Delhi High Court

58,912 judgments

Year:

Triad India & Anr. v. Tribal Cooperative Marketing & Development Federation of India Limited

08 Feb 2017 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5923

The Delhi High Court held that Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as inserted by the 2015 Amendment, does not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before the amendment, upholding the validity of the arbitral award despite the arbitrator's relationship with the respondent.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) Section 26 of 2015 Amendment Act Arbitral proceedings commencement

Shri Ramvir Giri and Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

19 Jan 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7905-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's order rejecting regularisation of Chowkidars for failure to consider relevant documents and remanded the matter for fresh expeditious adjudication.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant regularisation daily wager Chowkidar Central Administrative Tribunal

All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Gopal Chandra Sahoo

17 Jan 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:8949-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of disciplinary proceedings against an AIIMS employee due to lack of credible evidence, emphasizing that charges must be proved on a preponderance of probability with credible corroboration.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings preponderance of probability no evidence corroboration

Narender Kumar Jain v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

11 Jan 2017 · Mukta Gupta · 2018:DHC:275

Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner acting as a mere carrier of corrupt money in a political conspiracy case, imposing conditions to ensure investigation cooperation.

criminal petition_allowed anticipatory bail Prevention of Corruption Act IPC Sections 170, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 474, 201 Election Commission

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited v. Union of India; Bard Healthcare India Private Limited v. Union of India

09 Jan 2017 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:3787
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that NPPA cannot freeze prices of non-scheduled formulations beyond Para 20’s mechanism and interest on overcharge is payable only from default in payment, quashing demand notices for overcharging and interest levied from date of overpricing.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs (Price Control) Order 2013 Para 20 Maximum Retail Price overcharging

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited v. Union of India; Bard Healthcare India Private Limited v. Union of India

09 Jan 2017 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:3788
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that NPPA's interpretation of Para 20 of DPCO 2013 imposing price freezes and interest from overcharging date is incorrect, affirming manufacturers' right to periodic price increases and limiting interest to default in payment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs (Price Control) Order 2013 Para 20 Maximum Retail Price overcharging

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited v. Union of India; Bard Healthcare India Private Limited v. Union of India

09 Jan 2017 · Yashwant Varma · 2022:DHC:3786
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that NPPA cannot deny manufacturers the right to periodic 10% MRP increases after overcharging violations under Para 20 of DPCO 2013, and interest under Section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act is payable only from default in payment, not from the date of overcharging.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs (Price Control) Order 2013 Para 20 Maximum Retail Price overcharging

Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v. M/S Arora Stationers & Ors.

08 Jan 2017 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:164

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction application, holding that their registered ball point pen design lacked substantial novelty and originality required for protection under the Designs Act, 2000.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Designs Act 2000 Registered design Novelty and originality Interim injunction

M/S HDFC Bank Ltd. v. M/S Prem Power Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

08 Jan 2017 · Sanjiv Khanna; Prathiba M. Singh · 2018:DHC:163-DB

The Delhi High Court held that sending winding up notices by registered post to the company's registered office as per official records constitutes valid service under the Companies Act, 1956, and set aside dismissal of the winding up petition for non-service.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant winding up notice Companies Act 1956 service of notice registered post

Feroz v. State NCT of Delhi

08 Jan 2017 · Vipin Sanghi; P. S. Teji · 2018:DHC:147-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the appellant's murder conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicted him under Section 304 Part-I IPC, holding that absence of motive and premeditation reduced the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC Exception IV to Section 300 IPC Section 106 Evidence Act

Lt. Col. Sube Singh Thukrana & Anr. v. Sajamuddin & Ors.

04 Jan 2017 · R. K. Gauba · 2018:DHC:89

The Delhi High Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by applying the correct multiplier and future prospects percentage as per Supreme Court precedents and increased the interest rate to 9% per annum.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation loss of dependency future prospects

Unnati Welfare Organisation v. M/S Safety Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

01 Jan 2017 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:3890

The Delhi High Court decreed a summary suit for recovery of ₹4.09 crore with interest based on dishonoured cheques and a personal guarantee, granting injunction over secured property.

civil appeal_allowed Significant summary suit Order XXXVII CPC dishonoured cheque deed of personal guarantee

Prof. Sachin Maheshwari v. Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology & Anr.

24 Dec 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2017:DHC:7701

The Delhi High Court held that while NSIT can prescribe higher eligibility criteria linked to higher pay scales for Director, such criteria must be approved by the Board of Governors and not solely by the President (Lt. Governor), quashing the impugned advertisement on procedural grounds.

administrative petition_allowed Significant AICTE Regulations 2010 Director appointment NSIT eligibility criteria higher pay scale

Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi; Mahender Kumar v. State of Delhi

20 Dec 2016 · Gita Mittal; R.K. Gauba · 2017:DHC:7920-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and life sentences of two brothers for murder under Section 302/34 IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony and common intention, rejecting the defence of non-examination of a peripheral witness and challenges to related witnesses' credibility.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention related witnesses

Mahender Kumar v. State of Delhi

20 Dec 2016 · Gita Mittal; R.K. Gauba · 2017:DHC:7919-DB

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I v. M/S Russian Technology Centre (P) Ltd

15 Dec 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Najmi Waziri · 2017:DHC:7818-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's deletion of additions under Section 68, holding that the assessee discharged its burden to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of foreign share capital and loans through credible evidence.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 68 Income Tax Act share application money creditworthiness genuineness of transaction

N C Jindal Public School v. Directorate of Education

14 Dec 2016 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:722
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court set aside the committee's order directing refund of excess development fees, holding that the school lawfully increased fees only from the permitted date and not retrospectively.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant development fee fee hike 6th Central Pay Commission Delhi School Education Act 1973

Chandan Prajapati v. Suresh Kumar Azad

14 Dec 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1486-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's order setting aside disciplinary proceedings for failure to prove documents through witnesses, reaffirming that documents alone cannot establish charges in departmental inquiries.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant departmental disciplinary proceedings proof of documents quasi-judicial inquiry witness testimony

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Balyan & Ors.

07 Dec 2016 · J.R. Midha · 2017:DHC:7607

The Delhi High Court upheld the compensation awarded for death in a motor vehicle accident based on evidence of income and future prospects but set aside the penal interest imposed by the Claims Tribunal.

civil appeal_partially_allowed Significant compensation motor vehicle accident loss of dependency future prospects

Sanjay Tyagi v. Delhi Development Authority

25 Nov 2016 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:7082
Cites 1 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and directed disputes to be resolved under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, overruling an unworkable arbitration clause.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(5) Appointment of arbitrator Delhi International Arbitration Centre