Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Shri Ramesh Kaboo v. Union of India

11 Apr 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2361

The Delhi High Court directed reconsideration of a cryptic order rejecting premature retirement representations, mandating a reasoned speaking order.

administrative other premature retirement speaking order representation natural justice

Suman Ram v. Union of India & Anr.

11 Apr 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2362

The Delhi High Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation for regularization of service within a stipulated time, ensuring procedural fairness.

administrative petition_allowed compassionate appointment regularization of service representation speaking order

Ritu Bajaj v. Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

11 Apr 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:2363

The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s promotion representations and refrain from finalizing direct recruitment until a reasoned order is passed, ensuring adherence to Recruitment Rules and procedural fairness.

administrative other Recruitment Rules Promotion Direct Recruitment Company Secretary

C.A. Ramesh Babu v. Reebok India Company

11 Apr 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:2373

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award enforcing a settlement agreement in a franchise dispute, rejecting claims of fraud and lack of consideration, and dismissed the petition challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Settlement Agreement Franchise Agreement

Birender Sangwan v. Distt. Judge North West & Anr

11 Apr 2018 · Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal; Mr. Justice C. Hari Shanka... · 2018:DHC:2372-DB

The Delhi High Court held that defacement of court complexes during Bar Council elections is impermissible and directed authorities to prevent such acts while considering designated spaces for lawful campaigning.

administrative petition_allowed defacement of property Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act court complexes Bar Council elections

Vinay Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Apr 2018 · ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE; C. HARI SHANKAR · 2018:DHC:2371-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Vice Chancellor, holding that the selection complied with DOPT guidelines and institutional rules, and judicial interference was unwarranted.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant quo warranto Vice Chancellor appointment Search-cum-Selection Committee DOPT Office Memorandum

M. v. V.S.

11 Apr 2018 · Siddharth Mridul; Deepa Sharma · 2018:DHC:2376-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, dismissing the wife's appeal challenging allegations of abusive conduct and false complaints.

family appeal_dismissed cruelty divorce Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(ia)

M/S RMC READY MIX (INDIA) v. M/S CLARION PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

11 Apr 2018 · JAYANT NATH · 2018:DHC:2375

The Delhi High Court admitted a winding-up petition against a company for non-payment of debt, holding that the respondent failed to establish a bona fide dispute over the claimed dues.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant winding-up petition Companies Act 1956 bona fide dispute balance confirmation

Audio Voice India Private Limited v. Vivek Khanna & Anr

11 Apr 2018 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2018:DHC:2374

The Delhi High Court held that a lease clause permitting forcible repossession without court intervention is void and granted injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff without due process of law.

civil appeal_allowed Significant forcible dispossession lease deed possession Section 23 Indian Contract Act

Ajay Deep Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

11 Apr 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5113
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act due to failure to nominate an arbitrator, directing arbitration to proceed under SAROD rules.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Appointment of arbitrator EPC contract

Ajay Deep Construction Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.

11 Apr 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5112
Cites 0 · Cited by 25

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act after the respondent failed to nominate one, directing arbitration to proceed under SAROD rules.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) appointment of arbitrator EPC contract dispute

Commissioner of Customs v. SKS Enterprises; Commissioner of Customs v. Global Alliance Inc; Commissioner of Customs v. Sh. Devinder Pramod

10 Apr 2018 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2018:DHC:9168-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside CESTAT's remand orders and directed the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits including jurisdiction without awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in a related case.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Customs jurisdiction CESTAT remand order jurisdictional issue

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. NTPC LIMITED

10 Apr 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:8923

The Delhi High Court held that a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator is barred by limitation if filed after the expiry of 30 days from notice invoking arbitration and that negotiations do not extend this limitation period.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Limitation Appointment of arbitrator

W,P,(G) 6490/2017 v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

10 Apr 2018 · HON'BLE MS. jnQSTICE HIMA KOHLI; HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBH... · 2018:DHC:8855-DB

Delhi High Court directs CAPFs to grant and release ACP benefits to eligible personnel within stipulated timelines, emphasizing due diligence and timely compliance.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme Central Armed Police Forces ACP benefits service eligibility

Vivek Sharma v. State & Ors

10 Apr 2018 · S. P. Garg · 2018:DHC:8659

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 325, 506, 509, and 341 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and imposed costs on the petitioner.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 482 Cr.P.C. amicable settlement inherent powers of High Court

Asameen & Ors v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr

10 Apr 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:8437

The Delhi High Court quashed FIRs arising from a landlord-tenant dispute under Sections 354, 354B, 506, 323, and 34 IPC based on a bona fide settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR settlement landlord-tenant dispute Section 482 CrPC

Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Continental Engineering Corporation

10 Apr 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:2342

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award interpreting the amended contract clause on price variation as prevailing over an earlier correction slip, dismissing the petition challenging the award.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Contract interpretation Price variation

Ashwani Kumar v. Santosh Solanki

10 Apr 2018 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2018:DHC:2341

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 3.20 crores paid for the defendant's share in property, holding it barred by Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC as the remedy lies in modifying the existing partition decree.

civil appeal_dismissed Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC partition decree recovery suit relinquishment deed

Vijay Rani v. Madan Lal & Anr

10 Apr 2018 · R.K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:2339

The Delhi High Court directed a trial court to conduct a proper inquiry into alleged misrepresentation of settlement terms in a partition suit after the petitioner deposited the settlement amount, emphasizing procedural fairness under Section 151 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Section 151 CPC Settlement terms Misrepresentation

Ranjana Arora v. Surender Kumar Arora & Ors.

10 Apr 2018 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:2340

The Delhi High Court held that an application to recall an order filed pursuant to liberty granted by the division bench is not barred by limitation and must be decided on merits, setting aside the trial court's dismissal and remanding the matter.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition suit withdrawal of admissions recall application review petition