Delhi High Court

99,566 judgments

Year:

Neeraj alias Nagar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

28 Jul 2020 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2020:DHC:2394

The Delhi High Court granted parole to a convict with good jail conduct for one month to file a Special Leave Petition challenging his conviction and sentence enhancement.

criminal petition_allowed parole Section 326 IPC Section 304 IPC Special Leave Petition

BEOWORLD PVT. LTD v. BANG & OLUFSEN EXPANSION

28 Jul 2020 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2020:DHC:2400

The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff had no indefeasible right to renew the Master Dealer Agreement, the contract was determinable, and vacated the interim injunction due to the plaintiff's failure to furnish the required bank guarantee.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Master Dealer Agreement renewal clause specific performance determinable contract

Raunak & Anr. v. State & Ors.

28 Jul 2020 · Suresh Kumar Kait · 2020:DHC:2395

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

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR amicable settlement compromise deed Section 482 CrPC

HIGH COMMAND v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

28 Jul 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:2397

The Delhi High Court directed the DDA to reconsider the petitioner’s representation challenging unrealistic bid profit margins and to pass a reasoned order before proceeding with the tender draw of lots.

administrative petition_allowed Significant e-tender bid evaluation profit margin minimum wages

Court on its own motion v. State of NCT of Delhi

27 Jul 2020 · D.N. Patel; Prateek Jalan · 2020:DHC:2381-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of Covid-19 related PILs after finding that the GNCTD had taken adequate steps to ensure hospital facilities, testing, and data transparency, directing continued compliance and leaving individual grievances to be addressed through proper legal channels.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Covid-19 Public Interest Litigation Healthcare facilities Helpline

Sharvan Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Others

27 Jul 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:2387-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the CRPF Review Medical Board's decision declaring the petitioner medically unfit due to lung condition, emphasizing finality of armed forces medical fitness decisions and rejecting reliance on private medical opinions.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant medical fitness armed forces recruitment Review Medical Board medical unfitness certificate

Sh. K.L. Monga v. The Chief Engineer (NDZ-8)

27 Jul 2020 · C. Hari Shankar · 2020:DHC:2386

The Delhi High Court dismissed the arbitration petition as withdrawn without deciding on merits, allowing the petitioner to re-approach the Court later.

other petition_dismissed Procedural arbitration petition withdrawal of petition dismissal as withdrawn interlocutory applications

Dr. Neera Vyas v. Ministry of Ayush & Ors.

27 Jul 2020 · Siddharth Mridul; Talwant Singh · 2020:DHC:2388-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Central Administrative Tribunal to expedite the hearing and adjudication of the petitioner’s pending Original Application within three months, emphasizing procedural flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic.

administrative appeal_allowed writ petition Central Administrative Tribunal expedited hearing interlocutory order

Shalini Singh v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors.

27 Jul 2020 · Siddharth Mridul; Talwant Singh · 2020:DHC:2383-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appellant's appeal directing the employer to provide APAR forms, consider the appraisal excluding authorities alleged to be mala fide, and conduct the promotion interview lawfully and fairly.

administrative appeal_allowed Annual Performance Appraisal Report APAR promotion interview mala fide

Manish Sharma & Anr. v. Smt Urmila Arora

27 Jul 2020 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2020:DHC:2370

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's discretionary orders condoning delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree and refusing to dismiss it for non-payment of costs, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities.

civil appeal_dismissed Order 9 Rule 13 CPC condonation of delay Section 5 Limitation Act ex-parte decree

Rakesh Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

27 Jul 2020 · Jyoti Singh · 2020:DHC:2391

The Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available against private companies and dismissed the petition challenging termination of employment by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 writ jurisdiction private company State under Article 12

Naresh Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

27 Jul 2020 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2020:DHC:2371

The High Court held that a party cannot be denied the right to lead evidence solely because it has cross-examined the opposing party's witness and allowed the petitioner to lead evidence to rebut the respondent's demarcation report.

civil appeal_allowed Significant adversarial system right to lead evidence cross-examination demarcation

Akhil Bhartiya Lodhi Adhivakta Sangh v. Union of India & Ors.

27 Jul 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:2392

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Advocates-on-Record system and dismissed the petition seeking to allow all advocates to file and plead before the Supreme Court, affirming the Supreme Court's exclusive power to regulate its practice.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Advocates Act, 1961 Section 30 Advocates Act Section 52 Advocates Act Advocates-on-Record system

Three C Universal Developers Private Limited & Ors. v. Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Ors.

27 Jul 2020 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2020:DHC:2377
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging an arbitral award as barred by limitation, holding that a filing lacking fundamental documents is non-est and cannot stop the limitation period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Limitation Non-est filing

Mahabir Prasad Yadav v. Lakshmibai College

27 Jul 2020 · Jyoti Singh · 2020:DHC:2380

The Delhi High Court held that a suspended employee is entitled to enhanced subsistence allowance after three months if suspension prolongs for reasons not attributable to him, pay revision benefits under the 7th Pay Commission if effective prior to suspension, but is not entitled to annual increments during suspension.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant subsistence allowance suspension Fundamental Rule 53 7th Pay Commission

Ministry of Law and Justice v. Bhavnesh Saini & Ors.

27 Jul 2020 · Siddharth Mridul; Talwant Singh · 2020:DHC:2389-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging interim directions for disclosure of marks by a Selection Committee, directing the CAT to expeditiously hear and decide the original application, noting no legal requirement to award such marks.

administrative petition_dismissed Central Administrative Tribunal Search-cum-Selection Committee marks and grades interim directions

Virag Tiwari v. The Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr.

27 Jul 2020 · Manmohan; Sanjeev Narula · 2020:DHC:2375-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner credit for tax deducted at source of Rs. 2,40,000 in the relevant assessment year by making necessary rectifications, disposing of the writ petition as satisfied.

tax petition_allowed tax deducted at source TDS credit assessment year rectification order

Devangana Kalita v. Delhi Police

27 Jul 2020 · Vibhu Bahkru · 2020:DHC:2369
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that authorized police communication naming an accused in a charge sheet does not violate fair trial rights, but restrained further disclosures pending trial to protect the presumption of innocence and dignity.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant fair trial trial by media presumption of innocence Article 21

Pavan Sachdeva v. Office of the Insurance Ombudsman and Anr.

27 Jul 2020 · Navin Chawla · 2020:DHC:2382

The Delhi High Court held that non-disclosure of a remote, cured ailment does not amount to material non-disclosure justifying repudiation of a health insurance claim and allowed the writ petition challenging the Insurance Ombudsman's order.

civil appeal_allowed Significant insurance contract utmost good faith non-disclosure material fact

Bhawna Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

27 Jul 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:2378

The Delhi High Court directed police to conduct domiciliary visits to the petitioner's residence within reasonable hours and with a lady constable present, safeguarding her fundamental rights under Article 21 during investigation-related visits.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant Article 21 right to privacy police domiciliary visits lady constable