Delhi High Court

64,767 judgments

Year:

TOSHIBA INDIA PVT LTD v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

24 Jun 2016 · S. Muralidhar; I. S. Mehta · 2019:DHC:7396-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court held that interest paid on customs duty is deductible only in the year of actual payment under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, allowing deduction in AY 2016-17 but not in earlier years.

tax appeal_allowed Income Tax Appellate Tribunal customs duty interest deduction Section 43B Income Tax Act assessment year

Union of India & Anr v. Shri R K Nim

15 Jun 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8582-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 10

The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of disciplinary proceedings against a government servant for lack of approval of the chargesheet by the Disciplinary Authority, reaffirming the distinct and mandatory requirement of such approval under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings chargesheet approval Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules Article 311 Constitution

Rosary Senior Secondary School v. Directorate of Education & Ors

31 May 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2022:DHC:2405

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order setting aside the termination of a school teacher due to procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings Delhi School Education Rules 1973 principles of natural justice inquiry officer bias

Dr. Jyoti Golani v. Union of India & Ors.

31 May 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1347-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 71

The Delhi High Court restored the Tribunal’s order granting a dental doctor the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years with retrospective effect, holding that review jurisdiction was misused and parity among government doctors mandates equal treatment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant age of superannuation Central Health Services Delhi Administration parity

Dalip Kumar v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

30 May 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1472-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that recovery of amounts from an employee’s retiral benefits within one year of retirement without consent is illegal, modifying the Tribunal’s order to refund ₹2,21,036 to the petitioner with interest.

administrative petition_allowed Significant recovery from retiral benefits forfeiture of service pay refixation State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih

Banna Ram & Ors. v. State & Anr.

15 May 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2017:DHC:2588

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and proceedings against one accused due to lack of prima facie material while allowing withdrawal of petition against co-accused with sufficient evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR Section 325 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention

EDCIL India Ltd v. G L Sagar

05 May 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1605-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that a disagreement note in disciplinary proceedings must be tentative and not conclusively determine guilt, quashing the dismissal order and remanding for fresh proceedings.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant disagreement note disciplinary proceedings natural justice tentative opinion

Suraj Prakash Sharma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

28 Apr 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Girish Kathpalia · 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3217
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Delhi High Court held that DTC employees originally appointed as Drivers who suffer disabilities and are posted to alternate duties without fresh appointment orders are entitled to retirement benefits up to age 60 without annual medical fitness tests, applying the Supreme Court's Ram Phal precedent.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 retirement age Delhi Transport Corporation disability

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. NEERAJ KUMAR

08 Apr 2016 · C. HARI SHANKAR; SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN · 2024:DHC:8336-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 32

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of a police constable's dismissal without departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b), holding that mere gravity of charges does not justify dispensing with inquiry absent objective material showing impracticability.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Article 311(2)(b) Constitution of India Departmental inquiry Dismissal without inquiry Reasonably practicable

Sanjiv Kumar Saxena et al. v. Suresh Kumar Meena

08 Apr 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:921-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of one grace mark to an ST candidate in a departmental exam, affirming the binding nature of the 1996 grace marks policy and rejecting selective application of relaxation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Limited Departmental Competitive Examination grace marks Scheduled Tribes reservation

Ganesh Ram Bhatt v. Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidyapeeth and Anr

04 Apr 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2017:DHC:2435

The Delhi High Court allowed condonation of 430 days delay in filing an appeal against removal from service, emphasizing a liberal approach to delay where bona fide reasons exist and the right to livelihood is at stake.

administrative petition_allowed Significant condonation of delay limitation Delhi School Tribunal removal from service

Ajor Kumar v. M/S FORE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

31 Mar 2016 · Rekha Palli; Rajnish Bhatnagar · 2024:DHC:1203-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the termination of a probationer’s services without inquiry or show cause notice, holding that principles of natural justice do not apply to non-stigmatic termination during probation.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant probationer termination natural justice audi alteram partem non-stigmatic termination

M/S KESPL-ESWAR-ABCPL JV v. M/S KNR-JKM JV

31 Mar 2016 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6807
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, holding that the existence of an arbitration agreement is to be prima facie examined by the court, while substantive disputes are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Section 11(6) Arbitration Act arbitration agreement prima facie jurisdiction sub-contract agreement

State Transport Authority and Anr v. Pushpinder Singh Malik and Ors

22 Mar 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:9626-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed a delayed writ petition challenging a CAT interim order restraining disengagement of temporary ex-servicemen employees, holding that delay and abuse of process warranted dismissal.

administrative petition_dismissed Article 226 Central Administrative Tribunal writ petition interim order

Union of India v. Rambir Singh

17 Mar 2016 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:87
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The High Court upheld the illegality of a stigmatic termination without prior opportunity and refused belated additional evidence, dismissing the Union of India's second appeal for reinstatement of a CRPF constable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant termination of service temporary government servant principles of natural justice Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

Pawan Kumar v. Consortium for Educational Communication

15 Mar 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2017:DHC:6609

The Delhi High Court upheld a temporary transfer order of an employee within the same organization despite absence of explicit contractual transferability, dismissing the writ petition challenging the transfer.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant temporary transfer employer's right to transfer Memorandum of Association Byelaws

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. The Self Financing Educational Institutions Association

10 Mar 2016 · Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2019:DHC:7489-DB

The Delhi High Court held that retrospective fee fixation under the Delhi Professional Colleges Act is impermissible, and the Government cannot rescind a fee notification once accepted and notified for future academic years, except to the extent of invalid retrospective application.

administrative appeal_partially_allowed Significant fee fixation retrospective notification State Fee Regulatory Committee Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions Act, 2007

Ramakant Dixit v. Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited and Ors.

07 Mar 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:1199
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the CVC's advice is advisory and its reconsideration beyond prescribed time limits is permissible, dismissing the petition challenging initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Central Vigilance Commission disciplinary proceedings reconsideration of advice writ petition