Delhi High Court
80,866 judgments
Gopal v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition in Crl.M.C.2015/2007 by referring to a detailed common judgment delivered in a related case on the same day.
P.S. Sharma v. State
The Delhi High Court quashed proceedings against two petitioners for lack of evidence of conspiracy and improper cognizance, but allowed trial against two others for offence under Section 509 IPC for unauthorized photographing of a woman in Court premises.
Roop Chand Gupta v. Delhi Vidyut Board
The Delhi High Court upheld disciplinary penalty against an Assistant Engineer for sanctioning illegal electricity connections in violation of office orders, holding that natural justice was complied with and the misconduct was established.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Onika Mehrotra
The Delhi High Court held that nominated members of Municipal Corporations have voting rights and can contest for Deputy Chairperson posts in Committees but cannot be elected Chairperson, dismissing appeals challenging this interpretation.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Onika Mehrotra
The Delhi High Court held that nominated persons to Municipal Corporations have voting rights and can contest for Deputy Chairperson posts in Committees but cannot be Chairperson, dismissing appeals challenging these rights.
Shri Sant Ram & Ors. v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate
The Delhi High Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to demarcate the petitioners' land within three months after the authority failed to act on their representation.
K.V. Kulkarni v. Bank of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of a dismissed bank officer, holding that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly without violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity causing prejudice.
Yashwati v. Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken or compensation not paid within five years, regardless of court stay orders, and that subsequent amendments do not affect vested rights.
Dharam Pal Aggawal v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years, regardless of court stay orders, and that subsequent amendments do not affect vested rights.
Narender Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation is not paid within five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and a 2015 Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect this right.
Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation is not paid within five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and the 2015 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively deprive vested rights.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Onika Mehrotra
The Delhi High Court held that nominated members of Municipal Corporations have voting rights and can contest for Deputy Chairperson posts in Committees but cannot contest for Chairperson posts.
Union of India and Ors. v. Madan Lal and Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the CAT order allowing SC/ST reservation in Passenger Guard vacancies, affirming the earlier Division Bench decision and upholding the principle of finality.
Raj Bir Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse if compensation is not paid within five years, applying Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act retrospectively.
Bhan Devi v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
R.R. Cargo Services v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court upheld the Railways' discretionary power to cancel leaseholder registration for serious overloading under the Comprehensive Leasing Policy, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the policy's provisions.
Sultan Hussain v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the discretionary power of Railways to cancel leaseholder registration upon the fourth default under Clause 1.[3] of the Comprehensive Leasing Policy but set aside the impugned cancellation orders for lack of adequate reasons and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Rahul Vaid v. Balraj Vaid and Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed substitution of legal heirs and set aside ex parte proceedings against defendants in a partition suit, emphasizing liberal condonation of delay and right to contest on merits.
Gulshan and Ors v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years, and that the 2015 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.
Ajay Kumar Gupta & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation not paid within five years, regardless of interim court stays, and that the 2015 Ordinance proviso is prospective and does not affect vested rights.