Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Prem Singh v. Girdhari Dhara
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging execution court orders rejecting judgment debtor's objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, affirming the decree holder's right to possession and condemning repeated attempts to delay execution.
Uma Devi v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court quashed charges against the mother-in-law under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for lack of grave suspicion and corroborative evidence of cruelty or abetment of suicide.
Jitender @ Kala v. State
Anticipatory bail was denied to a habitual offender accused of making extortion calls from Tihar Jail due to the gravity of allegations and necessity of custodial interrogation for evidence recovery.
Hari Shankar v. State
The Delhi High Court set aside the appellants' conviction under Section 398 IPC for lack of proper charge and evidence, upheld convictions under Sections 393/394/34 IPC, and ordered their release on sentence already undergone.
Keeraty & Ors. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased bona fide railway passenger who died due to an accidental fall from a running train, holding the Railways strictly liable under the Railways Act, 1989.
Surender @ Bita v. State
Anticipatory bail was denied to a habitual offender accused of making extortion calls from Tihar Jail due to the gravity of allegations and necessity of custodial interrogation.
Ashok Kumar Mann v. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking injunction over a commercial plot erroneously auctioned and already allotted to a third party, holding that refund with interest is the appropriate remedy.
Dev Raj & Ors. v. Satpal Gulia
The Delhi High Court held that execution orders under Section 47 CPC enforcing mandatory injunctions and restitution are not appealable under Order XXI Rule 103 CPC, dismissing the Plaintiffs' appeal against restoration and mesne profits directions.
Meghna Patel v. State
A Magistrate cannot order FIR registration or investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C beyond its territorial jurisdiction; such orders are void and lead to quashing of subsequent proceedings.
Shabuddin v. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr
The Delhi High Court directed expeditious DNA testing of an unidentified body suspected to be the petitioner's missing son, emphasizing timely forensic procedures to provide closure.
Saroj Kumari v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court’s discharge of accused in a rape and criminal intimidation case due to lack of grave suspicion, unexplained delay, and contradictions in the prosecutrix’s allegations.
National Board of Examinations v. Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding that server logs do not constitute "candidate data" under the contract and that the service provider was not obliged to retain or furnish such logs.
Pradeep Kumar v. Y.S. Kumar
The Delhi High Court upheld the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of a complaint alleging forgery and cheating against Amity University group, dismissing the petition to quash proceedings for lack of jurisdiction or mala fide.
Gajender Singh v. The State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's discharge of the mother-in-law from dowry death charges due to lack of prima facie evidence of cruelty or harassment.
Wsi Sharmila v. State, GNCT of Delhi
The High Court set aside the trial court's order directing FIR registration against the investigating officer, emphasizing the need for judicial scrutiny and preliminary inquiry before accepting allegations under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Chandan Kaur v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner accused of murder under Section 302 IPC, holding that serious allegations and credible eyewitness evidence justified denial of bail.
3. ��.:) woodJCJ 11-9-1989 cfw� vs � gco6o[6] �og)oc[5] t3oe �� Z..,$ �6��, �o� �o�ooo:i) �S°do g)��o ��s�� �Q).)� �QOJ �Qg)oo t3oe& ��.J WCJOOJ� g)���, ����co�, �o�eJ06 eS[6] ��� l,.!).�o.84712000�, �6 28-06-2005 N°e.:> "--
The court dismissed the appeal, setting aside convictions under Sections 406, 498A, and 500 IPC and rejecting the maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC due to insufficient evidence.
Food Corporation of India v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika
The Supreme Court held that property owned by the Central Government and occupied by FCI is exempt from municipal property tax under Article 285 of the Constitution, as the tax was not levied on such property before the Constitution's commencement.
Food Corporation of India v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika
The Supreme Court held that property tax cannot be levied on Central Government-owned godowns constructed after the Constitution's commencement, exempt under Article 285, and occupier liability under municipal law cannot override this exemption.
Uttar Pradesh State v. Vijay Shankar Dubey
The Supreme Court held that pay scale revision benefits for Joint Director (Excise) posts apply only from 01.04.2001 and not retrospectively, denying enhanced pension benefits to a retiree before that date.