Delhi High Court

28,224 judgments

Year:

Janak Raj v. Delhi Development Authority

01 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:855-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that disciplinary proceedings under CCS (Pension) Rules are not barred by limitation if instituted within four years of discovering misconduct and should not be quashed prematurely on arguable limitation grounds.

administrative other Significant disciplinary proceedings limitation period Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Rule 9(2)(b)(ii)

J.B.C.G. Advisory Services Private Limited & Ors. v. Sammaan Capital Limited Formerly Known As Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited & Anr.

30 Mar 2019 · C. Hari Shankar

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Tripartite and Loan Agreements and referred the related application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for expeditious resolution.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 application Appointment of arbitrator Tripartite Agreement

Sanjeet Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

29 Mar 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:9105-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court set aside the cancellation of candidature without a show cause notice and directed issuance of notices and reasoned orders, ensuring adherence to natural justice and uniform treatment of similarly situated candidates.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant cancellation of candidature unfair means show cause notice principles of natural justice

Antique Art Export Pvt Ltd v. United India Insurance Company Limited

28 Mar 2019 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2023:DHC:1376
Cites 4 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions for appointment of an arbitrator on the ground of res judicata, upholding the Supreme Court's prior final judgment that no arbitrable dispute subsists between the parties under the insurance policies.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act appointment of arbitrator res judicata arbitrable dispute

Pranav Ansal v. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited

25 Mar 2019 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2023:DHC:3565
Cites 8 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award by holding that the arbitration clause in the Debenture Subscription Agreement was validly incorporated into the Deed of Personal Guarantee and survived novation by the Debenture Purchase Agreement, affirming the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal and the liability of guarantors.

commercial appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration Agreement Incorporation by Reference Debenture Subscription Agreement Debenture Purchase Agreement

TEEMS INDIA TOWERLINES PRIVATE LIMITED v. POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ANR.

25 Mar 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5140

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under a tripartite agreement to resolve payment disputes, affirming arbitration rights despite non-party status to principal contracts and emphasizing adherence to pre-arbitral protocols.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 12 Section 21

DSSSB v. Mohan Lal Chhedwal

25 Mar 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:9622-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's order directing DSSSB to consider a candidate's appointment despite delay in e-dossier submission, due to failure to inform him of shortlisting by SMS/email as mandated.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant shortlisting e-dossier strict compliance notice communication

M. Madhu Sudhana Reddy v. Union of India

11 Mar 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2744-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court directed the CRPF authorities to decide the petitioner’s application for withdrawal of resignation under Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, emphasizing that only a formal communicated order can confer legal rights, not tentative file notings.

administrative other Significant withdrawal of resignation Rule 26(4) CCS Pension Rules file notings final order

Sohan Lal v. Department of Personnel and Training

26 Feb 2019 · V. Kameswar Rao; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2023:DHC:6406-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the medical classification of the petitioner under locomotor disability, upholding the Tribunal's order and emphasizing adherence to competent medical reports for disability categorization in Civil Services Examination.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant multiple disability locomotor disability medical board Civil Services Examination

Shashi Mohan v. Union of India and Ors.

21 Feb 2019 · V. Kameswar Rao; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2023:DHC:3339-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court remanded the challenge to disciplinary actions issued by officials holding look-after charge of Director General, directing the Tribunal to decide their jurisdiction before proceeding.

administrative remanded Significant look-after charge disciplinary authority charge sheet suspension order

Yogesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Central Board of Secondary Education

01 Feb 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:3445

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging a CTET question as out of syllabus, holding that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with final answer keys unless there is a manifest error.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant CTET CBSE environmental studies syllabus final answer key

NIF Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks

08 Jan 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8716

The Delhi High Court held that trademark rejection orders must be reasoned and provide an opportunity of hearing, quashing unreasoned orders and remanding the application for fresh consideration.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Rule 36(1) Trade Marks Rules, 2017 unreasoned order natural justice

Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors v. Union of India

31 Dec 2018 · Yashwant Varma; Dharmesh Sharma · 2023:DHC:8216-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a TRU circular classifying polypropylene bags as plastics for lack of statutory authority, leaving classification to competent authorities.

tax petition_allowed Significant Tax Research Unit Section 168 CGST Act Customs Tariff Act classification polypropylene bags

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Fast Cure Pharma and Anr.

23 Dec 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:7541

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to cancel and remove the deceptively similar trademark “RAZOFAST” registered after the petitioner’s prior mark “RAZO” under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 57 Section 11(1)(b) trademark infringement

Narender Kumar v. Union of India

12 Dec 2018 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:3160-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal's dismissal of a disciplinary challenge for lack of merit consideration and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings Central Civil Services Rules natural justice judicial review

Union of India v. Promila Sawhney

06 Dec 2018 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5047-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court upheld the entitlement of a government employee to interest on delayed gratuity payment, affirming Tribunal jurisdiction and rejecting limitation and maintainability objections, while issuing notice on the rate and period of interest.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant gratuity interest on delayed payment terminal benefits Central Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction

Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt Ltd

28 Nov 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:1375

An appeal filed on behalf of a missing litigant without his knowledge or authorization post-judgment is incompetent and must be dismissed.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant appeal authorization Vakalatnama missing litigant

Soni v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr.

26 Nov 2018 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1510-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a candidate is bound by the social status declared in the latest application submitted for a recruitment process and cannot claim a different category declared in an earlier cancelled examination.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant social status declaration OBC category recruitment advertisement fresh application

State of West Bengal v. Mrs Vipasha Parul & Ors.

01 Nov 2018 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:389-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order allowing an Indian Forest Service officer's inter-cadre transfer on the ground of marriage, affirming that discretion lies with the officers and shortage of cadre officers is not a valid ground for denial.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant inter-cadre transfer Indian Forest Service Rule 5(2) Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 marriage

Alubuild Engineers Pvt Ltd v. Neo Developers Pvt Ltd

08 Oct 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5715
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing arbitration under DIAC, holding that unilateral appointment clauses are unworkable as per Supreme Court precedents.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12(2) unilateral appointment of arbitrator