Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

Bhagat Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

25 Apr 2016 · Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:3154-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's repeated failure to appear despite granted adjournments.

civil petition_dismissed writ petition non-prosecution dismissal in default adjournment

United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Dharmender Singh; Vandana Singh

25 Apr 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3170

The Delhi High Court held that an insurance company is entitled to be exonerated from liability and recover compensation paid if the driver held a fabricated driving license and the owner failed to prove due diligence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor vehicle accident insurance policy valid driving license burden of proof

United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Dharmender Singh; Vandana Singh

25 Apr 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3171

The Delhi High Court held that an insurance company is entitled to be exonerated from liability and recover compensation paid if the driver held a fabricated driving license, shifting the burden of proof to the owner and driver to show due diligence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim insurance liability fabricated driving license breach of insurance policy

Raman Vohra v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

25 Apr 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:3155

The Delhi High Court allowed revision and compounded the offence under Section 138 NI Act following an amicable settlement and compliance with Supreme Court compounding guidelines.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act compoundable offence compounding of offence Damodar X. Prabhu guidelines

Ashish Sharma v. Govt. of N.C.T., Delhi & Anr.

25 Apr 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:3163-DB

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

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

Dr. Harsh Mahajan v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr

25 Apr 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:3156

The Delhi High Court quashed summoning orders against two doctors under the PC-PNDT Act for delay, non-compliance with mandatory notice, and failure of the trial court to apply judicial mind and conduct inquiry.

criminal petition_allowed Significant PC-PNDT Act Section 23(1) Section 28 notice limitation

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Sumitra @ Samantra & Ors.

25 Apr 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3172

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that absence of a valid permit at the accident time did not absolve insurer liability where the permit was obtained the same day and did not contribute to the accident.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim insurance policy breach valid permit third party insurance

M/S Fortune Grand Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Tourism & Transport Development Corporation

25 Apr 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:3136

The Delhi High Court held that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act are not arbitrable and the Estate Officer has exclusive jurisdiction despite an arbitration agreement between the parties.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 arbitration agreement arbitrability exclusive jurisdiction

Bijender Singh v. State

25 Apr 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3144-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the murder conviction of Bijender Singh based on last seen evidence, forensic recovery, and failure to explain circumstances under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, dismissing his appeal despite acquittal of co-accused.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant last seen evidence Section 106 Indian Evidence Act circumstantial evidence murder conviction

Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

25 Apr 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:3141

The Delhi High Court upheld the Airports Authority of India's height restrictions near Kolkata Airport, dismissing the petitioners' challenge to reduced permissible building height and demolition orders for unauthorized construction beyond the NOC validity.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Aircraft Act 1934 Section 9A No Objection Certificate building height restrictions

Dr. Harsh Mahajan v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr

25 Apr 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:3157

The Delhi High Court quashed summoning orders against two doctors under the PC-PNDT Act due to delay, non-compliance with mandatory notice, and failure of the trial court to conduct required inquiry.

criminal petition_allowed Significant PC-PNDT Act Section 23(1) Section 28 notice limitation

Rajinder Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector South East

25 Apr 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3168-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years of the award, declaring the petitioners' land acquisition proceedings lapsed.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings compensation non-payment

Dharamvir and Ors v. Land Acquisition Collector South-East and Anr

25 Apr 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3169-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years after the award.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse compensation non-payment

Shashi Kant Goenka v. Union of India & Ors.

25 Apr 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3166-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid or tendered within five years, and mere deposit in treasury does not constitute payment.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 24(2) compensation payment

Shivan Auto Center v. India Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

25 Apr 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2016:DHC:3158

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award dismissing the petitioner's challenge to termination of a petrol pump dealership for breach of contract by executing an undisclosed irrevocable General Power of Attorney transferring control to a third party.

civil petition_dismissed Significant General Power of Attorney dealership agreement breach of contract termination of dealership

Genentech Inc and Others v. Drugs Controller General of India and Others

25 Apr 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:3159

The Delhi High Court held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to challenge drug approvals granted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit against the biosimilar drug TrastuRel and affirming the statutory regulatory framework and expert committee decisions.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant biosimilar drug Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 clinical trials Phase I and II trials

State v. Laxman Prasad

25 Apr 2016 · Sangita Dhingra Sehgal; G. S. Sistani · 2016:DHC:3167-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape case, holding that the prosecutrix's testimony was not sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction without corroboration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape prosecutrix testimony sole testimony credibility

New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Geeta Sindhwani & Ors.

25 Apr 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3160
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld future prospects addition in compensation, fixed multiplier based on claimant's age, enhanced non-pecuniary damages, and increased interest rate in a motor accident claim involving the death of a permanent employee.

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

Sushila Devi v. Parvesh Kumar

25 Apr 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:3161

The Delhi High Court held that the multiplier for loss of dependency under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act must be based on the age of the deceased victim, not the claimant, and enhanced the compensation accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 163-A loss of dependency multiplier

Ranjeet v. State

25 Apr 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3142-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted accused in a murder case due to insufficient evidence directly linking them to the crime, emphasizing that suspicion and knowledge of the crime alone cannot sustain conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant murder circumstantial evidence corpus delicti Section 313 CrPC