Delhi High Court

35,797 judgments

Year:

Hari Dev Acharya @ Pranavanand & Ors. v. State

12 Nov 2020 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2021:DHC:3576
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the summoning of petitioners for failure to report child sexual abuse under Section 21 POCSO Act, holding that joint trial with the main accused for offences committed in the same transaction is permissible.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act Section 21 POCSO failure to report offence joint trial

Hari Dev Acharya @ Pranavanand & Ors. v. State

12 Nov 2020 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2021:DHC:3577
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the summoning of accused for failure to report child sexual offences, holding that joint trial of related offences within the same transaction is permissible and knowledge of the offence is essential for liability under Section 21 POCSO Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act Section 21 POCSO failure to report offence joint trial

M/S I.S. ENTERPRISES v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR.

12 Nov 2020 · VIPIN SANGHI; JASMEET SINGH · 2021:DHC:3259-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a tender condition providing only preference for a certificate cannot justify bid rejection, and that consortium bids are invalid unless expressly permitted, directing re-evaluation of bids to ensure fairness and transparency.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant tender process technical responsiveness consortium bidding level playing field

Venkateshwara Open University v. University Grants Commission

10 Nov 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:901

The Delhi High Court held that Venkateshwara Open University is a Dual Mode University under UGC Regulations and can offer distance education courses only with prior UGC approval, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to UGC communications.

administrative appeal_dismissed Open University Dual Mode University University Grants Commission Open and Distance Learning

MS Anju Chawla & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

03 Nov 2020 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8036-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order setting aside a seniority list that contravened the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Meghachandra Singh, reaffirming that seniority must be fixed from the date of joining the post and overruling reliance on the earlier Parmar decision.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant seniority direct recruitment promotion Principal cadre

CELSIUS HEALTHCARE PVT LTD v. DEEPTI GAMBHIR PROPRIETOR OF S P DISTRIBUTORS

01 Nov 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6816

The Delhi High Court held that where a valid arbitration agreement exists and the petition is timely filed, the court must refer disputes to arbitration without examining the merits or existence of an arbitrable dispute.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 21 notice Arbitration agreement

Rajat Joon v. Central Board of Secondary Education

21 Oct 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:218
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court directed CBSE to correct the petitioner’s parents’ names in Class X and XII certificates in accordance with a subsisting court decree declaring his parentage.

civil petition_allowed Significant parentage declaration certificate correction CBSE court decree

GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS v. RAM TIRTH SHARMA

19 Oct 2020 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8285-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Tribunal's order directing payment of interest on delayed retiral dues, rejecting the plea of res judicata and emphasizing prompt compliance by public authorities.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant retiral dues interest on delayed payment Central Administrative Tribunal res judicata

Amar Singh v. State

12 Oct 2020 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Aniruddha Bose; Krishnamurari
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused of murder due to unreliable eyewitness testimony, investigative lapses, and contradictions creating reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant single eyewitness testimony reasonable doubt Section 302 IPC murder conviction

KONE ELEVATOR INDIA PVT LTD v. MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

09 Oct 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5986

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the Court’s role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator, leaving all substantive disputes including arbitrability and limitation to the arbitral tribunal.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointment of arbitrator arbitrability Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Pink City Expressway Private Limited v. National Highway Authority of India & Anr.

07 Oct 2020 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:2228

The Delhi High Court held that extension of the concession period under Article 29 is not automatic and requires approval, dismissing the petition seeking interim relief to operate toll plazas beyond the approved period.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Concession Agreement Article 29 extension National Highway Authority of India BOT project

Aftab Alam v. Jamia Millia Islamia

01 Oct 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:2414

The Delhi High Court quashed the cancellation of a Ph.D. registration where the university failed to follow prescribed procedures and had previously permitted the scholar’s employment.

academic/administrative petition_allowed Significant Ph.D. registration cancellation Ordinance IX Jamia Millia Islamia in-service scholar Board of Studies discretion

MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD v. KK ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH VIRAL KIRIT KUMAR DOSHI AND ANR

01 Oct 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5561

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve a loan dispute governed by a valid arbitration agreement, holding service by email valid and the dispute prima facie arbitrable.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Appointment of arbitrator Arbitration agreement

Dalip Singh v. Jaswant Rai Garg

29 Sep 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5048

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition for appointment of arbitrator as premature for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-arbitration amicable settlement protocol under the parties' agreement.

arbitration petition_dismissed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) pre-arbitration protocol amicable settlement

Dr SK Tyagi v. Agriculture Scientist Recruitment Board & Ors.

23 Sep 2020 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1864-DB

The Delhi High Court held that delay in submission of vigilance clearance after the application deadline cannot justify rejection of a timely submitted application and directed the petitioner to be interviewed for the post of Director, CIPHET.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant vigilance clearance No Objection Certificate Agriculture Scientist Recruitment Board ICAR

M/S Ram Gopal Agrawal v. Union of India through Northern Railway Moradabad

10 Sep 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming that the Court's role is limited to verifying the arbitration agreement's existence and leaving other disputes to the arbitral tribunal.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 21 Section 12(2)

Aditya Lal Vallath v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Anr.

09 Sep 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:1174

The Delhi High Court held that weekly offs and gazetted holidays must be excluded from leave calculations during DNB training, quashing the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature and restoring his examination results.

administrative petition_allowed Significant DNB training leave entitlement weekly off exclusion gazetted holidays

Union of India v. Ex WO Hira Lal Prasad

03 Sep 2020 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2923-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 8

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension, affirming limited writ jurisdiction and upholding service connection despite onset at peace stations.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Armed Forces Tribunal Article 226 writ jurisdiction

Raj Kumar Sharma v. Sandeep Kumar

31 Aug 2020 · C. Hari Shankar
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the registration of the "PIZZA GALLERIA" mark was deceptively similar to an earlier device mark application and ordered rectification with a geographic disclaimer restricting use in the district of Rewari.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 11(1)(b) Section 11(4) rectification