Delhi High Court
65,510 judgments
Sh. Manoj Jain and Ors. v. Air India Limited and Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed Air India Limited to consider and decide the petitioners' promotion representations by passing a speaking order within six weeks.
Rohitrana v. The State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court confirmed interim bail for accused persons charged under Section 354D IPC, subject to conditions, emphasizing cooperation with investigation and non-interference with witnesses.
Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine v. Dr. Merajul Haque Anwarani
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order directing regularisation of the respondent’s services, holding that age eligibility must be reckoned as on 1st January of the recruitment year as per the advertisement and application form.
Adesh Kumar Gupta v. Shri D.K. Mishra and Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed an election petition for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 81(3) and Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, holding that the copy served on the respondent was not a true copy and thus the petition was liable to be rejected.
Ashok Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. State and Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted probate of a duly executed Will dated 6th August 2010, finding the testator was of sound mind and no objections were raised by legal heirs.
Sunil Khan @ Guddu @ Niyaj v. State
The Delhi High Court set aside kidnapping and inducement convictions but upheld and modified the rape conviction of a man for sexual intercourse with his wife under 15 years of age, recognizing a runaway marriage scenario.
Union of India v. Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award interpreting liquidated damages under the New Extension Policy as a fixed proportion of pre-estimated costs and dismissed the petition challenging the award.
Attro Devi & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.
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.
Rambir v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor deposited in court as mandated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ram Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation has not been paid or deposited in court, declaring the petitioner's land acquisition null and void.
Maan Singh & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
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 is insufficient.
Subodh Kumar v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court directed a re-examination of the petitioner by an ENT specialist and allowed him to compete in the recruitment process despite becoming overage due to procedural delays by the respondents.
Gian Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor deposited in court, and mere deposit in government treasury does not amount to payment.
Shyamo v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
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.
Roop Lata Jain v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is neither paid nor possession taken, clarifying that deposit in government treasury does not amount to payment.
M/S.BHUSHAN STEEL & STRIPS LTD. v. M/S.TYO TRADING ENTERPRISES & ORS.
The Delhi High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the shipping agent and dismissed the suit, while holding the agent liable for loss of goods due to unauthorized release without lawful delivery.
Outokumpu Oyj v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging anti-circumvention duty on stainless steel imports, holding that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Tariff Act before seeking writ relief.
United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Shivani Sharma
The Delhi High Court held that an insurer liable for motor accident compensation due to the insured's breach of policy conditions can recover the amount from the insured, while modifying compensation amounts and interest rates in accordance with Supreme Court precedents.
Rajendra Prasad Cama & Ors. v. Delhi Jal Board & Anr.
The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Jal Board to hold promotions considering only candidates with recognized engineering degrees following the Supreme Court's invalidation of distance education degrees from deemed universities.
Brijesh Kumar Verma v. Aurangjeb & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that a property owner is liable as principal employer under Section 12 of the Employees' Compensation Act to pay compensation for injuries to a laborer employed through a contractor during residential building construction, interpreting 'business' broadly and applying the 2000 amendment expanding 'workman' coverage.