Delhi High Court

72,805 judgments

Year:

Saraswati Thapa v. Union of India & Ors.

22 Mar 2016 · Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:2429

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim for liberalized family pension within six weeks despite the absence of the deceased’s service book.

administrative other family pension liberalized pension Office Memorandum 2000 service book

Aniket Vaibhav & Ors. v. The State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr

22 Mar 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:2440-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 341, and 34 IPC arising from a trivial altercation after the parties amicably settled the dispute without coercion.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement minor injuries

Ganeshi Lal v. Abdul Mazid

22 Mar 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2447
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation and interest in a motor accident claim, affirming the award of non-pecuniary damages and the minor status of the deceased for compensation purposes.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation non-pecuniary damages interest rate

U P State Road Transport Corporation v. Saraswati

22 Mar 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2448

The Delhi High Court upheld UPSRTC's liability for a fatal bus accident but modified compensation awards by disallowing future prospects and adjusting multipliers and deductions in accordance with established Supreme Court precedents.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claims compensation calculation future prospects loss of dependency

U P State Road Transport Corporation v. Saraswati

22 Mar 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2449
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld liability of UPSRTC for a fatal bus accident but modified compensation awards by excluding future prospects and adjusting deductions and multipliers in line with Supreme Court precedents.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim negligence vicarious liability compensation calculation

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sh. Vijay Pal & Ors.

22 Mar 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2450
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court reduced motor accident compensation by excluding future prospects from loss of dependency calculation in absence of proof of regular employment, following binding Supreme Court precedent.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim loss of dependency future prospects notional income

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Naseem Bano & Ors.

22 Mar 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2451
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that future prospects cannot be added for self-employed deceased in motor accident claims and that the insurer is liable to indemnify claimants unless it conclusively proves the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 loss of dependency future prospects self-employed

ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar & Ors.

22 Mar 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2452

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and upheld the motor accident compensation award, holding that the insurer cannot avoid liability when a valid fitness certificate is on record and its genuineness is not challenged.

motor_accident_claims appeal_dismissed motor accident claim insurance policy fitness certificate third party risk

Raghupati Singhania v. Competition Commission of India & Anr.

22 Mar 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:2416

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging CCI's investigation notice, holding that jurisdiction to decide applicability and penalty under the Competition Act lies exclusively with the CCI and COMPAT, and the petitioner must first exhaust remedies before these bodies.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Competition Commission of India Competition Act 2002 Section 27 Section 48

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Devi

22 Mar 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2453

The insurer is liable to indemnify third party claimants despite absence of valid permit but has recovery rights against owner and driver who failed to prove permit validity.

motor_accident_claims appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 third party insurance valid permit burden of proof

BHAG RATI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

22 Mar 2016 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SANJEEV SACHDEVA · 2016:DHC:2454-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending for over five years without payment of compensation under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, granting relief to the petitioner.

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

Santosh Gupta @ Rahul v. State

22 Mar 2016 · Suresh Kait · 2016:DHC:2421

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case involving non-commercial quantity of contraband, holding that the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply and the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed bail NDPS Act Section 20 NDPS Section 37 NDPS

Himanshu Kandpal & Anr. v. The State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.

22 Mar 2016 · Suresh Kait · 2016:DHC:2414

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable offence FIR under Section 354 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent futile continuation of proceedings.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR non-compoundable offence Section 354 IPC

Manoj Sharma v. State & Anr

22 Mar 2016 · Suresh Kait, J. · 2016:DHC:2420

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 279 and 338 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences compromise

Inder Pal Singh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

22 Mar 2016 · Suresh Kait · 2016:DHC:2413

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, applying its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Sartaz & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors.

22 Mar 2016 · Suresh Kait · 2016:DHC:2422

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable offence FIR under Section 308 IPC based on a genuine settlement between parties, applying its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR non-compoundable offence Section 308 IPC

Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.

22 Mar 2016 · Suresh Kait · 2016:DHC:2419

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable offence FIR under Section 308 IPC based on a settlement between parties, applying inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR non-compoundable offence Section 308 IPC

Ajaz Fatima Shamama & Anr. v. The State & Anr.

22 Mar 2016 · Suresh Kait · 2016:DHC:2418

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act following settlement and payment of dues before framing of charges.

criminal petition_allowed Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 135 Indian Electricity Act quashing of FIR settlement

Rohit Sharma & Ors. v. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr.

22 Mar 2016 · Suresh Kait · 2016:DHC:2417

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal proceeding under Sections 498A/506/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the basis of an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

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

Vikram Malhotra v. Competition Commission of India & Anr.

22 Mar 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:2415

The Delhi High Court held that jurisdiction to decide applicability of the Competition Act and penalty lies with the CCI and COMPAT, dismissing the writ petition challenging proceedings against an individual without a final determination against the company.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Competition Act, 2002 Section 27 Section 48 Competition Commission of India