Delhi High Court
80,866 judgments
Jai Ram Kakkar v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act without possession or compensation for over five years prior to the 2013 Act are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Banwari Lal Sharma v. The Land Acquisition Collector
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation is not paid within five years under the 2013 Act, and that the 2015 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.
Lalit Jain v. Union of India
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 of the award, regardless of possession claims.
Sandeep Mittal v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years, and vested rights under the 2013 Act cannot be overridden by subsequent amendments.
Md. Swalehin & Ors. v. Sultana Begum & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed transfer of a civil suit to be tried along with a pending suit involving the same parties and property to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure judicial convenience.
Satish Khandelwal v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years, and vested rights under the 2013 Act cannot be overridden by subsequent amendment ordinances.
Hem Chand and Ors. v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the acceptance of a police Cancellation Report and dismissed the petition challenging the compromise and withdrawal of criminal proceedings in a provident fund embezzlement case.
Vandana Batra v. Aerens Goldsouk International Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted possession to the landlord on admissions where the tenant admitted the tenancy and termination notice but continued occupation, rejecting arbitration based on an unregistered lease deed.
T.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years, and vested rights under the 2013 Act cannot be overridden by a later amendment ordinance.
Sachin Bansal & Ors. v. The State Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Surinder Singh v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC upholding the acceptance of the police cancellation report and dismissal of criminal proceedings due to lack of evidence and afterthought allegations.
Mani Budhankar v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that a government employee released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be compulsorily retired solely on the basis of conviction, directing reconsideration of his reinstatement representation.
Sarla Kataria v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years, and vested rights under the 2013 Act cannot be overridden by subsequent amendment ordinances.
HDFC Bank Limited v. Mohd Shafeeq
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bank's appeal in a loan recovery suit for failure to prove that the loan amount was received by the borrower and upheld the trial court's findings based on preponderance of probabilities.
Ramesh Chander v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court declined to quash an FIR under Sections 451 and 380 IPC solely on a monetary settlement, directing parties to obtain divorce by mutual consent and explore mediation before seeking quashing.
Madhu Kukreti & Ors. v. Mukesh Kukreti
The High Court restored the trial court's maintenance order after finding the revisional court erred in reducing maintenance without proper income evidence from the respondent.
Vinod @ Anna & Others v. The State & Another
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under serious IPC offences on the basis of an amicable settlement between parties before trial commencement, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Vandan Bali v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that an undated cheque with a subsequently inserted date is a valid negotiable instrument if a liability exists at that time.
Mond. Javed v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
The Delhi High Court held that Section 32-A of the NDPS Act does not bar concurrent sentencing under Section 427 Cr.P.C., but serious drug offences warrant consecutive sentences despite the petitioner’s senior citizen status.
Pavan Kumar Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash trial proceedings under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that a prima facie case exists and the marriage was not declared null.