Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
K. Lubna & Ors. v. Beevi & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that subletting any portion of a single tenanted building without consent entitles eviction of the entire premises under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, allowing the landlord's appeal.
പത നീൽ വാദ്തികാരൾ v. ബത നീവ്തിയുി പറുള്ളവരുി
The court held that possession rights under tenancy laws require filing a suit and procedural compliance, dismissing the appellant's claim for lack of adherence to statutory requirements.
K. Lubna & Ors. v. Beevi & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that subletting any portion of a single tenancy premises without consent entitles eviction of the entire premises under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
FOX STAR STUDIOS v. APARNA BHAT
The Delhi High Court allowed differentiated timelines for incorporating a credit slide in films for live streaming and physical prints, balancing practical distribution challenges with compliance requirements.
Fox Star Studios v. Aparna Bhat & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the plaintiff lawyer's right to interim acknowledgment credit in the film 'CHHAPAAK' based on promissory estoppel despite absence of formal contract, modifying the Trial Court's injunction order.
State of Maharashtra v. Chhaya Vishwas Bhosale
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order directing compassionate appointment after prolonged delay, holding that such appointment is not a vested right and must be granted within a reasonable time to serve its benevolent purpose.
Cholamandalam MS Gen Insurance Co Ltd v. Pankaj Kashyap & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld compensation for loss of future income and directed the insurer to provide a motorized wheelchair to a permanently disabled motor accident victim, dismissing the insurer's appeal.
Prem Prakash v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of an accused charged with sexual offences against a minor, emphasizing the gravity of the charges, contradictions in his statements, and the victim's vulnerability.
Shri Tek Chand Tokas v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings in a matrimonial dispute after the parties amicably settled and the complainant withdrew prosecution.
Visakha Chemicals v. Raj Kumar Saraf
The Delhi High Court held that copyright registrations in the name of a partnership firm are valid when the author-partner creates the works for the firm and applies in the firm's name, even without a formal written assignment deed.
Visakha Chemicals v. Raj Kumar Saraf
The Delhi High Court held that copyright registrations in the name of a partnership firm are valid where the author-partner created the works for the firm and signed the applications, despite absence of a formal written assignment deed, and set aside the Copyright Board's order expunging such registrations.
M/S Rajasavi Estate & Developers & Anr. v. Rajesh Sabharwal
The Delhi High Court upheld a decree for recovery of money paid under a valid contract, rejecting application of Section 70 Indian Contract Act and piercing the corporate veil to hold directors liable.
Meghaj Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a candidate's defence recruitment candidature on medical grounds, affirming strict adherence to medical fitness policies and deferring to expert medical boards.
Teo Kok Siong v. The Narcotics Control Bureau
Delhi High Court upheld narcotics convictions but reduced default sentence for non-payment of fine considering substantial sentence served and good conduct.
Ashish Malhotra v. State of N.C.T of Delhi
The High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal directing the trial court to permit cross-examination of the victim limited to a belatedly produced complaint to ensure a fair trial under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint petition to extend the arbitration timeline by six months under Sections 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on parties' consent.
Mukesh @ Vicky v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 397 IPC, ruling that actual recovery of the weapon is not necessary if the victim testifies to its use, and contradictions in statements do not vitiate the prosecution case when corroborated.
Sanjay Suri v. State
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 420 IPC following an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC subject to compliance conditions.
Daya Shankar & Ors. v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties.
M/S SUPERIOR ELECTRIC STORE v. SANT LAL
The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's award granting compensation for illegal termination of a workman, dismissing the employer's appeal challenging the award and refusal of reinstatement.