Delhi High Court

31,373 judgments

Year:

Kunaj Raj v. Rahul Kumar Meena

09 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5568-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a probationer is not deemed confirmed without a formal confirmation order and set aside the Tribunal's order of deemed confirmation, remanding the matter for further consideration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant deemed confirmation probation period confirmation order Office Memorandum 11.03.2019

SSC and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar

09 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5419-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that judicial interference in medical fitness decisions for disciplined forces recruitment is limited and set aside the Tribunal's order directing a fresh medical examination, upholding the Review Medical Board's finding of unfitness.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant medical examination judicial review disciplinary forces recruitment medical board

PUMA SE v. HIMANSHU SHARMA

09 Jul 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2016 (65) PTC 168 Del

The Delhi High Court granted summary judgment in favor of PUMA SE against a defendant selling counterfeit goods, holding that deliberate infringement of well-known trademarks warrants injunction, damages, and costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off counterfeiting summary judgment

National Highways Authority of India v. M.G. Contractors P. Ltd- Arvind Techno Engineers P. Ltd. (JV)

09 Jul 2025 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2025:DHC:5397
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award granting compensation for delay in handing over site and overhead losses, emphasizing limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and rejecting the Petitioner's challenge based on waiver and patent illegality.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge patent illegality contractual interpretation

Srikanta Sutar v. Union of India & Ors.

09 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5508-DB

The Delhi High Court directed respondents to reconsider a transfer order issued without allowing the petitioner to submit posting preferences due to a technical glitch, emphasizing adherence to transfer policy and natural justice.

administrative petition_allowed Significant transfer policy SAMBHAV App natural justice administrative order

Airports Authority Employees Union v. Airports Authority of India

09 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:5576

The Delhi High Court dismissed as infructuous a petition challenging a 2020 communication allowing informal discussions with unions polling over 30% votes, upholding the validity of a 2018 majority union recognition for a fixed term.

labor petition_dismissed union recognition secret ballot referendum informal discussions discriminatory order

Snerea Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -18

09 Jul 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:5427-DB

The Delhi High Court held that transfer of shares of a company holding immovable property does not amount to transfer of the property itself, and additions under Section 68 cannot be made against the company on that basis without actual transfer of property.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 68 Income Tax Act share transfer vs property transfer reopening assessment Section 148 undervaluation of property

Union of India and Ors. v. Ex NB Sub Khem Bahadur Thapa

09 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5445-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming the presumption that disabilities detected during service are service-related unless the employer proves otherwise, and limited its interference to legal errors only.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces Primary Hypertension Release Medical Board

Navneet v. Union of India

09 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5461-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging mandatory Physics qualification in TGT (Mathematics) recruitment, holding employer's prescribed essential qualifications are binding and not subject to judicial interference absent ambiguity or contravention of recruitment rules.

administrative appeal_dismissed essential qualifications recruitment advertisement TGT Mathematics mandatory subject

Priya Chauhan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

09 Jul 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:5511
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that challenges to recruitment rules of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition for lack of jurisdiction.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Central Administrative Tribunal Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Recruitment Rules jurisdiction

M/S. BVG INDIA LTD. v. NAGAR NIGAM JAIPUR GREATER & ANR

09 Jul 2025 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2025:DHC:5399

In absence of a designated seat of arbitration, the court at the place where arbitration proceedings are conducted has exclusive jurisdiction, and a general exclusive jurisdiction clause does not override this principle.

civil petition_dismissed Significant arbitration seat territorial jurisdiction exclusive jurisdiction clause Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Prism Johnson Ltd v. Doosan Power Systems India Pvt Ltd

09 Jul 2025 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2025:DHC:5396

The Delhi High Court held that parties may agree on a distinct procedure for appointment of arbitrators differing from institutional rules, and court may appoint an arbitrator if a party fails to act under that agreed procedure, allowing the petition for appointment of respondent's arbitrator.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Indian Council of Arbitration Rules Appointment of arbitrator

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Mirador Commercial Pvt Ltd

09 Jul 2025 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2025:DHC:5398

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of the Sole Arbitrator’s appointment under Clause 39.2 of the contract, dismissing the Petitioner’s challenge that it was a unilateral appointment violating party autonomy and arbitration law.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 14 termination Sole Arbitrator appointment Clause 39.2 GCC

Ravi Patwardhan v. N.K. Jambholkar & Ors.

09 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5421-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the quashing of appointments as academic since the petitioners had already served their tenure under interim orders and were entitled to retiral benefits.

administrative petition_dismissed Central Administrative Tribunal Junior Statistical Officer appointment validity essential qualifications

India Steel v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

09 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5430-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to lack of proper notice and hearing, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of related GST notifications to the Supreme Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST portal Additional Notices Tab Section 168A GST Act

Pavan Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

09 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5446-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending representation within four weeks, emphasizing the obligation to avoid undue delay without expressing any opinion on the merits.

administrative petition_allowed writ petition representation delay in decision reasonable time

Trehan International Consultants and Engineers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Anr

09 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5434-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order due to improper service of notice via an inaccessible portal tab, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication with proper hearing, while leaving the validity of the impugned notification open pending Supreme Court review.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST portal Additional Notices Tab Section 168A CGST Act

CMR Green Technologies Limited v. Union of India & Anr.

09 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5429-DB

The Delhi High Court held that refund amounts cannot be re-credited to import licenses under an abolished scheme and must be paid directly, while upholding dismissal of belated appeals on limitation grounds.

administrative petition_allowed Significant refund customs duty re-crediting scheme appeal limitation

Ranjeet Singh & Ors. v. Neeru Mehta (Deceased) & Ors.

09 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5493

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's imposition of Rs. 30,000 cost for belated filing of written statement, refusing to interfere under Article 227 absent perversity or illegality.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 of Constitution of India supervisory jurisdiction cost imposed belated filing

Mohd Ashraf and Ors v. Abdul Wahid Siddique

09 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5492

The court directed expeditious disposal of the pending appeal and allowed the trial court to consider directions under Section 151 CPC for deposit of user charges, while upholding the binding nature of consent given before the appellate court not to press execution.

civil other execution petition consent before appellate court Section 151 CPC user charges