Delhi High Court
92,628 judgments
East Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Daljit Singh Bhatia & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a decree for possession is not executable against possession claimed under subsequent land acquisition proceedings, as the acquisition creates a different title.
Delhi Wakf Board v. Vijay Kumar Saini & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking to file a written statement after closure of pleadings and rejected the application for dismissal of suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, affirming strict adherence to procedural rules.
Naveen Gupta v. Deepak Aggarwal
The High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to allow the defendant to lead additional evidence at the final arguments stage after the plaintiff had led rebuttal evidence, dismissing the petition under Article 227.
Subhash Chand Jain v. Kanta Jain
The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory 15-day limitation under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, disallowing additional affidavits beyond this period in leave to defend applications.
Hari Kishan Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to decide the petitioner's pending application for land allotment in lieu of acquired land within four weeks, allowing the writ petition.
Om Prakash v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The court directed the authority to decide the petitioner's pending representations under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 within a stipulated time and restrained respondents from taking coercive possession or erecting boundary walls until such decision.
Vishnu Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 406, 498-A, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and reconciliation between the parties, applying its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Himanshu Dawer v. State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 304 IPC following an amicable settlement between the accused and the victim's legal heir, relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab.
Tooba Buildtech Private Limited & Anr. v. Surinder Metals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed the application for 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, and held that no meetings of secured creditors were required as none existed.
CRM SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
The Delhi High Court held that it can extend stay of tax recovery beyond the ITAT’s 365-day limit under Article 226 if justice so requires, and accordingly continued the stay till disposal of the appeal.
Ganesh Ram Bhatt v. Director of Education & Anr.
Suspension of a private school employee without Director of Education's approval lapses after fifteen days, and retrospective approval cannot validate it.
Rakhi Nandwana Bohra v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking clarification of its earlier order, holding that no direction was given for a separate FIR or investigation report and that the petitioner was to join the ongoing investigation.
Chander Kumar Tripathi v. State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for robbery under Sections 392, 394, and 397 IPC, modifying the sentence but rejecting claims of false implication and evidentiary inconsistencies.
Ranjeet Bihari v. The State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC based on credible victim and medical evidence, modified the sentence, and set aside the Arms Act conviction due to unreliable weapon recovery.
Javed v. State
The criminal appeal filed by Javed was disposed of by the Delhi High Court by referring to a common judgment delivered in a related case on the same day.
Safeeq v. State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the robbery convictions of two appellants based on credible evidence and lawful recoveries but modified their sentences considering mitigating factors.
Shishpal Yadav & Ors. v. Savita Jindal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that plaints seeking cancellation of sale deeds over ancestral land must be valued for court fees on market value, directing plaintiffs to amend plaints and pay proper fees before proceeding.
Shishpal Yadav & Ors. v. Savita Jindal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deeds must pay court fees based on the market value of the land, upholding a prior binding direction and requiring compliance before proceeding with the suits.
Shishpal Yadav & Ors. v. Savita Jindal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that plaints seeking cancellation of sale deeds must be valued at market value for court fee purposes and directed plaintiffs to comply with this binding requirement before proceeding further.
Vidya Devi v. Deep Chand
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial Court's refusal to pass a consent decree, holding that a subsequent mediator's order referring the dispute back to the Court superseded the earlier settlement agreement.