Delhi High Court
92,628 judgments
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD v. SUNITA MISHRA
The Delhi High Court held that an insurer cannot avoid liability merely due to a fake driver’s license unless negligence by the owner is proved, and a tractor is a light motor vehicle permitting driving under a light motor vehicle license, thereby upholding the insurer’s liability to compensate accident claimants.
Tej Pal v. M/S Ajex & Turner Wire Dies Co.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Labour Court's order holding that the petitioner was a fixed-term employee whose termination was not illegal, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to prove continuous employment and unexplained delay in filing the claim.
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Amarjeet Singh
The Delhi High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's rejection of approval for dismissal due to defective domestic enquiry and failure to prove misconduct under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Subhash Mandal & Ors. v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed FIRs arising from family disputes under non-heinous offences based on a genuine compromise, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.
Subhash Mandal & Ors. v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed FIRs arising from family disputes under Sections 452, 323, 506, 34, 324, and 326 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly to serve ends of justice.
Meenu v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Magistrate’s refusal to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, holding that police investigation is not mandatory when the complainant can produce evidence and the complaint case can proceed.
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited v. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sarita Vihar) & Anr
The Delhi High Court held that an unauthorized encroachment on a public road must be removed notwithstanding prior occupation by a public utility, denying regularization or alternate site rights.
Jai Shankar Mishra v. State N.C.T. of Delhi
The Delhi High Court reduced the appellant's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that the fatal assault occurred in a sudden quarrel without premeditation.
National Highways Authority of India v. Yedeshi Aurangabad Tollway Limited
The Delhi High Court held that stay of an arbitral money award requires 100% deposit or security as per amended Section 36(3) and CPC principles, dismissing NHAI's stay application against a ₹1503 crore award in favor of Yedeshi.
K. Srinivasulu v. M/S INTERNATIONAL PANAACEA LIMITED & ANR
Delhi courts have territorial jurisdiction to try a Section 138 NI Act complaint when the cheque is presented and dishonoured in Delhi, and notice is served from Delhi, even if the cheque was issued elsewhere.
Reliance Securities Ltd. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Magistrate's discretion to refuse police investigation and FIR registration in a dispute over a company vehicle, emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be initiated mechanically where the matter is essentially civil.
Shri Satpal v. Shri Bharat Prakash Gupta
The Delhi High Court held that the intention of landlord's foreign citizen sons to return and use the tenanted premises creates a triable issue, entitling the tenant to leave to defend against eviction.
Baleshwar Dass v. State; Akhilesh Kumar Mehta v. State
The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellants of murder charges due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the necessity for consistent and corroborated circumstantial evidence.
Baleshwar Dass v. State; Akhilesh Kumar Mehta v. State
The Delhi High Court acquitted two accused of murder due to unreliable identification, inadmissible motive evidence, and lack of credible proof linking them to the crime.
Shri Niwas & Etc v. State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC based on a settlement between parties, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a commercial dispute.
State v. Mohd Murshid & Ors.
The High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a murder case due to insufficient circumstantial evidence and the possibility of third-party involvement.
Harjinder Pal Singh v. R Karthikeyan
The Delhi High Court granted conditional leave to defend in a suit under Order XXXVII CPC based on a plausible defence and directed deposit of cheque amount, balancing summary judgment principles with the defendant's right to contest.
Kaavya Tea Estate Private Limited & Ors. v. Marvel Tea Estate (India) Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and creditors based on their written consents.
Sapphire Management Consultants Private Limited v. Silica Media Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors based on their written consents.
Hari Parkash Bansal v. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner’s writ seeking allotment of an alternate industrial plot under a relocation scheme, directing deposit of earnest money with interest and applying a 2006 Cabinet decision extending eligibility to units in local commercial areas.