Delhi High Court
71,423 judgments
Bankey Bihari Marketing Private Limited v. Suridhi Commercial Infra Private Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation between closely held companies under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, after finding no objections and compliance with procedural requirements.
Payal Polyplast Private Limited v. Payal Petrochem Private Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Payal Polyplast Private Limited and Payal Petrochem Private Limited under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 after requisite approvals and compliance with statutory requirements.
DCM Engineering Limited v. DCM Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between DCM Engineering Limited and DCM Limited under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing dissolution of the transferor company without winding up.
Sandeep Nehra & Ors. v. State Through Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 279/323/34 IPC based on a compromise between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498A IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, holding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit violence during a factional clash at the Food Corporation of India premises.
Haridwar Parsad Singh v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, holding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit violence during a factional dispute at the Food Corporation of India.
Haridwar Parsad Singh v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, ruling that formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object entails collective liability despite variations in eyewitness testimony.
Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, affirming that premeditated unlawful assembly with common object attracts collective liability, while allowing release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, holding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit violence during a factional fight at FCI premises.
Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, affirming that a premeditated unlawful assembly with common object can be held liable despite variations in eyewitness identification.
Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, ruling that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit violence, and dismissed their appeals except those abated due to death.
Haridwar Parsad Singh v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, holding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit violence, and dismissed their appeals while confirming release on probation.
Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, holding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with common object to commit the offence.
Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, finding that appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit offence during a violent clash between union factions.
Haridwar Parsad Singh v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, holding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit offences during a violent clash at FCI premises.
Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, holding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit offences during a violent clash between rival union factions.
Haridwar Parsad Singh v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, holding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit violence during a union rivalry at FCI premises.
Haridwar Parsad Singh v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of appellants for rioting as members of an unlawful assembly with a common object, dismissing their appeals and confirming liability under Section 149 IPC.
Haridwar Parsad Singh v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for rioting under Section 149 IPC, holding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit violence during a union rivalry at FCI premises.