Delhi High Court

65,687 judgments

Year:

Subash Gupta v. State

19 Jan 2018 · S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:511-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted Subash Gupta and co-accused in a triple murder case due to failure of prosecution to prove conspiracy and complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence criminal conspiracy motive last seen evidence

M/S DEEPAK ENTERPRISES v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

19 Jan 2018 · Vibhu Bahru · 2018:DHC:518
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to refund of Terminal Excise Duty paid on supplies to 100% EOUs under the Foreign Trade Policy prior to its amendment, and that retrospective denial of such refund was impermissible.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Terminal Excise Duty Refund Deemed Exports Foreign Trade Policy

Deepak Khosla and Ors. v. Vikram Bakshi and Ors.

19 Jan 2018 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2018:DHC:517-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and restoration of an appeal under the Arbitration Act, holding that an alleged nullity must be challenged within the statutory limitation period and that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for an 805-day delay.

civil petition_dismissed Significant condonation of delay restoration of appeal Section 37 Arbitration Act Section 9 Arbitration Act

Suman Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corporation

19 Jan 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:521

The Delhi High Court directed the respondent Public Sector Enterprise to decide the petitioner’s pending representation for additional transport subsidy allowance for differently-abled employees within a stipulated time, emphasizing procedural compliance without granting immediate relief.

administrative other Procedural differently-abled employee transport subsidy allowance allowance ceiling Office Memorandum 2008

Ashok Kumar Sawhney v. Central Bank of India and Anr.

19 Jan 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:520

The Delhi High Court upheld pension deduction under Regulation 33 but allowed retrospective leave encashment benefits to a compulsorily retired bank officer, overruling delay objections based on binding precedent.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compulsory retirement pension deduction leave encashment delay and laches

Prabhu Dayal Public School and Anr. v. N R Verma and Anr.

19 Jan 2018 · Sunil Gaur

The Delhi High Court set aside a removal from service penalty due to procedural defects in disciplinary proceedings but allowed a fresh inquiry into alleged misconduct by teachers agitating for pay benefits.

labor other Significant disciplinary proceedings Rule 118 Delhi School Education Act misconduct removal from service

Rati Ram v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

19 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:523-DB

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor deposited in court as prescribed, and mere deposit in government treasury is insufficient.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Section 31 Land Acquisition Act 1894

Rajinder Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

19 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:524-DB

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid or deposited in court before the Act's commencement, directing payment of compensation under the new Act.

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

Nikhil Sharma & Ors. v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

19 Jan 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:525

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition relating to All India Services recruitment, directing the petitioners to seek remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

administrative petition_dismissed Central Administrative Tribunal All India Services recruitment dispute jurisdiction

Leelawati (Dead) Thr. Bhoop Singh & Anr v. Uday Pratap Singh Vice Chairman D.D.A. (Delhi Development Authority) & Anr

19 Jan 2018 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:9345

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging the DDA's statement on land encroachment due to petitioners' failure to prove possession with sufficient evidence.

property petition_dismissed possession land encroachment photographic evidence Delhi Development Authority

Sh Pyare Lal Kataria & Ors v. The State of Delhi & Ors

18 Jan 2018 · A.K. Pathak · 2018:DHC:9320

The Delhi High Court quashed cross FIRs under IPC and SC/ST Act based on an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR amicable settlement cross FIRs

Trilok and Others v. Lt. Governor Raj Bhawan, Delhi & Ors.

18 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:8615-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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, and mere deposit in government treasury is insufficient.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24(2) compensation payment

Inderjit Badhwar v. M/S Tara Press & India Research Press

18 Jan 2018 · Yogesh Khanna · 2018:DHC:483

The Delhi High Court held that a typographical error in an arbitration clause does not invalidate it and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate ongoing royalty disputes, rejecting limitation objections at the appointment stage.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(5) arbitration clause typographical error

Union of India v. BS Sangwan

18 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:509-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against an arbitral award granting payment for additional watch and ward services ordered orally, emphasizing limited judicial interference in arbitration awards.

commercial appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 37(1)(c) judicial interference arbitral award

Airport Authority of India v. V. Vardharajan & Ors.

18 Jan 2018 · Vinod Goel · 2018:DHC:490

The Delhi High Court held that reinstated workmen not gainfully employed are entitled to full wages during pendency of proceedings under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the employer must prove adequate remuneration to deny such payment.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Section 17-B Industrial Disputes Act wages during pendency reinstatement award gainful employment

RIEHEN INFOSOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

18 Jan 2018 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; S.P. GARG · 2018:DHC:481-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Riehen Infosolutions Private Limited against NDMC, referring to a detailed judgment in a related case for the substantive reasoning.

administrative petition_dismissed writ petition Article 226 High Court jurisdiction dismissal

Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors.

18 Jan 2018 · Hima Kohli; Rekha Palli · 2018:DHC:493-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an employee’s entitlement to Second ACP benefits vests on completion of qualifying service and cannot be denied due to subsequent refusal to attend a pre-promotional course.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Second ACP Scheme Assured Career Progression pre-promotional course service entitlement

Jitender Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

18 Jan 2018 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:494

The Delhi High Court refused to quash an open recruitment advertisement for Watchmen posts but directed the employer to consider long-serving ancillary workers' representations regarding promotion and salary anomalies.

administrative petition_dismissed open recruitment in-house promotion ancillary workers watchmen posts

HABITAT INDIA v. M/S G R GUPTA BROTHERS PVT LTD

18 Jan 2018 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:497

The Delhi High Court upheld the Plaintiff's recovery suit based on an unrebutted project manager's certificate, modified the interest rate awarded, and held that evidence cannot be ignored solely due to lack of formal authorization.

civil appeal_allowed Significant construction contract project manager certificate board resolution authorized representative

Kela Devi & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

18 Jan 2018 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2018:DHC:498-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 thus declared the acquisition of petitioners' land lapsed due to non-payment of compensation.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition compensation Section 24(2) 2013 Act payment of compensation