Delhi High Court
63,002 judgments
Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. Scaria and Mr. Apoorv Srivastava, Advocates v. THE STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI) & ORS
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking regular parole to file a Special Leave Petition, holding that parole is discretionary and must consider the convict’s conduct, threat to witnesses, and availability of custody parole.
Nagmani Singh v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking Old Pension Scheme benefits as the issue was already decided by a government Office Memorandum and prior court judgment.
Jai Prakash @ Montu & Ors. v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings under Sections 323/324/34 IPC based on a voluntary settlement between the parties under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Prakash v. State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged assault causing injuries, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation and non-tampering with evidence.
Premium Estates Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside the order and notice under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to procedural lapses including delayed notice and lack of real-time alert, directing the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh with a personal hearing.
Bank of Baroda v. Naseem Ahmed
The Delhi High Court set aside a Labour Court award directing automatic absorption of a temporary peon beyond the terms of reference, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory provisions and settlement conditions.
Bimla Chopra & Anr. v. Kuldeep
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal in a possession suit, holding that the plaintiff with a better title than a licensee is entitled to possession despite absence of registered sale deed, applying Section 116 Indian Evidence Act and clarifying res judicata does not bar civil title suits following eviction proceedings.
Rajendra Kashyap & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Delhi High Court quashed Look-Out Circulars against petitioners for loan defaults, holding LOCs valid only in cognizable offences and requiring periodic review by originating agencies.
Amitesh Grover v. National School of Drama
The Delhi High Court held that absence of performance sheets or recorded reasons does not invalidate a selection process unless mandated by law, and upheld the appointment of Amitesh Grover as Assistant Professor at NSD.
Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking Old Pension Scheme benefits as the issue was already settled by a government office memorandum and prior judicial ruling.
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ashok Kumar
The Delhi High Court held that continuity of service granted under a settlement must be counted for gratuity computation despite waiver of back wages, dismissing the employer's petition challenging gratuity payment for the intervening period.
Naresh Kumar v. The Chairman, Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to reckon service and seniority from the date of offer of appointment after a long delay, holding that settled seniority reckoned from the date of joining cannot be disturbed without satisfactory explanation for delay.
Inderpal Singh Sayan v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department
The Delhi High Court set aside an income tax assessment order for breach of natural justice as the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity to respond before finalization.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi v. East Point Education Society
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) cannot invoke revisional powers under Section 263 merely due to disagreement with the Assessing Officer's considered order accepting exemption claims.
M/S Engineering Projects (India) Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 does not apply to composite works contracts involving transfer of goods and services, setting aside the demand confirmed against the petitioner.
HSIL LTD v. MANISH VIJ & ORS
The Delhi High Court held that while a party has the right to lead rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC even if not reserved earlier, an undertaking not to lead further evidence is binding, but the Court may allow limited additional evidence in the interest of justice subject to costs.
Dr. Millie Murmu v. Shri Ved Prakash Badola
The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition after the respondent withdrew an inadvertently passed order and the petitioner withdrew part of the petition, negating the basis for contempt.
Pitam Goel v. Radhey Shyam
The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s order closing defence evidence without considering a pending summoning application, directing examination of specified witnesses to protect the petitioner’s right to lead evidence.
M/S PIYARE LAL HARI SINGH BUILDERS PVT. LTD. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court set aside the service tax demand on composite works contracts under Clauses (zzq) and (zzzh) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that such clauses apply only to pure service contracts and not composite contracts involving goods.
Sunil Kumar Mann v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging a duly served dismissal order and allowed withdrawal with liberty to file a representation for relief.