Delhi High Court
93,877 judgments
Anu Aggarwal v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The court quashed the order permitting the accused to travel abroad on sureties and directed a time-bound expeditious trial to balance the accused's right to livelihood and the interests of justice.
H C Asher v. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that it will not quash criminal complaints under Section 138 NI Act before the trial court frames Notice under Section 251 CrPC, directing the petitioner to raise objections at the trial stage.
H C Asher v. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that criminal complaints under Section 138 NI Act cannot be quashed prematurely under Section 482 CrPC before the trial court frames the Notice under Section 251 CrPC, directing the petitioner to raise objections at the trial stage.
Deepak Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement in a matrimonial dispute, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Amit Kumar & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on a genuine mediated settlement between the parties.
Ashok Rawat & Ors. v. The State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, subject to quashing of a related IT Act FIR, applying Supreme Court principles on quashing criminal proceedings in matrimonial cases.
Sunny Arora & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on an amicable settlement, applying the principles of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Suraj Bhan v. State (Govt of NCT) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of court process.
All India Central Universities Officers Confederation v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions by non-academic university officers seeking parity in pay and retirement age with academic staff, holding that equivalence was not established and that pay scales and retirement age are executive prerogatives.
Rajiv Shukla; Anamika; Shubham Saxena v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court restrained coercive recovery actions under the EPF Act until the statutory appeal could be heard due to the non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal’s Presiding Officer, protecting the petitioner’s statutory right of appeal.
M/S. SAMOSARAN YARNS PVT. LTD. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court restrained coercive recovery actions under the EPF Act until the statutory appeal could be heard due to the non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal’s Presiding Officer.
Umesh Kumar v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Umesh Kumar for murder by acid attack based on reliable dying declarations and corroborative circumstantial evidence.
R.A. Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed payment of delayed medical reimbursement with penal interest and costs due to respondents' failure to comply with Tribunal orders.
Kartar Singh & Ors v. Union of India and Others
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation was not paid, and the 2014 Ordinance amendment could not retrospectively affect vested rights.
Jit Singh & Ors v. Union of India and Others
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and payment of compensation are not completed within five years, and that a 2014 Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.
ANUP SINGH & ORS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid or offered, and mere deposit of compensation in the treasury without possession does not prevent lapse.
Jitender Kumar Churamani & Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not tendered, and that the 2014 Amendment proviso excluding certain periods applies only prospectively where possession has been taken.
AIREF ENGINEERS (P) LTD v. VINOD SHETTY
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining a former employee from misusing confidential information and trade secrets, enforcing the secrecy clause under the Indian Official Secret Act, 1923.
Memo Devi v. Bijender Singh Bhadana & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the civil suit following an out of court settlement and dismissed the suit as withdrawn.
Tarikh Raja v. Mahir Raja
The Delhi High Court decreed a civil suit based on a voluntary out-of-court settlement between brothers, confirming the defendant's ownership of the disputed property.