Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Rita Gupta v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
Chanchal Mittal v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
M/S DELHI HOUSE SOCIETY (REGD.) v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years before the 2013 Act's commencement.
Ashok Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
Narinder Nath v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award, even if the award predates the 2013 Act.
Suresh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation is made for over five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.
Sudesh Goel v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
Rajnish Kumar Singla and Anr v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years of the award.
MIP METRO v. WESTFIELD RETAIL PVT. LTD.
Delhi High Court held that a foreign trademark holder carrying on business through a liaison office and group companies in Delhi has territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to sue for trademark infringement.
Sheela Sharma v. Mahendra Pal
The Delhi High Court held that a cash loan, even if violating Income Tax provisions, is enforceable and a dishonoured cheque issued in discharge of such loan attracts penal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Anil Bajaj v. Nand Lal
The Delhi High Court accepted the parties' lawful compromise in a civil dispute, disposed of the appeals accordingly, and directed release of the fixed deposit and refund of court fees.
Rajinder Singh Rana v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The Delhi High Court dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Rajinder Singh Rana for non-prosecution due to his absence at the hearing.
Vijay Chhabra v. Registrar Co-operative Societies
The Delhi High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging cooperative society orders after parties executed a binding settlement agreement modifying the impugned orders.
Ravindra Nathdass v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner declared a proclaimed offender in a criminal case arising from a civil dispute over sale of property, emphasizing the primacy of civil remedies and absence of criminal intent.
Prem v. The State
Anticipatory bail granted to accused after completion of investigation and their cooperation, with conditions to prevent witness tampering.
Smt. Shashi Bala Nagpal v. Sh. Rama Kant Shah
The Delhi High Court allowed the second appeal restoring the trial court's decree for possession and mesne profits in favor of the appellant, holding that pre-2001 unregistered documents confer rights under Section 53A and Section 202, and that acquisition by the Government does not affect possession rights absent physical possession.
Ajay & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal FIR under Sections 308/34 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.
S. S. Bhutani v. M/S Panja Sahib Chit Funds Pvt Ltd and Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a delayed second appeal challenging winding up of a chit fund company, holding that only the company court has jurisdiction under the Madras Chit Funds Act and that vague reasons do not justify condonation of delay.
Nalin Soni & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable criminal FIR arising from matrimonial disputes under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following an amicable settlement between the parties.
Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta Through His LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no easement of necessity exists over government property when a sanctioned alternative access is available and the statutory period of use is not proved.