Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Oriental Insurance Company v. Babita Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim, held the deceased contributorily negligent, and applied binding Supreme Court precedent to deny addition for future prospects in absence of permanent employment.
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. VIJAY KUMAR & ORS.
The Delhi High Court upheld compensation in a motor accident claim, rejecting insurer's plea for exoneration despite driver lacking licence, and clarified application of future prospects and insurer liability under binding Supreme Court precedents.
GUJRATI KEAVANI HITWARDHAK MANDAL v. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II
The Delhi High Court restrained coercive recovery actions under the EPF Act pending hearing of a statutory appeal that could not be heard due to non-appointment of the Appellate Tribunal’s Presiding Officer.
Manorama Devi v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act without possession or compensation for over five years are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and granted the petitioner a declaration accordingly.
Khem Chand v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid by tendering it directly to landowners.
Manorama Devi 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 no possession or compensation occurs within five years of the award.
Praveen Jain v. Land Acquisition Collector (North)
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings pending over five years without payment of compensation to the landowner under the 2013 Act are deemed lapsed, and the 2014 Amendment Ordinance cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.
KRISHEN K. SETH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND 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, and that the 2014 Amendment Ordinance does not retrospectively affect vested rights.
Parmal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse if compensation is not paid within five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and that the 2014 Amendment Ordinance does not affect vested rights existing before its commencement.
Alok Shrewala v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act despite court stay orders, affirming that statutory rights vested before the 2014 Ordinance remain unaffected.
Dinesh Chand Sharma v. Managing Committee of Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Public School
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking ACP scheme benefits due to the petitioner’s failure to plead and prove eligibility criteria and departmental screening compliance.
Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII v. Ms. Kiran Kapoor
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s ruling that the assessee’s activity of compiling and customizing electronic data for export qualifies as manufacture of computer software under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, entitling her to tax exemption.
Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII v. Ms. Kiran Kapoor
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision allowing exemption under Section 10B for export of customized electronic data, holding that the assessee’s activities constitute manufacture or production of computer software.
Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII v. Ms. Kiran Kapoor
The Delhi High Court upheld ITAT's decision allowing exemption under Section 10B for export of customized electronic data, holding that the assessee's activities constitute manufacture or production of computer software.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Bharose & Ors.
The Delhi High Court reduced motor accident compensation by disallowing future prospects addition and applying the multiplier based on the claimant mother's age in case of a bachelor deceased with minor siblings.
Oriental Insurance Company v. Babita Devi
The Delhi High Court held the deceased contributorily negligent to the extent of 50%, reduced the insurer's liability accordingly, enhanced compensation for non-pecuniary damages, and upheld the principle that addition for future prospects depends on employment nature and evidence.
Daya Narayan Padney v. Union of India & Ors.
The High Court dismissed the second appeal against the termination order upheld by departmental appellate authorities, holding that statutory remedies must be exhausted and no substantial question of law arose for interference.
Ashok Singh and Anr. v. Radhe Raman and Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld that the multiplier for motor accident compensation must be based on the higher age of the deceased or claimants, dismissing the appeal challenging this principle.
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Madan Lal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the insurer's appeal reducing compensation by disallowing future prospects addition due to lack of evidence of permanent employment, while upholding negligence and increasing loss of love and affection compensation.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meera Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court reduced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by limiting future prospects addition to 50% and deducting income tax liability, thereby partially allowing the insurer's appeal.