Delhi High Court
92,628 judgments
Rajesh Kumar @ Raju v. The State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Rajesh Kumar @ Raju by referring to a detailed common judgment delivered in a related appeal on the same day.
Mahabir v. The State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Mahabir by referring to a detailed common judgment delivered in a related appeal on the same day.
Jasbir Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.) Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Jasbir Singh's criminal appeal by referring to a detailed common judgment in a related case.
Jasveer v. The State of NCT of Delhi
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Jasveer in terms of a detailed common judgment delivered in a related case.
Randhir Singh v. Hari Chand and Others
The Delhi High Court set aside the acquittal of four respondents and convicted them under Sections 323 and 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for causing injuries in a group fight, emphasizing the application of common intention and rejecting the trial court's erroneous acquittal.
Mohd. Naseem v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under the Official Secrets Act for possession of sensitive defense documents, rejecting claims of unlawful arrest and coercion.
United India Insurance Co. v. Kanwar Lal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that payments deposited post-decree must be appropriated first towards interest and costs, then principal, dismissing the review petition except to clarify interest calculation and rejecting enhancement of interest rate.
Sandhya Pandey v. Kunj Bihar Pandey
The Delhi High Court allowed the divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion, holding that uncontroverted evidence by the petitioner must be accepted when the respondent remains ex parte.
SH HANIF SOLANKI v. SH. BABU LAL
The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of a tenant on the landlord’s bonafide requirement grounds, emphasizing that age and disability support genuine need and bald tenant assertions without evidence do not warrant leave to defend.
Pawan Kumar Gupta & Anr v. Vinay Malani
The Delhi High Court held that allegations of simple fraud do not preclude arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, set aside the Trial Court's refusal to refer the election dispute to arbitration, and upheld the Appellate Court's order allowing the elected President to function fully during litigation.
Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Vinay Malani
The Delhi High Court held that disputes involving simple allegations of fraud in election matters are arbitrable under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, setting aside the trial court's refusal to refer the matter to arbitration and dismissing challenges to interim orders allowing the elected President to function fully.
Rakesh Kumar v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Rakesh Kumar for murder under Section 302 IPC based on reliable testimony of an injured child witness despite absence of Test Identification Parade, emphasizing careful scrutiny of child evidence and directing child-friendly TIP procedures.
Randhir Singh & Others v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld murder convictions of select appellants as members of an unlawful assembly with common intention, recognized two distinct violent occurrences, and refined liability and sentences accordingly.
Mohd. Naseem v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of an Army personnel under the Official Secrets Act for possession of sensitive defence documents, rejecting claims of unlawful arrest and false implication.
Surjeet Kaur and Anr. v. State
The Delhi High Court held that the petitioners violated their undertaking not to interfere with the complainant's possession of disputed property, justifying dismissal of their plea to cancel anticipatory bail.
S.K. Jain v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal of Mr. S.K. Jain, holding that he was entitled to constitutional protection against self-incrimination during FERA proceedings and that diary entries alone were insufficient to prove foreign exchange contraventions without independent evidence.
Suja Global Solutions Limited v. Mars Finance & Consultancy Services Limited
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 and absence of certain creditor classes.
Greenwood Furnitures Private Limited v. Panchsheela Prop-Build Private Limited
The Delhi High Court approved a Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and creditors due to unanimous consent and absence of creditors.
Eros Resorts and Hotels Limited v. Eros Grand Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a first motion application under sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with certain meetings and directing others under court supervision for a Scheme of Arrangement between two companies.
Rohit Bal Clothing Pvt. Ltd v. Balance Clothing Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of certain stakeholders based on written consents and directing court-supervised meeting of unsecured creditors lacking consent.