Delhi High Court

93,075 judgments

Year:

IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd v. Indo-Rama Synthetics Ltd

20 Jan 2015 · Manmohan Singh · 2015:DHC:562
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award applying the alternative output basis for loss of profits under a fire insurance policy, emphasizing limited judicial interference and the principle of plausible interpretation under arbitration law.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Alternative Basis Clause Loss of Profit Policy Output Basis

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shashi Bala & Ors.

20 Jan 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:603

The Delhi High Court reduced the compensation in a motor accident claim by holding that actual salary as per salary certificate, not minimum wages of a graduate, must be used to compute loss of dependency, while affirming addition of future prospects.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation loss of dependency salary certificate

Pranidhi Commerce Pvt Ltd v. Religare Finvest Ltd

20 Jan 2015 · S. Muralidhar · 2015:DHC:561

The Delhi High Court held that once an arbitrator is validly appointed under the arbitration agreement, petitions under Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator are not maintainable, and challenges to the arbitration clause must be raised before the arbitrator.

arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 16 Appointment of arbitrator

Ram Lal Kanojia v. The State & Ors.

20 Jan 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:569

The Delhi High Court dismissed the civil suit for default due to the plaintiff's non-appearance and disposed of related interlocutory applications, allowing revival if the plaintiff seeks it.

civil appeal_dismissed dismissal for default non-prosecution revival of suit Section 151 CPC

SAS Arcadia Floors Allotees Welfare Association v. Sumel Heights Pvt Ltd & Anr

20 Jan 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:568

The Delhi High Court returned the plaint for presentation before the territorially competent District Court at Gurgaon, holding it lacked jurisdiction and leaving arbitration issues open.

civil other territorial jurisdiction Order VII Rule 11 CPC arbitration clause return of plaint

Pranidhi Commerce Pvt Ltd v. Religare Finvest Ltd

20 Jan 2015 · S. Muralidhar · 2015:DHC:590

The Delhi High Court held that once an arbitrator is validly appointed under an arbitration agreement, petitions under Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator are not maintainable, and challenges to the arbitration agreement must be raised before the arbitrator.

arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 16 appointment of arbitrator

Anil Juneja v. State

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:577

The High Court declined to quash the FIR and summoning order under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy before the trial court at the stage of framing of charge.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR alternate remedy framing of charge

Raju Chauhan v. The State

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:576

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 506, 307, 308, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the court's power to end proceedings to secure justice and restore harmony.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement compromise in criminal cases Section 323 IPC

Raju Chauhan v. The State

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:585

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under various IPC sections following an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the court's power to prevent abuse of process of law.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement abuse of process of law memorandum of understanding

T K Punia & Ors v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:588

The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of an FIR under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120-B, and 34 IPC based on a mediated settlement and compensation to the complainant, applying the principle from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR mediated settlement compromise in criminal cases abuse of process of law

Vishnu Kumar Mishra @ Deepak Mishra & Ors. v. State & Ors.

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:587

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308/34 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement between neighbors, emphasizing the court's power to end criminal proceedings to secure justice and prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 308 IPC Section 34 IPC amicable settlement

Ravinder Bhati v. State & Anr.

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:586

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC based on an amicable settlement in a matrimonial dispute, holding that continuation of proceedings would be futile and against the ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Nirmal Sharma & Ors. v. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr.

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:584

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute due to an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing that continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Maninder Singh Bansal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:582

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the ground of amicable settlement and mutual divorce, emphasizing the ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Jaswant & Anr v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:581

The Delhi High Court quashed FIRs arising from a trivial dispute based on an amicable settlement between parties, applying its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Jaswant & Anr v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors

20 Jan 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:580

The Delhi High Court quashed FIRs arising from a trivial dispute based on an amicable settlement between parties, emphasizing the court's power to end criminal proceedings to secure justice and prevent abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement abuse of process of law trivial dispute

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Amresh Khassa

20 Jan 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:604

The Delhi High Court upheld the method of assessing compensation for loss of homemaker services in motor accident claims based on minimum wages linked to educational qualification without deduction for personal expenses or addition for future prospects.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant loss of dependency homemaker services motor accident compensation gratuitous services

BHARTIYA LOK SURAKSHA SANSTHAN v. AJAI PRATAP

20 Jan 2015 · V.K. Shali · 2015:DHC:589

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the eviction suit as the rent was Rs. 5,000 per month, a factual finding upheld by concurrent findings of lower courts.

civil appeal_dismissed Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 50 Civil Court jurisdiction eviction suit

Jahangir Alam @ Mohd. Saleem v. State

20 Jan 2015 · A.K. Pathak · 2015:DHC:605

The Delhi High Court held that an independent petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking concurrent sentences under Section 427 CrPC is not maintainable and such relief must be sought before trial or appellate courts.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 427 CrPC Section 482 CrPC concurrent sentence inherent powers

Abhinav Chaudhary & Ors. v. Meha Joshi

20 Jan 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:592

The Delhi High Court held that contractual employees cannot be arbitrarily replaced by other contractual employees on substantially similar terms, restraining termination of petitioners' contracts and emphasizing adherence to Supreme Court precedents.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant contractual employment replacement of contractual employees ad hoc appointments arbitrariness