Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Dr Vimla Menon and Another v. Gopinath Menon

25 Apr 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:1765
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s discretion to orally examine parties under Order X CPC to clarify ambiguities in affidavits despite alternate remedies under Order XI Rule 21 CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order X CPC Order XI Rule 21 CPC oral examination of parties interrogatories

Shrutee Exports Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

25 Apr 2022 · Manmohan; Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:1496-DB

Delhi High Court held that assessment orders under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed without granting personal hearing violate natural justice and must be quashed and remanded.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 144B Section 147 natural justice

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD v. M/S J. KUMAR-CRTG JV

25 Apr 2022 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2022:DHC:1504

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award granting partial compensation to the contractor for unforeseen site conditions and employer's delay, rejecting challenges to the award's factual findings and contractual interpretations.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitral award Unforeseen physical conditions Mobilization advance interest Contract interpretation

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD v. M/S J. KUMAR-CRTG JV

25 Apr 2022 · Vibhu Bahkru · 2022:DHC:1505

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award partially allowing contractor's claims for unforeseen conditions and delay compensation, rejecting challenges on interest recovery and remand requests under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Indian Contract Act, 1872 Unforeseen physical conditions

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

25 Apr 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1650

The Delhi High Court directed erection of a boundary wall to prevent encroachments, regulated allotment of temporary shops, mandated baridaars' monthly deposits prior to offerings distribution, and ordered cooperation of government authorities for redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir premises.

administrative other Significant Kalkaji Mandir encroachment boundary wall temporary shops allotment

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

25 Apr 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1653

The Delhi High Court directed erection of a boundary wall to prevent encroachments, regulated allotment of temporary shops, enforced baridaars' financial contributions, and mandated cooperation among authorities for the redevelopment and management of Kalkaji Mandir premises.

administrative other Significant Kalkaji Mandir encroachment boundary wall temporary shops

Neeta Bhardwaj v. Kamlesh Sharma

25 Apr 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1622

The Delhi High Court directed erection of a boundary wall to prevent encroachments at Kalkaji Mandir, regulated allotment of temporary shops, mandated timely financial deposits by baridaars prior to puja distribution, and ordered coordinated efforts for Mandir redevelopment and management.

administrative other Significant Kalkaji Mandir encroachment boundary wall temporary shops allotment

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

25 Apr 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1631

The Delhi High Court directed erection of a boundary wall to prevent encroachments at Kalkaji Mandir, regulated allotment of temporary shops, enforced baridaars' financial contributions, and mandated cooperation among authorities for Mandir redevelopment.

administrative other Significant Kalkaji Mandir encroachment boundary wall temporary shops

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

25 Apr 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1647

The Delhi High Court directs erection of a boundary wall to prevent encroachments, regulates allotment of shops, and mandates timely financial deposits by baridaars to ensure proper administration and redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir.

administrative other Significant Kalkaji Mandir encroachment boundary wall temporary shops allotment

Dr Chandan Kumar Pal v. UPSC

25 Apr 2022 · Najmi Waziri; Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2022:DHC:1764-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that conducting separate interviews for reserved and unreserved categories is illegal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication, allowing the petitioners to challenge the recruitment process despite their participation.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant reservation separate interviews OBC category recruitment process

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

25 Apr 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1638

The Delhi High Court directed erection of a boundary wall to prevent encroachments and regulated allotment and financial contributions for redevelopment and management of Kalkaji Mandir premises.

administrative other Significant Kalkaji Mandir encroachment boundary wall temporary shops

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

25 Apr 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1639

The Delhi High Court directed erection of a boundary wall to prevent encroachments, regulated allotment of temporary shops, and enforced financial contributions by baridaars for the redevelopment and administration of Kalkaji Mandir.

administrative other Significant Kalkaji Mandir encroachment boundary wall temporary shops allotment

Innovators Façade Systems Limited v. Airports Authority of India

25 Apr 2022 · Sanjeev Narula · 2022:DHC:1715
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting claims for extra aluminium consumption, overhead expenses, and loss of opportunity, emphasizing that unilateral extra work claims without consent and contractual undertakings waiving additional claims bar relief under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration Act Extra aluminium consumption Overhead expenses

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

25 Apr 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1591

The Delhi High Court directed erection of a boundary wall to prevent encroachments at Kalkaji Mandir, regulated allotment of temporary shops, enforced baridaars' deposit obligations, and mandated coordinated administrative and police cooperation for redevelopment and management.

administrative other Significant Kalkaji Mandir encroachment boundary wall temporary shops allotment

Shail Shukla v. DDA

25 Apr 2022 · Najmi Waziri, J. · 2022:DHC:1880

The Delhi High Court directed DDA to hand over possession of a reserved plot to the petitioner who paid all dues and withdrew her refund request, holding that allotment rights remain valid despite administrative delays.

property appeal_allowed Significant land allotment Delhi Development Authority refund request withdrawal of refund

Angela Rani Bhasin @ Angela Sharma v. The State & Anr.

24 Apr 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2023:DHC:2874

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from matrimonial disputes under Section 482 CrPC following an amicable settlement between the parties safeguarding minor children's rights.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Manish Kumar v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

22 Apr 2022 · Rajnish Bhatnagar · 2022:DHC:1466

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a serious sexual assault case, emphasizing cooperation with investigation and imposing conditions to prevent witness intimidation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. sexual assault blackmail

Bandana Jain v. Jitin Verma Proprietor Jatin Vermas IAS Academy

22 Apr 2022 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2022:DHC:6034

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of three petitions following an out-of-court settlement between the parties and disposed of the matters accordingly.

civil appeal_dismissed out-of-court settlement withdrawal of petitions disposal of pending applications amicable resolution

Vinod Rathore v. State NCT of Delhi

22 Apr 2022 · Talwant Singh · 2022:DHC:1727

Bail was denied to the petitioner accused of possessing commercial quantity of charas under the NDPS Act, as minor sample weight discrepancies did not prove tampering and stringent bail conditions under Section 37 NDPS were not met.

criminal petition_dismissed NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS commercial quantity bail

Manish Gupta v. The State NCT of Delhi

22 Apr 2022 · Mukta Gupta · 2022:DHC:1668

The Delhi High Court held that a complaint filed by a single member Appropriate Authority appointed for part of the State under the PC&PNDT Act is valid, dismissing petitions seeking quashing of such complaints and upholding the framing of charges.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant PC&PNDT Act Appropriate Authority Section 17(3) Section 28