Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Sushila & Ors. v. Sunil Yadav & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a revision petition challenging eviction becomes infructuous once possession is restored to the landlord through execution proceedings, limiting the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Om Prakash & Anr. v. Sunil Yadav & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a revision petition challenging an eviction order becomes infructuous once possession is legally restored to the landlord through execution proceedings, limiting the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Maya & Ors. v. Sunil Yadav & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition challenging eviction as infructuous since possession had been lawfully restored to the landlord through execution proceedings, affirming the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Dinesh v. Sunil Yadav & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a tenant's revision petition challenging eviction as infructuous after possession was lawfully restored to the landlord through execution proceedings, affirming the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Chajju Ram & Anr v. Sunil Yadav & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed a tenant's revision petition challenging eviction after possession was restored to the landlord, holding such petitions infructuous and emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Rakesh & Ors. v. Sunil Yadav & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a revision petition challenging eviction becomes infructuous once possession is lawfully restored to the landlord through execution proceedings, limiting the scope of revision under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Sher Singh v. Sunil Yadav & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a tenant’s revision petition challenging eviction as infructuous after possession was legally restored to the landlord through execution proceedings, reaffirming the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Paramjit Singh v. Gagan Singh @ Mannu
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim of joint ownership under the Benami Act for lack of documentary evidence, ordered possession to the rightful legal heir, and awarded mesne profits for unauthorized occupation.
S. C. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that informer rewards under government schemes are discretionary ex-gratia payments and not enforceable rights, dismissing the petitioner’s claim for full reward and denying entitlement to a personal hearing.
Pravesh Narula Trading as M/s. Capital Enterprises v. Raj Kumar Jain Trading as M/s. Bholaram Puranmall and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed amendment of the plaint to include subsequent trademark registration during trial, permitting relief for trademark infringement alongside passing off to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING PROJECTS PVT LTD & ANR
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief restraining termination of a service agreement by enforcing a negative covenant to maintain status quo during arbitration proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
Kapil Khanna v. Continental India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the architect's appeal for recovery of unpaid consultancy fees, holding that failure to complete contractual deliverables disentitles payment beyond completed stages.
PNC Infratech Limited v. Union of India through Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld MoRTH's jurisdiction and decision to debar petitioners from tendering based on credible evidence of corruption, dismissing challenges to procedural fairness and sufficiency of evidence.
Dr. G K Arora v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the summoning of accused under Section 306 IPC, holding that prima facie material existed based on the deceased's suicide note and dying declarations despite closure reports exonerating them.
Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the preventive detention of a habitual gold smuggler under COFEPOSA, holding that credible material and past conduct justified detention despite bail and ongoing investigation.
Rahul v. State Govt of NCT Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and attempt to murder, affirming that identification in Court corroborated by weapon recovery and ballistic evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
EICORE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. EEXPEDISE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
The Delhi High Court held that additional documents existing prior to suit must be filed with the plaint unless reasonable cause is shown, emphasizing strict procedural compliance under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v. Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC, a judgment debtor's asset can be auctioned without fixing an upset price or prior valuation, and objections on valuation can be considered only before confirming the sale.
M/S. SONAM FURNITURE v. WOOD TECH CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking to compel cross-examination of an expert and recall of another expert, directing the Trial Court to consider objections and requests before final disposal of the commercial suit.
Vaibhav Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to petitioners in a PMLA case, holding that prolonged pre-trial detention without timely trial violates Article 21 rights and overrides stringent statutory bail conditions under Section 45 of PMLA.