Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
W.P.(C) 4140/2014 v. SHRI RAMESH CHANDER JHAAND ORS
The Delhi High Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to the University of Delhi until exemption under Section 5 is granted, dismissing the petition challenging gratuity payment orders.
Petitioners v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI (LOBOUR) AND ORS
The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Tribunal's order treating a corrigendum reference as a fresh dispute requiring de novo proceedings and held that an application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable notwithstanding procedural irregularities in transfer.
Ms.Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Ms.Naina Dubey, Adv. v. THE STATE .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed bail to a husband accused of repeatedly raping his cousin's daughter under threat of exposing an MMS, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and risk of witness tampering despite the petitioner’s societal roots.
Ms.Meenakshi Midha, Advocate v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court held that the Insurance Company failed to prove breach of policy conditions due to lapse of Fitness Certificate and thus remains liable to pay compensation without recovery rights against the insured Delhi Transport Corporation.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. v. SMT. PREM LATA MEENA & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court held that a suit based on an agreement to sell without an acknowledgment of debt is not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC, and thus the leave to defend application was rightly allowed.
VIKRAM DUTT SHARMA v. For the
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years.
VINEET AGRAWAL v. For the
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years before the new Act's commencement.
RAKESH DIWAN v. For the
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of physical possession.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocates v. SH. SHIV KUMAR TYAGI .....
The Delhi High Court held that a minor can purchase property and be a transferee, but affirmed lower courts' findings that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the entire suit property, dismissing the appeal.
SUKHBIR SINGH AND ANR v. For the
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not tendered to landowners within five years of the award.
f60292aa5a04a387e88e839002f5e9a1d8463e716996fa7da26ceb1df2a42681
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between two companies under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, after ensuring procedural compliance and absence of objections, while preserving statutory oversight.
Mr. Avinash Trivedi, Advocate v. STATE & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused persons involved in election-related violence, emphasizing their cooperation and imposing conditions to safeguard investigation.
Mr. Sanjay Suri, Advocate v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to a convicted appellant on humanitarian grounds considering the welfare and education of her minor children during the pendency of her appeal.
Mr. Abhik Kumar, Advocate v. STATE & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 409, 420, and 120B IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between parties in a commercial defalcation case, applying the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Mr. O.P. Bharti, Advocate with petitioners in person v. THE STATE & ANR .....
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under IPC and Juvenile Justice Act based on a genuine settlement between parties, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and serve ends of justice.
GAURAV BHUTANI & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Sanjay Madan, Advocate. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....
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 consent divorce, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
JAGRUP SINGH AND ORS v. CORAM:-
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of physical possession.
Through Ms.Suman Chaudhary, Adv v. JAIPAL & ORS ..... Defendants
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit for specific performance as barred by the three-year limitation period fixed from the contractually agreed date of performance under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Petitioner in person. v. SMT. ASHA SHARMA ......
The High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to recall a witness for further cross-examination solely on the ground of change of counsel and dismissed the petition under Article 227.
Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv. v. SHEILA CHAMAN .....
The Delhi High Court held that a petition under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act not disclosing a valid cause of action must be rejected, not dismissed, allowing the petitioner to file afresh.