Delhi High Court
81,561 judgments
Ankit Chhibbar v. The State (Delhi Admn.)
The Delhi High Court granted absolute pre-arrest bail to petitioners accused under Sections 308 and 34 IPC, subject to cooperation with investigation and furnishing bail bonds.
Ramjir Dass Budhiraja v. Sanjeev Kumar
The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a complete and conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence and that mere recovery of the deceased's belongings without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
Dr. Pritesh Kumar Singh v. Peepee Publishers & Distributors (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court held that where a counter claim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower court, both suit and counter claim must be tried by the High Court to avoid conflicting judgments, and accordingly transferred the suit and counter claim to itself.
Rafiq v. State
The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of murder and attempt to murder charges due to doubts in the sole eyewitness's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
Sunita Takwal v. Sandeep Takwal
The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition for non-compliance of a maintenance settlement, holding that alternate remedies under the CPC must be exhausted before invoking contempt proceedings.
Raj Nandan Sahni v. State
Delhi High Court modified conviction under NDPS Act from commercial to mid quantity due to weighing discrepancies and definition of ganja, allowing the appeal and reducing sentence accordingly.
Aruna Sachdeva v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted Letters of Administration to the petitioner, the widow of the deceased Hindu intestate, in the absence of objections from other legal heirs and upon proof of entitlement under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Rakesh Kumar Sachdeva v. Prem Arora
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the closure of the plaintiff's evidence due to deliberate delay and non-compliance with court directions in a suit for specific performance.
Food Corporation of India v. Appellant Authority (Central)
The Delhi High Court held that the 30-day limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is mandatory, begins from the date copies are sent, and delay beyond this period cannot be condoned.
Sarita Kumari Verma v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging rejection of OBC reservation benefits due to non-submission of prescribed format certificate by the stipulated date, emphasizing strict adherence to recruitment advertisement conditions.
Gagan Kakkar v. Dharampal Chhabra
The Delhi High Court upheld the striking out of a defendant's defence under Order VI Rule 14A of the CPC for furnishing a false address, emphasizing mandatory compliance and available remedies.
Hemang Singh @ Himanshu Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 324/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences when continuation is futile and justice demands.
Rajesh Yadav & Ors. v. State
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 384, 506, 420, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties before framing of charges, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC while imposing costs for public interest.
Chhaju Ram & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 308 IPC on the basis of an amicable compromise between the parties, applying the principles under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justice.
Krishan Kumar & Krishanpal & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under multiple IPC sections based on an amicable settlement between parties, applying its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC in line with Supreme Court precedents.
Amit v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC based on an amicable settlement and divorce, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Gurnam Singh v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act with unpaid compensation and awards older than five years have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and the 2014 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.
ExlService SEZ BPO Solutions Private Limited v. Exl Service.com (India) Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for a Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, based on unanimous consents and financial assurances.
Indeen Bio Power Limited v. Its shareholders
The Delhi High Court allowed the applicant company's request to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Arrangement, given unanimous written consents and no adverse impact on stakeholders.
Ubico Networks Private Limited v. Citycom Networks Private Limited
Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under Sections 390 and 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 to dispense with certain shareholder meetings and directed convening creditor meetings for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation among three companies.