Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

Rajesh Kumar @ Ramu v. Sunil Kumar

10 May 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:3741

The Delhi High Court held that suits for recovery of possession based on title fall under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and remanded the suit dismissed as time barred for trial applying the correct limitation principles.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Article 64 Article 65 Recovery of possession

Birinder Singh Sabarwal v. Sardarni Satpal Kaur & Ors.

10 May 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:3734

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal in a suit for recovery of possession, holding that unregistered agreements to sell do not confer ownership rights against legal heirs after dissolution of partnership by death.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partnership dissolution recovery of possession mesne profits agreement to sell

DRI v. Khursheed Alam & Anr

10 May 2016 · Sunita Gupta, J. · 2016:DHC:3735

The Delhi High Court set aside the acquittal of accused for lack of sanction and territorial jurisdiction, remanding the case for fresh trial with directions to dispose expeditiously.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 sanction for prosecution territorial jurisdiction Section 137 Customs Act

Radha Nagpal & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

10 May 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3736-DB

The Delhi High Court held that failure to make the award within the two-year period under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, excluding stay periods, results in lapse of acquisition proceedings and quashed the acquisition of the petitioners' land.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 11A time limit for award acquisition lapse

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jai Bhagwan

10 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3751

Delhi High Court upheld motor accident compensation despite absence of police case, enhanced award for loss of amenities and artificial limb, and increased interest rate to 9%.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation negligent driving permanent disability

X v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

10 May 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:3715

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's discretion to defer framing additional charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. until the prosecutrix's testimony is complete, dismissing the petition challenging this interim order.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 216 Cr.P.C. additional charges framing of charges Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Brig A K Bhutani v. M/S Central Warehousing Corporation

10 May 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:3714

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging termination of a security contract, holding that pure contractual disputes with disputed facts must be resolved through arbitration and not writ jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant writ jurisdiction Article 226 contractual dispute public law element

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

10 May 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:3730

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable FIR under Sections 279, 338, and 304A 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.

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

Umang Goyal v. State and Anr

10 May 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:3731

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.

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

Jitender Kumar & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

10 May 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:3732

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement, 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 Section 498A IPC matrimonial dispute

Shakil Ahmed & Ors. v. The State (Govt of NCT, Delhi) & Anr

10 May 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:3733

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498A IPC based on amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers 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 Section 498A IPC matrimonial dispute

Union of India v. Sandip Kumar Roy

10 May 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:3722-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Government must consider relaxing recruitment rules to restore seniority lost by a candidate due to a stay order beyond his control, applying equitable principles and the power to relax rules under the 2010 Recruitment Rules.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant seniority promotion recruitment rules relaxation of rules

Ramesh Dutt Salwan v. Shiv Dutt Salwan

10 May 2016 · V.K. Shali · 2016:DHC:3720

The Delhi High Court held that where partition by metes and bounds is not feasible, the court must order sale of the property under the Partition Act, 1893, setting aside a decree that partitioned only the superstructure and left the land undivided.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition suit partition by metes and bounds consent decree Partition Act 1893

Sabra v. State

10 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3719-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted Khurshid for lack of reliable evidence but upheld Sabra's conviction for giving false information to conceal her husband's homicidal death, modifying her sentence considering the delay in appeal disposal.

criminal appeal_allowed (Khurshid), appeal_dismissed (Sabra), sentence_modified (Sabra) Significant Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC false information manual strangulation

Sabra v. State

10 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3721-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted Khurshid of murder due to unreliable evidence but upheld Sabra's conviction for giving false information, modifying her sentence considering the long delay in appeal disposal.

criminal appeal_allowed and appeal_dismissed Significant Section 201 IPC Section 302 IPC false information manual strangulation

Dashrath Singh v. Andhra Bank & Ors.

10 May 2016 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2016:DHC:3718
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a bank employee convicted under Section 325 IPC, ruling that such conviction involves moral turpitude justifying termination without violating double jeopardy principles.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant double jeopardy moral turpitude disciplinary proceedings criminal conviction

Raj Bala & Anr. v. Kusum & Ors.

10 May 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:3717

The Delhi High Court dismissed the partition suit for lack of cause of action, holding that post-1956 inheritance does not automatically create HUF property and detailed pleadings are required to establish existence of an HUF.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Hindu Undivided Family HUF property Hindu Succession Act 1956 ancestral property

Mustkeem @ Shanu v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

10 May 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:3716

The Delhi High Court upheld framing of charge under Section 174A IPC against an accused declared Proclaimed Offender for absconding, holding that discharge from the main offence does not absolve liability under Section 174A.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 174A IPC Proclaimed Offender absconding charge framing

Reeta Yadav v. Reserve Bank of India

09 May 2016 · V. P. Vaish · 2016:DHC:8915

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging RBI Assistant Exam results for lack of territorial jurisdiction due to an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on Mumbai courts.

constitutional appeal_dismissed territorial jurisdiction exclusive jurisdiction clause Reserve Bank of India Assistant Examination writ petition

V4 Digital Infotech v. Union of India & Anr.

09 May 2016 · Manmohan, J · 2016:DHC:8914

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking extension of the digitization deadline for cable TV transmission as infructuous due to delay and non-appearance of petitioners.

administrative petition_dismissed writ of mandamus digitization cable TV transmission extension of deadline