Delhi High Court

81,561 judgments

Year:

Shabana v. State & Anr

21 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5806

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 379 IPC and Section 135 Electricity Act based on an amicable settlement and No Dues Certificate, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences amicable settlement

Sumit Mittal & Anr v. State of NCT & Anr

21 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5805

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B IPC based on a full compromise between parties, applying the inherent power under 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 Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

21 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5804

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR under Section 363 IPC where the prosecutrix, above 16 years, voluntarily accompanied and married the petitioner, endorsing amicable settlement and non-incriminating statement under Section 164 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 363 IPC quashing of FIR prosecutrix consent Section 164 CrPC statement

Pammi @ Heera and Others v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

21 Jul 2015 · Sanjiv Khanna; Ashutosh Kumar · 2015:DHC:5803-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the murder convictions of appellants who set two women ablaze with kerosene, relying on consistent eyewitness and forensic evidence despite minor discrepancies.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 307 IPC Section 452 IPC Section 34 IPC

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

21 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5812

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 363 IPC where the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied and married the petitioner, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 363 IPC Section 366 IPC Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Sumit & Anr. v. State & Anr.

21 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:5823

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 147/149/186/353/506 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement at the initial investigation stage, emphasizing the sparing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and imposing costs on petitioners.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR amicable settlement non-compoundable offences

Ajay Kumar @ Nand Kishor & Ors v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

21 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:5824

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute following an amicable settlement and divorce, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Rajkumar Khatree @ Toni & Ors v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

21 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:5825

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 308/323/506/341/34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between parties, applying the principles governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences settlement between parties

Mohd Amzad @ Bholu & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

21 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:5814

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement between the parties, affirming the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to do so in appropriate cases.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute non-compoundable offence

Vinod Kumar v. State

21 Jul 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:5815

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for rape and criminal intimidation but reduced the sentence from ten to eight years due to uncertainty about the victim's exact age.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape Section 376 IPC victim testimony medical evidence

State NCT of Delhi v. Umesh

21 Jul 2015 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:5811

The Delhi High Court upheld the discharge of the accused in a sexual offence case due to lack of conclusive proof of the victim's minority and absence of prima facie evidence of kidnapping or rape.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant discharge of accused minor consent kidnapping rape

Dinesh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)

21 Jul 2015 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2015:DHC:5810

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of rape charges due to inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's evidence, granting him the benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape benefit of doubt prosecutrix testimony contradictory evidence

Ghasita Singh v. Ram Prag Koiree

21 Jul 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:5809

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's finding that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the suit property due to forged documents, entitling the respondent as legal heir to possession.

civil appeal_dismissed ownership possession forgery secondary evidence

Mahavir Prasad & Ors. v. State of Delhi & Ors.

21 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:5813

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal proceeding under Sections 406/34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

M/S VIRENDER KUMAR JAIN v. M/S BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD

21 Jul 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:5816-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an arbitral award and held that judicial interference under Section 34 is not warranted where the award has been clarified under Section 33 and the disputed amounts paid.

civil appeal_dismissed Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 33 Section 34 Arbitral Award

Om Prakash Makhija v. Manohar Lal

21 Jul 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:5798

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decree for recovery of Rs. 6 lakh with interest, holding that the defendant failed to prove the cheques were issued against goods supply and that the suit was within limitation.

civil appeal_dismissed loan recovery cheques burden of proof limitation

Vishva Mitra v. A R Nim

21 Jul 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:5818-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a remand for framing additional issues and recording evidence permits the trial court to reappraise all evidence and pass a fresh or modified judgment, dismissing the appellant's contention to the contrary.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant remand order framing of additional issues reappraisal of evidence fresh judgment

Naveen Import Private Limited & Ors. v. Ekta Infratech Private Limited

21 Jul 2015 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2015:DHC:5833

The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to dispense with convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for a Scheme of Amalgamation where all parties had given written consent and no secured creditors existed.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act, 1956 Sections 391 and 394 dispensing meetings

National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd v. M/S Pradeep Chopra

21 Jul 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · FAO 138/2015 2015:DHC:5820

The High Court set aside the trial court's summary dismissal of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and remanded the matter for proper adjudication on the merits within a stipulated timeframe.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 arbitral award objections to award

Shilpi Verma v. University of Delhi & Anr

21 Jul 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:5829

The Delhi High Court held that academic equivalence of degrees for university admission is a technical matter within the university's exclusive domain and not subject to judicial review, dismissing the petition challenging denial of admission.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant academic equivalence admission eligibility Bachelor of Design B.Sc. Home Science