Delhi High Court
92,628 judgments
Imran @ Irfan v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for robbery with a deadly weapon and illegal possession of a buttondar knife, dismissing his appeal against conviction and sentence.
Mohammed Ehsan v. State of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC but set aside the enhanced conviction under Section 397 IPC due to doubts over the recovery and use of the knife, reducing his sentence accordingly.
Nav Rattan v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court set aside the appellant's conviction for robbery and remanded the case for fresh trial after holding that denial of legal counsel during examination of material witnesses violated the appellant's right to a fair trial.
Vodafone South Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a second reassessment notice on the same grounds without fresh material is invalid and quashed it, affirming that reassessment cannot be used as a review mechanism.
India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd v. Integrated Digital Solution (P) Ltd
The Delhi High Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that the contract price for additional mannequins was as per the appellant's offer letter, while upholding the arbitrator's award for security costs and interest.
Dr Neelam Bhalla v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that DRDO is exempt from the RTI Act under Section 24 except for corruption or human rights related information, and dismissed the appeal seeking compensation for inaccurate information supplied regarding service records.
IMPERIAL AUTO SAFETY GLASS v. VIRENDER GUPTA AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court upheld the plaintiff's registered trademark rights, granted permanent injunction and damages including punitive damages against defendants who infringed trademarks and evaded proceedings.
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. CAPT JAI KUMAR ANAND
The Delhi High Court partially allowed the insurance company's appeal by excluding variable incentives from the deceased's income and adjusting tax deductions, thereby reducing the compensation awarded in a fatal accident claim.
Capt Jai Kumar Anand & Ors v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the motor accident claim appeal as infructuous following the decision in a related earlier appeal.
Raghunath Roy v. Ishwari Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld a binding consent decree on property shares, rejected adverse possession claims among co-owners, and passed a preliminary partition decree of two properties among legal heirs.
New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Saroj Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the compensation awarded for injuries in a motor accident but reduced the interest rate from 12% to 9% per annum, emphasizing reasonable interest aligned with current economic conditions.
Smt. Elsamma John & Ors. v. M/S Brintex Sales Corporation
The Delhi High Court held that a claimant who has already claimed and received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot maintain a subsequent claim under the Employee’s Compensation Act for the same injury, affirming the doctrine of election of remedies under Section 167 of the M.V. Act.
Zenith Media Limited v. Amrit Pal Singh
The Delhi High Court held that an order refusing to frame an additional issue under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC is interlocutory and not appealable as a "judgment" under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, dismissing the appeal accordingly.
Dinesh Sud v. M/S. Stitchwell Qualitex Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition challenging the ownership of a Noida property and non-consideration of Section 108 Companies Act authorities, holding that no patent error was shown and factual disputes cannot be reopened in review.
Ram Lal Mehta v. Director of Enforcement
The Delhi High Court held that statements by co-noticees not inculpating themselves cannot be used as substantive evidence against others under FERA, and set aside penalty orders due to lack of corroborative evidence.
Sumitra Devi and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for consolidation of two suits involving different plots and factual issues, holding that consolidation under Section 24 CPC is not warranted without common questions of law and fact.
Sukhbir v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and five-year sentence of the appellant for attempt to murder based on credible eyewitness and medical evidence, dismissing his appeal.
Enterprise Holdings, Inc v. Enterprise Auto Rentals
The Delhi High Court upheld the plaintiff’s registered trademark rights and trans-border reputation, restraining the defendant from using the marks ENTERPRISE and ENTERPRIZE for vehicle rental services, holding such use amounts to infringement and passing off.
Ashraf Khan v. State of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, ruling that failure to join public witnesses despite reasonable efforts does not vitiate the prosecution case and that proper compliance with Section 50 notice and chain of custody safeguards the seizure's validity.
Ashok Kapoor & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit of residents claiming leasehold rights over municipal grassy plots, holding that no valid lease was pleaded or proved and unauthorized possession of public land cannot be protected by injunction.