Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

Tripta Rani v. Union of India & Anr.

16 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:3966-DB

The court held that while family pension is payable only after presumption of death following seven years of disappearance, unpaid pension and terminal benefits from retirement to that date must be paid to the legal heirs with interest.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant family pension missing employee presumption of death Section 108 Indian Evidence Act

Kamlesh & Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

16 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3969-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 420 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, holding that private offences can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when compromise is voluntary and no serious societal interest is involved.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 420 IPC Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement

Surinder Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.

16 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:3968-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Supreme Court upheld reinstatement with continuity of service, entitling the petitioner to salary fixation including increments accrued during removal, and set aside the Tribunal's contrary order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant reinstatement continuity of service back wages salary fixation

Indian Council of Medical Research v. Virender Kumar Mehra

16 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:3965-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing reconsideration of promotions to Administrative Officer posts in ICMR based on combined seniority without any fixed quota between feeder cadres, holding that a one-time agreement does not create a binding promotion rule.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant promotion Administrative Officer Indian Council of Medical Research Section Officers

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Monica

16 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3958

The Delhi High Court enhanced motor accident compensation by applying the Sarla Verma multiplier of 16, increased interest to 9%, and clarified apportionment among legal heirs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim loss of dependency multiplier non-pecuniary damages

Jiya Lal v. Lalit Kumar Jha and Ors.

16 May 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3956

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by recalculating disability, loss of income, and interest, directing the insurer to pay the revised amount with interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim permanent disability loss of future income functional disability

Banna Ram & Ors. v. State & Anr.

15 May 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2017:DHC:2588

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and proceedings against one accused due to lack of prima facie material while allowing withdrawal of petition against co-accused with sufficient evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR Section 325 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention

M/S Samarth Designs (P) Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.

13 May 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:8919-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging the interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, holding that the issue was already settled by prior judgments.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Section 35F Central Excise Act 1944 statutory interpretation precedent stare decisis

Sonal Agarwal v. Puneet Agarwal

13 May 2016 · Gita Mittal; I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:8844-DB

The Delhi High Court accepted a voluntary settlement agreement in a matrimonial dispute, recorded it on court record, and disposed of the appeals and pending applications accordingly, emphasizing the welfare of the minor child and binding nature of the settlement.

family appeal_allowed Settlement Agreement Matrimonial dispute Minor child welfare Voluntary settlement

Rohit @ Sunny v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

13 May 2016 · S. P. Garg · 2016:DHC:8251

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a POCSO case following an amicable settlement and no objection from the prosecutrix's father, subject to cooperation with investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail POCSO Act settlement cooperation with investigation

Sunil Gupta v. State

13 May 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:3858

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications of accused in a grievous injury case, emphasizing the seriousness of offences and lack of satisfactory explanation.

criminal appeal_dismissed anticipatory bail grievous injury Section 308 IPC Section 354B IPC

Sunil Gupta v. State

13 May 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:3857

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications of accused charged with grievous injuries and outraging modesty, emphasizing the gravity of offences and specific roles assigned.

criminal appeal_dismissed anticipatory bail grievous injury Section 308 IPC Section 354B IPC

MAYTAS-RITHWIK (JV) v. KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD.

13 May 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:3892

Delhi High Court held it has jurisdiction to appoint a retired judge as Presiding Arbitrator after repeated arbitrator resignations and delays, allowing termination of existing arbitral mandate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 14 Section 15

MAYTAS-RITHWIK (JV) v. KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD.

13 May 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:3891

The Delhi High Court held it has jurisdiction to appoint a retired judge as presiding arbitrator after repeated resignations and delays, terminating the existing arbitral mandate to ensure expeditious arbitration.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment Section 14 termination of mandate Section 42 jurisdiction

Mohit Gupta & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

13 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3887-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from matrimonial discord following a lawful and voluntary settlement and mutual divorce decree, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC Article 226 Constitution matrimonial dispute

Mohd Azam & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

13 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3886-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from matrimonial discord following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC matrimonial dispute mutual consent divorce

Sumeet Verma v. Kalicharan & Anr

13 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3889-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 279/337 IPC arising from a motor vehicle accident following an amicable settlement and compensation paid between the parties.

criminal petition_allowed Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR motor vehicle accident amicable settlement

Suman & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

13 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3884-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC subject to compensation conditions.

criminal petition_allowed Significant amicable settlement quashing of FIR Section 420 IPC Section 406 IPC

ANIS v. STATE

13 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3888-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed parole to a life convict to file a Special Leave Petition, holding that parole cannot be denied without cogent material and affirming the constitutional right of convicts to prosecute higher court proceedings.

criminal petition_allowed Significant parole convict rights Special Leave Petition Article 226

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Om Prakash

13 May 2016 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:3880-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal in a dowry death case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove specific dowry demand and cruelty connected thereto as required under Section 304B IPC.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 304B IPC dowry death dowry demand cruelty