Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Dr. Prannoy Roy v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

04 May 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A. K. Chawla · 2018:DHC:2908-DB

The Delhi High Court held that ITAT orders for early hearing require formal judicial orders and additional documents cannot be admitted without proper application under Rule 29, setting aside the impugned order and directing compliance with procedural safeguards.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Section 254(2) Income Tax Act Rule 29 ITAT Procedure Rules early hearing

Dr. Prannoy Roy v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

04 May 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A. K. Chawla · 2018:DHC:2907-DB

The Delhi High Court held that ITAT orders for early hearing are judicial and require formal pronouncement, and additional documents must be admitted only following proper procedure under Rule 29, setting aside the impugned order for non-compliance.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Appellate Tribunal early hearing additional documents Rule 29 ITAT Procedure Rules

Suraj @ Bhagat v. State of NCT of Delhi

04 May 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:2928

The Delhi High Court granted the petitioner two weeks' parole to attend a family marriage on humanitarian grounds subject to furnishing bond and surety.

criminal petition_allowed parole interim bail Indian Penal Code conviction

Surender v. The State NCT of Delhi

04 May 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:2927

The High Court held that an accused cannot be penalized for non-service of summons on prosecution witnesses beyond his control and directed the Trial Court to issue fresh process to secure their presence.

criminal appeal_allowed service of summons prosecution witnesses fresh process accused responsibility

Rajbir Singh v. Commissioner of Police

04 May 2018 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:2915

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act for failing to disclose essential ingredients of the offence, holding the FIR to be mala fide and a counterblast to the petitioner's action against unauthorized construction.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(x) FIR quashing unauthorized construction

India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd v. Rajiv Kumar Saxena

04 May 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:2918
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed ITDC's delayed challenge to an arbitral award upholding compensation for furniture stored due to ITDC's failure to accept delivery, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Limitation period Condonation of delay

Richa Shailja v. Union of India

04 May 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:2923-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal must pass reasoned orders and remanded the petitioner's transfer stay application for fresh hearing with reasons.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant quasi-judicial authority reasoned order transfer order Central Administrative Tribunal

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Arshay & Ors (Tata AIG Insurance Co Ltd)

04 May 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2922

The Delhi High Court directed release of a settled motor accident claim amount to the petitioner’s wife upon obtaining NOCs from other legal heirs.

civil other Motor Accident Claim settlement amount Legal Services Committee No Objection Certificate

Shalini Sharma v. University of Delhi

04 May 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2921

The Delhi High Court quashed non-speaking orders denying pay protection to a petitioner and directed the University to reconsider her representation with a reasoned order, emphasizing the need for parity and proper administrative reasoning.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant pay protection temporary employment reasoned order speaking order

Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. Director of Education

04 May 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2920

The Delhi High Court directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a speaking order within four weeks, ensuring compliance with an earlier direction and enabling the petitioner to seek further remedies.

administrative petition_allowed representation speaking order administrative compliance public authority

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Golu Kumar

04 May 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2919

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation for injuries caused by the bus driver’s negligence.

civil appeal_dismissed motor accident claim negligence permanent disability compensation quantum

Kulranjan Toppo; Sunil Dwivedi v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

04 May 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2913

The Delhi High Court held that an Office Order clarifying eligibility for Executive Car Facility cannot be applied retrospectively to deny benefits already granted or legitimately claimed by employees holding DGM posts.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Executive Car Facility Office Order retrospective effect Grade Pay Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001

Kulranjan Toppo; Sunil Dwivedi v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

04 May 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2914

The Delhi High Court held that an Office Order clarifying entitlement to Executive Car Facility cannot be applied retrospectively to deny benefits already granted or claimed before its issuance, directing the respondent to provide the facility to the petitioners.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Executive Car Facility Office Order retrospective effect Grade Pay entitlement Delhi Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme Rules

Shyam Kunvar v. C.L. Bhalla D.A.V. Senior Secondary School and Anr.

04 May 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2916

The Delhi High Court directed the respondent school to treat the petitioner’s Legal Notice as a representation and pass a speaking order within six weeks, ensuring compliance with the Directorate of Education’s directions.

administrative petition_allowed Legal Notice Representation Speaking Order Directorate of Education

Santosh Kumar v. State Bank of India and Anr

04 May 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2926
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld disciplinary findings against a bank officer but directed reconsideration of the proportionality of dismissal penalty under service rules.

labor other Significant disciplinary proceedings proportionality of punishment service rules writ jurisdiction

Raj Singh v. District and Sessions Judge (HQS)

04 May 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2924

The Delhi High Court directed the authority to reconsider the petitioner's seniority fixation claim by passing a speaking order after allowing a fresh representation, as the earlier order failed to address the parity issue.

administrative other fixation of seniority parity in seniority representation speaking order

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr.

04 May 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:9024

The Delhi High Court upheld the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal's interim order staying certain provisions of the 2018 Telecommunication Tariff Order, emphasizing the need to balance regulatory transparency with protection of sensitive commercial information.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Telecommunication Tariff Order Significant Market Power reporting requirements

M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

04 May 2018 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2018:DHC:9023

The Delhi High Court directed immediate de-sealing of the petitioner's premises in compliance with the Financial Commissioner's stay order against the Excise Commissioner's sealing order.

administrative petition_allowed Financial Commissioner stay order de-sealing Commissioner (Excise)

SHUBH MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ORS v. STATE & ANR

04 May 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:8458

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from a commercial dispute on the basis of a valid settlement between the parties and consent of the complainant.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR settlement agreement Section 420 IPC Section 506 IPC

Abhishek Verma & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

04 May 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:8456

The Delhi High Court quashed cross FIRs arising from matrimonial discord after the parties settled their disputes amicably and filed for divorce by mutual consent.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR matrimonial discord settlement agreement mutual consent divorce