Delhi High Court

92,849 judgments

Year:

Upender Singh & Ors. v. Rajesh Sachdeva & Ors.

19 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3964

The Delhi High Court allowed petitions to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 323/506 IPC based on an amicable settlement, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC after prima facie assessment of the offence's nature and evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings amicable settlement non-compoundable offences

Upender Singh & Ors. v. Rajesh Sachdeva & Ors.

19 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3963

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323/506 IPC and Arms Act based on an amicable settlement, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC in non-heinous offence cases.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of criminal proceedings compromise agreement non-compoundable offences

Ajay Chugh & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

19 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3957

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the ground of amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR domestic dispute matrimonial settlement

Rajinder Singh v. State

19 Aug 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3965

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 380, 448, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, applying its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR compromise non-compoundable offences

Krishan Kumar Bansal thr. his Lrs. v. Shyam Lal Bansal

19 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3943

The court held that the right to sue in a suit concerning immovable property survives the death of a defendant, allowing legal heirs to be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.

civil petition_dismissed right to sue immovable property legal heirs Order 22 Rule 3 CPC

Nadira Begum v. Nafisa & Ors.

19 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3944

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order allowing substitution of legal heirs with condonation of delay, holding that parties should not suffer for counsel's negligence and no injustice was caused.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India Order 22 Rule 3 CPC Substitution of legal heirs Limitation Act Section 5

Sanjay Sehgal v. State & Others

19 Aug 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:3969

The Delhi High Court granted probate of a duly executed Will under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act after finding no legal impediments and compliance with procedural requirements.

civil petition_allowed Indian Succession Act Section 276 probate Will

K.L. Narang v. Delhi Development Authority

19 Aug 2014 · Manmohan J · 2014:DHC:3941

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition as an abuse of process, holding that repeated challenges to the same eviction order after withdrawal and dismissal of earlier petitions are barred and do not entitle reinstatement under the special provisions Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2007 abuse of process relitigation

Tushar Properties Private Limited v. Sheena Properties Private Limited

19 Aug 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:3942

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between two companies under the Companies Act, 1956, clarifying tax liabilities and confirming the transfer of assets and liabilities without prejudice to stakeholders.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Section 391 Section 394

Autometers Limited v. Greenvale Private Limited & Ors.

19 Aug 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:3940

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the demerger scheme under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, validating the appointed date and compliance undertakings despite procedural concerns raised by the Regional Director.

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

Madhukar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

19 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3937-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for kidnapping and ransom against three appellants based on credible victim testimony and recovery evidence, while acquitting a fourth accused due to lack of involvement.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant kidnapping ransom Sections 363, 364A, 347 IPC voice analysis

Madhukar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

19 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3938-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for kidnapping and ransom based on credible victim testimony despite absence of scientific voice analysis, while confirming acquittal of an accused not directly involved.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant kidnapping ransom victim testimony scientific evidence

Madhukar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

19 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3931-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for kidnapping and ransom based on credible child testimony and recovery evidence, while acquitting one accused due to insufficient proof of involvement.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant kidnapping ransom child victim testimony voice sample analysis

Madhukar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

19 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3939-DB

Delhi High Court upheld convictions for kidnapping and ransom based on credible eyewitness and police evidence, while acquitting one accused due to lack of direct involvement.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant kidnapping ransom Section 364A IPC eyewitness testimony

B.H. Enterprises & Ors. v. Techmesh Products India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

19 Aug 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3935

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioners' application to stay suit proceedings on arbitration grounds, holding that denial of the arbitration agreement and participation in the suit amounts to submission to civil court jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant arbitration agreement Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Section 5 Arbitration Act jurisdiction of civil court

Rajinder Kumar and Ors. v. Padmavati Thr Legal Heir & Anr.

19 Aug 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3934

The Delhi High Court upheld the execution order directing removal of a shutter obstructing the respondents' free access to the first floor, dismissing the petitioners' challenge and emphasizing strict enforcement of decree rights.

civil petition_dismissed execution of decree free ingress and egress tenancy rights removal of obstruction

Amarjeet Singh v. Vimal Taneja and Anr.

19 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3933

The Delhi High Court upheld the probate of a duly registered Will dated 28.2.1994, rejecting a subsequent unregistered Will and dismissing the appeal challenging the probate.

civil appeal_dismissed probate Indian Succession Act, 1925 Will registration attesting witness

Sambhavana v. Union of India

19 Aug 2014 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J · 2014:DHC:3932-DB

The Delhi High Court held that statutory guidelines under the Disabilities Act mandate 1% reservation and 20 minutes compensatory time per hour for visually impaired candidates in Civil Services Examination, directing UPSC to comply accordingly.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 Section 33 reservation Visually impaired candidates Compensatory time

Surender Kumar Mathur v. State

19 Aug 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3952-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the appellant's murder conviction due to denial of fair trial caused by undue haste and refusal to recall witnesses, emphasizing that speedy trial must not compromise fairness under Article 21.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant fair trial speedy trial Article 21 Section 311 CrPC

Union of India v. M/S MAK EXPORTS

19 Aug 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3953

The High Court held that while setting aside an ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the defendant must deposit a reasonable portion of the decretal amount, modifying the trial court's order to require 50% deposit as a just condition.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 9 Rule 13 CPC ex parte decree setting aside decree decretal amount deposit