Delhi High Court
81,561 judgments
Javed Khan v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation is unpaid for over five years, and that the 2015 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights under the 2013 Act.
Sukhbir Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector (South-East)
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where an award is over five years old and compensation remains unpaid.
Mahender Singh & Ors 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 compensation is unpaid for over five years, and that the 2015 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively deprive landowners of vested rights.
Deepak Gupta 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 if possession was not taken and compensation not paid for over five years, regardless of court stay orders, and prospective amendments cannot affect vested rights.
Krishan Kant Goyal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
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 no compensation paid within five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.
Jai Prakash Tyagi and Ors v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years of the award, granting the petitioners a declaration of lapse.
Suresh B. Kapur v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed as no possession was taken or compensation paid within five years under the 2013 Act, and mere deposit of compensation in court without tendering does not constitute payment.
Chotti Devi 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 that the 2015 Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.
Naveen Saggi v. Prem Lata Verma
The Delhi High Court condoned delay and disposed of the appeal with a direction that if the substantive issue of recovery of damages is decided in appellant's favor, the trial court shall order recoupment of money paid under the interlocutory order.
Sonal Saggi v. Prem Lata Verma
The Delhi High Court condoned delay and disposed of the appeal with a direction that if the trial court finds in favor of the appellant on the recovery issue, it shall allow recoupment of money paid under the interlocutory order.
Kamla B Tekchandani v. Narinder Kaur
The Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge to condonation of delay and review petition orders, holding that the petitioner must file an appeal against the final judgment to raise substantive grounds.
Kamla B Tekchandani v. Narinder Kaur
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging condonation of delay and review petition allowance, holding that final judgments must be challenged by appeal and review is permissible only for errors apparent on record.
Rajbir Singh v. Ajay Pal & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause, holding that counsel's negligence alone does not justify condoning delay.
Muzzaffar Ali Alias Sukka v. The State Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a kidnapping FIR under Section 363 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement and marital relationship between the parties, applying the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Rajiv Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the ground of amicable settlement, affirming the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to do so in appropriate cases.
Sanjay Kumar v. The State
The Delhi High Court upheld the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner without prior notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., holding that such protection does not apply when the accused’s name is in the FIR and serious offences are involved.
Sonu Bansal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC based on a genuine mediated settlement in a matrimonial dispute, reaffirming the scope of Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
Shankar Khandelwal v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 290 and 304-A IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Mahesh Bhatija v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court held that a prima facie case existed to frame charges under the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 379 IPC, dismissing the petition challenging the trial order.
ROCHE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD & ORS v. DRUGS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS
The Delhi High Court allowed amendment of the plaint to include subsequent drug approvals, restrained defendants from launching products for additional indications without regulatory approval of packaging, and directed further proceedings on interim applications.