Delhi High Court

93,075 judgments

Year:

Keshav Prasad v. Bishamber Lal

01 Oct 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:5189

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction decree under the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that the 15-day statutory period for filing leave to defend is mandatory and no condonation of delay is permissible.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 leave to defend bonafide necessity eviction limitation period

Shri Yatinder Kumar v. M/S Neelkanth Drugs Pvt. Ltd.

01 Oct 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:5192

The High Court upheld the trial court's order directing deposit of disputed amounts where the defence of payment was unsubstantiated and dismissed the petition challenging the leave to defend order in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Order XXXVII CPC leave to defend summary suit payment in cash defence

Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Sh. Devender Singh and Ors.

01 Oct 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:5193

The Delhi High Court held that the time for filing a written statement is directory, not mandatory, and allowed the petitioner’s delayed written statement to be taken on record in a suit involving valuable immovable property.

civil appeal_allowed Significant written statement extension of time delay condonation Article 227 Constitution of India

Krishan Kumar @ Setu and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

01 Oct 2014 · Indermeet Kaur · 2014:DHC:5188

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellants in a dowry death case due to lack of credible evidence of dowry demand and harassment soon before death, emphasizing the necessity of prima facie proof before invoking presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dowry death Section 304B IPC Section 498A IPC Section 113B Evidence Act

Tarsem Kumar v. Union of India

01 Oct 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:5207-DB

The Delhi High Court held that adverse ACR entries must be communicated timely and representations decided by a higher authority, quashing the non-speaking rejection order and directing fresh consideration for promotion.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Annual Confidential Report ACR grading Representation against adverse entries Departmental Promotion Committee

S.D. Dobhal v. Union of India

01 Oct 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:5208-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that non-communication of adverse ACR entries violates natural justice and Article 14, directing fresh representation and decision before retrospective promotion consideration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Annual Confidential Report ACR communication Departmental Promotion Committee natural justice

Mahender Singh and Ors v. Union of India & Ors

01 Oct 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:5197-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation within five years of the award made before the Act's commencement.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 compensation

Anand Prakash v. State and Anr

01 Oct 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:5198-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years, regardless of possession.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 land acquisition compensation non-payment acquisition lapse

Satpal Rana v. State

01 Oct 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:5210-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation within five years, regardless of possession dispute.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 land acquisition lapse of acquisition compensation non-payment

National Insurance Company Ltd v. Moti Ram & Ors.

01 Oct 2014 · Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:5206

The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation award, affirming the use of salary certificates and a 50% addition for future prospects, and clarified that the multiplier must be based on the deceased's age.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation future prospects multiplier

Ramesh Kumar Giri v. Union of India & Ors.

01 Oct 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:5196-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging denial of pay scale parity for ASI (Technical) in CRPF, holding that pay fixation is an executive function and equivalence of rank alone does not mandate identical pay without similarity in duties.

service_law petition_dismissed pay scale parity Central Reserve Police Force ASI Technical equal pay for equal work

Systems Moteurs India Pvt Ltd v. SOGEFI MNR Filtration India Private Limited

01 Oct 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:5187

The Delhi High Court allowed the first motion application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors for a Scheme of Amalgamation based on written consents, subject to issuing notices to dissenting creditors.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 Shareholders consent

R. Kothandaraman v. Lok Sabha Secretariat

01 Oct 2014 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:5186-DB

An employee who accepts voluntary retirement and terminal benefits is estopped from withdrawing the retirement notice without specific approval, and such withdrawal requests can be denied when the employee acts inconsistently with retirement.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant voluntary retirement Rule 48A CCS Pension Rules withdrawal of retirement notice estoppel

Mohd. Ameen Wani alias Khalid and Anr. v. State

01 Oct 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G. P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:5185-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the convictions of appellants for recovery of PETN explosives due to discrepancies in evidence, unreliable expert testimony, and destruction of case property, emphasizing the need for credible prosecution and fair trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant PETN explosive expert evidence color discrepancy fire in police malkhana

Dharamvir Singh v. State & Ors.

01 Oct 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:5183

The Delhi High Court set aside the anticipatory bail granted on a second application filed before a different Judge without any substantial change in circumstances, emphasizing judicial discipline and the necessity of custodial interrogation in a property cheating case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail second bail application judicial discipline custodial interrogation

Smt. Phool Kumari & Ors. v. Shri Shyambir Tyagi

01 Oct 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:5184

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of tenants on the ground of landlord's bona fide commercial requirement under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, affirming that the landlord is the best judge of suitable premises and tenants failed to raise triable issues.

property petition_dismissed Significant bona fide requirement eviction Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 section 14(1)(e)

Kusum Sharma v. Didar Singh & Ors.

01 Oct 2014 · Najmi Waziri, J. · 2014:DHC:5181
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging a final decree declaring a sale deed null and void, holding that subsequent claims based on that deed are void and barred by lis pendens.

civil petition_dismissed Significant sale deed null and void lis pendens Transfer of Property Act Section 54 unregistered documents

Didar Singh v. Harbans Kaur & Ors.

01 Oct 2014 · Najmi Waziri, J. · 2014:DHC:5180
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that an executing court cannot reopen a decree on grounds of fraud after it has attained finality without proper evidence, setting aside the order framing such an issue.

civil petition_allowed Significant decree finality fraud on court execution proceedings inherent power of court

Master Tarun Pawar & Ors. v. Raj Singh & Ors.

01 Oct 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:5182

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to allow late amendment to include Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in a suit, holding that such amendment alters the nature of the suit and is impermissible after trial commencement.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 6 Specific Relief Act Order VI Rule 17 CPC Amendment of plaint Summary suit

Abdul Gani @ Gini v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

01 Oct 2014 · Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:5195

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for robbery with use of a defective but loaded firearm, ruling that brandishing a deadly weapon suffices under Section 397 IPC and modified sentences to the period already served.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 397 IPC deadly weapon brandishing weapon quality of evidence