Delhi High Court
92,849 judgments
Smt. Jai Shree Lalla v. Shri Harbans Singh
The court held that a party cannot withdraw from a lawful and court-recorded settlement merely on the ground of a vague misunderstanding, affirming the binding nature of compromises recorded in judicial proceedings.
Bhopal Singh and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that objections to a land demarcation report must be judicially decided by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, and directed expeditious disposal of such disputes.
Ravi Shankar @ Chintu v. State
The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of murder and robbery charges due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and lack of evidence of proper TIP proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of credible proof beyond reasonable doubt.
SRI RAM GENERAL INS CO LTD v. RAKHI GUPTA
The Delhi High Court upheld the compensation awarded for death in a motor accident, affirming 50% future prospects addition and validity of the driver's license, while enhancing non-pecuniary damages.
Surender v. The State
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the ground of an amicable settlement between the parties, applying its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Himalyan Technologies Limited v. Srishty Medical Private Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Himalyan Technologies Limited and Srishty Medical Private Limited under the Companies Act, upholding the appointed date and addressing statutory compliance concerns.
Anil Kumar Jain v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within the prescribed period, declaring the acquisition of the petitioners' land as lapsed.
Diwan Chand v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
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 of the award, even if possession has been taken.
Irmeet Singh and Ors. v. State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR alleging trespass in a commercial property dispute due to lack of evidence and settled company petition, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Vakeel Dass v. Surender Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by including future prospects, awarding additional amounts for artificial limb repairs and disfigurement, while upholding the original income assessment due to insufficient evidence.
Special Art School v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
The Delhi High Court declined to entertain writ petitions challenging the University’s withdrawal of a special counselling Notification before the Supreme Court, directing petitioners to first seek leave from the Supreme Court.
D.K. Vatsa v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the legality of placing an employee’s promotion case in sealed covers during pending disciplinary proceedings, dismissing the petition challenging the withholding of promotion.
Kishan Pal Singh v. G.L. Dhara
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's objections in execution proceedings, holding that insufficient evidence and invalid documents failed to establish ownership, and upheld reliance on expert handwriting analysis without cross-examination.
Sh. Ranbir Singh v. Sh. Satya Narain Sharma and Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's order setting aside a compromise agreement induced by misrepresentation regarding unauthorized construction, directing the suit to be tried on merits.
Rakesh v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Rakesh for murder and causing simple injury based on credible eyewitness and medical evidence.
Rakesh Khandelwal v. Krishan Kumar Khandelwal
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's finding that the petitioner wilfully violated a restraint order by disposing of property after the order was passed, dismissing his petition for lack of merit.
Ram Wati Devi & Ors. v. Mohan Babu Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, affirming landlords' bona fide need and ownership despite tenants' challenges, and dismissed the revision petition.
Mohd. Usman v. Mohan Babu Sharma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on landlords' bona fide need and co-ownership under the Delhi Rent Control Act, rejecting tenant's challenges to ownership and alternate accommodation.
Prabhu Dayal v. Mohan Babu Sharma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, affirming landlords' bona fide need and ownership despite tenant's challenges.
HDFC Bank Limited v. Vardhman Precision Profiles & Tubes Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed HDFC Bank's petition and upheld that complaints under Section 138 NI Act must be tried only in courts within whose jurisdiction the drawee bank is located, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod.