Delhi High Court

65,687 judgments

Year:

The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Central Information Commission and Anr.

02 Feb 2018 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:823

The Delhi High Court held that disciplinary proceedings against a CBI officer do not constitute human rights violations under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, and thus the CBI is not obliged to disclose such information under the Act.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 24(1) Central Bureau of Investigation intelligence and security organizations

Amarjeet Pandey v. State of NCT of Delhi

02 Feb 2018 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:825

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a POCSO case after the child victim voluntarily recanted earlier allegations and implicated another person.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail POCSO Act Section 164 Cr.P.C. child victim

Alok Kumar v. High Court of Delhi

02 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:817-DB

Delhi High Court considered the validity of the age cut-off date for judicial service examination eligibility, emphasizing adherence to Supreme Court directions and fairness to younger candidates.

administrative other Significant Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination age eligibility cut-off date Article 226

Alok Kumar v. High Court of Delhi

02 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:816-DB

The Delhi High Court held that age cut-off dates for judicial service examinations must align with the recruitment timeline to avoid unfairly excluding eligible candidates and directed reconsideration of the cut-off date.

administrative other Significant Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination age eligibility cut-off date Article 226

Reliance Communications Ltd. v. ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

02 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:815-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against an interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, clarifying that such orders are prima facie and interlocutory, allowing parties to raise all objections at final hearing and permitting modification applications to be heard expeditiously.

civil appeal_dismissed Section 9 Arbitration Act interim order prima facie order Strategic Debt Restructuring

Satish Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

02 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:814-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid to the landowner nor deposited in court, and mere deposit in government treasury does not suffice.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation payment Section 24(2) 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act 1894

M/S. SUPERON SCHWEISSTECHNIK INDIA LIMITED v. M/S. GEETECH INDIA

02 Feb 2018 · Manmohan · 2018:DHC:822

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction and summary decree in favor of the prior user plaintiff against unauthorized use of identical and deceptively similar trademark and trade dress by the defendant who failed to appear or defend.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement trade dress summary judgment Order XIII-A CPC

Lotus Herbals Limited v. The Chief Commissioner of Custom & Ors.

02 Feb 2018 · Manmohan · 2018:DHC:813

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and ex parte decree against defendants for trademark infringement of LOTUS mark, accepting defendant's undertaking and permitting confiscation of infringing goods.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement permanent injunction passing off ex parte decree

Kamal Jindal v. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.

02 Feb 2018 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:818

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the subsequent Will dated 12.7.2002 validly revoked the earlier Will and that the appellant failed to prove ownership or maintain the suit after respondent's death.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Will Indian Succession Act revocation of Will Order XII Rule 8 CPC

Harish Kumar v. State; Veerpal v. State

02 Feb 2018 · S. P. Garg · 2018:DHC:819

The Delhi High Court dismissed revision petitions challenging convictions for theft under Sections 457, 380, and 34 IPC, affirming concurrent findings of guilt based on possession of stolen goods and breaking implements.

criminal appeal_dismissed theft burglary Section 457 IPC Section 380 IPC

Tapan Kumar Deo v. Union of India; Pratap Singh Ahluwalia v. Union of India

02 Feb 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:820
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ACC's discretionary decision to decline appointments of petitioners as DRT Presiding Officers based on adverse Intelligence Bureau reports, holding that Selection Committee recommendations are advisory and reasons need not be communicated.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Appointments Committee of the Cabinet Selection Committee recommendations Debt Recovery Tribunal Intelligence Bureau report

Tapan Kumar Deo v. Union of India; Pratap Singh Ahluwalia v. Union of India

02 Feb 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:821
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ACC's discretionary decision to decline appointments of petitioners as DRT Presiding Officers based on adverse Intelligence Bureau reports, holding that recommendations are advisory and reasons need not be communicated.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Appointments Committee of the Cabinet Selection Committee recommendations Debt Recovery Tribunal appointments Intelligence Bureau report

Karan Sharma v. Union of India

02 Feb 2018 · Indermeet Kaur · 2018:DHC:833

The Delhi High Court held that for NDPS Act quantity determination, the entire drug mixture must be considered, denying bail to the petitioner found in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS commercial quantity bail

Mohd Irshad Khan v. Union of India

02 Feb 2018 · Indermeet Kaur · 2018:DHC:836

The High Court of Delhi considered Bail Application No. 2140/2017 filed by Mohd Irshad Khan against the Union of India.

criminal other bail application criminal procedure High Court of Delhi Union of India

Mohd Parvej v. Union of India

02 Feb 2018 · Indermeet Kaur · SU 2018:DHC:835

The Delhi High Court reserved and delivered judgment on a bail application filed by Mohd Parvej in a criminal matter involving customs authorities.

criminal Procedural bail application customs criminal revision Union of India

Karan Sharma v. Union of India

02 Feb 2018 · Indermeet Kaur · 2018:DHC:834

The Delhi High Court reserved and delivered judgment on a bail application filed by Karan Sharma in a customs-related criminal matter.

criminal other bail application customs Union of India Delhi High Court

Mohd Parvej & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

02 Feb 2018 · Indermeet Kaur · 2018:DHC:837

The Delhi High Court held that for NDPS Act quantity determination, the entire drug mixture must be considered, not just pure drug content, and denied bail to accused found prima facie guilty of possessing commercial quantity of narcotic drugs.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS commercial quantity bail

Karan Sharma v. Union of India

02 Feb 2018 · Indermeet Kaur · 2018:DHC:838

The Delhi High Court held that the entire mixture's weight of narcotic drugs must be considered for quantity determination under the NDPS Act, upheld the trial court's charge of possession of commercial quantity, and dismissed the petitioner's bail application under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS commercial quantity bail

Inder Pal v. Union of India & Ors.

02 Feb 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:831-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid to landowners nor deposited in court, rejecting deposit in government treasury as valid payment.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation Section 24(2) 2013 Act Land Acquisition Act 1894

Vikas Chandel v. Union of India & Ors.

02 Feb 2018 · Hima Kohli; Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:832-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition directing the SSB to step up the petitioner's pay to the revised scale applicable to direct recruits from 2006, following established precedents on pay parity.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pay fixation Sixth Pay Commission stepping up of pay Constable Medical Cadre