Delhi High Court
93,877 judgments
Shailesh Harishchandra Rajadhyaksha & Ors. v. Registrar of Companies & Anr
The High Court declined to quash criminal complaints under the Companies Act before framing of Notice under Section 251 CrPC, directing petitioners to raise objections before the trial court which must apply its mind to the prima facie case.
Baldev Sharma & Ors. v. State & Anr.
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 between the parties, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Sanjeev Bansal & Anr v. State & Ors
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 304-A IPC on the ground of accidental death and compensation to legal heirs, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
Kumar Gaurav & Ors. v. The State & 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 mediated settlement and mutual divorce, applying the principles of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Satish & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under the Dowry Prohibition Act based on an amicable settlement between parties, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justice.
Saurabh Agrawal & Ors. v. State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a dowry-related FIR under Sections 498-A and others based on a mediated settlement, applying the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes under Section 482 CrPC.
Softesule Private Limited v. The Union of India & Ors.
The High Court held that challenges to pharmaceutical price control notifications must be first reviewed by the statutory Reviewing Authority under the DPCO, dismissing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to seek statutory review.
Priyaneet Kaur & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession is not taken and compensation is not paid, entitling subsequent purchasers to this benefit.
Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi v. Union of India & 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, rejecting the respondents' claim that mere deposit of compensation in the treasury excludes the lapse period.
Subhash Chander v. Siddharth Singhal
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's applications to amend the plaint and implead additional defendants based on new information, emphasizing the court's discretion to add necessary parties for complete adjudication without deciding merits at the amendment stage.
Krishan Kumar Kashyap v. The Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot condone delay in filing an appeal beyond 120 days, excluding the applicability of the Limitation Act's general provisions for extension.
M/S. DURHA MACHINES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v. STATE BANK OF PATIALA
The Delhi High Court held that a settlement with a third party limited to release of one mortgaged property does not constitute a one-time settlement extinguishing the bank's right to recover remaining dues from the borrower and guarantors.
Muktesh Lekhi v. Union of India
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 compensation deposited in treasury does not constitute payment.
Paramjeet Singh Khurana v. Punjab & Sind Bank
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the bank's lawful adjustment of the petitioner's terminal dues against outstanding loan liabilities, holding such appropriation valid where liability is established.
M/S IACM SMART LEARN LIMITED & ANR v. M/S GLOBAL THINK COMPUTER
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to the plaintiffs against the defendant for unauthorized use and infringement of the registered trademark 'IACM' in the education sector.
SUPERIOR ALLOYS AND FOUNDRIES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without possession or compensation for over five years before the 2013 Act commenced are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Fortune Metals Ltd v. Messrs Kanwar Enterprises Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed a winding up petition for lack of material particulars in the notice, holding that a bald demand without details cannot sustain winding up and denial of such a notice constitutes a bona fide defence.
Smt. Chanchal Chopra & Ors. v. Shri Sunil Chopra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld an oral family settlement excluding plaintiffs' claims to property, dismissing their partition suit due to lack of possession and long acquiescence by the parties.
SNE INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II
Delhi High Court allowed the appeal against CESTAT dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit directions, restoring the appeal for merits after a reasonable deposit.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lal Babu Jha & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld compensation awarded for motor accident death, clarified multiplier application based on age of deceased or claimants, restricted future prospects addition without evidence, and affirmed insurer's statutory liability despite breach of policy terms with right to recover from insured.