Delhi High Court
92,628 judgments
Hitesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court set aside the order declaring the petitioner a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82 CrPC for lack of judicial satisfaction and procedural compliance, emphasizing the need for cogent reasons before depriving personal liberty.
Buta Ram and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside CAT orders granting pension benefits for prior Gramin Dak Sevak service, holding such service cannot be counted as qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules, following Supreme Court precedent.
Munna Lal Yadav v. Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of SBI's confirmation test and termination of a blind probationary officer who failed the test, ruling that reservation under the RPwD Act applies at recruitment stage but not mandatorily at confirmation, while emphasizing reasonable accommodation and the advisory nature of CCPwD recommendations.
Munna v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for attempted murder and robbery, rejecting the plea of sudden and grave provocation and affirming the sufficiency of prosecution evidence including victim's testimony and forensic reports.
Karan v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of attempted murder charges due to inconsistent injured witnesses' testimony, delay in naming the accused, and lack of corroborative evidence.
State v. Ram Swaroop & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the acquittal and convicting the accused under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, emphasizing the primacy of the injured witness's testimony despite minor contradictions.
LR no. 1 in person v. Shri Ram Gupta
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's refusal to allow amendment of the written statement after trial commencement, holding that such amendments introducing new facts without due diligence are impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Shivam Pal v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that mere abnormal liver function tests do not justify disqualification from Agniveervayu recruitment unless specific liver conditions are present, directing a re-examination of the petitioner by a competent medical board.
Hemant Kumar & Anr. v. Satya Dev Bharrel & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment of pleadings after trial commencement to determine the controversy on ancestral property claims, setting aside the dismissal of the suit and restoring it for trial.
RCCIVL-RKIPL LLP v. RCC Infraventures Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral interim order directing payment of disputed sums as final relief beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 17, emphasizing strict limits on interim mandatory injunctions and judicial interference under Section 37.
Rajesh v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a candidate released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be disqualified from appointment under AAI service rules for prior conviction, and directed his appointment.
Statcon Electronics India Limited v. M/S Champion Semiconductor LLP
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve contractual disputes arising from a failed product development agreement.
M/S Gupta Traders v. Delhi Transco Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act to adjudicate disputes arising from multiple interlinked purchase orders containing a common arbitration clause, limiting its role to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement and reserving limitation objections for the arbitrator.
Emergy Enviro Private Limited v. CSIR - National Environment Engineering Research Institute
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the Court's role is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement without delving into arbitrability or validity issues.
Mr. Kushagra Pandit v. Harsh Sharma
The Delhi High Court held that a subsequent suit for possession is not barred under Section 10 CPC when the parties and issues differ from an earlier suit challenging family settlement MoUs.
Shabnam Praveen & Ors. v. Axis E-Corp Solution Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding that judicial scrutiny at this stage is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving substantive issues to the arbitral tribunal.
Bhupender Kaur v. Axis E Corp Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding that the Court's role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving merits and arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal.
SI Pardeep Singh v. Bhola Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a counterfeit currency case, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence and the need for prosecution to prove knowledge and intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Siddappa v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition after the respondents agreed to grant Children Education Allowance for the petitioner’s second and third child without adjudicating the merits.
Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. v. Northern Railways
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging rejection of a Section 34 application for setting aside an arbitral award due to delay, holding that sufficient cause for delay must be pleaded and proved, and oral assertions without pleadings are insufficient.