Delhi High Court

93,877 judgments

Year:

Shri Ram Rattan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors

02 Mar 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:2004-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 7

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings pending under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if not completed within five years, granting the petitioner a declaration of lapse.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings possession not taken

Rajni Sharma v. M.C.D.

02 Mar 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:2002
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s award reinstating a workman as LDC/Typist, ruling that reinstatement on the post actually held does not amount to regularization or back door entry, and that writ jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of factual findings.

labor petition_dismissed Significant reinstatement industrial dispute writ jurisdiction Article 226

Dharamvir Sharma v. Fena Pvt. Ltd.

02 Mar 2015 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2015:DHC:2003

The Delhi High Court remanded a labour dispute for re-hearing, holding that a domestic inquiry and termination must be supported by proper evidence including proof of acceptance of full and final settlement.

labor other Significant domestic inquiry principles of natural justice termination of service full and final settlement

Rajeev Kaushal v. Institute of Liver & Biliary Science & Ors.

02 Mar 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2000

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment based on the 2013 selection process, holding that courts cannot interfere with the Selection Committee’s suitability decision and that delayed challenges to superseded selection processes are not maintainable.

constitutional petition_dismissed writ petition Article 226 selection process Assistant Professor (Research)

Sarita Tiwari & Anr. v. M/S Ganga International School & Ors.

02 Mar 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:2001

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking payment of 6th Pay Commission benefits on the ground of delay and laches, holding that writ petitions filed beyond limitation without pending representation are barred.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 writ petition doctrine of delay and laches limitation period

Kishan Lal v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

02 Mar 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:2007

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a step-father for repeatedly raping his minor step-daughter, ruling that consent is immaterial in sexual offences involving minors under 16 years.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape minor consent fiduciary relationship

Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd.

02 Mar 2015 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2015:DHC:1976

The Delhi High Court held that IFFCO is not a public authority under the RTI Act as it is neither substantially financed nor controlled by the government, and general fertilizer subsidies do not amount to substantial financing.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 public authority substantial financing government control

Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd.

02 Mar 2015 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2015:DHC:1975

The Delhi High Court held that IFFCO is not a 'public authority' under the RTI Act as it is neither substantially financed nor controlled by the government, dismissing the petitions challenging the CIC order.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 public authority Section 2(h) Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Ceylon Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Ors.

02 Mar 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:2011-DB

The Delhi High Court held that electricity dues incurred during liquidation under court-appointed receivership are winding up expenses with priority over secured debts and remanded the quantum determination to the official liquidator.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Companies Act 1956 Section 476 Section 529A winding up expenses

The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Sher Singh; The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Pooja

02 Mar 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:2020

The Delhi High Court held that the Claims Tribunal must first decide negligence before assessing compensation in motor accident claims where the insurer's offer is rejected, remanding the cases for fresh adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Detailed Accident Report negligence insurance company liability

The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Sher Singh; The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Pooja

02 Mar 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:2019

The Delhi High Court held that the Claims Tribunal must first decide negligence before assessing compensation when the insurance company's offer based on the Detailed Accident Report is rejected, and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication.

motor_accident_claims remanded Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Detailed Accident Report Claims Tribunal Negligence

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Nand Sharma & Ors.

02 Mar 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:2021

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation awarded in a motor accident claim, clarified deduction and multiplier principles for bachelors, and held the insurer liable despite the driver’s fake license due to failure to prove breach of policy.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim compensation deduction towards personal expenses multiplier

R.K.SILK MILLS (INDIA) LIMITED v. MCD

02 Mar 2015 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2015:DHC:2012

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting the supplier’s claims and allowing the purchaser’s counter claims for breach of contract due to supply of substandard cloth and failure to complete supply within the stipulated time.

civil petition_dismissed Significant breach of contract BIS specifications security deposit forfeiture arbitral award

Chemical Systems Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd.

02 Mar 2015 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:2013

The Delhi High Court held that the defendant accepted the plant by retaining it without timely rejection, decreed the plaintiff's suit for payment, and rejected the defendant's counterclaim and plea for refund.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Sale of Goods Act acceptance of goods reasonable time non-joinder

Rajinder Singh @ Prasad v. C.B.I.

02 Mar 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:1983

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a public servant for accepting bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, relying on independent witnesses and forensic evidence despite the complainant turning hostile.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7 PC Act Section 13(1)(d) PC Act Section 20 PC Act presumption

Seema Sapra v. General Electric Co. & Ors.

02 Mar 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta; P. S. Teji · 2015:DHC:1978-DB W.P.(C) 1280/2012

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a cancelled railway tender and seeking whistleblower protection, holding it to be an abuse of the PIL process motivated by personal vendetta and lacking credible evidence.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Public Interest Litigation PIL abuse whistleblower protection tender cancellation

Arun Kumar Jain v. Government of NCT of Delhi

02 Mar 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:1994-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending for over five years without possession or compensation under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

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

Dharminder and Anr. v. The State and Anr.

02 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:1995

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice.

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

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

02 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:1996

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement, 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 matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

Ved Prakash & Ors. v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.

02 Mar 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:1997
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, applying the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

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