Delhi High Court

44,251 judgments

Year:

Meera Goyal v. Priti Saraf

04 May 2005 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8640
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award awarding ₹38 crores to the buyer, holding that the seller's failure to fulfill contractual conditions novated payment obligations and that the arbitration proceedings and award were valid and not liable to be set aside.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Agreement to Sell Compulsory Requirements

Union Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Kumar Rohilla & Ors.

04 Jan 2005 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:512-DB

The Delhi High Court remitted a selection dispute to the Central Administrative Tribunal for reconsideration in light of a prior circular fixing interview cut-off marks, emphasizing procedural fairness and expeditious disposal.

administrative other Procedural Union Public Service Commission Central Administrative Tribunal minimum cut-off marks interview selection criteria

Ramesh Kumar Sehgal v. Canara Bank

27 Nov 2004 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:1870

The Delhi High Court held that compulsory retirement imposed as a penalty entitles a bank officer to leave encashment under Regulation 38, rejecting delay objections and directing payment with interest.

service_law petition_allowed Significant compulsory retirement leave encashment Regulation 38 Canara Bank Officers Service Regulations

National Highway Authority of India v. MS Jas Toll Road Company Ltd

18 Oct 2004 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:5388

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award granting extension of the concession period to Jas Toll Road Company Ltd. due to force majeure events and revenue losses under the Concession Agreement with NHAI.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Concession Agreement Force Majeure Extension of Concession Period Toll Collection

Manjeet Singh Kohli v. Mirajuddin & Anr.

03 Aug 2004 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2020:DHC:2077
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed a compromise decree for specific performance in a land dispute, dismissed transposition applications by legal heirs lacking pleadings, and clarified that such compromise does not affect third-party rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance compromise decree transposition of parties Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC

Suman v. M/S BATA INDIA

28 May 2004 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5037-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a registered design cannot be protected as a trade mark or trade dress for passing off claims, dismissing suits based solely on passing off of registered designs as not maintainable.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant registered design passing off trade mark trade dress

Avinash Sharma v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

01 Feb 2004 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:3486

The Delhi High Court held that work-charged service and suspension period during which the petitioner was exonerated must be counted as qualifying service for pension, entitling the petitioner to pension and medical benefits despite voluntary retirement.

labor petition_allowed Significant qualifying service work-charged service suspension period dies non

Amita Vashisht v. Tarun Vedi

22 Nov 2003 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3718

The Delhi High Court held that Section 10 CPC does not mandate a stay of trial where the suits differ in parties, cause of action, subject matter, and relief, dismissing the petitioner's application to stay possession proceedings pending a declaratory suit.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 10 CPC stay of suit identity of parties cause of action

Dy. Commissioner of Police v. Suman Teotia

09 Sep 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:375-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order allowing a widow's claim for family pension and quashing disciplinary proceedings against her deceased husband, rejecting delay and locus standi objections.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant locus standi delay and laches family pension disciplinary proceedings

Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute v. Rajesh Kumar Ravi

17 Jul 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9298-DB

The Delhi High Court held that mandatory procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings under Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules vitiate dismissal, ordering reinstatement while remanding the issue of back wages for fresh consideration.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings natural justice Delhi School Education Rules 1973 Rule 120

UBV Infrastructures Limited v. National Highways Authority of India

11 Oct 2002 · Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:5200

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award terminating the contract due to forged Bank Guarantees, validating the respondent’s recovery claims and rejecting the petitioner’s counterclaims for return of machinery and compensation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Contract termination Fundamental breach

M/S Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S SJVN Limited

09 Aug 2002 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5412

Execution petition filed after 12 years seeking enforcement of a Dispute Review Board recommendation is barred by limitation and not maintainable under Order XXI CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant execution petition limitation period Article 136 Limitation Act Section 51 Limitation Act

Mahender Singh v. The State & Ors.

01 Jul 2002 · Manmohan, ACJ; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J · 2024:DHC:2704-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order in a probate appeal, holding that Section 100A CPC bars further appeals beyond the Single Judge in appeals arising under special enactments like the Indian Succession Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Letters Patent Appeal Section 100A CPC Indian Succession Act probate

Kripa Narain Shahi v. New Delhi Municipal Council

24 May 2002 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:227-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of petitioners' claim for retrospective regularization on the Regular Muster Roll, affirming that regularization is governed by prescribed eligibility criteria and cannot be antedated without lawful basis.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Regular Muster Roll Temporary Muster Roll Regularization NDMC

Lalita Yadav v. Mam Raj Yadav

15 May 2002 · C. Hari Shankar

The Delhi High Court allowed transfer of matrimonial petitions from Tis Hazari to Dwarka Courts for the petitioner's convenience, directing expeditious disposal within eight months.

family appeal_allowed transfer petition Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 restitution of conjugal rights domestic violence

ACME Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Union of India

31 Mar 2002 · Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:5258

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award ordering refund of advance payment for defective and uncommissioned Hot Mix Plants, affirming limited judicial interference in technical findings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Composite contract Supply, erection and commissioning

Prabhakar Tiwari v. Bank of India and Anr.

10 Nov 2001 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:805
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that the Prathama Pariksha Certificate is not equivalent to matriculation for appointment in public sector banks, affirming employer autonomy in prescribing eligibility qualifications.

employment petition_dismissed Significant Prathama Pariksha Certificate matriculation equivalence public sector banks Government of India Notification 2001

Ashok Kumar v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

30 Dec 1999 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that AICTE clarifications imposing a first class Master's degree requirement cannot retrospectively deny promotion rights under the original 1999 circular, allowing petitioners' promotion to Lecturer (Selection Grade).

administrative appeal_allowed Significant AICTE circular 1999 Lecturer Selection Grade promotion eligibility first class Master's degree

Mr. Shivam Tiwari v. Rohtash Kumar

05 Jul 1999 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1470-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal's order permitting belated pay refixation under the ACP Scheme, holding that the option had to be exercised within the prescribed time and delay barred the claim.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme pay refixation delay and laches acquiescence

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited v. Rampal

15 Oct 1998 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2020:DHC:2189

The Delhi High Court held that a forum not properly constituted as a Permanent Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes or grant interim relief in electricity misuse cases, setting aside the impugned order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Permanent Lok Adalat Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 Electricity Act, 2003 Section 138 Electricity Act