Delhi High Court

81,561 judgments

Year:

Mukesh @ Jaswant v. State of Delhi & Anr

28 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:5964

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal case under Section 326-A IPC based on an amicable family settlement and minor injuries, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 326-A IPC quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC non-compoundable offences

Sh. Chanpreet Singh Chadha & Ors. v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

28 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:5963

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes upon amicable settlement and dissolution of marriage, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to do so in such cases.

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

Kushal Khurana & Ors. v. State & Anr.

28 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:5962

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal proceeding under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes upon amicable settlement between the parties, affirming the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to do so in such cases.

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

Anil Paswan & Ors. v. State & Anr.

28 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:5959

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to do so in such cases.

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

National Fertilizers Limited v. Ashok Kumar Ahluwalia

28 Jul 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:5958-DB

Gratuity cannot be withheld from a superannuated employee merely because criminal proceedings are pending, as forfeiture under the Payment of Gratuity Act requires termination for misconduct or offences.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 gratuity withholding leave encashment criminal proceedings

Sanjay v. Ramesh Kumar

28 Jul 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:5961-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a selection committee may apply pre-decided fair criteria including experience weightage even if not explicitly stated in the advertisement, upholding the appointment of a Peon by the Veterinary Council of India.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant selection procedure weightage for experience appointment validity advertisement criteria

M/S Satpal Sharma & Sons v. Union of India & Anr

28 Jul 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:5966

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause does not lapse merely due to non-invocation within a contractual period and appointed an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Indian Contract Act, 1872 Section 28 amendment

Geeta Devi & Anr. v. State

28 Jul 2015 · S. P. Garg · 2015:DHC:5955

The Delhi High Court set aside the charge under Section 394 IPC due to lack of material and upheld the charge under Section 307/34 IPC against the petitioners.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 307 IPC Section 394 IPC common intention charge framing

Geetu v. Ravinder

28 Jul 2015 · S. P. Garg · 2015:DHC:5954

The Delhi High Court enhanced the maintenance amount payable by the husband to his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., considering his income and the petitioners' needs.

family appeal_allowed Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance quantum of maintenance wife and child maintenance

Jagdish Chander Gupta v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

28 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5987

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 304A IPC based on a settlement between parties and absence of culpable negligence, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 304A IPC Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR compromise

Ramzan & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

28 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5988

The Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs under Sections 323/392/509/34 and 323/392/427/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, applying the principles governing the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR compromise amicable settlement

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pridhi Singh & Ors.

28 Jul 2015 · V.K. Shali · 2015:DHC:5989

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application seeking premature release of compensation fixed deposits awarded for minor children and dependents, upholding the original payment modalities to protect their financial interests.

civil petition_dismissed Motor Vehicles Act Compensation Fixed Deposit Receipt Minor children

Ramzan & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

28 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5985

The Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs under Sections 323/392/509/427/34 IPC on the basis of amicable settlement between parties, applying the principles of Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR compromise criminal proceedings

Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.

28 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5986

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement, applying the principles of 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 amicable settlement

Vijay Devi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

28 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5984

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice.

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

Chetan Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

28 Jul 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:5973

The Delhi High Court held that a student who passed Class XI from a CBSE school is eligible for admission and examination in Class XII under CBSE Bye-Laws despite passing Class XII from another Board, quashing CBSE’s withholding of the petitioner’s result.

administrative petition_allowed Significant CBSE Examination Bye-Laws 1995 Admission to Class XII Eligibility for Board Examination Withholding of Result

Rattan Singh v. Union of India

28 Jul 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:5975-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as compensation was not paid, and the 2015 Ordinance proviso could not retrospectively affect vested rights.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition compensation payment vesting rights

HEJIAN SOLIDKEY PETROLEUM MACHINERY CO. LTD v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD

28 Jul 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:5970

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking interim injunctions against termination of an oil pipeline contract, holding that such contracts are not specifically enforceable and monetary compensation is an adequate remedy.

civil petition_dismissed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 14(1) Section 41(e)

Madan Mohan v. Union of India & Ors.

28 Jul 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:5971-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to grant a personal hearing and pass a fresh reasoned order on the petitioner's pension revision claim, finding prior orders non-compliant with tribunal directions.

administrative other pension revision 5th Pay Commission 6th Pay Commission Central Administrative Tribunal

Union of India & Ors. v. Alstom India Limited

28 Jul 2015 · Chief Justice; J. Jayant Nath; G. Rohini
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court remanded the refund claim of Terminal Excise Duty paid on supplies under International Competitive Bidding to DGFT for fresh consideration in accordance with law, emphasizing proper exercise of statutory discretion.

tax remanded Significant Terminal Excise Duty International Competitive Bidding Foreign Trade Policy refund of excise duty