Delhi High Court
81,413 judgments
Maan Singh @ Jai Narayan v. Anupam Bhushan
The Delhi High Court dismissed contempt petitions against police officers for arresting accused without knowledge of Supreme Court's directions, holding that wilful disobedience requires deliberate breach with knowledge and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Maan Singh @ Jai Narayan v. Anupam Bhushan
The Delhi High Court dismissed contempt petitions against a police officer for arresting petitioners without knowledge of Supreme Court directions, holding that wilful disobedience is essential for contempt liability.
Shivali Dhillon v. Managing Director, Army Welfare Education Society and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that the Army Welfare Education Society is not a State or public authority under Article 12, and thus the petitioner’s claim for DA arrears is a private law dispute not maintainable under writ jurisdiction.
Rakesh Sonekar & Ors. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial-related FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Satish Pal & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Swati Madan v. State
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 279 and 337 IPC based on the parties' settlement and held that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to prevent abuse of process in non-heinous offence cases.
Bimla Devi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 based on an amicable settlement between parties, applying the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Harish Chand Sethi & Anr. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the principles of Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of court process.
Subhash Gupta & Anr. v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a landlord-tenant dispute based on a mediated settlement, applying the principles under Section 482 CrPC to promote amicable resolution and prevent abuse of process.
Subhash Gupta & Anr. v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a landlord-tenant dispute based on a mediated settlement, applying the principles under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Rajesh Kapoor v. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal directing consideration of Rajesh Kapoor's candidature for CMD of TCIL, holding that age eligibility must be interpreted purposively with residual service requirements to ensure minimum tenure.
Sunil & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Naresh Mittal & Ors. v. State & Anr
The High Court held that at the summoning stage, allegations must be accepted prima facie except where contradictions undermine credibility, quashing summoning of a police official but sustaining summoning of other accused in a property dispute case.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kulvinder Singh
The Delhi High Court held that a Magistrate cannot direct the CBI to investigate a case under Section 156(3) CrPC and quashed the orders directing such investigation.
Sarita Gaur v. Government of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was not taken and compensation not paid for over five years before the 2013 Act, irrespective of court stay orders.
Rajeev Gaur v. Government of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession is not taken and compensation not paid for over five years, regardless of court stays, and that subsequent amendments do not affect vested rights.
Subhash Jain v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act despite court stay orders, and the 2015 Ordinance proviso does not affect vested rights.
Union of India & Ors. v. Deen Dayal Pandey
The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT order directing unconditional payment of consequential benefits upon reinstatement, rejecting the petitioners' claim to treat the removal period as dies non.
Kuldeep Singh & Ors. v. S.D.M. (Kalkaji) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed maintenance of status quo on possession and deferred correction of revenue records pending the Supreme Court's decision on the validity of land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
Jagdish Chand Gupta v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection of a land allotment request due to procedural lapses, directing the petitioner to be given an opportunity to present occupancy information before the Recommendation Committee.