Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Delhi Development Authority v. Jang Bahadur Bhalla

18 Mar 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:1454

The Delhi High Court allowed DDA's appeal and convicted the respondent for illegally using a residential flat as a furniture workshop in violation of the Delhi Development Act.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Development Act, 1957 Section 14 DD Act Section 29(2) DD Act residential flat misuse

Krishan Kumar @ Krishna v. State

18 Mar 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:1468-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 1094/2011 by referring to the detailed order in Criminal Appeal No. 773/2011 pronounced on the same day.

criminal other Procedural Criminal Appeal Delhi High Court Referral Related Judgment

Prithvi Raj v. State

18 Mar 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:1461-DB

The judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 646/2011 was reserved and pronounced by the Delhi High Court with reference to a detailed order in a related appeal, without substantive reasoning in the text provided.

criminal other Procedural Criminal Appeal Delhi High Court Judgment reserved Judgment pronounced

Parkash Chand v. State

18 Mar 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:1463-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 364A IPC for kidnapping a child and demanding ransom, holding that minor procedural irregularities do not vitiate a credible prosecution case.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 364A IPC kidnapping ransom demand threat to kill

Shyam Lal v. State (Govt of NCT) of Delhi

18 Mar 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:1464-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on credible dying declarations and corroborative evidence, rejecting the appellant's defence of self-immolation.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC kerosene oil burn injuries

State v. Bhagwati & Anr.

18 Mar 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:1465-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a murder case, emphasizing the need for credible and corroborated circumstantial evidence and the principle that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with acquittals.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant acquittal circumstantial evidence murder recovery of incriminating articles

Gautam Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

18 Mar 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G. P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:1451-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the detention of Gautam Jain under COFEPOSA despite non-supply of certain documents, applying the doctrine of severability of grounds and rejecting the challenge based on delay caused by evasion.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant COFEPOSA preventive detention Article 22(5) Section 5-A COFEPOSA

A.N. Madanasekaran v. Ram Niwas & Ors.

18 Mar 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:1473

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in a motor accident claim, upholding the Tribunal's award limited to injuries directly caused by the accident and rejecting claims unsupported by medical evidence.

civil appeal_dismissed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation causal nexus medical expenses

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. REKHA

18 Mar 2014 · SURESH KAIT · 2014:DHC:1469

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that insufficient evidence was produced to prove the private vehicle was used commercially, thereby upholding the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

civil appeal_dismissed motor vehicle accident compensation commercial use private vehicle

Manju v. Akhtar

18 Mar 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:1470

The Delhi High Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by adding 50% future prospects for a young deceased and increasing amounts for loss of consortium and love and affection.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation enhancement future prospects loss of dependency

Y.L. Malhotra v. Sahab Ali Khan & Ors.

18 Mar 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:1471

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation awarded for permanent disability, attendant charges, and related expenses in a motor vehicle accident claim, emphasizing proper assessment of all heads of damages.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor vehicle accident compensation permanent disability loss of income

Rajpati & Ors. v. Union of India

18 Mar 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1475

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and held Railways strictly liable to pay compensation for death of a bonafide passenger who fell from a train, rejecting the Tribunal's dismissal based solely on the body's condition.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Railways Act 1989 strict liability bonafide passenger

Vishal Narula v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi

18 Mar 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:1450

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a public servant for accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while reducing the sentence, affirming the statutory presumption under Section 20 and the probative value of trap proceedings.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7 PC Act Section 13(1)(d) PC Act Section 20 PC Act

Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Soni v. N.C.B.

18 Mar 2014 · V.K. Jain · 2014:DHC:1449

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, ruling that delayed compliance with Section 42 and minor discrepancies in sample weights do not vitiate prosecution where the chain of custody and procedural safeguards are substantially complied with.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 42 compliance hashish recovery panchnama

Inder Sharma v. Vikas Nagpal

18 Mar 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:1448-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a suit by an owner for termination of an agreement to sell immovable property and injunction against interference with possession is not barred by territorial jurisdiction if the plaintiff abandons claims for declaration of rights in the property.

civil appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction agreement to sell immovable property Section 16 CPC

Triveni Gupta & Anr v. Mamta Goyal & Ors

18 Mar 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:1478

The High Court dismissed the petition seeking interim stay on auction of property under RDDBFI Act, holding that statutory remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal must be exhausted before civil court intervention.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act Debt Recovery Tribunal interim relief auction of property

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Sanmati Trading and Investment Ltd. and Ors.

18 Mar 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:1477

The court allowed impleadment of a subsequent purchaser as a necessary party in a suit for specific performance, holding that their legal rights would be directly affected by the suit's outcome and that exceptions under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act require evidence and cannot be decided at the impleadment stage.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance Order 1 Rule 10 CPC necessary party proper party

Commissioner of Income Tax-XVI v. K. Ramakrishnan

18 Mar 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1460-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that the date of allotment of a plot, not the conveyance deed registration date, is relevant for computing holding period for long term capital gains tax.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant long term capital gain holding period date of allotment conveyance deed

M/S R.L. Varma & Sons (HUF) v. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

14 Mar 2014 · Hima Kohli · 2014:DHC:1446

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to stay auction of mortgaged properties due to the petitioner's deliberate concealment of prior litigation and default under a consent decree.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 writ petition concealment of facts consent decree

Gaurav Mehta & Anr. v. High Court of Delhi

14 Mar 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:1438-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutionality of the maximum age limit fixed under Rule 14(c) of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, dismissing the petitioners' claim for age relaxation due to delay in conducting examinations.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 Rule 14(c) maximum age limit cut-off date