Delhi High Court

44,251 judgments

Year:

Dr. Meera Sood v. University of Delhi and Ors.

31 May 2019 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:3536

The Delhi High Court held that the retirement age of a Director of Physical Education is 62 years as per university statutes and UGC regulations, dismissing the petitioner’s claim for retirement at 65 years as a teaching faculty.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Director of Physical Education age of superannuation University of Delhi statutes UGC regulations

Rajeev Kapoor v. Janak Kapoor & Anr.

30 May 2019 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:3954

The Delhi High Court upheld the absolute ownership of Janak Kapoor over the suit property, dismissed Rajeev Kapoor's counter-claim challenging mutation, conveyance, and gift deeds, and rejected his adverse possession plea as unsustainable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant mutation conveyance deed gift deed adverse possession

Geeta Devi v. Union of India

24 May 2019 · J. R. Midha · 2019:DHC:5792

The Delhi High Court mandated immediate incorporation of Rule 5 to regulate compensation disbursement through annuities or fixed deposits, approved procedural amendments, and extended the MACAD Scheme to railway accident victims to protect claimants from exploitation.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal compensation disbursement Rule 5 fixed deposits

Union of India v. Arun Kumar Kuldeep & Anr.

17 May 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7907-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 11

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision requiring a fresh medical examination for candidates promoted to ASM and Goods Guard posts, rejecting retrospective application of a later notification.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant General Departmental Competitive Examination medical examination promotion railway recruitment

Vickram Bahl v. Siddhartha Bahl

09 May 2019 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2020:DHC:1818
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a joint Will executed by spouses constitutes a mutual Will binding on the survivor, who holds the property in trust for the ultimate beneficiaries, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction against alienation and dispossession during the surviving spouse's lifetime, with Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act not conferring absolute ownership absent a pre-existing right of maintenance.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mutual Will joint Will Hindu Succession Act Section 14 restricted estate

AVR ENTERPRISES v. UNION OF INDIA

08 May 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2020:DHC:1880

The Delhi High Court held that the 75% deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act applies only to arbitrations initiated by reference to the Facilitation Council under Section 18, and not to arbitrations conducted independently under the Arbitration Act by party-appointed arbitrators.

civil petition_dismissed Significant MSMED Act Section 18 MSMED Act Section 19 MSMED Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Aabi Binju v. Union of India

08 May 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2025:DHC:1314-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of challenges to adverse Annual Confidential Reports, affirming limited judicial interference absent mala fides and clarifying communication requirements for adverse entries.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Annual Confidential Reports ACR gradings judicial review mala fides

Dr. S.P. Gupta v. Kirori Mal College

04 May 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:7373
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the Appeal Committee was unilaterally constituted without the petitioner's written consent, violating Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 12(5) Arbitration Act unilateral appointment of arbitrator arbitral award nullity Delhi University Act

Union of India & Ors. v. Manoj Joshi

03 May 2019 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Girish Kathpalia · 2024:DHC:6251-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's order directing promotion consideration for employees possessing higher qualifications equivalent to prescribed essential qualifications under statutory rules.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant promotion eligibility higher qualification equivalence limited departmental competitive examination Central Administrative Tribunal

Qudsiya v. CBSE & Anr.

02 May 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:387

The Delhi High Court directed CBSE to correct the spelling of the petitioner's father's name in the Class XII certificate, affirming the Supreme Court's ruling that CBSE cannot arbitrarily deny corrections post-publication of results.

administrative petition_allowed Significant CBSE correction of name examination bye-laws fundamental rights

Rajvir Tyagi v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

27 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:2828

The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a malicious prosecution suit on limitation grounds and remanded the matter for fresh hearing, emphasizing the need to grant the plaintiff a fair opportunity to argue exemption under Order VII Rule 6 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant malicious prosecution limitation period Limitation Act, 1963 Order VII Rule 6 CPC

Lokpal Singh Negi v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors.

24 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · AIR 2020 SC 1203

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT’s omnibus order denying higher pay on 'current duty charge' basis and remanded the petitioner’s case for fresh consideration on its own facts.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant current duty charge look after charge pay entitlement Fundamental Rule 49(v)

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Rituraj Khandal

22 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1094-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a candidate's failure to upload documents by e-dossier cannot justify rejection if all requisite documents were submitted in hard copy as per the original recruitment advertisement.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board provisional selection cancellation of candidature e-dossier

Dhruv Mehta v. Aroon Mehta and Anr

18 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3512
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a consent decree cannot be substantively modified by substituting an indeterminate term with a time-bound obligation absent consent or valid grounds, quashing the order that imposed a reasonable time limit and appointed a receiver.

civil petition_allowed Significant compromise decree modification of decree Section 152 CPC judicial overreach

EMCO LIMITED v. DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED

11 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5769

The Delhi High Court held that it cannot extend the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal that has terminated its mandate by order and expressed disinclination to continue arbitration, requiring parties to reinitiate proceedings if desired.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral Tribunal mandate Extension of mandate Section 29A Arbitration and Conciliation Act Termination of arbitral proceedings

Assured Best Care Hospital Pvt Ltd v. Raja Arora and Ors.

03 Apr 2019 · Poonam A. Bamba · 2022:DHC:4896
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court remanded the matter for hearing before attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts under Sections 421/431 Cr.P.C., emphasizing natural justice and upheld enforcement of a mediation settlement against personal guarantors and their corporate entities.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. attachment of bank accounts mediation settlement enforcement lifting corporate veil

L & T Finance Limited v. DM South India Hospitality Private Limited and Ors.

01 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2021:DHC:3483
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral tribunal's interim order balancing equities by directing installment payments and partial release of pledged securities, emphasizing limited judicial interference in discretionary interlocutory arbitration orders.

commercial_arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 interim relief Section 37(2)(b) appellate jurisdiction pledge agreements

Janak Raj v. Delhi Development Authority

01 Apr 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:855-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that disciplinary proceedings under CCS (Pension) Rules are not barred by limitation if instituted within four years of discovering misconduct and should not be quashed prematurely on arguable limitation grounds.

administrative other Significant disciplinary proceedings limitation period Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Rule 9(2)(b)(ii)

J.B.C.G. Advisory Services Private Limited & Ors. v. Sammaan Capital Limited Formerly Known As Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited & Anr.

30 Mar 2019 · C. Hari Shankar

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Tripartite and Loan Agreements and referred the related application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for expeditious resolution.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 application Appointment of arbitrator Tripartite Agreement

Sanjeet Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

29 Mar 2019 · C. Hari Shankar; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:9105-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Delhi High Court set aside the cancellation of candidature without a show cause notice and directed issuance of notices and reasoned orders, ensuring adherence to natural justice and uniform treatment of similarly situated candidates.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant cancellation of candidature unfair means show cause notice principles of natural justice