Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

Rajni Adlakha & Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

06 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3632-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a theft FIR arising from a family dispute after the parties amicably settled, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC subject to compensation.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC Section 380 IPC amicable settlement

Manish Azad v. State of Delhi & Anr

06 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3628-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 IPC based on a lawful and voluntary settlement between parties in a private loan dispute, subject to compensation to the victim.

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

Vinay Kumar & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

06 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3629-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute following a lawful settlement and mutual divorce decree, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC matrimonial dispute 498A IPC

Sagar Narula & Anr v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

06 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3630-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 394/34 IPC arising from a trivial scuffle amicably settled between parties, subject to community service conditions.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement Section 394 IPC

Ketan Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

06 May 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3631-DB

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

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

Ashok Kumar Tiwari v. Rajesh Kumar Yadav

06 May 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:3634

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit for recovery of money lent as barred by limitation, while condoning a one-day delay in filing leave to defend.

civil appeal_allowed Significant limitation money lent acknowledgment in writing leave to defend

Ravinder Pahuja & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi

06 May 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Sanjiv Khanna · 2016:DHC:3633-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful and equitable implementation of earlier judgments restoring promotional rights to Junior Translators, dismissing challenges to seniority adjustments and creation of supernumerary posts.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant seniority promotion Junior Translators notional seniority dates

Rajan Mehra v. Geetanjali Jolly & Anr.

06 May 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:3574

The Delhi High Court dismissed a suit for Rs. 2.10 crores damages for failure to plead any civil wrong or cause of action arising from a divorce decree and related proceedings.

civil appeal_dismissed cause of action civil wrong damages divorce decree

M/S Krishna Engineering Works Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

06 May 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3575-DB

The Delhi High Court held that BIFR must record reasons and refer to the High Court for winding up if revival is not viable, and before winding up, a public notice inviting third party takeover must be issued, setting aside orders dismissing the reference and directing proper procedure on remand.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 Section 20(1) SICA BIFR AAIFR

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jerald Samuel Soloman

06 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3622

The Delhi High Court upheld negligence in a motor accident claim but reduced compensation by applying the correct multiplier based on claimants' age and enhanced interest and damages.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim negligence loss of dependency multiplier

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ritu Singh & Ors.

06 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3623

The Delhi High Court upheld the tribunal's finding of negligence and compensation award including future prospects in a motor accident claim, dismissing the insurer's appeal.

motor_accident_claims appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim negligence future prospects Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CT Ashok Kumar and Ors.

06 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3620

The Delhi High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal partly, reducing the enhanced compensation and limiting interest liability due to claimant's delay and procedural history in a motor accident claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim ex parte proceedings Order 9 Rule 13 CPC compensation

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nagina Begum and Anr.

06 May 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3619

The Delhi High Court held that a deceased related to the vehicle owner is a third party entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, disallowed future prospects on notionally assessed income, corrected multiplier application, and enhanced the compensation with interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 163-A third party future prospects

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nemkhanvung & Ors.

06 May 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3621

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding it liable to pay compensation as the insurance coverage was effective via a cover note and the learner driver was accompanied by a licensed owner at the time of the accident.

motor_accident_claims appeal_dismissed Significant motor vehicle accident insurance liability learner's driving license cover note

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Guddo Devi & Ors.

06 May 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3618

The Delhi High Court held that future prospects cannot be added to loss of dependency for a deceased without proof of progressive income, recalculated compensation accordingly, enhanced non-pecuniary damages and interest, and partly allowed the insurer's appeal.

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

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi & Ors.

06 May 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3625

The Delhi High Court modified a motor accident compensation award by excluding future prospects for a fixed salary employee and increasing deduction for personal expenses, enhancing non-pecuniary damages and interest, thereby partially allowing the insurer's appeal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim loss of dependency future prospects personal and living expenses deduction

Alpana Gupta v. Pranab Gupta

06 May 2016 · Gita Mittal; I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:3624-DB

Delhi High Court allowed the appeal in a matrimonial dispute involving mental illness, directing medical examination of the respondent and restoration of the annulment petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

family appeal_allowed Significant mental illness schizophrenia Hindu Marriage Act Section 12

Achla Shokeen & Anr. v. Om Prakash Shokeen & Ors.

06 May 2016 · Ashutosh Kumar, J. · 2016:DHC:3573

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding that co-owners are not entitled to mandatory restoration of electricity without legal or contractual obligation, while maintaining protection against unlawful dispossession.

civil appeal_dismissed permanent injunction mandatory injunction electricity supply co-ownership

Madan Gopal Singhal v. State; Narender Kumar v. State

06 May 2016 · Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:3572

The Delhi High Court acquitted two accused in a bribery case under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to lack of conclusive evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, emphasizing that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act demand and acceptance tainted money burden of proof

M.F. Rings & Bearing Races Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs

06 May 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu BakhrU · 2016:DHC:3571-DB

The Delhi High Court held that forged Flanges exported by petitioners are entitled to duty drawback under statutory notifications, and executive clarifications or public notices cannot retrospectively deny such benefits.

tax appeal_allowed Significant duty drawback Customs Act 1962 Drawback Schedule forged flanges