Delhi High Court

65,687 judgments

Year:

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

M/S PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

04 Mar 2016 · V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2020:DHC:934

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner, authorized under a concession agreement with DMRC, has the right to charge parking fees on the property, and SDMC cannot restrain such collection without statutory authority.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Concessionaire Agreement Parking fees Floor Area Ratio Delhi Municipal Corporation Act

F HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD & OTHERS v. DRUGS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA & OTHERS

03 Mar 2016 · Amit Bansal
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court allowed plaintiffs' applications for discovery of regulatory and clinical trial documents from defendants in bio-similar drug suits, holding such documents relevant and necessary for adjudication despite confidentiality claims.

civil appeal_allowed Significant discovery of documents bio-similar drugs Drug Controller General of India Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC

Vinod Singh Yadav v. M/S Securitans India Pvt Ltd

28 Feb 2016 · Vinod Goel · 2018:DHC:1465

The Delhi High Court held that the Labour Court in Delhi has jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute as part of the cause of action accrued in Delhi, setting aside the order declining jurisdiction.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Labour Court jurisdiction Territorial jurisdiction Cause of action

Arvind Kaushik v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

26 Feb 2016 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:485

The Delhi High Court directed a school to admit an EWS student and provide mandatory educational benefits, enforcing the student's right to free and compulsory education.

constitutional petition_allowed Economically Weaker Section Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 admission DOE allotment

Union of India v. Suresh Kumar

18 Feb 2016 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:600-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's decision quashing recovery of excess MACP payments from a retired employee without prior notice, reaffirming Supreme Court precedents protecting employees from retrospective pay reductions absent fraud or knowledge.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant excess payment recovery MACP pay fixation show cause notice principles of natural justice

Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Customs (Import) v. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre

14 Feb 2016 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Najmi Waziri · 2017:DHC:880-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the Revenue's appeal, holding that penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is mandatory when invoked in the Show Cause Notice for mis-declaration, and set aside the CESTAT order deleting the penalty.

customs appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 112(a) Section 114A mis-declaration

Raj Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

13 Feb 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:835-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of physical possession.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings non-payment of compensation

Ratiram v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

13 Feb 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:836-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, granting the petitioner a declaration accordingly.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings compensation non-payment

Ajab Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

13 Feb 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:837-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years from the award date.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition non-payment of compensation

Gajinder v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

13 Feb 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:849-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years, declaring the petitioner’s acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-payment.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings non-payment of compensation

SAMO v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

13 Feb 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:838-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of physical possession.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings non-payment of compensation

Balraj v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

13 Feb 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:840-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of possession claims.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition non-payment of compensation

Gajraj Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

13 Feb 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2017:DHC:842-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, granting the petitioner a declaration to that effect.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse of acquisition proceedings non-payment of compensation

All India Carrom Federation v. Union of India

04 Feb 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:4866

The Delhi High Court examined the validity of All India Carrom Federation elections held in 2015, emphasizing strict compliance with the Sports Code and Ministry oversight to ensure fair and transparent elections.

administrative other Significant National Sports Federation Model Election Guidelines Sports Code 2011 Election validity

Vipin Malik & Anr. v. PACL India Ltd. & Ors.

02 Feb 2016 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2024:DHC:2515

The Delhi High Court dismissed the execution petition against PACL India Ltd., holding that the Supreme Court-appointed Lodha Committee's exclusive mandate precludes release of funds for rent arrears, granting liberty to seek alternative remedies.

civil petition_dismissed Significant execution petition Order XXI CPC Lodha Committee PACL India Ltd.

Govind Rawat v. Union of India & Ors.

01 Feb 2016 · C. Hari Shankar · 2019:DHC:2334
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Delhi High Court dismissed AIIMS's review petition, holding that resignation acceptance conditional on penalty payment is ineffective without such payment.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant resignation acceptance conditional acceptance subject to condition penalty for mid-term discontinuation