Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
IDRISH @ RAHUL ..... Through Mr. B.S. Chowdhary, Advocate v. STATE NCT OF DELHI .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for acid attack causing death, holding that the injured's statement recorded by police was a valid dying declaration supported by corroborative evidence.
Mr. Ashish Mohan, Mr. Chetan Wahi & Ms. Mehak, Advocates. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court granted interim stay of a punitive order based on undisclosed additional material, holding that violation of natural justice cannot be cured by alternative remedies like appeal or arbitration when no arbitrator is appointed.
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate v. SHRI ATTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THOUGH LRS SMT. JASWANTI DEVI & ORS
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals holding that appellants failed to prove possession of land prior to the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and thus were not entitled to protection under Section 8 of the Act.
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate v. SHRI ATTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THOUGH LRS SMT. JASWANTI DEVI & ORS
The Delhi High Court upheld the appellate court's decision dismissing the appellants' claim of possession and protection under Section 8 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 due to failure to prove possession prior to the Act's commencement.
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate v. SHRI ATTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THOUGH LRS SMT. JASWANTI DEVI & ORS
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals holding that appellants failed to prove possession of land prior to the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and thus were not entitled to protection under Section 8 of the Act.
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate v. SHRI ATTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THOUGH LRS SMT. JASWANTI DEVI & ORS
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals holding that appellants failed to prove possession prior to the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and thus are not entitled to protection under Section 8 of the Act.
Mr. Harish K. Mehra, Advocate v. SANJEEV BHARDWAJ .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the decree for possession by the respondent, holding that the suit premises fall outside the notified village area under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and dismissed the appellant's appeal and application for additional evidence.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Khanna and Mr. Sanat Tokas, Advocates. v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI .....
The Delhi High Court held that a sudden quarrel does not constitute an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC, acquitted appellants of that charge, upheld convictions for specific injuries, and sustained probation granted despite procedural lapses.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Khanna and Mr. Sanat Tokas, Advocates. v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI .....
The Delhi High Court held that sudden mutual fights do not constitute unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC, limited convictions to those proven to have caused injuries, and upheld probation granted despite procedural lapses.
Through: Mr.P.K. Dubey, Advocate v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
The Delhi High Court directed that sentences imposed on the appellant in two separate criminal cases run concurrently, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Udaya Kumar Sagar and Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, Advocates v. STATE OF NCT & ANR
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the summoning order under Section 138 NI Act, holding that limitation is a matter for trial court determination and the cheques were presented within the prescribed period.
KAMAL KISHORE & ORS v. THE STATE
The Delhi High Court modified murder convictions to culpable homicide and voluntarily causing hurt, reducing sentences based on medical evidence and lack of common intention.
Mr.Mohit Mathur, Mr.K.V. Balakrishan, Mr.Badar Mehmood and Mr.Praman N.Mathur, Advocates. v. UNION OF INDIA .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the extradition inquiry report recommending extradition of Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul to the USA, holding that the magistrate's limited inquiry found a prima facie case and the prosecution was not barred by limitation under the Requesting State's law.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Through Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate. v. REHANA & ORS .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against a motor accident compensation award, upholding the Tribunal's assessment of medical expenses, functional disability, and future prospects.
RANJAN SHUKLA ..... Through Ms.Manjeet Chawla, Advocate v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. .....
Delhi High Court enhanced compensation awarded for injuries and deaths in a motor accident, recognizing attendant charges and loss of consortium as compensable heads under motor accident claims.
Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Samson Honey, Advocate and Mr. R. Ravi, Advocate. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court allowed condonation of a 37-day delay in filing an appeal, holding that short delays without mala fide or serious prejudice should be condoned.
Mr. Bharat Singh Sisodia, Advocate. v. DINESH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order striking off the defence of a co-owner who failed to deposit rent shares of other co-owners during a partition suit.
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate v. SHRI ATTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THOUGH LRS SMT. JASWANTI DEVI & ORS
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals challenging the appellate court’s finding that appellants failed to prove possession prior to the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and thus were not entitled to protection under Section 8 of the Act.
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate v. SHRI ATTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THOUGH LRS SMT. JASWANTI DEVI & ORS
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals challenging the appellate court's finding that appellants failed to prove possession of land prior to the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, denying them protection under Section 8 of the Act.
Ms.Rakhi Dubey and Mr.Anuj Pal, Advocates. v. STATE ....
The Delhi High Court modified the appellants' conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, reducing their sentence to the period already served.