Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Mr. Yogesh Chhabra, Advocate v. CHATUR SAIN .....
The Delhi High Court set aside possession decrees passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC due to an existing interim restraining order by the Mahila Court under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, directing that civil proceedings be deferred until such order is vacated.
Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. v. UNION OF INDIA .....
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation to the legal heirs of a passenger who died after accidentally falling from a running train, holding that such an incident qualifies as an untoward incident under the Railways Act and that the passenger was bona fide despite holding a general ticket.
Ms. Aruna Mehta, Adv. v. UNION OF INDIA .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the Railway Claim Tribunal’s rejection of compensation, holding that the appellants failed to prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died due to an untoward incident on the train.
JAGDISH P. KHANNA v. For the
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 the landowner and possession is not taken within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in Court without offering it to the landowner does not constitute payment.
AMIN KHAN & ORS v. CORAM:-
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act with an award older than five years and unpaid compensation are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
HARISH CHAND & ORS v. For the
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation is not paid within five years of the award as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, regardless of possession claims.
MOHD. NASEEM & ORS v. For the
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where compensation remains unpaid for over five years before the 2013 Act, are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
USHA RANI v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) & ANR
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending without possession or compensation for over five years under the 1894 Act are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
VIKRAMJIT SINGH & ANR v. For the
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings pending without possession or compensation for over five years prior to the 2013 Act have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, granting relief to the petitioners.
dated 17.11.2014 PARAG JAIN ..... Plaintiff v. RAJNI JAIN & ORS ..... Defendant
The Delhi High Court held that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely due to absence of the owner's signature on the agreement to sell when there is sufficient material showing consent, and the suit discloses a cause of action.
MANJEET SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate with petitioners. v. STATE & ORS ....
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal proceeding arising from matrimonial disputes under Sections 406, 498-A, and 34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement and mutual dissolution of marriage, applying its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. v. GOVT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR .....
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal proceeding under Sections 498A/406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on an amicable settlement and divorce between the parties, applying the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In FAO(OS) 55/2012 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. CORAM:
The Delhi High Court allowed review to set aside the arbitral award's direction for compound interest, holding that inadvertent counsel concessions on pure legal questions do not bind the client and arbitrators lack power to award compound interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act.
Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court held that damages for unauthorized occupation of government accommodation must be determined through statutory proceedings under the Public Premises Act and set aside unilateral withholding of gratuity by the Directorate of Estates.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Through Mr.J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate. v. BHAGWAT SINGH & ORS .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award granting 50% future prospects in compensation and held the offending vehicle solely liable for the accident, dismissing the insurer's appeal.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Through Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate v. UMAR MOHD AND ORS .....
The Delhi High Court upheld joint liability of two insurers for a motor accident compensation award, modified future income prospects enhancement, and condoned delay in filing appeal.
Through Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv v. M/S SENBO ENGINEERING LTD ....Defendant
The Delhi High Court held that the defendant contractor must pay the plaintiff subcontractor the outstanding amount for approved work after receiving payment from DMRC, rejecting unsubstantiated claims to withhold payment.
Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate. v. SH. OM PRAKASH ARYA & ORS. ......
The Delhi High Court allowed impleadment of a purchaser pendente lite as a necessary party in a property suit, clarifying the applicability of the Suraj Lamp judgment to documents executed before 24.9.2001.
th November, 2014 RADHEY SHYAM ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjay Jain & Mr. Ashok Jain, Advocates. v. PUNJAB & SIND BANK & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the recovery order against the petitioner for creating an equitable mortgage, holding that presummoning criminal evidence is inadmissible in recovery proceedings.
Mr. J.S.Vohra, Adv. v. SARWAN KUMAR ......
The High Court held that a bonafide necessity eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act can only be maintained by the owner, and a civil court's binding judgment denying ownership mandates dismissal of the eviction petition.