Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:
Showing 2024 — 8501 judgments found

Dr. Shantanu Mandal v. Union of India and Anr

13 Mar 2024 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7549-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed as withdrawn the petitioner’s application seeking to treat an inquiry report as final and related reliefs, holding that grievances about ongoing departmental inquiries must be pursued through proper legal remedies.

administrative application_dismissed departmental inquiry transfer order promotion Central Administrative Tribunal

Sriaanshu Logistics v. Commissioner of Customs (General)

12 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:2055-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the revocation of a customs broker licence for sub-letting and unauthorized use, holding the punishment proportionate and no substantial question of law arising.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant customs broker licence revocation sub-letting Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013

M/S VIMAL ELECTRICAL PVT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF VAT & ANR.

12 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:2056-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the tax authorities to decide and pay interest on the VAT refund under section 42 of the Delhi VAT Act or pass a reasoned order denying it within four weeks.

tax petition_dismissed Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 Section 42 tax refund interest on refund

GOVT. NCT OF DELHI THROUGH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION v. REHMAT FATIMA

12 Mar 2024 · Rekha Palli; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:2001-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that a woman employed on a contractual basis is entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 even beyond the expiry of her contract, dismissing the Government's appeal against such benefits.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 contractual employment maternity leave Section 5 Maternity Benefit Act

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. VIRENDER PAL SINGH KULDEEP KUMAR

12 Mar 2024 · Rekha Palli; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:2008-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing the Government of NCT of Delhi to grant ACP benefits as per the clarificatory OM dated 01.11.2002, holding that adoption of a scheme includes all its clarifications.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP Scheme Office Memorandum 01.11.2002 Government of NCT of Delhi

M/S ISHERDAS SAHNI & BROS. v. M/S IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.

12 Mar 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:2101

The Delhi High Court held that the COVID-19 lockdown constituted a Force Majeure event excusing rent payment for April-May 2020, validated the defendant's termination under the lease's Force Majeure clause, and allowed the plaintiff recovery of proportionate rent and charges thereafter.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Force Majeure COVID-19 pandemic Lease Agreement Rent suspension

Rakesh Sachdeva v. Rajesh Sachdeva

12 Mar 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:1962
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that official witnesses summoned solely to produce documents cannot be cross-examined under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, and mere marking of documents as exhibits does not prove their authenticity.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 139 Indian Evidence Act cross-examination production of documents official witnesses

Dharmender Kumar Garg v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

12 Mar 2024 · Amit Mahajan · 2024:DHC:3352

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's grant of bail to the accused mother-in-law in a dowry death case, emphasizing cautious interference with bail orders and the presumption of innocence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail Section 482 CrPC Section 304B IPC Section 498A IPC

Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

12 Mar 2024 · Subramonium Prasad · 2024:DHC:2834

Delhi High Court awarded compensation for illegal police detention without due procedure, emphasizing police accountability and constitutional safeguards under Article 21.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant illegal detention compensation Article 21 fundamental rights

Bhai Manjit Singh v. Radhika Chowdhury

12 Mar 2024 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2024:DHC:2380
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the summoning order under Section 138 NI Act, holding that the defence of stolen cheque requires trial and cannot be decided at the summoning stage.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 139 NI Act presumption summoning order Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Om Prakash v. Union of India & Anr

12 Mar 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:2523

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a probationary employee for unauthorized absence, affirming that writ courts will not reappreciate tribunal findings absent jurisdictional error.

labor petition_dismissed Significant unauthorized absence misconduct termination of service probation period

Vikram Baghel v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Mar 2024 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024 SCC OnLine Del 584

The Delhi High Court held that admission rights under the RTE Act are strictly tied to the DoE’s allotment for a specific academic year and cannot be enforced after delay or without fresh allotment, dismissing the petitioner’s claim for admission in a lapsed academic year.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 EWS/DG category admission computerized draw of lots age-appropriate admission

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Mehta & Ors. v. State & Anr.

12 Mar 2024 · Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:2003
Cites 0 · Cited by 9

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC

Gopal Krishan v. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal

12 Mar 2024 · Girish Kathpalia

The Delhi High Court held that under the Delhi Rent Control Act, bona fide requirement for eviction is to be tested as on the petition date and subsequent events cannot be considered in revision proceedings under Section 25B(8), thereby dismissing tenants' applications to admit such events.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 25B(8) eviction bona fide requirement

Paritosh Sharma v. UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd & Anr.

12 Mar 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:2158
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking enforcement of unimplemented 2006 financial benefit policies, holding such benefits are discretionary and not enforceable rights.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ of mandamus financial benefits ex-gratia payment discretionary benefits

Manish Gupta v. UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. & Anr.

12 Mar 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:1986
Cites 1 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking enforcement of unimplemented 2006 financial benefit policies, holding that such benefits are discretionary and not vested rights, and mandamus cannot be issued to enforce them.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ of mandamus financial benefits ex-gratia payment Board Minutes

Shreekant Gupta v. University of Delhi & Ors.

12 Mar 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:1974
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the University's resolution permitting the incumbent Head of Department to continue despite revised seniority, holding that the administrative decision was lawful and not subject to judicial interference absent illegality or mala fide.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant University Grants Commission Regulations 2018 Seniority Head of Department Delhi University Act 1992

Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya v. M/S Induction Corporate Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

12 Mar 2024 · Vibhu BakhrU; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:1981-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the territorial jurisdiction for setting aside an arbitral award is determined by the agreed seat of arbitration, excluded mediation periods from limitation, and allowed the appeal setting aside the dismissal of the petition as time-barred.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 application Limitation Act, 1963 Section 14 exclusion

Sapna Dubey v. Central Industrial Security Force

12 Mar 2024 · V. Kameswar Rao; Saurabh Banerjee · 2024:DHC:2140-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging medical unfitness for CISF recruitment, holding that courts should not interfere with medical boards' expert decisions absent illegality or arbitrariness.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant medical fitness recruitment Central Industrial Security Force Detailed Medical Examination

Antares Systems Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

12 Mar 2024 · Subramonium Prasad · 2024:DHC:2077

The Delhi High Court held that unilateral substitution of a consortium member in a State contract without fresh tendering is arbitrary and illegal, allowing the writ petition challenging the amended work order permitting such substitution.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant consortium contract material alteration public procurement e-auction services