Delhi High Court

58,461 judgments

Year:

SI (GD) Hanumant Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India

01 Jan 2006 · S. Muralidhar; Sanjeev Narula · 2018:DHC:9011-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court held that CRPF Sub-Inspectors are entitled to pay fixation at Rs. 10,230 plus grade pay of Rs. 4,200 under the ACP Scheme by applying the 1.86 multiplier, directing respondents to grant consequential benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP Scheme Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 pay fixation

Rani Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

23 Dec 2005 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5041-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a police officer absconding after criminal charges, ruling that family pension is not payable despite presumed death after seven years, as dismissal without enquiry was valid and pension rights forfeited.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant family pension dismissal from service absconding departmental enquiry

KTM-AG v. Honda Motorcycles and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

22 Dec 2005 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8769

The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute petition as settled and directed cancellation of the "DUKE" trademark registration in accordance with the parties' Settlement Agreement.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Settlement Agreement Trademark cancellation Trade Mark Registry DUKE trademark

Mr. Chatanya Siddhartha, Advocate. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

01 Nov 2005 · JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA; 25.01.2019 SANJ... · 2019:DHC:7933-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 9

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act once possession is taken and compensation paid, dismissing stale claims of continued possession by landowners.

property petition_dismissed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) 2013 Act possession compensation

Ram Kawar HUF v. M/S SMC GLOBAL SECURITIES LIMITED

08 Sep 2005 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:1837

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to summon irrelevant documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in a Section 138 NI Act complaint, emphasizing that such power cannot be used for fishing expeditions or to delay trial.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 91 Cr.P.C. Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act summoning of documents cross-examination

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Ajay Bhatia

17 Aug 2005 · Anu Malhotra · 2021:DHC:3792
Cites 1 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals challenging execution orders on grounds of inaccurate site plan, holding that the decree's finality bars re-agitation of property identity issues in execution proceedings.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Execution of decree Site plan accuracy Section 47 CPC Order XXI Rule 97 CPC

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. M/S Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation

25 May 2005 · Yashwant Varma; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2024:DHC:4536-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 9

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision allowing a charitable trust to claim exemption on deemed income arising from temporary donations to other charitable trusts under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 11 Income Tax Act accumulated income deemed income charitable trusts

M/S RAMA TENT HOUSE v. Sh. Inderjeet and Anr.

20 May 2005 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2021:DHC:1197

The Delhi High Court upheld Labour Court awards granting compensation to workmen retrenched by Rama Tent House, affirming the employer-employee relationship and continuous service under the Industrial Disputes Act.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant employer-employee relationship Industrial Disputes Act 1947 continuous service retrenchment

Meera Goyal v. Priti Saraf

04 May 2005 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8640
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award awarding ₹38 crores to the buyer, holding that the seller's failure to fulfill contractual conditions novated payment obligations and that the arbitration proceedings and award were valid and not liable to be set aside.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Agreement to Sell Compulsory Requirements

Union Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Kumar Rohilla & Ors.

04 Jan 2005 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:512-DB

The Delhi High Court remitted a selection dispute to the Central Administrative Tribunal for reconsideration in light of a prior circular fixing interview cut-off marks, emphasizing procedural fairness and expeditious disposal.

administrative other Procedural Union Public Service Commission Central Administrative Tribunal minimum cut-off marks interview selection criteria

Ramesh Kumar Sehgal v. Canara Bank

27 Nov 2004 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:1870

The Delhi High Court held that compulsory retirement imposed as a penalty entitles a bank officer to leave encashment under Regulation 38, rejecting delay objections and directing payment with interest.

service_law petition_allowed Significant compulsory retirement leave encashment Regulation 38 Canara Bank Officers Service Regulations

National Highway Authority of India v. MS Jas Toll Road Company Ltd

18 Oct 2004 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:5388

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award granting extension of the concession period to Jas Toll Road Company Ltd. due to force majeure events and revenue losses under the Concession Agreement with NHAI.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Concession Agreement Force Majeure Extension of Concession Period Toll Collection

Manjeet Singh Kohli v. Mirajuddin & Anr.

03 Aug 2004 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2020:DHC:2077
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed a compromise decree for specific performance in a land dispute, dismissed transposition applications by legal heirs lacking pleadings, and clarified that such compromise does not affect third-party rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance compromise decree transposition of parties Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC

Suman v. M/S BATA INDIA

28 May 2004 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5037-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a registered design cannot be protected as a trade mark or trade dress for passing off claims, dismissing suits based solely on passing off of registered designs as not maintainable.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant registered design passing off trade mark trade dress

Veena Khanna v. Indian Bank

03 Mar 2004 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:1502

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's finding of a concluded lease contract based on correspondence and dismissed the appeal challenging damages awarded for breach of contract.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant contract formation Indian Contract Act 1872 offer and acceptance communication of acceptance

Avinash Sharma v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

01 Feb 2004 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:3486

The Delhi High Court held that work-charged service and suspension period during which the petitioner was exonerated must be counted as qualifying service for pension, entitling the petitioner to pension and medical benefits despite voluntary retirement.

labor petition_allowed Significant qualifying service work-charged service suspension period dies non

Through: v. Through:

03 Dec 2003 · S. Muralidhar; I. S. Mehta · 2019:DHC:7802-DB

The Delhi High Court held that candidates whose delay in joining police training was due to their own circumstances are not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme benefits extended to those delayed by administrative lapses.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Old Pension Scheme Central Police Organization delay in joining training administrative delay

Amita Vashisht v. Tarun Vedi

22 Nov 2003 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3718

The Delhi High Court held that Section 10 CPC does not mandate a stay of trial where the suits differ in parties, cause of action, subject matter, and relief, dismissing the petitioner's application to stay possession proceedings pending a declaratory suit.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 10 CPC stay of suit identity of parties cause of action

Dy. Commissioner of Police v. Suman Teotia

09 Sep 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:375-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order allowing a widow's claim for family pension and quashing disciplinary proceedings against her deceased husband, rejecting delay and locus standi objections.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant locus standi delay and laches family pension disciplinary proceedings

Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute v. Rajesh Kumar Ravi

17 Jul 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9298-DB

The Delhi High Court held that mandatory procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings under Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules vitiate dismissal, ordering reinstatement while remanding the issue of back wages for fresh consideration.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings natural justice Delhi School Education Rules 1973 Rule 120