Delhi High Court

70,895 judgments

Year:

M/S DEEPAK & CO. v. UNION OF INDIA

20 Sep 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:6633
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that petitioners are not entitled to continue operating Railway stalls after license expiry and dismissed their writ petitions, affirming that expired contracts confer no right to extension under Article 14.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant license expiry efflux of time Railways stalls contract extension

M/S HIGHWAY SERVICE STATION v. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD & ANR

20 Sep 2016 · JAYANT NATH, J. · 2016:DHC:6652
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a higher court hearing an appeal meant for a lower court is a procedural irregularity not affecting jurisdiction, thus validating the appellate order and dismissing the petition challenging it.

civil petition_dismissed Significant jurisdiction Section 15 CPC Section 99 CPC Order 47 CPC

Suresh Kumar Kalra v. Union of India

20 Sep 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6654-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of the In Situ Promotion Scheme approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to denial of promotion based on revised benchmarks and holding that substantial compliance with business rules suffices absent prejudice.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant In Situ Promotion Scheme Appointments Committee of the Cabinet Cabinet Committee on Security Departmental Promotion Committee

Narender Singh v. Ishwar Singh & Anr

20 Sep 2016 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:6648

The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit for specific performance due to lack of direct contract and delayed action, awarding recovery of earnest money with interest to the plaintiff.

civil petition_dismissed specific performance agreement to sell earnest money property sale

Amit Dahiya & Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Council

20 Sep 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6650-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition directing interim recognition of distance education diplomas for promotion eligibility pending the Supreme Court's final decision on their validity.

administrative other Significant distance education technical education recognition of degrees Junior Engineer eligibility

Harsh Kakar v. Union of India

20 Sep 2016 · G. S. Sistani; I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6651-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed revival of a seniority dispute OA for merits adjudication after the Supreme Court judgment was declined application by respondents, setting aside the dismissal of contempt proceedings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant seniority fixation Central Administrative Tribunal Supreme Court judgment contempt petition

Chanderjeet Kumar @ Kishan v. State

20 Sep 2016 · Gita Mittal; P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6649-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence and entitled to release and benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act despite conviction for murder, emphasizing mandatory age inquiry and protection of juvenile rights at all stages.

criminal petition_allowed Significant juvenile justice age inquiry juvenility plea Section 7A JJ Act

RAM PRASAD & ORS v. MUSARRAT BEGUM

20 Sep 2016 · JAYANT NATH, J. · 2016:DHC:6653

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order on bona fide requirement grounds, holding that the landlord's ownership need not be absolute and the tenant failed to produce sufficient facts to obtain leave to defend.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) bona fide requirement leave to defend

Shiv Raj v. Union of India and Ors.

20 Sep 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:6645-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 of the award, granting the petitioner a declaration of lapse.

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

Satya Narayan Yadav v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

20 Sep 2016 · G.S. Sistani; I.S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6646-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the termination of an employee on probation due to discriminatory treatment compared to similarly placed employees with longer absences and directed reconsideration of his case.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant discrimination in employment termination of services probation period leave and absence

Apparel Export Promotion Council v. M/S Mahavir Internation Pvt Limited & Ors.

20 Sep 2016 · Vipin Sanghi · 2016:DHC:6644

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case, holding that liability must be ascertained on the date of cheque presentation and permitting additional evidence to be led for a just decision.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act security cheque crystallized liability date of presentation

Sunil Goel v. Lt. Governor & Ors.

20 Sep 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:8639-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the Section 6 declaration and held the Section 4 notification lapsed in land acquisition proceedings against the petitioners, following prior binding decisions.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4 notification Section 6 declaration quashing of acquisition notification

Madhu Pamnani & Ors. v. Neeraj Pamnani

19 Sep 2016 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5854-DB

The Delhi High Court held that Family Courts have jurisdiction to modify visitation rights orders upon changed circumstances, emphasizing the paramount welfare of the child and restoring the appellant's application to facilitate better access between father and children.

family appeal_allowed Significant visitation rights custody Guardians and Wards Act change of circumstances

Ramjilal Chauhan & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

19 Sep 2016 · A.K. Pathak · 2016:DHC:9132

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under various IPC sections following an amicable settlement between the parties at the Mediation Centre.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR mediation settlement compoundable offences

Soma Enterprise Ltd v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

19 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6612

The Delhi High Court disposed of a suit concerning a bank guarantee at an early stage on the plaintiff's request, directing partial refund of court fees, while preserving the plaintiff's right to seek future remedies.

civil appeal_dismissed bank guarantee court fee refund arbitration clause conciliation proceedings

M/S COMPACT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. SEABUCKTHORN BEVERAGES LLP

19 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6611

The Delhi High Court allowed a 50% refund of court fees to the plaintiff following an out-of-court settlement reached before framing of issues under Section 16-A of the Court Fees Act.

civil petition_allowed court fees refund Section 16-A Court Fees Act out-of-court settlement trademark assignment

Veena Sehgal & Ors. v. Krishna Sehgal & Ors.

19 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6610

The Delhi High Court upheld a voluntary settlement resolving a family property dispute and granted refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

civil appeal_allowed Settlement Agreement Court-annexed mediation Property ownership dispute Court Fees Act 1870

Usha Pir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

19 Sep 2016 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ashutosh Kumar · 2016:DHC:6616-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 before the 2013 Act's commencement.

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

State Bank of India v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes

19 Sep 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2016:DHC:6587

The Delhi High Court held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes lacks jurisdiction to interfere with final disciplinary orders absent allegations of reservation policy violation, and its recommendations are only recommendatory, not binding.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant National Commission for Scheduled Castes Article 338 Constitution of India recommendatory powers reservation policy

Azad Singh Hooda v. Delhi Technology University & Ors.

19 Sep 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:6597-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful non-extension of a contractual appointment, holding no violation of natural justice or vested right to contract renewal.

employment appeal_dismissed contractual employment contract renewal principles of natural justice administrative discretion