Delhi High Court

93,877 judgments

Year:

Ram Chander Batra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

10 Mar 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:2330-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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 the 2014 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings payment of compensation

Shyam Sunder Oberoi & Ors. v. The District & Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi & Ors.

10 Mar 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2340
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that ad hoc appointees who did not meet eligibility criteria cannot claim seniority from their initial ad hoc appointment dates upon regularization, affirming seniority must be counted from the date of regular appointment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant seniority ad hoc appointment regularization eligibility criteria

Ved Prakash v. Land Acquisition Collector

10 Mar 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:2325-DB

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act lapses if compensation is not paid within five years prior to the 2013 Act, declaring the acquisition of petitioners' land lapsed due to non-payment.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 24(2) lapse of acquisition

Ashok Kumar v. Union of India and Ors

10 Mar 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:2326-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

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 is not paid, and mere deposit of compensation in court without offering it to the landowner does not constitute payment.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings compensation payment

Harpreet Singh Kler v. Union of India & Ors.

10 Mar 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:2320-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in treasury without possession does not prevent lapse under the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act land acquisition possession compensation payment

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. OCEANIC SOLVENT INDUSTRIES LTD

10 Mar 2015 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SANJEEV SACHDEVA · 2015:DHC:2321-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal to condone a 45-day delay in re-filing an arbitration petition, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause and due diligence.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act due diligence unavoidable circumstances

MCD General Mazdoor Union v. MCD

10 Mar 2015 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2015:DHC:2315

The Delhi High Court held that claims for uniform and stitching charges under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be dismissed at the threshold if based on employer circulars, and must be adjudicated on merits.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Section 33C(2) Industrial Disputes Act uniform entitlement liveries stitching charges

M/S. AGGARWAL TRADERS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER

10 Mar 2015 · V.P. Vaish · 2015:DHC:2312

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte Labour Court award for reinstatement, directing a fresh hearing to ensure the petitioner’s right to cross-examine and present evidence.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ex-parte award Labour Court reinstatement

M/S AGGARWAL TRADERS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER

10 Mar 2015 · V.P. Vaish · 2015:DHC:2313

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte Labour Court award for reinstatement, holding that the petitioner must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence before a fresh award is passed.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ex-parte award natural justice Labour Court

Sidharth Roy v. State NCT of Delhi

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2307

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging bail granted to accused in a murder case, holding that bail may be granted at an advanced trial stage despite the gravity of offence.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC Section 307 IPC

Mary Manuel v. Michael Lebon

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2308

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dropping of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the respondent, holding that the order was legally valid given the procedural history and the accused's lack of awareness.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 82 Cr.P.C. dropping of proceedings FIR quashing and restoration deliberate delay

Naveen Chander v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2309

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 365 IPC based on a settlement between parties in a family dispute, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR settlement in criminal cases family dispute

Rakesh & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2310

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a mediated settlement, applying the principles governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute mediated settlement

M/S Sunblossum Florals Ltd & Ors. v. National Horticulture Board

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2311

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioners to lead essential evidence despite prior closure, emphasizing substantive justice over procedural strictness in a Section 138 NI Act case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act closure of evidence affidavit evidence discretion to reopen evidence

Dinesh Rawat v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2301

The Delhi High Court held that Mahila Courts lack jurisdiction to direct FIR registration under criminal statutes in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, quashing such direction issued under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Mahila Court jurisdiction Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 Section 12 PWDVA

Naresh Lal Chaudhary & Ors. v. The Central Bureau of Investigation

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2300

The High Court held that a transferred judicial officer without special designation cannot decide a CBI protest petition and directed the current Special Judge, CBI to decide it expeditiously.

criminal other Special Judge CBI protest petition transfer of judicial officer adjournment

Naresh Lal Chaudhary & Ors. v. The Central Bureau of Investigation

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2299

The High Court held that a transferred judicial officer without special statutory powers cannot hear a CBI protest petition and directed the new Special Judge, CBI to decide the matter expeditiously.

criminal other Special Judge CBI protest petition judicial transfer adjournment

Jagatvir Singh v. The State & Anr.

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2302

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 285 and 337 IPC based on a mediated settlement and compensation payment, applying principles governing compromise and quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR mediated settlement compromise in criminal cases

Bhura v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

10 Mar 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:2298

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a Section 308 IPC case, holding that simple injury does not exclude the offence and bail is not warranted during ongoing investigation with absconding co-accused.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail Section 308 IPC attempt to culpable homicide simple injury

Gaurav Malhotra v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

10 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:2303

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC