Delhi High Court

93,877 judgments

Year:

State v. Neeraj Lal@Lukka

24 Feb 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:1757-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a murder case due to insufficient and inconclusive circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstances to convict.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen evidence chain of circumstances acquittal

Narcotics Control Bureau v. Nthadiseng Josephina Bulaya & Anr.

24 Feb 2015 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2015:DHC:1766
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld conviction and sentence for attempt to export pseudoephedrine hydrochloride under the NDPS Act, dismissing the appeal for enhancement of sentence while considering the accused's personal circumstances and economic compulsion.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 25A pseudoephedrine hydrochloride attempt to export narcotics

Kanhaiya v. State

24 Feb 2015 · Sunita Gupta · 2015:DHC:1767
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants convicted under Section 304 IPC due to unreliable eyewitness identification, questionable weapon recovery, and failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant identity of accused eyewitness testimony Test Identification Parade recovery of weapon

Bureau of Indian Standards v. Suresh Chandra Gupta & Others

24 Feb 2015 · Jayant Nath · 2015:DHC:1749

The Delhi High Court held that Google India Pvt. Ltd. is neither a necessary nor proper party in a defamation suit concerning content hosted on websites owned by Google Inc., and accordingly deleted it from the suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 1 Rule 10 CPC necessary party proper party defamation

United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Arun Tours & Travels Pvt Ltd & Ors.

24 Feb 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:1747

The Delhi High Court held that an insurer is not entitled to recovery rights from the insured unless a willful and conscious breach of the insurance policy terms is proved, dismissing the appeal against compensation awarded for a motor accident despite the driver holding a fake licence.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim insurance policy breach willful breach fake driving licence

National Insurance Company Ltd v. Vakil Paswan

24 Feb 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:1746

The Delhi High Court held that the National Insurance Company Limited is not liable to pay compensation for a motor accident where the vehicle was not insured with it and the claimant failed to prove genuine insurance coverage.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim insurance liability cover note insurance policy

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Reeta Mishra & Ors.

24 Feb 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:1745

The Delhi High Court reduced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by disallowing the addition of future prospects in absence of evidence, following binding Supreme Court precedents.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim future prospects compensation loss of dependency

Daroga Mal Saini & Anr. v. Mohd Fiyaz Khan & Ors.

24 Feb 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:1743

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation for motor accident death based on assessed income and held insurer liable to pay initially but entitled to recover from vehicle owner despite breach of policy.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation loss of dependency future prospects insurance liability

Jan Kalyan Trust & Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Master

24 Feb 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:1741

The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn, holding that consolidation proceedings altering land demarcation rendered the suit not maintainable.

civil appeal_dismissed land consolidation maintainability of suit agricultural land Khasra number

Hira Lal v. State

24 Feb 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:1728

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's rape conviction appeal as infructuous since he had already served the sentence and paid the fine, and did not pursue the appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed rape Section 376 IPC appeal infructuous sentence served

GIAN CHAND GUPTA (HUF) v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

24 Feb 2015 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SIDDHARTH MRIDUL · 2015:DHC:1729-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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 remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of physical possession.

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

Mahavir Prasad Gupta & Ors v. Department of Land & Building (Govt. of Delhi) & Anr

24 Feb 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:1730-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 remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of disputed possession.

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

KING POINT ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. MR ALI ASGAR & ANR

24 Feb 2015 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SANJEEV SACHDEVA · 2015:DHC:1731-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the trademark passing off dispute for fresh consideration after correcting factual errors regarding trademark application status and evidence of use.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark passing off prior user Order XXXIX CPC

Manohar Lal v. Union of India and Ors.

24 Feb 2015 · Kailash Gambhir; I. S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:1768-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a 2008 amendment to the Indian Foreign Service Branch 'B' Rules and a 2013 circular, dismissing the petitioner’s claim to eligibility for promotion through a departmental examination.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Indian Foreign Service Branch B Rules Limited Departmental Competitive Examination promotion eligibility service rule amendment

Maya Devi v. Rafeeqa Khatoon

24 Feb 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:1734

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of a tenant for non-payment of rent and held that a landlord need only establish a better claim than the tenant without absolute proof of ownership under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(2) Section 15(1)(a) eviction

Yadram @Deepak v. State NCT of Delhi

24 Feb 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:1756

Pre-arrest bail was denied to the petitioner involved in serious robbery offences due to the necessity of custodial interrogation and the gravity of the crime.

criminal appeal_dismissed pre-arrest bail custodial interrogation Sections 392, 394, 397, 34 IPC delay in complaint

Zahid Khan v. Arun Mandal

24 Feb 2015 · I. S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:1751

Delhi High Court enhanced compensation for a motor accident victim with leg amputation, clarifying principles on future prospects, multiplier application, and awarding damages for pain, suffering, and attendant care.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation future prospects multiplier permanent disability

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jitender Kumar & Ors.

24 Feb 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:1742

The High Court remanded a motor accident claim case for fresh evidence on negligence, holding that reliance solely on non-eyewitness testimony is insufficient to establish rash and negligent driving under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

civil remanded Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 negligence preponderance of probability

Sushila Gupta v. Surinder Kumar Goel

24 Feb 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:1752

The Delhi High Court enhanced motor accident compensation by correctly determining the deceased's age, applying multiplier 11, awarding full medical expenses, and additional damages for loss of love and consortium, while upholding contributory negligence deduction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation multiplier age determination loss of dependency

Surjeet Singh Kalra & Ors. v. Darshan Lal & Anr.

24 Feb 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:1732

The Delhi High Court upheld the setting aside of an ex-parte eviction order under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC upon sufficient cause shown for non-appearance and timely application by the Respondents.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order 9 Rule 13 CPC ex-parte order sufficient cause setting aside ex-parte order