Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Narinder Singh Ahuja v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
The Delhi High Court held that discontinuing contractual employees solely to outsource their work is arbitrary and directed their continuation till project completion.
Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging lease cancellation and restoration charges as barred by delay, laches, and estoppel, holding that repeated representations do not extend limitation for filing such petitions.
Afzal Sha @ Suraj Ali v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court reclassified the appellants' conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on eyewitness identification and the nature of the stabbing during a robbery, allowing their appeal in part and modifying the sentence accordingly.
Afzal Sha @ Suraj Ali v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court modified the appellants' conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that eyewitness identification and recoveries were reliable despite absence of TIP, and that the stabbing was not premeditated to cause death.
Shashi Sahni v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in court without tendering to the landowner does not constitute payment.
Indu Katariya v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings 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 of the award.
Sanjay Kumar Grover & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years of the award, declaring the petitioners' acquisition proceedings lapsed.
Pranay Mehta v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with an award made over five years ago but without possession or compensation, are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Niranjana Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
Prem Singh Dhingra v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years of the award.
Maan Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act with unpaid compensation for over five years before the 2013 Act commencement are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
M/S SAFFRON PROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
MAAN SOFTECH PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act without possession or payment of compensation within five years before the 2013 Act are deemed lapsed, and mere deposit of compensation in court does not constitute payment.
Associated Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
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 2013 Act commenced.
Anil Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not effected within five years, and this benefit extends to subsequent purchasers.
The Management of M/S Institute of Public Health & Hygine v. Kashi Nath Sharma
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order summoning witnesses from the opposite party, holding that such summoning is permissible when necessary for justice and not vexatious.
Sushil Thakran v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation for appointment within four weeks, emphasizing consideration despite prior nondisclosure of a pending FIR.
Mukul Verma v. Delhi SC/ST/OBC Minorities & Handicapped Financial & Development Corporation Ltd.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondent Corporation to consider the petitioner's promotion representations post-penalty and pass a reasoned order within six weeks.
Avalokiteshwar Valinv Limited v. Renaissance Advanced Consultancy Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed the application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with certain meetings and directing supervised convening of others for approval of a Scheme of Arrangement among three companies.
Prakash Chand Sharma & Ors v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.