Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Mr. Khagesh K. Jha, Adv. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court directed GNCTD and DDA to enforce the condition requiring schools on concessional land allotments to admit 25% students from weaker sections on freeship, emphasizing State responsibility to monitor and protect such rights.
Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Mr. Virat K. Anand & Mr. Vivek Ojha, Advocates v. DR. BRAJENDER .....
The Delhi High Court set aside a divorce decree granted on desertion grounds, holding that desertion requires proof of permanent intention to end cohabitation and that mere temporary separation for education does not constitute desertion.
Appellant produced from custody v. STATE
The Delhi High Court upheld the life conviction of a husband for murdering his wife based on last seen evidence, absconsion, recovery of weapon, and false explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the shifted burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advocate v. RAM BHORSEY LAL ROSTOGI THR LRS .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding the trial and appellate courts' reliance on an unchallenged affidavit for recovery, finding no perversity or substantial question of law.
Mr. Jaspreet S. Rai, Advocate v. PAYAL MEHRA .....
The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to promptly hear and dispose of the petition for divorce by mutual consent on the fixed date to avoid undue delay affecting the petitioner’s remarriage prospects.
KEWAN KISHAN & ANR ..... Through Mr.Nikhil Malhotra, Advocate v. JASKARAN SINGH CHAWLA & ANR .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding of sole negligence by the unlicensed oil tanker driver causing the accident and enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants while dismissing the owner and driver’s appeals.
S CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. v. STATE BANK OF INDIA .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of petitioners' applications for cross-examination of bank witnesses in debt recovery proceedings, holding that cross-examination is not a matter of right and requires sufficient cause under the DRT procedural rules.
th November, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Through Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Abhishek Singh Baghel, Advocate. v. JUBILANT OFFSHORE DRILLING PVT LTD .....
The Delhi High Court held that commencement of essential business activities like oil exploration suffices to treat related expenditure as business expenditure, dismissing the Revenue's appeal disallowing such expenses and penalty.
Mr. Mayank Yadav, Advocate. v. SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR SETH & ORS. ......
The Delhi High Court held that tenancy rights in partnership firm premises can be partitioned inter se among partners without amounting to subletting, setting aside the trial court's refusal to allow such division.
Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. with Ms. Rashmi Verma, Adv. v. VIJAY SHARMA .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed objections to execution of a decree for specific performance, holding that unregistered agreements and possession do not override a valid decreed contract and condemning collusion between parties and their advocate.
Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. with Ms. Rashmi Verma, Adv. v. VIJAY SHARMA .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed objections to execution of a decree for specific performance, holding that unregistered and suspicious Agreements to Sell do not override a valid decree and condemning collusion between parties.
Mr. S.S. Dahiya and Mr. L.K. Dahiya, Advocates with petitioner in person. v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS .....
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 341 and 323 IPC based on an amicable settlement, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justice.
Through: Ms. Smita Maan, Adv v. RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL AND ORS. ..... Defendants
The Delhi High Court held that Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits for injunction against unauthorized construction on agricultural land governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of revenue authorities.
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijayender Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Dhruv Kapur, Adv. and Mr. Sidharth Bhatia, Adv v. RAJINDER PARSHAD ARORA AND OTHERS ..... Defendants
The Delhi High Court held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging eviction orders under the Delhi Rent Control Act once the Rent Controller has decided ownership, and such issues are barred by res judicata.
SH VIRENDER KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.V.P. Rana, Advocate.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition for noncompliance of its order, holding that delay caused by legitimate reasons and eventual disposal of the complaint does not amount to contempt.
DHEERAJ VIJ & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. L. K. Verma and Mr. Dinakar Verma, Advocates with petitioners. v. STATE OF DELHI & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the basis of an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Represented by: Mr.Manish Kaushik for Mr. K. L v. SMT. MEENAKSHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court upheld the addition of 50% towards future prospects in motor accident compensation for a young deceased earning fixed wages, affirming Supreme Court precedents on assessing future prospects.
W.P.(C) 1666/2014 v. DAYARAM
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging execution of a final Industrial Tribunal award reinstating a workman with back wages, holding that execution proceedings cannot be used to question the award.
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Through Ms.Suman Bagga and Mr.Saral Chaturvedi, Advocates. v. DIJO DAVIS & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by reassessing notional income and non-pecuniary damages while disallowing interest on future expenses, emphasizing potential earning capacity and medical evidence for lifelong care.
Through: Mr. Rohit, Advocate with v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 494 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the basis of an amicable settlement and divorce by mutual consent, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.