Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
SHISH PAL & ORS ..... Through Mr.R.S.Mishra, Advocate. v. SURESH CHAND & ORS .....
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased's death was caused by the motor accident due to lack of medical evidence establishing causation.
Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev with Mr. Ishaan Madaan, Advocates. v. VINITI AGGARWAL .....
The High Court set aside an ex-parte order in domestic violence proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of hearing both parties before deciding interim relief applications under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Through Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. v. SNEH LATA & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation award, affirming that the multiplier for loss of dependency is based on the deceased's age and a 50% addition for future prospects is justified for young victims earning minimum wages.
Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate with Sh. Tulsi Dass on behalf of the legal heirs. v. SH. JAGMOHAN GOLA .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of tenants on bona fide necessity grounds, holding that a registered partition deed establishes landlordship and that Section 14(6) does not bar eviction petitions arising from partition ownership.
Mr.Sankar N.Sinha, Adv. v. MEENAKSHI & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court held that Section 53 of the ESI Act bars claims under other laws only for employment injuries, and since the deceased did not suffer an employment injury, the Motor Vehicles Act claim for compensation was upheld.
20070a65a4e6bf0bbed997d77015a3b13bd3a86e762c92df85f40e96b5e1e374
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Parteek Finance and Investment Company Limited and PI Industries Limited under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 after finding statutory compliance and no objections.
ecb55ee577ed9ab7febbec04369218be9a445b1c8b6ac78a0ca110f6a1f9fb53
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 after ensuring statutory compliance and absence of objections.
Mr.Ranjan Roy, Adv. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....
The High Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings for running a guest house without licence, holding that the trial court rightly refused to stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. once prosecution evidence had commenced.
AND ANR v. INTERTOLL ICS INDIA (P) LTD
The Delhi High Court held that in absence of an arbitration agreement covering the dispute, interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable and vacated the interim order protecting petitioner's claimed stake in settlement sums.
DES RAJ v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court set aside forfeiture of bid security and debarment of petitioners due to a bona fide mistake in bid quotation interpretation in a tender process.
DES RAJ v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court set aside forfeiture of bid security and debarment of petitioners due to a bona fide mistake in tender bid interpretation, directing return of security and quashing debarment.
Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates v. SATPAL .....
The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's order quashing transfer orders, holding that administrative discretion in transfers cannot be overridden by guidelines absent malafides or illegality.
NARENDER PAL SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS
The Delhi High Court held that re-employment of superannuated teachers in aided schools is discretionary, not automatic, and upheld the Management Committee’s decision rejecting the petitioner’s re-employment request.
Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, Advocate v. MONIKA GAUTAM .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging interim maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, holding that the trial court rightly relied on available financial evidence despite the petitioner not filing an affidavit.
Mr. Samrat Nigam, Ms. Ayshwarya Chandar & Ms. Ankita Mahajan, Advocates. v. SUNITA DEVI
The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition for alleged breach of settlement terms, holding that substantial compliance and pending execution proceedings preclude contempt liability.
Mr. Yogesh Saroop and Mr. B.K. Roy, Advs. v. UNION OF INDIA .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to prove the deceased was a bonafide passenger who died due to an "untoward incident" on the train, thus no compensation under the Railways Act was payable.
Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate v. SHRI ISMAIL BEG .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal against an ex parte decree, holding that negligence of counsel does not excuse the appellant's failure to contest the suit without reasonable explanation.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Through Mr.A.K.Soni, Advocate. v. SHWETA KHAN & ORS .....
The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by considering future prospects and upheld insurance company's recovery rights due to the offending vehicle's invalid permit.
Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with Ms. D. Ray Chaudhary, Advocate. v. METRO PAINT INDUSTRIES .....
The High Court upheld that an industry which started conforming use before 1.3.2001 is not liable to surrender land under Supreme Court directions relating to hazardous industries in Delhi.
Through: Mr.P.K.Rawal, Advocate v. M/S FEDERAL MOTORS PVT. LTD
The Delhi High Court held that non-deposit of interim user charges does not warrant dismissal of a statutory first appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and failure to deposit only results in vacation of stay, dismissing the petition under Article 227.