Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Praveen Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the petitioner's claim for an award in anti-insurgency activity within six weeks, disposing of the petition accordingly.
Sanjeev Kumar v. Union of India and Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition challenging the classification of the petitioner’s transfer on compassionate grounds, affirming the original judgment and holding that the record supported the transfer decision.
Ashok Yadav v. Vinod Kumar Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's application to reject the suit for lack of cause of action and allowed withdrawal of the revision petition with liberty to file fresh proceedings.
SH TRIBHUWAN NATH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS. v. RADHEY SHYAM MODI (DECEASED THROUGH LRS)
The High Court held that interlocutory orders under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are not revisable under Section 115 CPC, dismissing the petition challenging such an order.
Ghanshyam Bhagchandani v. Sangeeta
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner a final opportunity to cross-examine the defendant witness while dismissing the challenge to the interim injunction dismissal as withdrawn, emphasizing procedural discipline and no further delays.
Takshaka Interiors Pvt Ltd v. Espire Resorts Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that objections to execution of an arbitral award are not maintainable when a Section 34 petition is pending and the petitioner has not complied with deposit conditions, dismissing the petition seeking supervisory interference.
Vikram Dogra & Anr. v. Devender Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Arbitral Tribunal's modification of an issue from 'valid' to 'invalid' agreement, holding that judicial interference under Article 227 is limited and the Tribunal's discretion in framing issues must be respected.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court set aside the order vacating interim injunction in a patent infringement suit, emphasizing the need for product-to-patent comparison and proper assessment of credible challenge to patent validity under Sections 107 and 64 of the Patents Act.
Masjidnoor Ahmed Waqf through Mohd Azam v. Mohd Mubarak & Anr
The court allowed the decree holder a limited opportunity to cross-examine the Objector in an old execution petition to prevent prejudice, balancing fairness with the need for timely disposal.
Shobha Sachdeva & Anr. v. Narender Kumar Sachdeva
The Delhi High Court directed the First Appellate Court to expedite disposal of a pending appeal against an injunction order, emphasizing timely justice and judicial priority.
Mr. Tushar Tokas and Ms. Arbinder Kaur v. Sharul Mathur
The High Court held that a show-cause notice under Order XV-A CPC is mandatory before striking off a defense for non-compliance, setting aside the Trial Court's order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Muhammed Akkoyun v. Fluper Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Trial Court's imposition of cost for video conferencing but allowed the petitioner to seek a fresh waiver application to be decided afresh.
Girija Devi v. Govind
The High Court granted the petitioner a final opportunity to file a fresh affidavit and examine herself before the Trial Court, ensuring procedural fairness and continuation of the suit.
Vishawjeet Sarkar & Ors. v. The State Govt. (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and reconciliation between the parties, applying the principle that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Nitesh Singh & Ors. v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Sushila Bari & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Arun Kumar Srivastava v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 288 and 337 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Supreme Court precedent.
Davinder Singh v. Delhi Cantonment Board
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of eviction notice upon expiry of a thirty-year lease, directing due process for eviction and mandating consideration of petitioner's representation for fresh lease independently of eviction proceedings.
Brij Bhushan Airy v. Delhi Cantonment Board
The Delhi High Court held that a lease limited to thirty years cannot be extended unilaterally beyond its term, but directed the lessor to consider the lessee’s renewal representation before eviction following due legal process.
Rahul Verma v. Delhi Cantonment Board
The Delhi High Court held that a lease limited to thirty years cannot be extended without mutual consent, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s renewal request, and mandated eviction only after due legal process post lease expiry.