Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Ashif Khan @ Kallu v. State

29 Apr 2014 · Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:2228
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, ruling that delay in sending samples to the FSL and absence of public witnesses do not vitiate the prosecution case if procedural safeguards are complied with and chain of custody is maintained.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 21(b) delay in sample deposition chain of custody

Abdul Aziz v. State

29 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2209

The Delhi High Court acquitted Abdul Aziz of possession of stolen property under Section 412 IPC due to lack of independent corroboration and procedural lapses in arrest and recovery.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 412 IPC possession of stolen property dacoity recovery of stolen cash

Madan Gopal and Another v. State

29 Apr 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:2224-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld Madan Gopal's conviction for kidnapping his nephew for ransom under Section 364A IPC, set aside his conspiracy conviction under Section 120B IPC, and held that call records without a Section 65B certificate can be admissible as secondary evidence.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant kidnapping for ransom Section 364A IPC criminal conspiracy Section 120B IPC

Mannu v. The State

29 Apr 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:2216-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC based on reliable eyewitness testimony, rejecting the appellant's claim of sudden fight and minor contradictions in prosecution evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Murder Eyewitness testimony Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

Sombir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

29 Apr 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:2217-DB

The Delhi High Court held that employees of Unit Run Canteens are not government servants or State instrumentalities, and therefore cannot maintain writ petitions challenging dismissal under Article 226 of the Constitution.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Unit Run Canteen government employee status Article 12 Constitution of India writ petition maintainability

Aditya Narula v. Delhi Development Authority

29 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2229

The Delhi High Court held that the respondent can take possession of acquired land but cannot dispossess the appellant from unacquired khasra no.31/24-25, modifying concurrent judgments accordingly.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition possession Gaon Sabha land legal allotment

Golakiya Aayush Parshottambhal v. Director, National Board of Examination

29 Apr 2014 · Manmohan · 2014:DHC:2218

The Delhi High Court held that marks in qualifying examinations cannot be rounded off unless expressly permitted, emphasizing strict adherence to eligibility criteria and dismissing the petition seeking rounding off of DNB examination marks.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant rounding off marks eligibility criteria qualifying examination DNB General Medicine

Rama Shankar v. State

29 Apr 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:2227-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of husband and in-laws for dowry harassment and murder of the bride, emphasizing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and rejecting defense pleas of delay, suicide, and alibi.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dowry harassment Section 498A IPC murder circumstantial evidence

Sunil Goel & Others v. The State and Others

29 Apr 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:2219-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a Section 6 declaration issued beyond the statutory time limit after quashing of an earlier declaration is invalid, quashing the acquisition notification and upholding strict compliance with time limits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 6 declaration Section 4 notification time limit

J & P Coats Ltd & Anr. v. Rahul Gupta & Ors.

29 Apr 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2220

The Delhi High Court held that where a defendant admits trademark infringement and ceases use upon awareness, only nominal damages are payable under Section 135(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, rejecting the plaintiff's claim for higher damages.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 135(3) Trademark infringement Passing off

DAV College Managing Committee v. DAV SR Secondary School –II

29 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2223

The Delhi High Court granted an injunction restraining the respondent from using the well-known "DAV" trademark in education, recognizing the appellant's prior and extensive rights in the mark.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement injunction Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC DAV trademark

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Premwati

29 Apr 2014 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:2230-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order setting aside flawed disciplinary proceedings and directing reinstatement of an employee, emphasizing strict adherence to natural justice in disciplinary actions.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings natural justice compulsory retirement attendance register

Om Prakash v. Panchi Devi

29 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2221

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding possession decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC based on admitted facts that the premises were newly constructed and thus outside Rent Control Act protection under Section 3(d).

civil appeal_dismissed Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 3(d) Order 12 Rule 6 CPC possession suit

Sh. Inder Pal Singh & Ors. v. Smt. Rajinder Kaur & Ors.

29 Apr 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2222

The Delhi High Court upheld a family settlement partitioning ancestral property as valid and binding despite minors being represented by guardians without court permission, dismissing claims based on alleged sham documents.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant family settlement partition Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act Section 8

Akash Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

29 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2212

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Akash Singh for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC based on credible victim testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, dismissing his appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 307 IPC Section 27 Arms Act gunshot injury victim testimony

Sunil Goel & Others v. The State and Others

29 Apr 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:2243-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a Section 6 declaration issued beyond the statutory time limit after quashing of an earlier declaration is invalid, affirming that no fresh one-year period is granted post-quashing under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 6 declaration Section 4 notification time limit for acquisition

Somvir & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi)

29 Apr 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2210

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of three appellants for armed robbery under Sections 392, 394, and 397 IPC based on credible victim testimony and corroborative evidence, dismissing their appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed robbery Section 392 IPC Section 394 IPC Section 397 IPC

Saleem @ Pinni v. State

29 Apr 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:2213

The Delhi High Court acquitted accused in an armed robbery case due to lack of credible evidence linking them to the crime, emphasizing the importance of reliable recovery and eyewitness identification.

criminal conviction_overturned Significant armed dacoity recovery of stolen property benefit of doubt eyewitness identification

Saleem @ Pinni v. State

29 Apr 2014 · V. K. Jain · 2014:DHC:2208

The Delhi High Court acquitted accused in an armed robbery case due to lack of credible eyewitness identification and doubtful recovery evidence, emphasizing the benefit of doubt in criminal trials.

criminal conviction_overturned Significant armed dacoity recovery of stolen property benefit of doubt eyewitness identification

Asha Lata Pandey v. Braham Pal Singh Yadav

29 Apr 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:2214

The Delhi High Court held that an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) does not abate on death of one petitioner but bona fide requirement and non-availability of alternate accommodation must be proved to succeed.

property petition_dismissed Significant eviction petition bona fide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e)