Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Dr. Sonali G. Badhe v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to assist the Central Administrative Tribunal in pending proceedings on the proportionality of penalty imposed for sexual harassment, while holding that the petitioner lacks independent locus to seek penalty enhancement.
Dharambir Singh v. Director of Education & Anr
The Delhi High Court held that re-employment is not an automatic right and can be withheld pending inquiry proceedings against the petitioner, dismissing his writ petition challenging such denial.
Raju Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's refusal to stay the CGLE-2017 examination process, ruling that midstream introduction of normalization is impermissible and unsuccessful candidates cannot participate in subsequent stages pending challenge.
Rakesh Jain v. Preeti Jain; Rakesh Jain v. Yogesh Jain
The Delhi High Court held that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated after the one-year limitation period under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, dismissing the petition for delay in filing.
Rakesh Jain v. Preeti Jain; Rakesh Jain v. Yogesh Jain
The Delhi High Court held that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated after the one-year limitation period under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, even if the contempt involves wilful disobedience of an arbitral order.
Mukesh v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging orders pursuant to CAT directions, holding that petitioners must exhaust remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Milestone Trade Links v. Yamuna Industries Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents at a belated stage subject to proving admissibility under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing the court's inherent power to admit evidence despite procedural errors.
Urmila Sharma v. Land Acquisition Collector / A.D.M. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-possession and non-payment of compensation, without deciding ownership disputes.
Pawanjit Singh Bawa v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
The court held that a defendant proceeded ex parte can reappear and participate in the suit without a formal application, and procedural irregularities in denying evidence and accepting amended plaint vitiate the proceedings.
Flint Group India Private Limited v. Jagran Prakashan Limited
The Delhi High Court set aside the order converting a summary suit into an ordinary suit, holding that an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC is unnecessary where valid service by affixation under Order XXXVII CPC exists.
Gyan Prakash v. Indu Kumar Prajapati
The Delhi High Court upheld the order granting leave to contest eviction where the respondent raised triable issues regarding title and mortgage claims, requiring trial.
Sh. Yogesh Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid despite possession, but title disputes remain open for separate adjudication.
Sunita Const. Co. v. University of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award in a construction contract dispute, dismissing the University of Delhi's objections and affirming the limited scope of judicial review under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Subhash Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award rejecting the petitioner's claims for extension of time with price variation benefits and additional payments, emphasizing limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The Union of India v. M/S CITY PROMOTER & BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award interpreting the contract completion period to exclude lift maintenance work and affirmed the award of escalation and interest, dismissing the petition challenging the award.
Surender @ Arjun v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging conviction and sentence for kidnapping and sodomy of a minor, holding that credible eyewitness and medical evidence sustain the conviction under Sections 363, 367, and 377 IPC.
Aruna Sharma @ Aruna Rakesh v. Krishna Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that a second suit seeking reliefs based on the same ownership claim is barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC and dismissed the appeal.
Deepak Yadav v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court set aside murder and robbery convictions due to unreliable eyewitness testimonies and held that defects in investigation do not automatically entitle acquittal without reliable evidence.
Deepak Yadav v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court overturned the convictions for murder and robbery due to material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies and held that defects in investigation alone do not warrant acquittal without affecting the core prosecution case.
Deepak Yadav v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court set aside convictions for robbery and murder due to unreliable eyewitness testimonies and held that defects in investigation alone do not warrant acquittal without reliable evidence.