Delhi High Court

72,805 judgments

Year:

Rakesh Dagar v. Delhi Transport Corporation

18 Mar 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Najmi Waziri · 2016:DHC:2341-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the denial of appointment to a candidate with pending criminal cases, holding that disposal of such cases after delay does not automatically entitle appointment without establishing triviality of offences.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant public employment criminal antecedents moral turpitude appointment denial

Pradeep Singh & Anr v. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

18 Mar 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:2335-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC Section 406 IPC Dowry Prohibition Act

Prem Mehta v. Raj Kumar Mehta & Ors.

18 Mar 2016 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2016:DHC:2313

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a registered Will and confirmed partition of property as per the Will, holding that probate is not required and possession claim is inherent in partition relief.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partition suit registered Will testator's mental capacity proof of Will

Jagdish Bhalla v. National Small Industries Corpn Ltd

18 Mar 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:2319-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appellant's appeal permitting him to lead evidence to prove he was not a partner of the defendant firm despite a joint written statement filed without his knowledge, setting aside earlier dismissal orders.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partnership liability service of summons disowning written statement hire purchase agreement

Vinod Kumar Abbey v. M/S Mountain Fall India Pvt Ltd

18 Mar 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:2320-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a suit under Order XXXVII CPC based on fixed monthly remuneration in a written agreement is maintainable and directed fresh consideration of leave to defend application, setting aside the dismissal of the suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXXVII CPC summary suit liquidated amount leave to defend

Jai Narayan Gupta & Ors. v. The State & Ors.

18 Mar 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:2317

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal proceeding under Section 308 IPC based on an amicable compromise between the parties, exercising its inherent powers 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 offence Section 308 IPC

M/S TRINITY GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LTD & ORS v. VIVEK CHAUDHARY & ORS

18 Mar 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:2318-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a compromise order that improperly conferred rights and liabilities on non-parties, emphasizing that no relief can be granted against parties not impleaded and that courts must ensure compromises do not adversely affect third parties.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compromise third party rights impleadment copyright infringement

M/S ROTHENBERGER INDIA PVT LTD v. M/S RAMSAGAR CONSTRUCTIONS & ANR

18 Mar 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:2321-DB

The court set aside improperly settled issues due to failure to amend the plaint reflecting a subsequent agreement, directing fresh pleadings and trial to ensure justice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant pleadings amendment of plaint cause of action issue framing

A Ramasamy v. Delhi Tamil Education Association

18 Mar 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:2342

The Delhi High Court held that suits valued up to Rs. 1 crore must be transferred to subordinate courts despite reserved interlocutory judgments, as only reserved final judgments exempt suits from transfer under the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 and related Office Order.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 Office Order 24.11.2015 final judgment interlocutory application

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Manoj @ Munna

18 Mar 2016 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:2343-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court's order granting probation to a Section 307 IPC convict, holding that offences punishable with life imprisonment are excluded from probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, but modified the sentence considering amicable settlement and social factors.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Section 307 IPC imprisonment for life probation exclusion

Rati Ram v. Union of India

18 Mar 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:2308-DB

The Delhi High Court held that BSF must explore sedentary postings or voluntary retirement before medically discharging a long-serving injured personnel, directing reinstatement and protection of service benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant medical discharge Border Security Force medical category SHAPE criteria

D.P. Mulchandani v. FCI and Ors.

18 Mar 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:2307-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a direct recruit's promotion and seniority in FCI, affirming the employer's power to relax experience requirements and dismissing the appellant's delayed challenge.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant seniority promotion experience requirement relaxation of rules

Dikshit Bhasin & Anr. v. Leelawati Devi & Ors.

18 Mar 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2345

The Delhi High Court upheld the tribunal's finding that the minor car driver alone was liable for a fatal accident caused by rash driving, dismissing claims of contributory negligence against the bus driver.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim rash and negligent driving contributory negligence minor driver

Saleem Qureshi v. State & Anr

18 Mar 2016 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:2333-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from a commercial dispute under Sections 406 and 420 IPC following an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC commercial dispute compromise

Sukhbir Singh Randhawa v. National Insurance Company

18 Mar 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2346

The Delhi High Court remitted the issue of the genuineness of the driver's license to the tribunal for inquiry before enforcing insurer's recovery rights, allowing the appeal against dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim insurance policy breach valid driving license Order 9 Rule 13 CPC

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. MUKESH KUMAR & ORS

18 Mar 2016 · R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2344

The court held that a driver carrying hazardous goods must have a valid license endorsement, and breach of this condition entitles the insurer to recover compensation from the vehicle owner.

motor_vehicles/insurance appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 driving license endorsement hazardous goods insurance policy breach

Sonu Gautam & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

18 Mar 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:2315

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 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 disputes

Premanand v. Union of India & Ors.

18 Mar 2016 · Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:2326

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition seeking ACP benefits as withdrawn, granting liberty to file a fresh petition with an explanation for the delay since 2006.

administrative appeal_dismissed Assured Career Progression ACP benefits service benefits delay in filing writ petition

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roy Gita & Ors.

18 Mar 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2339
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that future prospects cannot be added to loss of dependency where the deceased was self-employed or on fixed salary without evidence of income increase, recalculating compensation accordingly and enhancing non-pecuniary damages and interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 loss of dependency future prospects compensation

New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Parkash Kaur & Ors.

18 Mar 2016 · R.K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:2338

The Delhi High Court held that claimants must prove negligence under Section 166 MV Act and criminal case records alone are insufficient, remanding the matter for further evidence.

motor_accident_claims appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 negligence burden of proof