Delhi High Court
92,628 judgments
SMT. RAJINDER KAUR & ORS. .. Petitioner v. DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD ..
The Delhi High Court disposed of LPA No.403/2010 and WP(C) No.614/2010 in terms of a separate judgment passed in LPA No.434/2009.
Ram Vilas v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld robbery convictions under Section 394 IPC but set aside Section 397 IPC convictions due to lack of proof of use of deadly weapon, emphasizing the need for individual use of weapon and credible evidence.
Preeti Satija v. Raj Kumari
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal setting aside a decree on admission for possession, holding that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 grants residence rights to a daughter-in-law in a shared household owned by the mother-in-law, and that no clear admission of title was made to warrant decree on admission.
Subhash Chand Khera & Ors. v. Rajesh Verma
The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order on bona fide requirement grounds, affirming that a landlord with legal right to occupy can seek eviction and that availability of relatives' property is not a valid defense.
Bharat Rasayan Finance Ltd. v. Ravi Chand Sindhu and Anr.
The limitation period for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act begins from the date of receipt of the arbitral award, and courts must consider this date and condonation of delay before dismissing objections as time-barred.
Suresh Bala & Ors. v. Rampal
The Delhi High Court held that Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act bars civil court jurisdiction only over suits falling within Schedule I entries, allowing civil courts to entertain suits for declaration of ownership and injunction challenging forged documents, while possession claims remain barred.
Raj Pal Goel and Anr. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim for death caused by illegal travel on the roof of a train, affirming that such travel amounts to criminal negligence excluding Railways' liability.
Veena v. State and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the probate petition as barred by the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, holding that the right to apply for probate accrues when the Will is disputed or consent withdrawn.
Khalid Qureshi v. The State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction for robbery due to material contradictions in prosecution evidence and extended benefit of doubt to the accused.
Satish Kumar Modi v. State
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for inquiry into suppression of facts but declined to quash the FIR or related orders at the preliminary stage, directing the trial court to consider the pleas at the charge stage.
Satish Kumar Modi v. State
The Delhi High Court held that an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. deserves consideration at the charge stage and declined to quash the FIR at the pre-trial stage, emphasizing sparing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when alternate remedies exist.
Satish Kumar Modi v. State
The Delhi High Court restored the petitioner's Section 340 Cr.P.C. application for enquiry and declined to quash the FIR at the pre-charge stage, emphasizing sparing exercise of inherent jurisdiction and availability of alternate remedies.
Swatanter Kumar v. The Indian Express Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to file suit without prior notice to one defendant, granted various procedural reliefs, and adjourned the interim injunction application while restricting defendants from publishing material prejudicial to the plaintiff.
Syndicate Bank v. K.S. Srivastava and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that a suspended employee is entitled to full subsistence allowance after one year if criminal trial is delayed without fault and the original suspension order is not revoked, affirming the Labour Court's award.
Satish Kumar Modi v. State
The Delhi High Court restored the petitioner's Section 340 Cr.P.C. application for trial court consideration and declined to quash the FIR or proceedings prematurely, emphasizing sparing use of inherent jurisdiction and availability of alternate remedies.
Gangadhar Padhy v. Prem Singh
The Delhi High Court held that acquittal by benefit of doubt does not establish malicious prosecution and dismissed the appellant's suit for damages for malicious prosecution for failure to prove malice or lack of reasonable cause.
P.C. Mishra v. CBI
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application to suspend conviction of a retired public servant convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, reaffirming that convictions in corruption cases should not be suspended during appeal to uphold public interest.
M/S Deccan Mechanical and Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd.
The Delhi High Court set aside a three-year blacklisting order against a supplier for lack of natural justice, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing and disclosure of adverse test reports before such administrative bans.
UOI and Ors. v. Daya Krishna Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the CAT order that quashed uncommunicated adverse ACR remarks affecting promotion, emphasizing that extension of time to comply does not permit challenging the order.
Ajit Singh v. Vinod Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell immovable property can be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, while leaving the question of proper stamp duty and registration open for trial.