Delhi High Court
81,561 judgments
Ram Chander v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Ram Chander for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, affirming that common intention and presence during the offence suffice for liability even if only one accused commits the act of rape.
Ganesh Gupta @ Deepak Gupta & Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and dissolution of marriage, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and serve ends of justice.
Rajnish v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court modified the conviction of co-accused from murder with intention under Section 304 Part-I IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on circumstantial evidence indicating knowledge but no intention to cause death.
Progressive Shelters Pvt Ltd v. State
The Delhi High Court quashed a Section 420 IPC FIR based on a genuine settlement between parties in a commercial dispute, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC while imposing costs for public resources consumed.
Parveen Gaba v. The State Through Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement, emphasizing the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Lalit Khurana & Anr. v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 471, 506, and 120-B IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, applying the principles laid down in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh.
Om Krishan Sehrawat & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the basis of an amicable settlement, applying the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice.
Manmohan Plastic Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Ganpati Plastic Industries & Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark dispute appeal based on a mutual settlement defining distinct use of similar marks to avoid confusion.
Hans Raj v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court modified convictions of co-accused from murder under Section 304 Part I IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC based on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, recovery of weapon, and medical evidence.
Jai Balaji Security Services v. A.P.F.C. Delhi (North)
The Delhi High Court held that the 75% pre-deposit requirement under Section 7-O of the Employees Provident Funds Act applies only to appeals under Section 7-A, allowing the Tribunal to grant interim relief in appeals under Sections 7-Q and 14-B without such pre-deposit.
Jai Balaji Security Services v. A.P.F.C. Delhi (North)
The Delhi High Court held that the 75% pre-deposit embargo under Section 7-O of the Employees Provident Funds Act applies only to appeals under Section 7-A, allowing appeals and interim stays under Sections 7-Q and 14-B without such pre-deposit.
Jai Balaji Security Services v. A.P.F.C. Delhi (North)
The Delhi High Court held that the 75% pre-deposit requirement under Section 7-O of the EPF Act applies only to Section 7-A orders, allowing appeals and conditional stays without such pre-deposit for orders under Sections 7-Q and 14-B.
Jai Balaji Security Services v. A.P.F.C. Delhi (North); Central Board of Trustees v. M/s. Bedi and Bedi Associates; Rajinder Singh v. Central Board of Trustee & Anr.; Central Board of Trustees EPFO v. M/s. Evershine Housekeeping Services
The Delhi High Court held that the 75% pre-deposit condition under Section 7-O of the Employees Provident Funds Act applies only to appeals under Section 7-A, allowing interim relief in appeals under Sections 7-Q and 14-B without such deposit.
Sonu Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of W.P.(C)3242/2014 by reference to a detailed order passed in a related writ petition on the same date.
Brij Vivek Gupta (HUF) & Ors. v. M.C.D.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging demolition of alleged encroachments, holding that disputed factual issues require civil suit adjudication rather than writ relief.
Mohd. Riazuddin alias Ding-Ding v. State
The Delhi High Court delivered judgment on criminal appeals filed by Aslam and Mohd. Riazuddin challenging their convictions and sentences, referencing a prior related decision.
M/S BHAGWAN DASS KHANNA JEWELLERS v. BHAGWAN DAS KHANNA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendants' application to stay a trade mark infringement suit pending belated rectification proceedings, holding that the statutory period for filing such proceedings under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 had expired without sufficient cause for extension.
Jisan alias Bittoo v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions of three appellants for murder and attempted murder under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC, affirming the application of common intention based on eyewitness and medical evidence.
Matina Enterprises Private Limited v. Proec Energy Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed the application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation where requisite consents were obtained.
MOHD. RIAZUDDIN alias DING-DING v. STATE
The judgment text is incomplete and primarily refers to another decision dated 21.07.2015 in Crl.A. No.550/2012 without providing substantive details.