Delhi High Court

68,862 judgments

Year:

Harjit Kaur v. Surinder Singh

23 May 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Yogesh Khanna · 2016:DHC:7566-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the wife's appeal, setting aside the divorce decree granted on grounds of cruelty, holding that the husband's extramarital affair during marriage constituted cruelty and the wife was denied a fair opportunity to prove it.

family appeal_allowed Significant cruelty extramarital affair Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 divorce

Maruti Traders v. Itron India Pvt Ltd

15 May 2015 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5291

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award dismissing the petitioner’s claims for exclusive dealership and commission, holding that no valid contract existed prior to the Reseller Agreement and that the respondent’s direct sales and appointment of other resellers did not breach the non-exclusive reseller agreement.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Reseller Agreement Non-exclusive dealership

Duttmenon Dunmorsett v. Union of India

14 May 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A. K. Chawla · 2018:DHC:4217-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court held that reimbursements for senior counsel fees cannot be included in the taxable value of services under the Finance Act, 1994 prior to the 2015 amendment, quashing the service tax demand on such reimbursements.

tax petition_allowed Significant service tax valuation of taxable services reimbursements Finance Act 1994

Gagan Sharma v. The Secretary, Services Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

11 May 2015 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:4208
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed a belated claim for compassionate appointment by the son of a deceased Work Charge employee, reaffirming that such appointments must be granted promptly to families facing immediate financial crisis and are not a vested right.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant compassionate appointment delay laches financial crisis

GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED v. M/S RATHI STEEL AND POWER LTD

28 Apr 2015 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2022:DHC:632

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that limitation is a substantive issue for arbitration unless claims are ex-facie barred.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Limitation Pay For If Not Taken

ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. DABICO Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors.

23 Apr 2015 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:7900

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for appointment of a local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC to inspect defendants' products for patent infringement, holding that sufficient evidence already existed and the provision cannot be used to gather better evidence.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC scientific investigation local Commissioner patent infringement

Hira Lal Bhat v. Chairman and Managing Director BSNL and Ors.

11 Apr 2015 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9915-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

Delhi High Court held that emergency medical treatment expenses incurred by a government employee in a non-empanelled hospital must be fully reimbursed, overruling the Tribunal's denial and emphasizing the binding nature of Emergency Certificates.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant medical reimbursement emergency treatment liver transplant surgery Central Government Health Scheme

MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

13 Mar 2015 · Sanjeev Narula · 2023:DHC:3748
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

Delhi High Court set aside the patent office's rejection of a software patent application under Section 3(k), directing re-examination under the 2017 CRI Guidelines emphasizing technical contribution and effect.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Patents Act 1970 Section 3(k) computer program per se technical contribution

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SATYAPAL SINGH YADAV

09 Mar 2015 · C. HARI SHANKAR; AJAY DIGPAUL · 2025:DHC:487-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of departmental punishment against a police constable acquitted in criminal proceedings, holding that mere hostility of witnesses does not justify disciplinary action under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 Rule 12 DPPAR criminal acquittal departmental proceedings

NTT DOCOMO INC. v. TATA SONS LIMITED

23 Feb 2015 · S. Muralidhar · 2017:DHC:2254

Delhi High Court held that RBI has no locus standi to intervene in enforcement of an arbitral award between private parties and upheld enforcement of the award and consent terms despite RBI's objections under FEMA.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral Award Enforcement Locus Standi of RBI Foreign Exchange Management Act Shareholder Agreement

Ajay Kumar Sinha v. Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited & Pragati Power Corporation Limited

12 Feb 2015 · Jyoti Singh · 2024:DHC:7089
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The court held that non-communication of ACR entries violates Article 14 and directed retrospective promotion and seniority restoration upon upgradation of ACRs with review DPC consideration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Annual Confidential Report ACR communication Promotion Seniority restoration

Nipun Malhotra v. Government of Delhi NCT

11 Feb 2015 · Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2016:DHC:7614-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Government to clarify and conduct a disability audit of government buildings to ensure accessibility for differently abled persons, underscoring the State's duty to facilitate disabled persons' rights.

constitutional other Significant disability audit differently abled persons accessibility government buildings

Sushil Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

02 Feb 2015 · S. Muralidhar; I. S. Mehta · 2018:DHC:9083-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court directed continued lawful investigation into the disappearance of Shri Pyare Lal, emphasizing the necessity of truthful cooperation from family members and periodic reporting by police.

criminal other missing person investigation polygraph test mobile phone forensic examination

Iqbal Singh and Anr v. Ashok Lamba and Anr

30 Jan 2015 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:3350

The Delhi High Court upheld the restoration of a suit dismissed for non-appearance, holding that deaths in the plaintiff's family constituted sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, and imposed costs to compensate the defendants.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant restoration of suit Order IX Rule 9 CPC sufficient cause non-appearance

Ved Praksh Dubey v. M/S Maheshwari Gas Service

13 Jan 2015 · CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2016:DHC:7638-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, representation by Advocates before the Labour Court is barred and prior judicial orders disallowing such representation cannot be circumvented by implied consent.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 36(3) representation by Advocate implied consent

Ved Praksh Dubey; Jai Prakash Dubey; Ram Bachan Soni v. M/S Maheshwari Gas Service

13 Jan 2015 · CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2016:DHC:7640-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Management cannot be represented by an advocate before the Industrial Adjudicator contrary to the bar under Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and prior final court orders, and that implied consent to such representation was not established.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 36(3) advocate representation implied consent

Ved Praksh Dubey; Jai Prakash Dubey; Ram Bachan Soni v. M/S Maheshwari Gas Service

13 Jan 2015 · CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2016:DHC:7637-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the statutory bar under Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on advocate representation for Management is absolute and cannot be overridden by implied consent, setting aside orders allowing such representation.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 36(3) advocate representation implied consent

Saroj Khemka v. Mukat Behari Khemka & Ors.

23 Dec 2014 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5358

The Delhi High Court held that prior institution of a suit and resistance to a Section 8 application does not bar invoking arbitration if the suit is withdrawn unconditionally, and appointed an arbitrator to resolve partnership disputes.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration agreement Section 11(6) Arbitration Act Section 8 Arbitration Act waiver of arbitration

Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Business Solutions Pvt Ltd

08 Dec 2014 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023 SCC OnLine Del 38

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application, holding that prior admission of descriptiveness and common usage of words in its trademark disentitles it from exclusive rights against the defendants' similar mark.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Order XXXIX CPC interim injunction descriptive mark

Shiv Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

17 Nov 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:3221-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 32

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s pending representation against his transfer within two weeks and stayed the transfer order for one week thereafter to protect his rights.

administrative petition_allowed transfer order autistic child government policy representation