Delhi High Court
93,453 judgments
Pradeep Singh Jadon v. Union of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court held that information regarding change in prosecution sanction cannot be withheld under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act once investigation is complete and chargesheet filed, and directed disclosure with costs imposed on respondents.
DELHI CINE GOERS COUNCIL (REGISTERED) v. RAMESH DAWER
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking injunction against a respondent running an older unregistered society, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss.
Rajender Jaina v. National Federation of the Blind & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's suit for damages, holding that a full and final settlement between parties bars subsequent claims despite non-acceptance of a police closure report.
Shamsher Gujjar @ Choudhary v. Sartaj Hotel Apartments and Villas Pvt Ltd & Others
The Delhi High Court held that a signed MoU containing an arbitration clause constitutes a valid arbitration agreement and that pending criminal proceedings do not bar appointment of an arbitrator or reference to arbitration.
Harmesh Sandhu & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid and possession not taken before the 2013 Act's commencement, and mere deposit of compensation in court does not amount to payment.
Manjeet Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act with unpaid compensation and awards predating the 2013 Act have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and the 2014 amendment applies prospectively only.
Subhash Khatri & Anr v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act and where no possession or compensation occurred within five years of the award before the 2013 Act's commencement are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
M/S Kamla Devi Memorial Educational Welfare and Charitable Society v. UOI and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession is not taken and compensation not paid for over five years, regardless of stay orders, and that subsequent Ordinance amendments cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.
Shravan Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation remains unpaid for over five years before the 2013 Act, and such rights cannot be retrospectively nullified by subsequent amendments.
Shravan Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.
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, and that the 2014 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect this right.
Siddarth Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.
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, and the 2014 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect this right.
Sumana Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.
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, and that rights under this provision cannot be retrospectively negated by the 2014 Ordinance.
Bhajan Pura Co-operative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. v. State Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a Section 138 NI Act case, holding that a cheque issued for a fully settled loan debt is not enforceable under the Act.
Kailash Chand v. DTC
Termination of a probationer’s services without inquiry is valid unless founded on misconduct or stigma, and in this case, the termination was upheld as non-punitive and lawful.
Sunita Devi v. The Corporation Bank & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that in absence of documentary evidence of equitable mortgage and with original title deeds in possession of the plaintiff, the property cannot be subjected to attachment for recovery of a prior owner's loan.
Sh. Ram Kishore v. Angoori Devi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal and condonation of delay application, holding that the delay explanation was not credible and concurrent findings on maintainability of suit for possession under the Rent Control Act did not raise substantial questions of law.
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a Summary Court Martial conviction, holding that absence of a telegram was irrelevant to the charge of falsifying leave records and that prior judicial decisions barred re-litigation.
Sushil Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court directed continued lawful investigation into the disappearance of Shri Pyare Lal, emphasizing the necessity of truthful cooperation from family members and periodic reporting by police.
Harish Anil Vasant v. Commissioner of Customs
The Delhi High Court allowed condonation of delay in filing an appeal before CESTAT, emphasizing that denial of appeal rights after compliance with the order would cause serious prejudice and that the appeal must be decided on merits.
AI GRAND v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court directed expeditious adjudication of bhoomidari rights applications and ejectment proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act with maintenance of status quo pending final decision.