Delhi High Court

102,337 judgments

Year:

Jeet Singh Chauhan v. Land Acquisition Collector, South East District

09 Dec 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3539-DB W.P.(C) No.945/2020

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus to forward a stale Section 18 reference application under the Land Acquisition Act, allowing the petitioner to pursue remedy under Section 28A instead.

property petition_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 18 Section 28A reference to Reference Court

India Tourism Development Corporation v. M/S. C.P. & Associates Pvt. Ltd.

09 Dec 2020 · Sanjeev Narula · 2020:DHC:3541

The Delhi High Court dismissed ITDC's review petitions challenging arbitral awards, holding that grounds not pressed during original proceedings cannot be raised in review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Review petition Error apparent on face of record

Residents Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors.

09 Dec 2020 · D. N. Patel; Prateek Jalan · 2020:DHC:3547-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking demolition of alleged encroachments on public land for lack of joinder of necessary parties and failure to follow procedural safeguards.

administrative petition_dismissed public interest litigation unauthorized construction encroachment demolition

Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

09 Dec 2020 · JAYANT NATH · 2020:DHC:3535

The Delhi High Court upheld the Medical Council of India's refusal to permit a medical college to admit students without fulfilling conditions of conditional recognition and undergoing fresh inspection and renewal under the Indian Medical Council Act.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 Section 10A Section 11(2) Section 19

All India Radio Casual Announcer and Comperes Union v. Union of India

09 Dec 2020 · D. N. Patel; Prateek Jalan · 2020:DHC:3544-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court disposed of a PIL seeking resumption of AIR services and compensation to contractual workers by directing the authorities to treat the petition as a representation and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law.

administrative petition_dismissed All India Radio COVID-19 pandemic closure of services contractual workers

Nirmal Devi & Anr. v. Rakesh Kumar Jain & Ors.

09 Dec 2020 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2020:DHC:3537
Cites 0 · Cited by 14

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of applications for additional evidence at the appellate stage, holding that the petitioners failed to show due diligence for non-production of documents during trial as required under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC additional evidence appellate court due diligence

Amanpreet Singh Kohli v. Pankaj Dayal

09 Dec 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3540-DB

The Delhi High Court held that interim orders affecting a non-party company cannot be granted in suits against its directors without impleading the company, dismissing the appeal against vacation of such an order.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC interim injunction non-party application separate legal entity

Dr. Suresh Chandra Gupta v. NCT of Delhi

09 Dec 2020 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2020:DHC:3538

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail for a surgeon accused of medical negligence causing death, relying on disciplinary findings and prima facie evidence of unqualified conduct.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail medical negligence Section 304 IPC Section 315 IPC

Naresh Nagar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

09 Dec 2020 · D. N. Patel; Prateek Jalan · 2020:DHC:3545-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of a PIL seeking directions to restore water supply and stop illegal factories by directing authorities to consider the petitioner’s representations in accordance with law.

constitutional petition_dismissed public interest litigation writ of mandamus COVID-19 water supply

Ant Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

08 Dec 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:3509

The Delhi High Court directed the hospital to reinstate terminated contractual employees on prior terms during the pandemic, emphasizing preference for experienced workers and employer responsibility.

labor petition_allowed Significant contractual employees termination re-employment pandemic

Syed Sadique Raza v. Jamia Millia Islamia & Anr.

08 Dec 2020 · D. N. Patel; Prateek Jalan · 2020:DHC:3532-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of a student barred from 5th semester exams due to low attendance, holding that attendance and passing prior semester exams are mandatory for promotion and result declaration.

education appeal_dismissed attendance requirement semester examination promotion re-admission

Anadi Charan Roul v. Union of India

08 Dec 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3520-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed the Indian Air Force to pay pro-rata pension arrears with interest to ex-servicemen petitioners holding No Objection Certificates, following established precedents.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pro-rata pension ex-servicemen Indian Air Force No Objection Certificate

Dominant Systems Private Limited v. Surjeet Singh

08 Dec 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:3510

The Delhi High Court held that assisting a relative in a family business does not necessarily constitute gainful employment under Section 17B of the ID Act and directed payment of 50% wages pending appeal due to insufficient evidence of adequate income.

labor petition_allowed Significant Section 17B Industrial Disputes Act gainful employment back wages reinstatement

Secretary Delhi General Workers Union v. Vijay Kumar Uppal

08 Dec 2020 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2020:DHC:3507

The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt petition against Union Bank for alleged non-compliance of reinstatement orders, holding the Bank had complied by allowing the workmen to report and attaching them as drivers, and disposed the petition in light of a detailed judgment on regularization.

labor petition_dismissed contempt petition interim order reinstatement regularization

Anadi Charan Roul v. Union of India & Ors.

08 Dec 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3517-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed the Indian Air Force to pay pro-rata pension arrears with interest to discharged personnel holding NOCs, following established precedents.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pro-rata pension Indian Air Force No Objection Certificate arrears of pension

Anadi Charan Roul v. Union of India

08 Dec 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3522-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed the Indian Air Force to pay pro-rata pension arrears to ex-servicemen petitioners within 12 weeks, consistent with prior precedents, or provide written reasons for denial.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pro-rata pension ex-servicemen Indian Air Force No Objection Certificate

Anadi Charan Roul v. Union of India

08 Dec 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3524-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed the Indian Air Force to pay pro-rata pension arrears with interest to ex-servicemen petitioners in line with established precedents, allowing their petitions conditionally.

service_law petition_allowed Significant pro-rata pension ex-servicemen Indian Air Force No Objection Certificate

Om Prakash Yadav v. Union of India

08 Dec 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3516-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed writ petitions challenging AFT orders denying pro rata pension, holding the AFT bound by High Court precedents and directing payment with arrears and interest.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant pro rata pension Armed Forces Tribunal Article 226 jurisdiction High Court binding precedent

Anadi Charan Roul v. Union of India & Ors.

08 Dec 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3525-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed the Indian Air Force to pay pro-rata pension arrears with interest to ex-servicemen petitioners in line with established precedents or provide written reasons for denial within 12 weeks.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pro-rata pension ex-servicemen Indian Air Force No Objection Certificate

Om Prakash Yadav v. Union of India

08 Dec 2020 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon · 2020:DHC:3513-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed writ petitions challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's denial of pro rata pension, holding that the Tribunal must follow binding precedents and directing payment of pension with arrears and interest.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant pro rata pension Armed Forces Tribunal Article 226 jurisdiction