Delhi High Court

30,090 judgments

Year:

Staff Selection Commission v. Darpan Sharma

12 May 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9059-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order directing evaluation of the respondent’s answer sheet despite a technical error in OMR coding, affirming that non-substantive procedural lapses should not bar meritorious candidates from public employment.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant OMR sheet Test Form Number Combined Graduate Level Examination Staff Selection Commission

Laxmi Memorial Public School v. Suresch Chand Gupta

26 Apr 2017 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8312
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the finding that Respondent 1 was an employee of the petitioner school and dismissed the Review Petition challenging this on the ground of overage, reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226.

labor petition_dismissed Significant employment relationship termination without due process judicial review Article 226

Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Ravinder

21 Apr 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1610-DB

Termination of a probationary police officer under Rule 5(1) of the TS Rules without a formal departmental inquiry is stigmatic and illegal, requiring adherence to natural justice principles.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant termination of service temporary government servant probation stigmatic termination

EICORE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. v. EEXPEDISE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

03 Apr 2017 · Jyoti Singh · 2022:DHC:4831
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents discovered post-suit filing under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, while disallowing documents already in plaintiffs' possession without reasonable cause, emphasizing procedural compliance in commercial suits.

civil other Significant Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC reasonable cause additional documents commercial suit

Benara Solar Private Limited v. Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited & Anr.

30 Mar 2017 · Prateek Jalan · 2024:DHC:3025

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award denying contractual incentive for delayed project completion beyond six months, holding that no incentive is payable despite excusable delay and rejecting the petitioner’s plea of duress in accepting a revised incentive scheme.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Contractual incentive Time extension

Bumi Geo Engineering Ltd v. Ircon International Ltd

25 Mar 2017 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:4957
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that service of an arbitral award must be effected directly by the arbitrator to the party, and since valid service occurred only on 25 March 2017, the petition filed thereafter was within limitation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral award service Section 31(5) Arbitration Act Section 34 limitation Valid service of award

Raghunath Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

21 Mar 2017 · V. Kameswar Rao; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2023:DHC:6291-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order granting actual promotion benefits to the petitioner only from the date of the order, rejecting his claim for backdated actual benefits from 2003.

administrative petition_dismissed notional promotion actual benefits Central Administrative Tribunal promotion date

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Rajinder Kumar Modi

21 Mar 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2165-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld that failure to opt out of the CPF scheme under the 1992 Office Order results in automatic switching to the Pension Scheme, entitling the employee to pension benefits.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Contributory Provident Fund Pension Scheme Office Order 27 November 1992 Deemed pension optee

DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED v. SMART LABORATORIES PVT LTD

15 Mar 2017 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8214

The Delhi High Court granted interlocutory injunction to the plaintiff against the defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark AZIWAKE, holding that urgent interim relief was justified and pre-institution mediation was not required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Deceptive similarity Section 12A Commercial Courts Act

EXTRAMARKS EDUCATION INDIA PVT. LTD. v. ST. JOSEPH KINDERGARDEN & ORS.

08 Mar 2017 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5055

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve a dispute arising under an agreement containing an arbitration clause empowering the petitioner to appoint the arbitrator.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) appointment of arbitrator arbitration clause

Union of India v. Ram Singh Yadav & Ors.

23 Feb 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:866-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order granting contract nurses basic pay and DA at par with regular nurses, deferring other allowances pending Supreme Court decision.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant contract nurses pay parity basic pay Dearness Allowance

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Anil Kumar & Ors.

13 Feb 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7866-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court dismissed the MCD's appeal, upholding the Industrial Tribunal's award directing regularisation of muster roll Malis based on binding admissions by the employer's witness and established principles limiting writ court interference.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25-F regularisation muster roll workers

Triad India & Anr. v. Tribal Cooperative Marketing & Development Federation of India Limited

08 Feb 2017 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5923

The Delhi High Court held that Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as inserted by the 2015 Amendment, does not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before the amendment, upholding the validity of the arbitral award despite the arbitrator's relationship with the respondent.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) Section 26 of 2015 Amendment Act Arbitral proceedings commencement

Shri Ramvir Giri and Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

19 Jan 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7905-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's order rejecting regularisation of Chowkidars for failure to consider relevant documents and remanded the matter for fresh expeditious adjudication.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant regularisation daily wager Chowkidar Central Administrative Tribunal

All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Gopal Chandra Sahoo

17 Jan 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:8949-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of disciplinary proceedings against an AIIMS employee due to lack of credible evidence, emphasizing that charges must be proved on a preponderance of probability with credible corroboration.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings preponderance of probability no evidence corroboration

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited v. Union of India; Bard Healthcare India Private Limited v. Union of India

09 Jan 2017 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:3788
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that NPPA's interpretation of Para 20 of DPCO 2013 imposing price freezes and interest from overcharging date is incorrect, affirming manufacturers' right to periodic price increases and limiting interest to default in payment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs (Price Control) Order 2013 Para 20 Maximum Retail Price overcharging

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited v. Union of India; Bard Healthcare India Private Limited v. Union of India

09 Jan 2017 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:3786
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that NPPA cannot deny manufacturers the right to periodic 10% MRP increases after overcharging violations under Para 20 of DPCO 2013, and interest under Section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act is payable only from default in payment, not from the date of overcharging.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs (Price Control) Order 2013 Para 20 Maximum Retail Price overcharging

Unnati Welfare Organisation v. M/S Safety Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

01 Jan 2017 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:3890

The Delhi High Court decreed a summary suit for recovery of ₹4.09 crore with interest based on dishonoured cheques and a personal guarantee, granting injunction over secured property.

civil appeal_allowed Significant summary suit Order XXXVII CPC dishonoured cheque deed of personal guarantee

N C Jindal Public School v. Directorate of Education

14 Dec 2016 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:722
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court set aside the committee's order directing refund of excess development fees, holding that the school lawfully increased fees only from the permitted date and not retrospectively.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant development fee fee hike 6th Central Pay Commission Delhi School Education Act 1973

Chandan Prajapati v. Suresh Kumar Azad

14 Dec 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1486-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's order setting aside disciplinary proceedings for failure to prove documents through witnesses, reaffirming that documents alone cannot establish charges in departmental inquiries.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant departmental disciplinary proceedings proof of documents quasi-judicial inquiry witness testimony