Delhi High Court
102,696 judgments
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. v.
The Delhi High Court upheld compensation to a cleaner injured in a truck accident, ruling that a cleaner engaged by a driver is an employee under the Employee's Compensation Act and that 26% physical disability can amount to 100% loss of earning capacity.
Ambavat & Mr. Moin Khan, Advs v. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a commercial quantity NDPS case, holding that disclosure statements alone cannot deny bail and emphasizing the impact of prolonged incarceration without trial progress.
Through: Mr. Kshitiz Mahipal and Ms. Khairun Nisa, Advocates v. BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED
The Delhi High Court kept Non-Bailable Warrants in abeyance against the petitioner under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, directing payment of outstanding dues and fresh mediation for amicable settlement.
Through: Mr. Ranbir Singh Kundu, Ms. Suman Saharan, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocates v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court dismissed bail applications of accused in a large quantity NDPS case, holding that procedural lapses without prejudice do not warrant bail and emphasizing the gravity of the offence and prima facie case.
Through: Mr. Dalip Kumar Santoshi, Mr. Mohan Paliwal, Mr. Munish Kumar and Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocates v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Bail was denied to an accused with prior conviction and repeated offences of electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
SMT BHAGWAN DEVI & ANR v. STATE
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for fraudulent second marriage and sexual offences, holding that consent obtained by deception as to marital status is invalid and conspiracy can be inferred from conduct.
M/S SAFETY CONTROLS AND DEVICES LTD v. NTPC RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED AND ORS
The Delhi High Court held that invocation of an unconditional advance bank guarantee cannot be restrained by interim injunction except in cases of egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice, and contractual disputes over termination are to be resolved by arbitration.
Through: Mr. A.M. Nair, Advocate v. RAMESH CHAND BATHEJA
The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, leaving merits and frivolity issues to arbitration.
Through: Mr. Bhavesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate v. EMINENT INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ANR
The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11(6) stage, the court's role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and directed appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties.
Mr.Tejpal in person (son of v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
The Court upheld the right of a major to choose his residence and directed inquiry into alleged illegal operation of a de-addiction centre, disposing of the habeas corpus petition accordingly.
Saggu and Mr. Manan Lohani, Advocates v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's second revision petition as not maintainable under Section 438(3) of BNSS, barring multiple revisions on the same matter before different forums.