Delhi High Court

29,163 judgments

Year:

M. Madhu Sudhana Reddy v. Union of India

11 Mar 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2744-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 9

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 2

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

Shubhash Chandra & Ors. v. Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

01 Oct 2018 · C. Hari Shankar; Amit Sharma · 2025:DHC:4447-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that long-serving daily wage Chowkidars engaged against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization despite cutoff date policies, quashing the Tribunal's dismissal and directing their immediate regularization.

labor appeal_allowed Significant regularization daily wage employees leave substitute Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Veena Rani

28 Sep 2018 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:64-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the entitlement of a long-serving Assistant Teacher to MACP benefits despite procedural lapses in service book entries and absence of evidence of refusal of promotion.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme service book educational qualifications

Harish Kumar v. Union of India

28 Sep 2018 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1064-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was directly employed by the respondent and quashing the Tribunal's dismissal of his claim based on unsubstantiated outsourcing.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant direct employment contractual employment outsourcing Central Administrative Tribunal

Athira S. v. Union of India & Ors.

26 Sep 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:1635
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that a B.Sc. degree in Physics satisfies the broad eligibility criteria for admission to the M.Des. course and quashed the institute’s cancellation of the petitioner’s admission and withholding of her degree.

administrative petition_allowed Significant eligibility criteria admission cancellation provisional admission related programme

Rajat v. The Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment Government of India

22 Sep 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:3631

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging admission stream changes due to the petitioner's suppression of facts and unclean hands, denying relief under Article 226.

constitutional petition_dismissed Article 226 writ petition suppression of facts clean hands doctrine

Saket Shukla & Anr. v. Santanu Roy & Anr.

21 Sep 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act to appoint an arbitrator and prima facie included a non-signatory investor as a party to arbitration, holding insolvency proceedings do not bar jurisdiction.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(5) Section 21 notice Non-signatory party

Petronet LNG Limited v. Afcons Infrastructure Limited

14 Sep 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:4990
Cites 1 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court directed the petitioner to secure 100% of the arbitral award amount by deposit and bank guarantee during the pendency of the Section 34 challenge, modifying an earlier interim order for 70% deposit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitral award Section 34 challenge deposit of awarded amount interim stay