Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
MATRIX INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court held that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition proceedings lapse if possession and compensation are not completed within five years, and this benefit extends to subsequent purchasers.
Rajinder Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.
RAM GARHIA SABHA v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act with an award over five years old and unpaid compensation are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, granting the petitioner a declaration of lapse.
Habeeb Khan 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 compensation is not paid to landowners within five years, and mere deposit in court without tendering to landowners does not constitute payment.
M/S INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S POWER MACHINES (INDIA) LTD
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner’s request under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to summon a witness for appearance before the Arbitral Tribunal upon the Arbitrator’s permission.
Avnish Ahlawat v. Tata Motors Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for lack of Arbitral Tribunal approval, holding that Court assistance in taking evidence requires prior Tribunal sanction.
Rashid Ali & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the ground of amicable settlement and divorce, affirming the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences in such circumstances.
Sandeep Chhabra & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from matrimonial disputes under Sections 406 and 498A IPC based on an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Chander Wati v. Land Acquisition Collector (South) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act with an award older than five years but without possession or compensation are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Murti Devi 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 no possession or compensation occurs within five years, granting the petitioner relief accordingly.
Amarjeet Rewari 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 compensation is not paid within five years, and mere deposit in court without offering to landowners does not constitute payment.
Satbir Singh & Satyvir v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings pending for over five years without possession or compensation under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
M/S BEAM ESTATES PVT LTD 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 is not taken and compensation is not paid or offered to the landowner within five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.
Balbir Singh & 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 remains unpaid for over five years before the new Act's commencement.
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. RAMPAL @ RAJPAL & ORS
The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation award, ruling that claimants may choose the Motor Vehicles Act forum and receive compensation as per its provisions, not limited by the Workmen Compensation Act.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Dev Subha and Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld a compensation award assessing 50% functional disability for a waiter with 30% physical disability, affirming loss of future earning capacity despite continued employment.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. SAMBHU YADAV & ORS
The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation for a motor accident claimant by reassessing functional disability and awarded loss of amenities, while ordering refund of unutilized future treatment deposit to the insurer.
Amit Pal v. Union Public Service Commission
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to participate in CSE-2014 after UPSC accepted his premature online application during a trial run without informing him of its invalidity, holding that strict timelines cannot cause arbitrariness or prejudice.
Malik Tanning Industries v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that the DGFT cannot retrospectively restrict export incentives under the Foreign Trade Policy, setting aside the circular and recovery demands as invalid.
Malik Tanning Industries v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that DGFT cannot retrospectively curtail export incentives under the Foreign Trade Policy, setting aside a circular and recovery demands that sought to withdraw vested benefits.