Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Rakesh and Ors. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC in a matrimonial dispute due to an amicable settlement between the parties and absence of objection from the complainant.
Arafat and Another v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Lajja Wati v. Mohammad Sharuck & Anr.
The court held that a claimant cannot simultaneously claim compensation under Sections 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the same accident and upheld the Tribunal's conversion of the claim, enhancing the awarded compensation accordingly.
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Soni Sharma & Ors
The Delhi High Court partially allowed the insurance company's appeal, reducing the compensation for loss of future income due to lack of evidence of actual salary loss, while revising other heads of damages in a motor accident claim.
Tarun Mathur & Anr. v. Anil Jain
The Delhi High Court upheld the summoning order under Section 138 NI Act, ruling that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to prematurely decide disputed facts or quash summons without material illegality.
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. RANVIR & ORS
The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation award against the insurance company, affirming negligence of the offending vehicle and rejecting defenses based on untraced vehicle reports and alleged insurance policy violations.
Harsh Vardhan Bansal v. ACIT Circle 43(1) New Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed reassessment notices for AY 2013-14 due to lack of requisite material showing escaped income of ₹50 lakh or more, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural and substantive requirements under the Income Tax Act.
Vinay Ranjan Tiwari & Anr. v. Spire Techpark Private Limited
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a leasehold agreement and MoU containing an arbitration clause.
Prithvi Raj v. Spire Techpark Private Limited
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a lease agreement and MoU between the parties.
Manu Raj Bhalla v. Spire Techpark Private Ltd
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a leasehold agreement and MoU containing an arbitration clause.
Mukesh Kumar Srivastav v. Spire Techpark Private Limited
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a leasehold agreement and MoU between the parties.
Sh. Hansraj and Ors. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed ESIC to frame and notify a broad policy protecting contractual workers' rights, mandating preference for existing workers upon contractor changes and ensuring compliance with labour laws.
M/S PREETHI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES AND ANR. v. M/S APPOLO CRANES PVT LTD
The Delhi High Court upheld the summoning order in a Section 138 NI Act case, ruling that re-filing a complaint returned for territorial jurisdiction issues must be within 30 days, and the amended NI Act provisions validate jurisdiction where the payee maintains the account.
COGOPORT PRIVATE LIMITED v. MR ANUJ BAJAJ AND OTHERS
The Delhi High Court allowed enforcement of information and inspection rights under a Shareholders Agreement and restrained asset dissipation pending arbitration award compliance, without prejudice to ongoing arbitral proceedings.
Manishi Saxena Bansal v. EXL Services.com (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging termination of employment where the cause of action arose entirely at the defendant's Gurugram office despite the defendant's registered office being in Delhi.
Kamlesh Mehta v. Vinod Garg
The Delhi High Court directed the Trial Court to reconsider the petitioner’s application under Section 152 CPC for correction of damages awarded, emphasizing that substantive grievances must be challenged by appeal, not by correction applications.
Mayank Dayal & Ors. v. Shakuntala Devi (Since Deceased) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside a summary decree on benami ownership, holding that disputed ownership and benami issues require trial and cannot be decided at the rejection of plaint stage.
Ramjas Foundation v. Shubra Gupta and Others
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of the 102nd AGM of Ramjas Foundation, restrained defendants from unauthorized meetings, and dismissed impleadment of new members as unnecessary parties.
KALAMKARI LIFESTYLE TECH PVT LTD v. MSME FACILIATION COUNCIL MUMBAI AND ANR
The Delhi High Court held that the MSME Facilitation Council in Mumbai has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act over disputes involving a Mumbai-based supplier, dismissing the petition to transfer proceedings to Delhi.
MS. SUBHASH TRADERS v. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging an NCDRC order for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the petition must be filed in the High Court where the cause of action arose.