Delhi High Court

68,862 judgments

Year:

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

Through: Mr. N. Mahabir and Mr P.C. Arya, Advocate v. CHIKITSABROTI UDYOG (SANJIVAN HOSPITAL) & ORS

20 Jan 2016 · JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR; 23.03.2017 · 2017:DHC:1704

Delhi High Court held it has jurisdiction to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to enforce an interim award and appointed a Local Commissioner with police assistance to remove hypothecated medical equipment from Respondents' premises.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 petition interim relief jurisdiction

Saroj Bala Sapra & Ors. v. Amar Preet Singh Chadha & Anr.

21 Dec 2015 · V.K. Shali · 2016:DHC:8119

The Delhi High Court held that a landlord's bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) does not permit complete demolition and reconstruction, and tenants raising serious triable issues are entitled to leave to defend eviction petitions.

civil appeal_allowed Significant bona fide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction leave to defend

State v. Mohit

21 Dec 2015 · Sanjiv Khanna; R. K. Gauba · 2016:DHC:8118-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a sexual offence case due to failure of prosecution to prove the prosecutrix's minority and inconsistencies in evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant age of prosecutrix sexual offences benefit of doubt contradictory evidence

Emerson Process Management Power and Water Solutions Inc v. Controller of Patents

21 Dec 2015 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8871

The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection of software-related patent applications based on obsolete grounds and remanded them for fresh consideration under current Patent Office guidelines.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Patents Act, 1970 patent application computer software patent novelty

Smt Jodhian (Since Deceased Through LRs) & Ors. v. Methodist Church in India

16 Dec 2015 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:334

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding the respondent's ownership and rejecting the appellants' plea of adverse possession and bar of suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant adverse possession Order II Rule 2 CPC concurrent findings of fact mandatory injunction

Bhim Rao Yadav and Anr v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Ors

16 Dec 2015 · C. Hari Shankar; Girish Kathpalia · 2024:DHC:8803-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal's non-adjudicatory orders and remanded the petitioners' overtime allowance claim for fresh consideration on merits.

labor appeal_allowed overtime allowance Delhi Transport Corporation Tribunal jurisdiction remand

Saroj Gambhir v. Jaipal Singh Tanwar

14 Dec 2015 · V.K. Shali, J. · 2016:DHC:7967

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging eviction where the tenant was personally served and failed to file leave to defend within time, rejecting allegations of fraud and invalid service.

property appeal_dismissed eviction leave to defend service of notice Delhi Rent Control Act

Sushila Devi Jain v. Rajinder Kumar Gupta

11 Dec 2015 · V.K. Shali, J. · 2016:DHC:7965

The Delhi High Court dismissed the landlord’s revision petition, holding that the tenant raised triable issues on bona fide requirement warranting leave to defend in the eviction proceeding.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bona fide requirement eviction petition leave to defend triable issue

Sushila Devi Jain v. Adesh Kumar Gupta

11 Dec 2015 · V.K. Shali · 2016:DHC:7966

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of leave to defend to the tenant in an eviction petition, holding that disputed facts about alternative accommodation and bona fide requirement raised triable issues requiring trial.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bona fide requirement eviction petition leave to defend alternative accommodation

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS v. UDAL SINGH

30 Oct 2015 · C. HARI SHANKAR; TUSHAR RAO GEDELA · 2024:DHC:8855-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of disciplinary proceedings against a teacher on the ground that the chargesheet and punishment were issued by authorities lacking jurisdiction under the CCS (CCA) Rules after his elevation to Group 'B' status.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings competent authority Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 Group B officers

M/S DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD & ANR. v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD & ORS.

27 Oct 2015 · V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2021:DHC:3482

The Delhi High Court held that use of registered trademarks as backend keywords in Google's advertising platform does not constitute trademark infringement or passing off, and Google is entitled to intermediary protection under the IT Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement keywords meta-tags Google AdWords

IACUITY TELCO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.

27 Oct 2015 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:7081
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that the plea of limitation cannot be decided at the stage of appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and directed reference of disputes to arbitration under DIAC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(5) Limitation Appointment of arbitrator