Delhi High Court

59,406 judgments

Year:

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Rajinder Kumar Modi

21 Mar 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2165-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court upheld that failure to opt out of the CPF scheme under the 1992 Office Order results in automatic switching to the Pension Scheme, entitling the employee to pension benefits.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Contributory Provident Fund Pension Scheme Office Order 27 November 1992 Deemed pension optee

Rekha Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

16 Mar 2017 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:8499

The Delhi High Court directed reconsideration of petitioners' claim for alternative residential plots upon submission of new mutation evidence, emphasizing procedural fairness without deciding on merits.

administrative other Significant writ petition rehabilitation scheme alternative residential plot mutation

DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED v. SMART LABORATORIES PVT LTD

15 Mar 2017 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8214

The Delhi High Court granted interlocutory injunction to the plaintiff against the defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark AZIWAKE, holding that urgent interim relief was justified and pre-institution mediation was not required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Deceptive similarity Section 12A Commercial Courts Act

Krishan Kumar Sethi v. Commissioner of Income Tax-XX & Anr.

14 Mar 2017 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2018:DHC:1814-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the appellant's explanation of advances from prospective buyers as a sham.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 68 of Income Tax Act unexplained cash deposits income from undisclosed sources Agreements to Sell

Jaya Aggarwal v. Income Tax Officer

13 Mar 2017 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2018:DHC:1776-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and deleted the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by holding that a plausible explanation of cash deposit from earlier withdrawn cash must be accepted unless disproved.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 cash deposit unexplained cash credit preponderance of probability

Shyama Pahwa v. Narendra Pratap Bhalla & Ors.

13 Mar 2017 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2018:DHC:1772

The Delhi High Court held that a suit instituted by a next friend on behalf of a plaintiff alleged to be of unsound mind is not maintainable without a mandatory Court inquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC, and the suit was dismissed following the plaintiff's death before such inquiry.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC next friend unsound mind mental capacity inquiry

EXTRAMARKS EDUCATION INDIA PVT. LTD. v. ST. JOSEPH KINDERGARDEN & ORS.

08 Mar 2017 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5055

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve a dispute arising under an agreement containing an arbitration clause empowering the petitioner to appoint the arbitrator.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) appointment of arbitrator arbitration clause

Aksh Vardhan v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. and Anr.

05 Mar 2017 · Sunil Gaur · 2018:DHC:1532

The Delhi High Court directed issuance of a detailed Experience Certificate and extension of joining time to enable the petitioner to join the bank as per recruitment requirements.

civil petition_allowed Experience Certificate Employment relief Credit Officer Joining time extension

Sushenmohan Gupta v. Union of India

01 Mar 2017 · The Acting Chief Justice; C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:8549-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition directing removal of directors' disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 upon compliance with the Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018.

corporate petition_allowed Significant Section 164(2)(a) Companies Act 2013 director disqualification default in filing returns Condonation of Delay Scheme 2018

Rajesh v. State

24 Feb 2017 · S.P. Garg; C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:1380-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the appellant's conviction for murder due to insufficient and defective circumstantial evidence and investigative lapses.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory possession of stolen articles deficiencies in investigation

Union of India v. Ram Singh Yadav & Ors.

23 Feb 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:866-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order granting contract nurses basic pay and DA at par with regular nurses, deferring other allowances pending Supreme Court decision.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant contract nurses pay parity basic pay Dearness Allowance

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Anil Kumar & Ors.

13 Feb 2017 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7866-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court dismissed the MCD's appeal, upholding the Industrial Tribunal's award directing regularisation of muster roll Malis based on binding admissions by the employer's witness and established principles limiting writ court interference.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25-F regularisation muster roll workers

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