Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Jaikishan Aggarwal v. Union of India & Ors.

09 Jul 2018 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2018:DHC:4000

The Delhi High Court upheld HPCL's cancellation of a retail outlet allotment due to failure to provide land and held that the Chief Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to direct specific land allotment to persons with disabilities.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 Letter of Intent cancellation Preferential allotment Chief Commissioner jurisdiction

Federation of Disabled Rights v. Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

09 Jul 2018 · Gita Mittal; C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:3994-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to consider the creation of a specialized department for disabled persons and ensure website accessibility, treating the writ petition as a representation to be decided within eight weeks.

administrative other disabled persons welfare schemes specialized department website accessibility

Rohita Jaidka v. Air India Limited

09 Jul 2018 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:2080

The Delhi High Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable against Air India Limited post-privatization as it ceases to be a public authority, dismissing the petition but allowing the petitioner to seek alternate remedies.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant writ petition maintainability privatization Air India Limited Article 12 Constitution of India

Adarsh Raj Singh v. Bar Council of India

06 Jul 2018 · Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:3933

The Delhi High Court held that the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, violated Bar Council of India Rules by conducting insufficient classes, rendering student detention for attendance shortage illegal and allowing them to appear in examinations.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Bar Council of India Rules minimum class hours attendance requirement Rule 10 BCI Rules

State Bar Council of M.P. v. Bar Council of India

06 Jul 2018 · Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:3932

The Delhi High Court held that elections to the Bar Council of India must strictly follow prescribed procedures, invalidated both contested elections due to procedural lapses, and set aside the Bar Council of India's dismissal of the election petition.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Bar Council of India Rules Advocates Act 1961 State Bar Council elections Returning Officer

State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh v. Bar Council of India

06 Jul 2018 · Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:3931

The Delhi High Court held that elections to the Bar Council of India must strictly comply with prescribed procedures, invalidated both contested elections due to procedural lapses, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Bar Council of India Rules Advocates Act, 1961 State Bar Council elections Returning Officer

Devinder Singh and Anr. v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors.

06 Jul 2018 · Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:3935

The Delhi High Court held that an order by the Tehsildar directing recording of cultivatory possession is a judicial and appealable order under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, dismissing the petitioners’ claim that only writ remedy was available.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 Section 27 Section 64 Tehsildar order

Poonam Tiwari v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

06 Jul 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:3952

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings and held that the petitioner was not illegally declared a proclaimed offender nor illegally detained, affirming the lawful procedure followed by police and courts.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclaimed offender anticipatory bail non-bailable warrant

Chaman Lal v. Delhi Jal Board

06 Jul 2018 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2018:DHC:3951

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging eviction of a retired employee from government quarters, holding that statutory retention limits and eviction orders must be enforced despite medical or equitable pleas.

property petition_dismissed Significant Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 government accommodation eviction retired government employee

SANDISK LLC v. VINOD KUMAR & ANR

06 Jul 2018 · Manmohan · 2018:DHC:3950

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions to SanDisk LLC restraining defendants from selling counterfeit products infringing its trademarks and copyrights, affirming protection against trademark infringement and passing off.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Permanent injunction Copyright protection

Dinesh Kumar v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors

06 Jul 2018 · G.S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:3942-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid and possession not taken within five years of the award, declaring the petitioner's land acquisition void.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Compensation

Himanshu Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

06 Jul 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:3941-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation was not paid despite possession being taken.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 compensation

Kuldeep & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

06 Jul 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:3943

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under dowry and related IPC sections following an amicable settlement and mutual divorce between the parties, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute settlement mutual divorce

Suresh Nanda v. Devika Mehta & Anr

06 Jul 2018 · Jayant Nath · 2018:DHC:3938

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application to reject the plaint, holding that the suit discloses a cause of action, is within limitation, and the court has territorial jurisdiction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Order 23 Rule 1 CPC limitation territorial jurisdiction

Varsha Gautham v. Union of India and Ors.

06 Jul 2018 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2018:DHC:3937

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the sailing team selection for the 2018 Asian Games, holding that absence of external selectors did not vitiate the process and courts should not interfere with sports selection decisions where the final authority rests with the Indian Olympic Association.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Selection Policy Asian Games 2018 Sports selection Judicial review

B. Ramachandhiran v. CBI

06 Jul 2018 · Anu Malhotra · 2018:DHC:3936

Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the chairman of a medical college accused of conspiracy and bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing cooperation, prima facie evidence, and the limited punishment period as grounds for bail.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail Prevention of Corruption Act Section 438 CrPC illegal gratification

Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Chandra Mani Tiwari & Anr.

06 Jul 2018 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2018:DHC:3940

The Delhi High Court held that use of a deceptively similar trade name not identical to a registered trademark does not constitute infringement under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29(5) Trademark infringement Trade name

The State of Gujarat v. Ashvika Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

06 Jul 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A.K. Chawla · 2018:DHC:3934-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award granting compensation to a concessionaire for loss of toll revenue due to a court injunction, affirming the limited scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and recognizing injunction as a force majeure event under the BOT Agreement.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Build Operate Transfer Agreement Force majeure

Anish Sharma & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

06 Jul 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:3944

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 354-A, 323, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties and the complainants' unwillingness to proceed.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 354 IPC Section 354-A IPC

Sadiya v. State

06 Jul 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:3945

The Delhi High Court quashed a Kalandara issued under Sections 107 and 150 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner due to lack of factual basis and absence of prior complaints or police records.

criminal petition_allowed Kalandara Section 107 Cr.P.C. Section 150 Cr.P.C. preventive orders