Delhi High Court
93,877 judgments
M.P. Nauriyal v. Delhi Development Authority
The Delhi High Court directed DDA to allot an LIG flat to a registrant excluded from the 2008 tail-end priority draw despite valid registration and payment of cancellation charges, emphasizing DDA’s public duty and rejecting delay objections.
Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s interlocutory application seeking interim relief for obstruction of access, holding that such relief cannot exceed the relief claimed in the main suit and that frivolous applications to delay proceedings must be rejected with costs.
Desh Deepak Sharma @Deepak Kumar v. Chhabra Trading Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of two appeals by recording a binding settlement involving payment installments secured by post-dated cheques, with provisions for decree execution upon default.
Radio One Limited v. Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that disputes over tower rentals fall outside the arbitration clause of the Project Management Agreements, rendering Section 9 petitions for interim relief non-maintainable in absence of a valid arbitration agreement.
Sanjay Gautam v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the auction of a property marked as a green area in the Master Plan for Delhi-2021, upholding administrative discretion to keep the property in abeyance due to non-compliance with street width norms.
Sada Ram Kadian v. The State & Anr
The High Court allowed the appeal against dismissal of a complaint for non-prosecution due to non-appearance caused by incorrect hearing date communication, restoring the complaint subject to costs and strict appearance conditions.
Upras Vidyalaya v. Padmini Singla
The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition for wilful disobedience, holding it premature as the respondents had not wilfully disobeyed the court order and were awaiting a certified copy before acting.
Modern Institute of Teachers Education v. Juglal Singh & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the NCTE to process educational institutions' applications strictly under the 2014 regulations, emphasizing compliance with Court orders and timely removal of deficiencies, while dismissing contempt claims.
Mayank Garg v. State of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes following an amicable settlement and divorce by mutual consent.
Amiteshkumar@Guddu Singh v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and resumption of cohabitation between the parties, granting liberty to file fresh complaints if needed.
Virender Kumar & Ors v. The State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties.
Rajat Chamoli v. Nitin Yadav & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed the complaint against Rajat Chamoli under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for lack of privity and absence of any signed document implicating him.
Shishupal Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.
Delhi High Court quashed COFEPOSA detention order due to unexplained delay breaking the live link between alleged prejudicial activities and detention purpose.
M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. M/S NCC-VEE (JV)
The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral tribunal's interpretation that 'cost' in a price adjustment clause refers to the actual prevailing cost during execution, dismissing the appellant's challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Vinod Kumar Luthra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation is not paid within five years, and that the 2014 Ordinance's proviso cannot retrospectively affect vested rights under the 2013 Act.
Anju Saigal & Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings pending without possession or compensation for over five years before the 2013 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Shelly Batra & 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 no possession or compensation payment occurs within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in court without tender to landowners is insufficient.
Surjeet Kaur and Anr 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 2014 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.
Deepak Jain v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a subsequent purchaser is entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, deeming acquisition proceedings lapsed if possession and compensation are not completed within five years.
Om Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation is unpaid for over five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and the 2014 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.