Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Union of India v. Neha Kadam

30 Jul 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:3571-DB

The document is an index page listing connected writ petitions before the Delhi High Court with no substantive judgment text provided.

other

Union of India v. Neha Kadam

30 Jul 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:3570-DB

Ganga Sahay v. State

30 Jul 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3591-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of a father for raping his minor daughter, rejecting his intoxication defense under Section 85 IPC and affirming the victim's competent testimony supported by medical evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 376(2)(f) IPC Section 85 IPC rape child witness competency

Union of India v. Neha Kadam

30 Jul 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:3567-DB

other

Union of India v. Neha Kadam

30 Jul 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:3579-DB

other

Union of India v. Neha Kadam

30 Jul 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi · 2014:DHC:3580-DB

other

Shabnam v. State NCT of Delhi

30 Jul 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3578-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted Shabnam of murder due to unreliable eyewitness testimony, invalid weapon recovery, and her spontaneous statements indicating fear, granting her benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC murder res gestae Section 27 Evidence Act

Advance Agencies Private Limited & Ors. v. Official Liquidator

30 Jul 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:3584

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation of five transferor companies with a transferee company under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, finding no objections or prejudice and confirming compliance with regulatory requirements.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 sections 391 to 394 Core Investment Companies

Vijaya Bank v. EPFO and Ors.

30 Jul 2014 · Vibhu BakhrU, J · 2014:DHC:3585

The Delhi High Court held that EPFO cannot attach properties of guarantor companies for Provident Fund dues of a separate establishment without due proceedings, setting aside the impugned attachment orders.

civil petition_allowed Significant Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 8B EPF Act Section 8F EPF Act SARFAESI Act

Sitara Media Ventures Private Limited v. C&C Alpha Group India Private Limited

30 Jul 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:3568

The Delhi High Court approved a Scheme of Amalgamation under the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors due to their unanimous written consent.

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

Sanjay Aneja v. State & Anr.

30 Jul 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3587

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 341, 333, and 34 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement between neighbors, applying the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR non-compoundable offence settlement between parties

Shri Anil Jain v. Shri Bhagwan Shankar Khanna

30 Jul 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3557
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on the landlord's bona fide requirement for business use, limiting its revision scope to jurisdictional errors and rejecting tenant's vague defenses.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 25-B(8) bona fide requirement eviction petition

Standard Chartered Bank v. India Glycols Ltd.

30 Jul 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vibhu Bakhru · 2014:DHC:3552-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that Section 10 CPC does not apply to stay DRT proceedings under the Recovery Act as the DRT has exclusive jurisdiction, and the civil court and DRT do not have concurrent jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 10 CPC Debt Recovery Tribunal Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act concurrent jurisdiction

Sanddep @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Rohilla & Ors. v. Pooja & Ors.

30 Jul 2014 · Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2014:DHC:3569

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act arising from matrimonial disputes based on a settlement between parties and the complainant's withdrawal, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

Ishwar Dayal Kansal v. A. K. Jain

28 Jul 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:3544

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on the landlord’s bonafide need for office premises, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines and estoppel against disputing landlord’s title.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bonafide need eviction petition leave to defend

Vipin @ Kake v. State

28 Jul 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3542-DB

The High Court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, holding that a single gunshot in a sudden quarrel lacks premeditation required for murder.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant murder culpable homicide not amounting to murder Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Applied Electronics Ltd. & Anr.

28 Jul 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3527-DB

The Delhi High Court held that cross-objections in appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act are governed by the Civil Procedure Code, and condoned a 34-day delay in filing cross-objections based on sufficient cause.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 37 appeal cross-objections Order 41 Rule 22 CPC

SARVESH SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

28 Jul 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:3526-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking enforcement of a per security guard tender rate, held the bid unresponsive, but directed refund of the earnest money deposit applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant tender dispute earnest money deposit unjust enrichment consensus ad idem

State v. Mohan Singh

28 Jul 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3547-DB

The court held that a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence for rape conviction and upheld conviction only under Section 354 IPC due to lack of proof of penetration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 164 Cr.P.C. Section 376 IPC Section 354 IPC rape

Kiran v. Sudesh & Ors.

28 Jul 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:3519
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that disputes between private parties over legal heirship and entitlement to a deceased government employee's estate, including service benefits, are maintainable before Civil Courts and not barred by the Administrative Tribunals Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Central Administrative Tribunal legal heirship service matter