Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Gautam Chopra v. Government of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years before the 2013 Act's commencement.
Bhishan Swarup Gupta v. Government 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 the award predates the 2013 Act by over five years and compensation remains unpaid.
Ajit Singh v. Government 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 compensation remains unpaid for over five years after the award.
Sunil Kumar Verma v. Raj Kumar Bhagat
The Delhi High Court decreed specific performance of a sale agreement where the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform and the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite receipt of consideration.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. HARI KANT SINGH & ORS.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding the motor accident compensation award based on the offending vehicle driver's sole negligence, proper addition of future prospects, and correct application of multiplier based on the deceased's age.
SHRI RAAKESH BHASIN v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court held that a subsequent purchaser is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, deeming acquisition proceedings lapsed if possession and compensation have not occurred within five years.
Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse by operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not effected, and this benefit extends to subsequent purchasers.
Santosh Sharma v. Government 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 compensation is unpaid and possession not taken within five years of the award.
Chander Bhan 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 before the 2013 Act’s commencement.
M/S. Zenith Infotech Ltd. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that the Registrar of BIFR cannot decline registration of a reference on merits and remanded the matter to the Board to decide whether the petitioner qualifies as a sick industrial company engaged in manufacturing.
Somnath Bharti v. National Human Rights Commission & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an NHRC order as premature since the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy before the NHRC which was still seized of the matter.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV v. M/s D.C.M. Limited
The court held that transfer of assets under a scheme of arrangement constitutes a transfer under Section 32A(5) of the Income Tax Act but such transfer is protected under Section 32A(6) if it qualifies as an amalgamation, remanding the matter for factual examination.
Anand Decors v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that resale of used motor vehicles by dealers who did not claim input tax credit is exempt from VAT under Section 6(3) of the DVAT Act, as such vehicles qualify as capital goods.
Rohtash v. State
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition directing that sentences in two separate convictions run concurrently, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. considering the petitioner’s prolonged custody.
ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. State
The High Court quashed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act as the cheque amount was paid within the statutory 15-day period after receipt of the demand notice.
Tanu Goel and Another v. Girish Chopra & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging violation of interim injunction orders, holding that such orders merge into the final decree and that contempt proceedings require wilful disobedience and absence of alternative remedies.
Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Sh. Satish Chander
The Court held that a government servant can withdraw voluntary retirement notice before the effective date, but misuse of leave and retirement process may amount to misconduct warranting denial of back wages and departmental action.
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Om Prakash
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of DTC, upholding the Labour Court's finding that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were illegal and directing reinstatement with 50% back wages.
Ganesh Paper Mills (Delhi) Private Limited v. Regional Director
The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, clarifying that such sanction does not affect tax recovery powers of authorities and imposing conditions to protect revenue interests.
Khazani & Ors v. Lt. Governor Raj Bhawan, Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition under the 1894 Act lapses if compensation is not paid within five years before the 2013 Act's commencement, declaring the acquisition in this case lapsed.