Delhi High Court
93,877 judgments
Deepak Seth v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid or offered within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in the treasury without possession does not exclude the period from lapse computation under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Sunita Dass v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed as possession was not taken and compensation was neither paid nor tendered, and the 2014 proviso excluding periods of deposited compensation does not apply without possession.
Kamlesh Jain v. Union of India & Ors.
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 in treasury without possession does not prevent lapse.
Narender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
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 possession claims.
Satya Narain Prakash Punj v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid or tendered within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in treasury without possession does not prevent lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
M/S PROFILE ESTATES PVT. LTD. 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 tendered to the landowner within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in Court or Treasury does not constitute payment.
Harish Kumar v. The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed demolition of unauthorised constructions around a Mazar on DDA land by SDMC with police assistance, directing maintenance and beautification of the site while ensuring due process.
Vijay Lochav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
Surender v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years, granting the petitioner a declaration of lapse.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr. v. Deepak & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction, delivery up, and damages against defendants for unauthorized Hard Disk Loading of Microsoft's copyrighted software, affirming copyright infringement and awarding punitive damages.
KRBL Ltd v. Lal Mahal Ltd and Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application in a passing off suit over similar rice trademarks, citing delay, concealment, and concurrent use favoring the defendant.
Sagar Narain Jha v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 376 IPC for sexual assault on a minor but reduced the sentence from eight to seven years considering mitigating factors.
Mala v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous due to the appellant's non-appearance after her conviction for offences related to running a brothel and abetting rape under IPC and ITP Act.
Rahul Kumar & Anr v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act on amicable settlement grounds, reaffirming the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to end criminal proceedings in such cases.
Satpal Dagar v. State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC based on a mediated settlement, affirming the Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to end proceedings in disputes resolved amicably.
Bhagwati Prasad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the basis of amicable settlement and absence of a strong prima facie case.
Tarun Sharma @ Vivek Sharma & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement and family court order, applying the principles of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Commissioner of VAT v. JUPITOR EXPORTS
The High Court held that while the Commissioner has discretionary power to compound offences under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal can scrutinize such discretion but cannot mandate compounding against the Commissioner's informed judgment.
P & R Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Authorized Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief restraining possession and sale realization in a SARFAESI recovery proceeding, directing the DRT to decide the merits while recognizing the petitioners' prima facie case and financial hardship.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused in a case of voluntarily causing simple injury, holding that material contradictions in prosecution evidence warranted benefit of doubt.