Delhi High Court

99,566 judgments

Year:

M/S MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S SEEDWILL CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED

09 Nov 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2020:DHC:3217

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of an arbitration petition with liberty to re-approach after attempting amicable resolution as per the contract.

arbitration appeal_dismissed arbitration petition withdrawal of petition amicable resolution contractual dispute resolution

Gulam Jilani v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

09 Nov 2020 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2020:DHC:3962

Delhi High Court upheld robbery convictions under Section 392 IPC but reduced sentences, emphasizing reliable witness identification and procedural fairness.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery identification parade TIP Section 392 IPC

Deepak Wankhede v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency & Ors.

09 Nov 2020 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2020:DHC:3225

The Delhi High Court held that contracts of personal service through outsourcing agencies cannot be specifically enforced via writ petitions and dismissed the petition seeking reinstatement of a driver terminated on contract grounds.

labor petition_dismissed Significant contract of personal service specific performance Specific Relief Act 1963 termination of service

Waquar Akbar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

09 Nov 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3224-DB

Delhi High Court dismissed petition challenging BSF's Physical Efficiency Test standards at high-altitude Shillong, holding no entitlement to extra time and no discrimination in recruitment process.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Physical Efficiency Test Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Border Security Force High altitude

Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. Derco Foods

09 Nov 2020 · Rajiv Shakdher, J. · 2020:DHC:3212

The Delhi High Court held that the arbitration agreement in the seller contracts governed by California law and JAMS rules remains valid despite execution of DCUs, and directed parties to proceed with arbitration, dismissing the suit seeking injunction against arbitration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration agreement Section 45 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Order VII Rule 11 CPC declaration cum undertaking

Nadeem Ansari and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others

09 Nov 2020 · Suresh Kumar Kait · 2020:DHC:3210

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from a matrimonial dispute following an amicable settlement between the parties and the complainant's decision not to prosecute further.

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

M/S UNITED NEWS OF INDIA v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, DELHI (CENTRAL)

09 Nov 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:3208

Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte EPFO assessment order due to inadequate notice and directed fresh hearing with improved procedural safeguards.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant ex-parte order Section 14B EPF Act pre-deposit natural justice

Rajender Kumar v. Dy. Labour Commissioner & Anr.

09 Nov 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:3207

The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a minimum wages claim for delay without consideration of sufficient cause, remanding the matter for fresh consideration under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Section 20 condonation of delay limitation

Kaushalpati Pandey v. New India Ass. Co. Ltd.

09 Nov 2020 · Najmi Waziri · 2020:DHC:3974

The Delhi High Court held that absence of a valid fitness certificate at the time of accident is a fundamental breach entitling the insurer to repudiate the claim and recover compensation paid, overruling contrary High Court precedents.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant fitness certificate motor vehicles act insurance contract fundamental breach

Chander Shekhar v. State NCT of Delhi

09 Nov 2020 · Vibhu Bakhru, J. · 2020:DHC:3205
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case, holding that investigation can be complete without the chemical examiner’s report and affirming the petitioner’s entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 50 NDPS default bail Section 167(2) CrPC

Gulam Jilani @ Kallu v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

09 Nov 2020 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2020:DHC:3204

Delhi High Court upheld robbery convictions under Section 392 IPC, rejected procedural and identification challenges, but reduced sentence considering mitigating factors.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC identification parade TIP refusal

Kushil Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

09 Nov 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3203-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a delayed petition challenging medical disqualification in CAPF recruitment but allowed a one-time opportunity for review if the petitioner promptly appeared before the Review Medical Board.

administrative other medical fitness review medical board recruitment procedural delay

M/S Chesons Enterprises v. M/S Cadiz Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

09 Nov 2020 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2020:DHC:3215
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The High Court correctly dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order in a cheque dishonour case, holding that disputed factual issues must be decided at trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 139 NI Act presumption Section 482 CrPC inherent powers Cheque dishonour

Sandeep Jolly & Anr. v. State & Anr.

09 Nov 2020 · Suresh Kumar Kait · 2020:DHC:3209

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings based on amicable settlement between parties, imposing costs on petitioners to compensate public resources.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR amicable settlement cost imposition public resources

Dharmendra Tripathi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

09 Nov 2020 · Suresh Kumar Kait · 2020:DHC:3211

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the parties and the complainant's non-objection.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 482 CrPC inherent powers

WG. CDR. JITENDRA SINGH SANGWAN v. DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR.

09 Nov 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3223-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that promotion cannot be granted without fulfilling or relaxing statutory eligibility criteria but directed the BSF to consider the petitioner's request for relaxation in a time-bound manner.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Departmental Promotion Committee Border Security Force Flying hours requirement Recruitment Rules relaxation

Nishant v. Union of India & Ors.

09 Nov 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3222-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the discretion of the Armed Forces Medical Services in rejecting a candidate's request for a Review Medical Board, affirming the primacy of official medical opinions in recruitment fitness decisions.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Medical Board Appeal Medical Board Review Medical Board Discretionary power

New Morning Star Travels v. Volkswagen Finance Private Limited

09 Nov 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:3221

The Delhi High Court set aside ex parte orders disposing Section 9 petitions without notice and hearing, emphasizing strict adherence to natural justice and proper standards before granting coercive interim relief involving vehicle seizure.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act interim relief ex parte orders appointment of receiver

Mansarover Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, Ward-16(1)

09 Nov 2020 · Manmohan; Sanjeev Narula · 2020:DHC:3214-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Assessing Officer to decide the petitioner’s pending tax refund applications by a reasoned order within twelve weeks after hearing, ensuring procedural compliance under the Income Tax Act.

tax other Procedural Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 244A refund claim Assessment Year 2008-09

S.M. Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-22(1)

09 Nov 2020 · Manmohan; Sanjeev Narula · 2020:DHC:3213-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Income Tax Officer to decide the petitioner’s pending refund claims under the Income Tax Act, 1961 by a reasoned order within twelve weeks, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.

tax other Income Tax Act, 1961 refund claim Section 244A Section 143(1)