Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

M/S. INDO AFGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. KALAWATI DEVI

29 Jan 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:574

The Delhi High Court upheld the denial of leave to defend in an eviction petition based on bona fide requirement, holding that the tenant failed to raise a prima facie triable issue under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_dismissed Significant leave to defend eviction bona fide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO. LTD v. GURBACHAN SINGH

29 Jan 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:555

The Delhi High Court held that only the registered owner of a vehicle can claim compensation for its damages under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and set aside the award granted to a non-owner driver.

motor_accident_claims appeal_allowed Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 compensation property damage

P. Senthamil Selvan v. The State & Anr.

29 Jan 2014 · J. R. Midha · 2014:DHC:571

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 304A IPC following a settlement involving fair compensation to the deceased's legal heir, emphasizing the Court's role in ensuring just and reasonable compensation before quashing criminal proceedings.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 304A IPC quashing of FIR compensation settlement agreement

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. DALIP KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.

29 Jan 2014 · SURESH KAIT, J. · 2014:DHC:556

The Delhi High Court directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to frame and decide the issue of vehicle involvement in the accident independently, emphasizing the flexible procedural approach under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

civil other Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 rash and negligent driving motor accident claim

Sumit Kumar Verma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

29 Jan 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:557

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of Sumit Kumar Verma under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to unreliable and contradictory prosecution evidence and reliance on hearsay.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7 Section 13(1)(d) Section 13(2)

Narender & Anr v. State

29 Jan 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:558-DB

The Delhi High Court modified murder convictions to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduced sentences, holding that the killing occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation and that common intention was not proved against one appellant.

criminal sentence_modified Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part I IPC Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC common intention

Nirmal Tower Building Occupants Welfare Society v. Nirmal Tower Building (Pvt.) Ltd.

29 Jan 2014 · V.K. Shali · 2014:DHC:567

The Delhi High Court dismissed a long-pending suit for non-prosecution under Order XVII Rules 2 and 3 CPC due to the plaintiff's failure to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities.

civil appeal_dismissed non-prosecution Order XVII Rule 2 CPC Order XVII Rule 3 CPC dismissal of suit

National Research Development Corporation v. M/S Industrial Carbon and Ors.

29 Jan 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:551

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitrator's award on disclosure of accounts but set aside the rejection of royalty claims for the period before license termination, directing re-examination with adverse inference against defendants for withholding records.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Act, 1940 royalty payment license agreement adverse inference

Vipul Gupta v. State & Ors.

29 Jan 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:552-DB

The Delhi High Court held that writ petitions challenging continuation of criminal prosecution invoke criminal jurisdiction, rendering Letters Patent Appeals against their dismissal not maintainable and dismissed the appeals with delay condonation refused.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Article 226 Constitution of India criminal jurisdiction Letters Patent Appeal writ petition

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA.....

29 Jan 2014 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN · 2014:DHC:549

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of company directors for operating an unregistered collective investment scheme in violation of SEBI Act and Regulations, affirming their vicarious liability and continuous offence nature until investor repayment.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Collective Investment Scheme SEBI Act 1992 Section 12(1B) Section 24

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA.....

29 Jan 2014 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN · 2014:DHC:548

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of company directors for operating an unregistered collective investment scheme in violation of SEBI Act and Regulations, affirming their vicarious liability and the continuing nature of the offence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Collective Investment Scheme SEBI Act 1992 Section 12(1B) Section 24 SEBI Act

Vipul Gupta v. State & Ors.

29 Jan 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:547-DB

The Delhi High Court held that writ petitions challenging continuation of criminal prosecution invoke criminal jurisdiction, rendering Letters Patent Appeals against dismissal of such petitions not maintainable, and dismissed the appeals with delay condonation refused.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Article 226 jurisdiction criminal jurisdiction Letters Patent Appeal writ petition

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA.....

29 Jan 2014 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN · 2014:DHC:546

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of company directors for operating an unregistered collective investment scheme in violation of SEBI Act and Regulations, emphasizing continuous offence and vicarious liability.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Collective Investment Scheme SEBI Act 1992 Section 12(1B) Section 24 offence

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA.....

29 Jan 2014 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN · 2014:DHC:545

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions of company directors for operating an unregistered collective investment scheme in violation of SEBI Act and Regulations, affirming their vicarious liability and the continuous nature of the offence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Collective Investment Scheme SEBI Act 1992 Section 12(1B) Section 24 SEBI Act

Vipul Gupta v. State

29 Jan 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:543-DB

The Delhi High Court held that writ petitions challenging ongoing criminal prosecutions invoke criminal jurisdiction, rendering Letters Patent Appeals against such orders not maintainable and dismissed the appeals with delay condonation refused.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Article 226 criminal jurisdiction Letters Patent Appeal writ petition

Banwari Lal v. State of Delhi

29 Jan 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:544-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for murder based on a reliable dying declaration recorded by a police officer and corroborative evidence, dismissing the appellant's challenge on procedural and evidentiary grounds.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC fitness to make statement police officer recording dying declaration

Sanju @ Sonu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

29 Jan 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:554

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC due to inconsistent complainant testimony and defective investigation, granting the appellant benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 307 IPC attempt to murder acid attack uncorroborated testimony

Rama Gogia v. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

29 Jan 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:566

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's applications to set aside the dismissal of her suit for non-prosecution and condone delay, holding that no sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance or delay.

civil appeal_dismissed Order IX Rule 9 CPC Section 5 Limitation Act dismissal for non-prosecution condonation of delay

Rajesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

29 Jan 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:569

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the suit challenging cancellation of plot allotment was barred by limitation and that the allotment was invalid due to lack of consensus ad idem.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant limitation declaration suit cancellation letter SC/ST category

C. Ramesh v. Director, Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute

29 Jan 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:568

The Delhi High Court held that the Governing Body lacked authority to terminate a non-teaching employee without explicit delegation from the Executive Council, setting aside the termination order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings termination of service delegation of power Executive Council