Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Putul Kumar v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under Section 304 Part I IPC and Section 34 IPC, affirming that common intention and joint liability apply where multiple accused jointly cause death in a sudden quarrel.
Neeraj @ Kashi v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Neeraj @ Kashi by referring to a detailed common judgment in a related case.
Pradeep Aggarwal v. State
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the criminal appeal of Pradeep Aggarwal in terms of a common detailed judgment delivered in a related appeal.
Ranjeet @ Bihari v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for robbery under Sections 392 and 397 IPC based on reliable testimony of a police official, rejecting accused's challenges including non-recovery of weapon and juvenile plea, and dismissed their appeals.
Deepak Rai v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a man for raping a five-year-old girl, affirming that the sole credible testimony of a child witness corroborated by medical and scientific evidence suffices for conviction under Section 376 IPC.
Sadhna Gupta v. Shish Pal
The Delhi High Court held that the right to claim enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is assignable and enforceable by the assignee in execution proceedings, dismissing the appeal challenging the executing court's rejection of a disputed assignment deed.
Motilal Vora v. Subramanian Swamy
The Delhi High Court set aside trial court orders summoning documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for lack of notice, hearing, and failure to record necessity, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and procedural safeguards.
Rajesh Sondhi v. State
Delhi High Court granted Letters of Administration with Will to the sole beneficiary for agricultural property, holding it had jurisdiction and exempting the petitioner from furnishing Administration Bond.
Motilal Vora v. Subramanian Swamy
The Delhi High Court held that orders summoning documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. must record necessity and desirability and comply with natural justice by giving notice and hearing to affected parties, setting aside impugned orders passed without such compliance.
Motilal Vora v. Subramanian Swamy
The Delhi High Court held that orders summoning documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. must be preceded by notice and hearing to the affected party and require judicial satisfaction of necessity and desirability, setting aside non-speaking orders passed without such compliance.
Motilal Vora v. Subramanian Swamy
The Delhi High Court held that orders summoning documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. must be preceded by notice and hearing to the affected party and require judicial satisfaction of necessity and desirability, setting aside impugned orders passed without such safeguards.
Motilal Vora v. Subramanian Swamy
The Delhi High Court set aside trial court orders summoning documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for lack of notice and failure to record necessity, emphasizing the mandatory application of natural justice in criminal proceedings.
State v. Lakshmi Khandelwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the discharge of accused from charges under Section 498A IPC due to lack of specific allegations or material indicating cruelty related to dowry demands.
M/S M M HEALTHCRE LTD v. P K CHAUHAN
The court held that in summary suits under Order 37 CPC, the application for leave to defend must be adjudicated before considering any stay under Section 10 CPC, and remanded the matter for such adjudication.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Pramod Kumar
The Delhi High Court held that an employee declared essential and directed to occupy allotted government quarters must comply, and failure to do so justifies disciplinary action and forfeiture of HRA.
Bharat Bhushan Bajaj & Ors. v. J S Mehta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of the plaint dismissal application, holding that disputed ownership cannot be decided at the plaint stage and the suit for possession must proceed.
Gurcharan Singh v. J S Mehta
The Delhi High Court held that a plaint disclosing a cause of action cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s title or alleges frivolousness.
Prem Gaba v. Pinki
The High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal, quashing the trial court's dismissal of an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for possession, emphasizing that clear admissions in pleadings suffice for summary judgment in tenancy disputes.
Deepak Tyagi & Ors v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of possession disputes.
Virender Singh and Ors v. GNCT of Delhi and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that compensation under the 1894 Act is deemed paid under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act only when it is tendered and deposited in court, and since this was not done, the acquisition proceedings were declared lapsed.