Tagged: Delhi High Court

A collection of all the Judgements of Delhi High Court.

DELHI HIGH COURT – IF THE SIGNATURES ON THE CHEQUES ARE ADMITTED BY THE ACCUSED THEN THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ACCUSED THAT THE AMOUNT AND NAME OF THE DRAWEE WERE NOT FILLED IN BY THE ACCUSED DOES NOT HAVE ANY FORCE IN THE EYES OF LAW

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 16.11.2016 If the signatures on the cheques are admitted by the accused, it matters little if the name of the payee, date and amount are filled up at a subsequent point in time and therefore the contention raised by the accused that the amount and name of the Drawee were not filled in by...

DELHI HIGH COURT – A LIFE SENTENCE MEANS THE ACTUAL LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE CONVICT

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 09.11.2016 Life sentence is not limited to either 14 years, or 20 years, or even 25 years. A life sentence means the actual life imprisonment for the entire life of the convict. The same may be curtailed by the State by premature release. However, that is the discretion of the State Government to be...

DELHI HIGH COURT – THE ONUS OF PROVING THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER LIES UPON THE WORKMAN

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 20.09.2016 During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the workman/petitioner was asked to show if there is any document to prove that the petitioner was ever paid any monies by the respondent or any other document to prove that there was an employer–employee relationship between the workman/petitioner and the employer/respondent, but no...

DELHI HIGH COURT – MATERIAL DISCREPANCIES IN STATEMENTS OF PROSECUTRIX – GUILT OF ACCUSED NOT ESTABLISHED – BENEFIT OF DOUBT – ACCUSED ACQUITTED

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 28.07.2016 No injury suffered by prosecutrix – No alarm raised – Possibility of physical relations between prosecutrix and Accused – Material discrepancies in statements of prosecutrix – Guilt of accused not established – Benefit of doubt – accused acquitted. Click Here To View Full Text Of Judgement

DELHI HIGH COURT – THE LITIGATING PARTIES CANNOT ENTER INTO A COMPROMISE WHICH AFFECTS THE INTEREST OF THIRD PARTIES

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 18.03.2016 It is an elementary principle of law that no relief can be granted in a suit against a party not impleaded as a defendant. The litigating parties cannot enter into a compromise which affects the interest of third parties or casts a liability on them. It is the duty of a Judge to...

DELHI HIGH COURT – ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED LEASE DEED IN EVIDENCE

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 30.09.2015 If a lease is not registered then no clause of the lease including the clause stipulating the period of the lease can be enforced. (Para 13) Since the lease deed was neither sufficiently stamped nor registered, the lease-deed is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into for any purpose and no term of...

DELHI HIGH COURT – BREACH OF CONDITIONS OF LEASE ENTITLES OPPOSITE PARTY TO TERMINATE LEASE AND WHERE BREACH IS BY TENANT, LANDLORD GETS RIGHT TO TERMINATE LEASE

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 12.08.2015 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Sections 106 and 111 — Banking Regulations Act, 1949 — Section 44A and Section 45 — Tenancy — Eviction — Assignment of tenancy rights by tenant — Lease-deed prohibits sub-letting/assignment without prior written consent of lessor — Breach of condition of lease entitles opposite party to terminate lease...

DELHI HIGH COURT – SECURITY CHEQUE – THE SECURITY CHEQUE MAY BE ENFORCED IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE OF THE DEBTOR TO PAY THE DEBT OR DISCHARGE OTHER LIABILITY ON THE DUE DATE

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 14.05.2015 It makes no difference whether, or not, there is an express understanding between the parties that the security may be enforced in the event of failure of the debtor to pay the debt or discharge other liability on the due date. Even if there is no such express agreement, the mere fact that the...