Delhi High Court
27,673 judgments
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer
The Supreme Court held that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Haryana VAT Act by modifying final assessment orders without valid grounds, allowing the appeal and restoring the original orders.
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer
The Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised despite availability of statutory remedies when revisional authorities act without jurisdiction, setting aside illegal tax revisional orders and restoring original assessments.
Pragati Path Educational Foundation’s Millennium National School v. Central Board of Secondary Education
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner-school access to the SARAS portal, holding that incorrect debarment status without formal disaffiliation must be rectified pending adjudication of a show cause notice.
Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Sgt Kalesh M
The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising during service are attributable to military service unless the employer proves otherwise.
Naim Ahmad v. State (State of NCT of Delhi)
The court acquitted the appellant of rape charges, holding that consent obtained by a false promise of marriage must be proven to be deceitful from the outset to constitute rape under Sections 375 and 376 IPC.
Neeta Kumari v. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURENANCE CO LTD & ANR
The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a death compensation claim under the Employee’s Compensation Act for non-compliance with court directions and remanded the matter for fresh evidence and decision on merits.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v. Infinity Infoway Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interlocutory injunctions restraining defendants from using marks deceptively similar to the registered trademark 'SHRINATH', while rejecting injunction against a dissimilar mark, emphasizing phonetic similarity and likelihood of confusion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Union of India & Ors. v. WO Balvir Singh (Retd)
The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s grant of disability pension for primary hypertension, holding that the Release Medical Board failed to prove the condition was not attributable to military service.
Union of India & Ors. v. Surg Capt Rajveender Singh Mallhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming the presumption that disabilities developing during service are service-related unless disproved by the employer.
Master Vansh Rathor v. Maharaja Agrasen Model School and Anr
The Delhi High Court directed admission of an EWS student in Class II after the academic year ended, rejecting the school's objection based on an unconsidered representation against the seat matrix.
Delhi Government v. Ritu Ram
The Supreme Court clarified that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed under the 2013 Act only if possession was not taken and compensation not paid for five years before 2014, setting aside the High Court's contrary order.
Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Pruthi & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act do not fail merely due to non-possession caused by a court stay if compensation is paid, overruling earlier precedent and allowing the appeal of Delhi Development Authority.
Delhi Vikas Pradhikaran v. Diwan Chand Pruthi
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was prevented by court injunction or compensation was paid, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Delhi Development Authority v. Nemchand Sharma & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act do not lapse if possession of land is taken, even if compensation is unpaid, overruling earlier precedent to clarify the interpretation of 'or' in the statute.
Delhi NCT Government v. Ratitram and Ors.
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not lapse if possession is taken even without payment of compensation, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Delhi NCT Government v. Ratiram & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition does not lapse if either possession is taken or compensation is paid within five years, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Rashtriya Rajdhani Kshetra Delhi Sarkar v. Rituram
The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, acquisition lapses only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid for five years or more, overruling earlier contrary precedent and allowing the appeal.
Indore Development Authority v. Manohara & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings initiated before the 2013 Act but completed after its commencement are governed by Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, ensuring compensation rights are preserved even if possession was taken post-2014.
Delhi Vikas Pradhikaran v. Shyam
The Supreme Court held that acquisition under the 1894 Act does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken, even if compensation was unpaid, and set aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
Delhi Development Authority v. Nemchand Sharma & Ors.
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act lapse only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid, allowing the Delhi Development Authority's appeal and setting aside the High Court's order.