Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
M/S APOLLO TYRES LTD v. M/S INDIRA TYRES
The Delhi High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused for dishonour of 61 cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that admissions in reply to statutory notice establish liability and unsubstantiated security deposit claims cannot rebut the presumption of debt.
M/S APOLLO TYRES LTD v. M/S INDIRA TYRES
The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused for dishonour of 61 cheques under Section 138 NI Act, holding that admission of debt in reply to statutory notice negates the defence of security deposit.
Prasant Jain & Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498-A IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Lalit Sharma & Anr v. The State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal proceeding under Section 498-A IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Kailash & Ors. v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal proceeding under Section 498-A IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Jaspal Singh & Ors. v. Satnam Kaur & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal FIR arising from matrimonial disputes upon amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Siraj Khan @ Sirajuddin & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 452, 323, 506, 427, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
Brijesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement between the parties under its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Harjeet Singh & Anr. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal FIR under the Trade Marks and Copyright Acts based on an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. KARTAR SOLANKI
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal but allowed one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, failing which possession must be returned to original owners.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BISHAN SINGH
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal but allowed one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the LARR Act, failing which possession must be returned to original landowners.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RATHI STEELS LIMITED
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal but granted one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, failing which possession must be returned to the original owner.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. M. SALIM
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal and allowed one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, failing which possession must be returned to original owners.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal, granting it one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, failing which possession must be returned to the original owners.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAMESH MALIK
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal but allowed one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, failing which possession must be returned to original landowners.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. KHUSHI KHAN
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal, directing it to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings within one year or return possession to the original landowners.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAMESH
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal but allowed one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, failing which possession must be returned to the original owner.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJBIR SINGH
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal, allowing one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, failing which possession must be returned to original owners.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAM KUMAR
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal, allowing one year to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act, failing which possession must be returned to original owners.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CHANDER SAIN
The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal, directing it to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings within one year under the 2013 Act or return possession to the original landowners.