Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Delhi Development Authority v. Hello Home Education Society

26 Sep 1981 · D. N. Patel; Jyoti Singh · 2021:DHC:3574-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the respondent's right to institutional land allotment based on prior approval and rejected retrospective application of amended allotment rules, affirming the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant institutional land allotment Delhi Development Authority Essentiality Certificate Nazul Rules amendment

Deepak Verma v. Daya Nand

01 Jul 1981 · Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:3103

Limitation for substitution of a deceased defendant runs from the date of death, not knowledge thereof, and substitution applications filed beyond 90 days without condonation are barred.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXII Rule 4 CPC substitution of legal heirs limitation period abatement of suit

Dr J Thulaseedhara Kurup v. Appointments Committee of the Cabinet & Ors.

18 Feb 1980 · Chandra Dhari Singh, J · 2023:DHC:5666
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the ACC’s rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for Director of NSD, holding no obligation to record reasons absent statutory mandate and no arbitrariness in the administrative decision.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Appointments Committee of the Cabinet administrative decision recording reasons judicial review

Neelu Chadha v. Sunil Sethi & Ors.

23 Sep 1978 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2026:DHC:655

The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit for partition and declaration over ancestral property, holding the declaration claim barred by limitation and upholding an oral family partition executed during minority as valid and binding.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partition suit limitation period Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act oral family arrangement

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

26 Aug 1977 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:9830-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 11

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner’s voluntary retirement took effect on 1 February 2018 by deemed acceptance, entitling him to pensionary benefits despite subsequent procedural formalities.

administrative petition_allowed Significant voluntary retirement Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Rule 48(A) technical resignation

Union of India v. Central PWD Engineers Association

26 May 1977 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9151-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside a CAT order promoting engineers based on a fictitious 1977 Notification, remanding the matter for fresh consideration excluding reliance on that Notification.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Promotion eligibility Central Public Works Department Notification dated 26 May 1977 Diploma equivalence

North East Engineering and Construction v. Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited

15 Dec 1976 · C. Hari Shankar · 2021:DHC:811
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that disputes under a valid arbitration agreement are prima facie arbitrable and appointed an arbitrator, leaving detailed arbitrability and merits to the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Arbitrability Contractual claim notice

Darshan Kaur v. Union of India

31 Mar 1976 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:7208
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that misuse charges are payable for exclusive office use of leased property by a foreign mission, dismissed the petitioner's challenge, and upheld the demand as a condition for conversion from leasehold to freehold.

property petition_dismissed Significant misuse charges leasehold to freehold conversion foreign mission Office Order No. 29/83

Ravi v. Union of India & Ors.

29 Dec 1972 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2021:DHC:3164
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Banks Board Bureau lacks jurisdiction to conduct selections for Public Sector General Insurance Companies, quashing ACC circulars expanding its mandate and invalidating the impugned appointments.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Banks Board Bureau Public Sector General Insurance Companies Banking Companies Act, 1980 General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act, 1972

Vakamulla Chandrashekhar & Ors. v. Registrar of Companies

03 May 1972 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:3915
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to restore complaints dismissed for non-appearance, quashing the restoration and summons orders in a Companies Act offence case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant restoration of complaint functus officio non-appearance Section 482 CrPC

Jurgaj Singh v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited

15 Dec 1971 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2023:DHC:5361
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus to compel supply of documents for appeal against removal, holding that the respondent had duly performed its public duty and provided fair opportunity of hearing.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ of mandamus disciplinary proceedings natural justice public duty

Harmeetpal Singh Bindra & Ors. v. Citibank & Anr.

04 Oct 1970 · Jayant Nath · 2018:DHC:4236

The Delhi High Court held that surrender of a life insurance policy under Section 6 of the Married Women’s Property Act with trustee consent is valid and directed the insurer to release the policy proceeds for the benefit of minor beneficiaries.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Married Women’s Property Act insurance policy surrender trustee consent Indian Trust Act

National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj v. K. N. Sati and Ors.

07 Feb 1967 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's decision invalidating the downward refixation of pay and recovery of alleged excess payments without prior notice, holding such recovery barred after five years and emphasizing strict compliance with natural justice.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant pay fixation downward refixation recovery of excess payment natural justice

Chetan Sabharwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 28 (1)

09 Jan 1967 · S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh · 2019:DHC:3837-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging reopening of income tax assessments under Sections 147/148, holding that investigation reports constituted sufficient material and no impermissible change of opinion occurred.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Reopening of assessment

Jeger Ali Oagaz v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

17 Sep 1966 · Jasmeet Singh · 2024:DHC:9124
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act against a petitioner who unknowingly carried one cartridge, holding that conscious possession is essential to constitute an offence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 25 Arms Act 1959 conscious possession constructive possession quashing of FIR

Ram Murti Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.

22 Sep 1964 · Jyoti Singh · 2022:DHC:5295
Cites 0 · Cited by 11

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking retrospective promotion after a 21-year delay, holding that delay and laches bar interference with settled seniority and promotion rights under Article 226.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant delay and laches promotion seniority Article 226

Balvinder Kaur & Ors. v. University of Delhi & Ors.

22 Sep 1964 · Jyoti Singh · 2024:DHC:5719

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by legal heirs seeking retrospective promotion of a deceased lecturer due to inordinate delay, laches, and non-fulfillment of mandatory eligibility criteria under the Merit Promotion Scheme.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant delay and laches promotion Merit Promotion Scheme Article 226

Central Board of Trustee v. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Anr.

31 May 1963 · C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:63
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a public library society employing over twenty persons is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds Act via Notification GSR 1294, requiring Provident Fund contributions despite not charging subscription fees.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 1(3)(b) Notification GSR 1294 Notification GSR 728

Sangeeta Jeswani & Ors. v. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors.

16 Apr 1963 · Vibhu Bakhru; Amit Mahajan · 2024:DHC:101-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a prior equitable mortgage and dismissed the petitioners' challenge to the recovery and sale of the mortgaged property, rejecting their bona fide purchaser and forgery claims.

civil petition_dismissed Significant equitable mortgage bona fide purchaser recovery of debts attachment and sale

Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v. UOI & Ors.

08 Nov 1962 · Vipin Sanghi; A.K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:195-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the 48-month limitation for filing a request for examination of a patent application under Rule 24B(1)(i) is mandatory, must be computed from the earlier of the priority date or filing date, and delay beyond this period cannot be condoned, resulting in deemed withdrawal of the application.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant patent application request for examination Rule 24B(1)(i) Section 11-B(4)