The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, which denied the appellant’s claim for compensation due to a reported shortage of salt bags during transit. The Court affirmed that because the goods were booked at “owner’s risk” with
The High Court of Delhi allowed two petitions seeking to quash cross-FIRs (No. 567/2018 and No. 545/2018) registered at PS Ranhola, following a mutual compromise between the parties who are now living as peaceful neighbors. The Court directed each group to deposit ₹10,000 as a cost with the District Legal
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants against the Trial Court’s common judgment dated December 21, 2015, which had rejected their counter-claims for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated September 29, 1995, and a subsequent compromise dated April 30, 2004. The Court
The Delhi High Court rejected the plaint in CS(OS) 200/2024, finding that the suit, which sought interest on a previously released interest subsidy, was based on an illusory cause of action, barred by the law of limitation, and precluded by the principle of acquiescence. The Court held that the plaintiff,
The High Court of Delhi set aside the order dated May 20, 2026, passed by the Trial Court, which had granted regular bail to the respondent in a case involving serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The High
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Bansal Construction Co. (Appellant) against the judgment dated July 30, 2021, of the Commercial Court, which had partially set aside an arbitral award. The High Court affirmed that the Arbitral Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding claims that were
The Delhi High Court maintained the petitioner’s conviction under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code regarding a 1999 fatal road accident but set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment. Exercising its discretion under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Court directed the petitioner to be