicial review of sports awards like the Dronacharya Award is limited to procedural fairness and mala fide, and declined to interfere with the expert Selection Committee's discretionary decision awarding the Dronacharya Award to respondent No.4.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Dronacharya Award judicial review sports awards discretionary power

Mukesh Kr. Gupta & Ors. v. State (GNCT) Delhi & Anr.

18 May 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4050

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 288, 337, and 304A IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences compromise

Rajeev Bhalla v. State & Anr.

18 May 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4049

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC matrimonial disputes

Ashok Kumar Singhla v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr

18 May 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4048

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable Section 304A IPC FIR under its inherent powers in Section 482 Cr.P.C. following an amicable settlement between the parties to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 304A IPC inherent powers

Sanjay Singhal v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

18 May 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4047

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR involving non-compoundable offences under IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties in a matrimonial dispute, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR inherent powers of High Court non-compoundable offences

Ashok Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

18 May 2016 · Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:4046

The Delhi High Court directed the deployment of the petitioner to the Embassy of India in Kathmandu based on peculiar facts, clarifying that the order is not a precedent.

administrative petition_allowed deployment writ petition administrative discretion reserved vacancy

Nitesh Chaudhary v. Union of India and Anr

18 May 2016 · Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:4045

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution due to the petitioner’s absence and failure to file a rejoinder despite being granted opportunities.

constitutional petition_dismissed writ petition non-prosecution dismissal for default rejoinder

Pappu v. State

18 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog · 2016:DHC:4041

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a father for repeatedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter based on conclusive DNA and medical evidence despite hostile witnesses.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant DNA evidence sexual assault hostile witnesses Section 376 IPC

Colonel Ramanjit Singh Kapany Sena Medal v. Union of India

18 May 2016 · Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:4052

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s fresh representation regarding his transfer request on medical grounds before implementing the impugned order.

administrative petition_dismissed last leg posting transfer request orthopaedic specialist military hospital

Bhagwan Decd Thr LRs v. Union of India & Anr

18 May 2016 · Ashutosh Kumar, J. · 2016:DHC:4053

The Delhi High Court condoned a substantial delay in filing a land acquisition appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach to 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice while balancing interests of parties.

property appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay Section 5 Limitation Act 1963 land acquisition compensation enhancement

Chittar Lekha v. Ganga Ram

18 May 2016 · Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:4054

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal, affirming the respondent's ownership and entitlement to possession of the disputed property based on valid sale documents and caretaker status of the appellant.

civil appeal_dismissed possession suit ownership caretaker General Power of Attorney

Vijayan v. Harinder Kaur

18 May 2016 · Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:4051

The Delhi High Court upheld the owner's right to possession against an occupant who repudiated landlord's title, clarifying that tenancy protections under the Delhi Rent Control Act do not apply when the occupant claims ownership.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act tenancy adverse possession possession suit