Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

G P Chobey v. Ishwar Industries Ltd; K.K Golyan v. Ishwar Industries Ltd

12 Oct 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:4264-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed appeals seeking clarification on whether monetary amounts imposed in a contempt order were fines or costs, stayed the original order, and directed the Single Judge to clarify the nature and consequences of the payments.

civil appeal_allowed Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 12 Contempt Act Section 35A CPC

Nagesh Trading Co. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47-1, Delhi

12 Oct 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:4237-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed reassessment notices issued under Section 148A(b) post-expiry of limitation where an earlier valid notice under unamended Section 148 was served, clarifying the limited applicability of Supreme Court directions in Ashish Agarwal.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 148 Section 148A(b) reassessment notice

SM GD Santosh Kumar and Ors v. Union of India and Ors

12 Oct 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:4224-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the pending pension and seniority claims of petitioner number 2 within a stipulated time, affirming the right to challenge any adverse decision.

administrative other old pension scheme seniority Assistant Commandant government employees

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. LATE ASHOK KUMAR SINGH

12 Oct 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:4182-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that compassionate allowance under Rule 41 CCS Pension Rules is discretionary and may be granted retrospectively from the date of representation but not necessarily from dismissal, modifying the Tribunal's order accordingly.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Compassionate Allowance Rule 41 CCS Pension Rules 1972 Discretionary relief Retrospective grant

Rajpal Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

12 Oct 2022 · Siddharth Mridul; Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2022:DHC:4169-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition challenging the rejection of a police constable's representation against dismissal, holding that no new material or error apparent on record justified review under limited grounds.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant review petition Order 47 Rule 1 CPC Section 114 CPC departmental enquiry

Vipin Garg v. Rajesh Garg

12 Oct 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:4252

The High Court allowed the petitioners to move an application for condonation of delay after their written statement was refused record for lack of extension application, emphasizing procedural fairness under Article 227 CPC jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VIII Rule 1 CPC written statement extension of time condonation of delay

Karuna Nidhan v. Union of India

12 Oct 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:4226-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to decide the petitioner's pending service benefit claims within three months, disposing of the writ petition without adjudicating the substantive issues.

administrative other writ of certiorari writ of mandamus transport allowance deputation allowance

Kush Raj Bhatia v. M/S DLF Power and Services Limited

12 Oct 2022 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2022:DHC:4183

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of arbitrator, holding that the courts at Gurgaon and Chandigarh have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes under the lease deed, clarifying the distinction between seat and venue of arbitration.

civil petition_dismissed Significant arbitration agreement seat of arbitration venue of arbitration jurisdiction clause

V. K. Malhotra v. Union Bank of India & Ors.

12 Oct 2022 · SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM... · 2022:DHC:4160-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of a time-barred charge sheet and pension withholding order against a retired bank officer, remanding the remaining disciplinary matter for fresh consideration while affirming the necessity of criminal conviction for gratuity forfeiture.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings limitation period pension withholding gratuity forfeiture

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Bengaluru-5 v. M/S NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD

12 Oct 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:4235-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision allowing deduction of incidental interest income under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 10A Income Tax Act interest income deduction eligible undertaking profits Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Triumphant Institute of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Times Coaching Centre

12 Oct 2022 · Jyoti Singh · 2022:DHC:4300

The Delhi High Court held that the Plaintiff's dominant trademark feature 'T.I.M.E.' is deceptively similar to the Defendant's 'TIMES' marks, granting injunction against infringement and passing off.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 17

Rajan Sethi v. Sajan Sethi

12 Oct 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:4274
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that the petitioner must construct an additional door to access his share of the second floor as per a final partition decree and cannot use any existing door, reaffirming the limited jurisdiction of executing courts.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant execution of decree partition suit access rights construction of door

S.K. Saraswat & Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

12 Oct 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:4295-DB

The Delhi High Court held that employees entitled under MACPS must receive upgraded pay with arrears and interest from the scheme's notified implementation date or their eligibility date, setting aside the Tribunal's order limiting retrospective payment.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme MACPS financial upgradation retrospective benefits

Vijay Mahajan v. Parvesh Kumar Gupta

12 Oct 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:4273
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that a commercial suit seeking urgent interim relief under CPC is exempt from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, dismissing the petitioner's challenge under Article 227.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12-A pre-institution mediation urgent interim relief Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Management of CPWD v. SH, Narayan Singh

12 Oct 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:4296

The Delhi High Court condoned delay in filing an appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits, staying recovery proceedings meanwhile.

labor appeal_allowed Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 7(7) limitation condonation of delay

Suresh @ Hanumant v. State

12 Oct 2022 · Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal · 2022:DHC:4211-DB

other

Coronation Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd

12 Oct 2022 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2022:DHC:4193

The Delhi High Court held that a sole arbitrator unilaterally appointed in violation of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is de jure ineligible, mandating termination of his mandate and appointment of a substitute arbitrator under Section 14(1).

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) Section 14(1) unilateral appointment

Coronation Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd

12 Oct 2022 · Neena Bansal Krishna J · 2022:DHC:4192

The Delhi High Court held that a Sole Arbitrator appointed unilaterally in violation of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is de jure disqualified, terminated his mandate under Section 14, and appointed a substitute Arbitrator to continue the proceedings.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) Section 14 unilateral appointment

Charan Singh & Anr. v. Shri Phool Singh & Anr.

12 Oct 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:4248

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Article 227 to set aside the closure of evidence order after the petitioner complied with court-imposed costs, granting one final opportunity to complete evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant closure of evidence review application payment of costs adjournment

Rajesh Kathpal v. M/S Thukral Steel Corporation

12 Oct 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3089
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to strike off the respondent's written statement filed within the extended limitation period granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

civil petition_dismissed Significant written statement Order V Rule 11 CPC Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Section 151 CPC