Delhi High Court

60,196 judgments

Year:

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

Sewak Balkishan Gupta v. The State

19 Aug 2004 · I. S. Mehta · 2017:DHC:7422

The Delhi High Court upheld the framing of charges in a criminal conspiracy and forgery case, ruling that limitation for cognizance restarts from the Supreme Court's restoration of the quashed FIR.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant limitation period cognizance framing of charge Section 482 CrPC

Sewak Balkishan Gupta v. The State

19 Aug 2004 · I. S. Mehta · 2017:DHC:7421

The Delhi High Court upheld the framing of charges in a criminal conspiracy and forgery case, ruling that limitation restarts upon Supreme Court restoration of a quashed FIR and delay alone does not warrant quashing proceedings.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant limitation period cognizance charge framing Section 482 CrPC

Sewak Balkishan Gupta v. The State

19 Aug 2004 · I. S. Mehta · 2017:DHC:7427

The Delhi High Court held that cognizance taken and charges framed within three years of the Supreme Court's restoration of a quashed FIR are not barred by limitation, dismissing petitions challenging the framing of charges in a criminal conspiracy and forgery case.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant limitation period cognizance charge framing Section 482 CrPC

Sewak Balkishan Gupta v. The State

19 Aug 2004 · I. S. Mehta · 2017:DHC:7420

The Delhi High Court held that cognizance taken and charges framed within three years of the Supreme Court's restoration of a quashed FIR are valid, dismissing petitions challenging the framing of charges on limitation and sufficiency of evidence grounds.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant limitation period cognizance charge framing Section 482 CrPC

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

Raj Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Anr

11 Feb 2003 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:6337

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking allotment of an adjacent plot, holding that the plot does not qualify as an additional strip of land under relevant policies and the petitioner is not entitled to relief as a substituted allottee.

property petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 Constitution of India mandamus allotment of land additional strips of land

Sudhir Udar v. Land & Building Department

09 Dec 2002 · The Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:7448-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that a 13-year delay in applying for allotment of an alternate plot post land acquisition is inordinate and unjustified, thus disentitling the appellant from relief under the scheme.

property appeal_dismissed Significant land acquisition alternate plot allotment inordinate delay compensation

UBV Infrastructures Limited v. National Highways Authority of India

11 Oct 2002 · Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:5200

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award terminating the contract due to forged Bank Guarantees, validating the respondent’s recovery claims and rejecting the petitioner’s counterclaims for return of machinery and compensation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Contract termination Fundamental breach

M/S Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S SJVN Limited

09 Aug 2002 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5412

Execution petition filed after 12 years seeking enforcement of a Dispute Review Board recommendation is barred by limitation and not maintainable under Order XXI CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant execution petition limitation period Article 136 Limitation Act Section 51 Limitation Act

Mahender Singh v. The State & Ors.

01 Jul 2002 · Manmohan, ACJ; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J · 2024:DHC:2704-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order in a probate appeal, holding that Section 100A CPC bars further appeals beyond the Single Judge in appeals arising under special enactments like the Indian Succession Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Letters Patent Appeal Section 100A CPC Indian Succession Act probate