Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Rohini Educational Society v. Delhi Development Authority

13 May 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:2529-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the DDA's penalty demand for unauthorized Additional FAR on an educational society exempted from Additional FAR charges under a 2012 notification, holding that penalty charges must also be waived to uphold the exemption.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Additional FAR Penalty charges Delhi Development Authority Exemption notification

Sat Parkash Yadav v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

13 May 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:2544-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murdering his daughter based on conclusive circumstantial evidence and reliable witness identification despite procedural irregularities and absence of test identification proceedings.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence murder ransom note test identification proceedings

State Bank of India v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes

13 May 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2016:DHC:6588
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes lacked jurisdiction to recommend reconsideration of a finalized compulsory retirement penalty, allowing the Bank's writ petition challenging the Commission's order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant National Commission for Scheduled Castes Article 338 Constitution of India compulsory retirement disciplinary proceedings

Kanta Prasad v. The State

12 May 2014 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2014:DHC:2514

The Delhi High Court upheld the kidnapping and conspiracy convictions of Jai Parkash and Kanta Prasad under IPC Sections 363, 366, and 120B, reducing their sentences considering time served.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant kidnapping minor victims Section 363 IPC Section 366 IPC

Sati Dass v. Union of India & Anr.

12 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2521

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal of a passenger injured in a train accident, holding that minor timing discrepancies do not negate entitlement to statutory compensation under the Railways Act and related rules.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Railways Act, 1989 untoward incident bona fide passenger

KALINDEE RAIL NIRMAN (EMGOMEERS) LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA

12 May 2014 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SIDDHARTH MRIDUL · 2014:DHC:2515-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a defaulting partner in a joint venture can be substituted by two parties under the contract terms permitting singular terms to include plural, and quashed the rejection of such substitution by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited.

contract petition_allowed Significant joint venture substitution of partner contract interpretation singular and plural

Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.K.Pathak, Advocate v. SURINDER KUMAR & ORS. .....

12 May 2014 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral) · 2014:DHC:2513

The Delhi High Court held that appeals under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act must be filed within 120 days and no condonation beyond this period is permissible, dismissing the University of Delhi's writ petitions challenging dismissal of its time-barred appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 7(7) limitation period condonation of delay

V.R.B. Foods Private Limited & Others v. Dr. Oetker India Private Limited

12 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2525

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation between petitioner companies under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 after ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and addressing valuation concerns.

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

Cox India Limited v. Jagpin Breweries Limited

12 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2526

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Cox India Limited and Jagpin Breweries Limited under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, after finding compliance with statutory requirements and no objections.

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

Host Buildwell Private Limited & Others

12 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2527

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 unsecured creditors based on their written consents.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 dispensation of meetings

R K NAFRIA v. UOI & Ors.

12 May 2014 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:2522-DB

The Delhi High Court held that during a preliminary inquiry, an employee is not entitled to copies of documents but must be given a meaningful opportunity to inspect relevant records to respond to allegations.

administrative petition_allowed Significant preliminary inquiry Central Vigilance Commission guidelines inspection of records CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Mohd. Abid alias Bengali v. State

12 May 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:2516-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside a murder conviction due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and inadmissible confession made while the accused was in police custody.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC eyewitness credibility delay in FIR registration confession admissibility

Lalita v. The State

12 May 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:2519-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant Lalita of charges under Sections 302 and 498A IPC due to suspicious dying declarations, flawed investigation, and failure to prove her involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 498A IPC dowry harassment

Mehboob Khan @ Babu v. State

12 May 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:2520-DB

The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, holding that the killing occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation or cruelty.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC culpable homicide

Amar Singh v. State

12 May 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:2511
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Amar Singh for rape and criminal intimidation, emphasizing the absence of consent and corroborative forensic and testimonial evidence, while acquitting him of trespass.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape consent Section 376 IPC criminal intimidation

Jai Prakash & Ors. v. State

12 May 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:2512

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants due to inconsistent prosecution evidence and failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade, emphasizing the necessity of reliable identification and benefit of doubt in criminal trials.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant unlawful assembly identification parade benefit of doubt inconsistent eyewitness testimony

Phool Chand Gupta v. Ram Kishan Grover

12 May 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:2524

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act based on the landlord's bonafide requirement for his son who was about to attain majority imminently.

property appeal_dismissed Significant eviction bonafide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e)

Kundan Lal v. State and Ors.

12 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2517

The Delhi High Court upheld that a deceased who took sanyas severs natural heirs' inheritance rights, invalidating letters of administration granted under personal law, and dismissed the appellant's appeal with costs.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant sanyas letters of administration Indian Succession Act personal law

UOI & Anr. v. Kalpa Suri & Anr.

12 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2518

The Delhi High Court dismissed the employer’s appeal, condoning delay in filing the compensation claim and holding the employer liable as intoxication was not proved.

labor appeal_dismissed Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 condonation of delay limitation intoxication defense

Millennium Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Import & General)

12 May 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Vibhu Bakhru · 2014:DHC:2523-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an ex-parte inquiry report against a Customs House Agent for violation of natural justice and directed the authorities to grant a hearing before deciding on suspension or revocation of the license.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs House Agent Suspension of license Natural justice Regulation 22 CHALR