Delhi High Court

92,849 judgments

Year:

Rakesh and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

08 Sep 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:7423-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

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 is not taken and compensation not paid within five years of the award.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings possession and compensation

BAL KISHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

08 Sep 2014 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SANJEEV SACHDEVA · 2015:DHC:7420-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending for over five years without possession or compensation under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings possession and compensation

M/S MKM ESTATES PVT LTD v. Union of India and Ors.

08 Sep 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:7424-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 9

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act where possession was not taken and compensation not paid within five years of the award are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings physical possession

Hazel Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

08 Sep 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:7432-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 5

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.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings possession and compensation

Nitin Sawhney v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

08 Sep 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:7434-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings

Preet Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

08 Sep 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:7429-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act without possession or compensation for over five years before the 2013 Act are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings

M/S SOPAN REAL ESTATE (P) LTD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

08 Sep 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:7431-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

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.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse physical possession

Ravinder Kumar v. Govt. of NCT Delhi

08 Sep 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:9122-DB

Recovery of alleged excess pay from a Group-C employee retiring within one year is impermissible without prior undertaking, quashing the recovery order under State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.

administrative petition_allowed Significant excess payment recovery Assured Career Progression Scheme Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme Group-C employees

Harish & Ors. v. State & Ors.

05 Sep 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:4439

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, holding that a settlement without the complainant's free consent cannot justify quashing non-compoundable offences.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC non-compoundable offence

M/S. VIR ARJUN NEWSPAPERS PVT. LTD. v. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, DELHI

05 Sep 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:4429

The Delhi High Court held that M/s Vir Arjun Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. is a continuation of the old establishment Daily Vir Arjun and is not entitled to infancy protection under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 infancy protection continuity of establishment functional integrality

Salil Maheshwari v. High Court of Delhi

05 Sep 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:4428-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the DJS Preliminary Examination answer key, holding that answer keys in multiple-choice exams are presumed correct unless demonstrably wrong, and re-evaluation cannot be directed without statutory authority.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Judicial Service Examination answer key multiple choice questions judicial review

Keshav Kumar v. State

05 Sep 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:4427

The High Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC due to lack of proof of marriage and cohabitation with the deceased, emphasizing the necessity of foundational facts for applying presumptions under the Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 306 IPC Section 498A IPC Section 113A Evidence Act abetment of suicide

Lt. Gen. Tejinder Singh v. CBI

05 Sep 2014 · Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:4430

The Delhi High Court granted bail to a retired Lt. General charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that non-arrest and voluntary appearance favor bail unless strong reasons exist to deny it.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 437 CrPC Prevention of Corruption Act chargesheet without arrest

A.K. Chaturvedi v. C.B.I.

05 Sep 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:4431

The Delhi High Court quashed the trial court order framing charges against petitioners for alleged misrepresentation and conspiracy in coal block allotment, holding that undisputed documentary evidence negated the prosecution case and no prima facie case was made out.

criminal petition_allowed Significant prima facie case framing of charges criminal conspiracy forged documents

Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma

05 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4426

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order closing the petitioner's evidence after multiple adjournments were granted but not utilized.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India adjournments closing of evidence trial court discretion

Rajwati v. State

05 Sep 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:4447-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions based on a reliable dying declaration and corroborative evidence, dismissing the appellants' claims of alibi and flawed investigation in a dowry harassment and murder case.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 498A IPC dowry harassment

Modern Credit Private Limited v. Micra Soft Private Limited

05 Sep 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:4442

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a demerger scheme under the Companies Act, 1956, holding that RBI approval was not required as the first motion predated the RBI circular and the scheme complied with statutory requirements including Income Tax Act conditions.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Arrangement Demerger Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394

Silverglades Developers Private Limited & Ors. v. Official Liquidator

05 Sep 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:4441

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation under the Companies Act, 1956 after addressing regulatory and tax concerns, condoning delay and directing compliance with statutory requirements.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 sections 391 to 394 Official Liquidator

Ranvir Singh Garg v. Ordinance Factories Officers C G H S Ltd & Anr.

05 Sep 2014 · Gita Mittal; Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:4433-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award, holding that payment towards common stilt construction does not entitle a member to exclusive parking space in a cooperative housing society.

civil petition_dismissed cooperative society stilt parking exclusive parking rights common area usage

Mahesh Kumar v. Pritam Chand LRS

05 Sep 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:4436

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide necessity of the landlord for residential accommodation under the Delhi Rent Control Act, dismissing the tenant's leave to defend application.

property appeal_dismissed Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bona fide necessity eviction petition leave to defend