Delhi High Court

99,566 judgments

Year:

Shyam Sunder v. Shikha Arora & Anr.

23 Sep 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:2849

The Delhi High Court clarified that pendency of an Order VII Rule 11 application does not extend the time for filing the written statement under Order VIII CPC and directed strict adherence to procedural timelines.

civil other Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC Order VIII CPC written statement extension of time

Mohit Dahiya v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee

23 Sep 2020 · Jyoti Singh · 2020:DHC:2850

The Delhi High Court held that a temporary trainee appointed under a fixed-term training scheme has no right to continue beyond the maximum tenure or to be replaced only by regular employees, dismissing the petition for continuation of service.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant temporary appointment trainee engineer contractual employee replacement of contractual employee

Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd.

23 Sep 2020 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2020:DHC:2851

The Delhi High Court recalled its dismissal of a Section 34 petition on limitation grounds, holding that initial filing within 120 days governs limitation despite subsequent re-filing due to procedural defects.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 limitation period condonation of delay

Neena Khatry v. Varun Moudgil & Ors.

23 Sep 2020 · Mukta Gupta · 2020:DHC:2842

The Delhi High Court held that time being the essence of a consent decree based on a settlement agreement precludes extension of time for payment and that the settlement agreement itself operates as an irrevocable power of attorney enabling execution of sale deeds upon default.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant consent decree settlement agreement irrevocable power of attorney execution of decree

North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. R. S. Meena

23 Sep 2020 · Siddharth Mridul; Talwant Singh · 2020:DHC:2853-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a tribunal exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot issue directions beyond the express terms of the original order and set aside an interim order directing an ad-hoc appointment as beyond jurisdiction.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 jurisdiction in contempt proceedings interim order promotion and seniority

Jamna Datwani v. Janak Datwani

23 Sep 2020 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2020:DHC:2843

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition alleging non-compliance with a payment order after the respondent proved payment through a mobile application with transaction evidence.

civil petition_dismissed payment order compliance mobile application electronic transaction

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

Dr. Vijender Kumar v. University of Delhi

22 Sep 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:2825

Delhi High Court granted interim relief extending thesis submission deadline for MDS students amid COVID-19, directed refund of late fees, and left substantive legal issues open.

administrative petition_dismissed thesis submission deadline Master of Dental Sciences COVID-19 pandemic interim relief

Sh. Bhim Sain Arora v. Smt Ram Kali Gupta

22 Sep 2020 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2020:DHC:2829

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner additional time to file a written statement in a loan recovery suit, setting aside the trial court's order closing the right to file it, subject to payment of costs.

civil appeal_allowed written statement Order VIII Rule 1 CPC extension of time loan recovery suit

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd.

22 Sep 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:2822-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of an injunction petition restraining encashment of unconditional bank guarantees, holding no egregious fraud or special equities justified interference with the contractual right to invoke BGs.

commercial appeal_dismissed Significant bank guarantees injunction fraud special equities

Prabhat Kumar & Anr v. Anil Modi

22 Sep 2020 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2020:DHC:2828

The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition directing the Trial Court to adjudicate use and occupation charges and damages claims, accepting the respondent's undertaking to clear outstanding dues and vacate the premises.

civil petition_dismissed use and occupation charges vacant possession electricity bill damages to property

Dilawar Singh Rawat v. Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt Ltd & Anr.

22 Sep 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:2833-DB

The Delhi High Court held that no appeal lies against a decree passed by a Single Judge exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, dismissing the Regular First Appeal as not maintainable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India Order XII Rule 6 CPC Section 96 CPC supervisory jurisdiction

Desh Raj Sharma & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

22 Sep 2020 · Suresh Kumar Kait · 2020:DHC:2824
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the parties and the complainants' consent to discontinue prosecution.

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

Gaurav Chaudhary v. Government of India & Ors.

22 Sep 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:2835-DB

The Delhi High Court held that scars alone do not constitute medical disqualification under BSF guidelines unless they impair fitness, directing re-examination and allowing the petitioner to be considered for promotion.

administrative petition_allowed Significant medical disqualification tattoo scar Border Security Force

Dharmander Singh @ Saheb v. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)

22 Sep 2020 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2020:DHC:2838

The Delhi High Court held that the presumption of guilt under section 29 of the POCSO Act arises only after charges are framed and does not bar bail at the pre-charge stage, emphasizing the need to balance statutory presumptions with constitutional rights to liberty and fair trial.

criminal other Significant bail POCSO Act section 29 POCSO presumption of guilt

Tara Genset Engineers Regd. v. M/S Alcott Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.

22 Sep 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2020:DHC:2830

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under the parties' arbitration agreement and directed compliance with disclosure requirements under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

other other arbitration clause appointment of arbitrator Section 12 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 disclosure by arbitrator

Harper Collins Publishers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanchita Gupta @ Shilpi & Ors.

22 Sep 2020 · Najmi Waziri · 2020:DHC:2834

The Delhi High Court upheld an ex parte injunction restraining publication of a book containing allegedly defamatory material against a convicted accused whose appeal was pending, balancing freedom of speech with the right to reputation and fair trial.

civil appeal_allowed Significant pre-publication injunction defamation freedom of speech right to reputation

Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India

22 Sep 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2020:DHC:2831

The Delhi High Court granted a twelve-month extension to the Sole Arbitrator to complete arbitration proceedings and render the award under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 29A extension of time arbitration proceedings

Bhagwan v. Union of India & Ors.

22 Sep 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:2836-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the BSF transfer order, holding that administrative transfers without mala fide or rule violation are not subject to judicial interference.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant transfer order BSF Posting Rules mala fide transfer disciplinary proceedings

Amrik Singh v. NCT of Delhi & Anr.

22 Sep 2020 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2020:DHC:2826

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, holding that mere physical presence of ammunition without conscious knowledge or control does not constitute possession.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Arms Act, 1959 Section 25 possession conscious possession