Delhi High Court

63,782 judgments

Year:

LAKSARRAILWAY STATION VIKRETA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

11 May 2017 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Yogesh Khanna · 2017:DHC:8131-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed petitioners to withdraw writ petitions with liberty to challenge a fresh policy, disposing of the petitions accordingly.

administrative petition_allowed writ petition withdrawal liberty to challenge fresh policy

ERA Infra Engineering Ltd. v. Central Public Works Department & Anr.

11 May 2017 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2017:DHC:2541
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking to restrain invocation of a performance bank guarantee, holding it lacked jurisdiction and that invocation is permissible despite disputes over delay compensation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 jurisdiction performance bank guarantee invocation of bank guarantee

Accessories World Car Audio Pvt Ltd v. Capital First Limited

11 May 2017 · Hima Kohli; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2017:DHC:2534-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of a commercial appeal by recording the parties' out-of-court settlement involving payment of Rs. 2.3 crore in instalments.

civil appeal_dismissed out-of-court settlement commercial appeal payment undertaking disposal of appeal

Krishna Flour Mills (Bangalore) Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Union of India

11 May 2017 · Hima Kohli; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2017:DHC:2523-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of Finance to provide certified copies of old BIFR case documents to the petitioners within a reasonable timeframe to assist in pending NCLT litigation.

administrative petition_allowed BIFR SICA Ministry of Finance document access

National Insurance Co Ltd. v. Munna @ Munna Khan & Ors.

11 May 2017 · Najmi Waziri · 2017:DHC:2540

The Delhi High Court held that the multiplier for loss of dependency in motor accident claims must be based on the claimant’s age, not the deceased’s, reducing the compensation accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant loss of dependency multiplier motor accident claim compensation

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar; Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd. v. Prema Devi

11 May 2017 · Najmi Waziri · 2017:DHC:2538

The Delhi High Court upheld compensation for motor accident victims, rejecting contributory negligence despite the rickshaw traveling on the wrong side, but reduced the interest rate on compensation from 12% to 9% per annum.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation contributory negligence rash and negligent driving

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Ashok Kumar; Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Prema Devi

11 May 2017 · Najmi Waziri · 2017:DHC:2537

The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation awards but reduced the interest rate from 12% to 9% per annum, rejecting contributory negligence against injured passengers traveling in a rickshaw driven on the wrong side.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation contributory negligence rash and negligent driving

K.V. Prateek Enterprises v. IL&FS Engineering & Engineering Construction Company Limited

11 May 2017 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2017:DHC:2518

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a valid arbitration agreement mandates referral of disputes to arbitration, and prior refusal or failure to initiate arbitration by a party does not waive this right.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 arbitration agreement referral to arbitration waiver of arbitration

DR N L VAISH AND ANR v. VIRENDER BANSAL AND ORS

11 May 2017 · ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE GITA MITTAL; MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA · 2017:DHC:2532-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal to set aside costs imposed on plaintiffs who proved through medical evidence that the lead plaintiff's serious and continuing illness justified waiver of costs for procedural non-compliance.

civil appeal_allowed Significant waiver of costs medical incapacity stroke Order VII Rule XIV CPC

M/S LOCHAV STORE v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

11 May 2017 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2017:DHC:2513

The Delhi High Court set aside the suspension of a Fair Price Shop license as the suspension period exceeded the statutory maximum of three months without conclusion of proceedings.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Fair Price Shop Suspension Show-Cause Notice Delhi Specified Article Order 1981

M/S CEAT FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD. v. M/S H-LON HOISIERY LTD.

11 May 2017 · JAYANT NATH · 2017:DHC:2539

The Delhi High Court allowed the Official Liquidator's petition to dissolve H-Lon Hosiery Ltd. under liquidation, discharging the Liquidator and directing transfer of undistributed assets to the Reserve Bank of India.

corporate petition_allowed Significant Company dissolution Liquidation Official Liquidator Section 481 Companies Act 1956

Hargyan Singh v. Delhi Development Authority

11 May 2017 · Manmohan · 2017:DHC:2515

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging DDA's allotment cost policy, holding that no Scheduled Caste priority applies under the tail-end allotment policy and the petitioner was correctly charged the 1992-1993 cost without interest.

property petition_dismissed Delhi Development Authority MIG flat allotment Scheduled Caste reservation tail-end priority policy

M.S AIR CAR AIRLINES PVT. LTD v. Union of India & Ors

11 May 2017 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2017:DHC:2510

The Delhi High Court directed the Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits while extending interim protection during the appeal's pendency.

administrative appeal_allowed Appellate Authority interim protection appeal on merits writ petition

Akashvani Announcers Association v. Union of India & Ors.

11 May 2017 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2017:DHC:2517

The Delhi High Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner’s objections during the re-verification of association recognitions and allowed the petitioner to seek further legal remedies if aggrieved.

administrative appeal_dismissed recognition of associations re-verification process administrative fairness writ petition

ASERGIS TELECOM SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA

11 May 2017 · SANJEEV SACHDEVA · 2017:DHC:2514

The Delhi High Court set aside TDSAT's order vacating interim stay on telecom licence termination, holding that termination based on new information requires prior procedural compliance under licence conditions.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal licence termination Indian Telegraph Act 1885 Condition 10 licence agreement

Vinod Singh v. Union of India

11 May 2017 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2017:DHC:2516

The Delhi High Court directed allotment of a first floor government quarter to the petitioner considering his mother’s age and allowed consideration of relocation allowance due to redevelopment, while clarifying the order is non-precedential.

administrative petition_allowed government quarter allotment relocation allowance redevelopment project special facts and circumstances

LT. COL NAVEEN KUMAR ANAND (RETD.) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

11 May 2017 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2017:DHC:2511

The Delhi High Court dismissed a premature writ petition under Article 226 seeking RTI information for failure to exhaust statutory remedies under the RTI Act, 2005.

constitutional petition_dismissed Right to Information Act, 2005 Article 226 writ petition exhaustion of remedies

Prem Shanker v. Union of India

11 May 2017 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2017:DHC:2512

The Delhi High Court directed allotment of a ground floor government quarter to a petitioner shifted due to redevelopment, considering his child's medical condition, and permitted application for relocation allowance.

administrative petition_allowed government quarter allotment redevelopment project relocation allowance medical condition

M/S Synergy Telecommunications & Ors. v. M/S Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited

11 May 2017 · Pratibha Rani · 2017:DHC:2527

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioners to file their written statements beyond the stipulated time under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, setting aside the trial court's order striking off their defense, emphasizing the directory nature of procedural provisions and the court's discretion to prevent injustice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Section 151 CPC Article 227 Constitution written statement

M/S Synergy Telecommunications & Ors. v. M/S Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited

11 May 2017 · Pratibha Rani · 2017:DHC:2528

The Delhi High Court held that the time limit for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, allowed the petitioners to file their written statements despite delay, and set aside the trial court's order striking off their defence subject to costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Section 151 CPC Article 227 Constitution written statement