Delhi High Court

68,862 judgments

Year:

Vakamulla Chandrashekhar & Ors. v. Registrar of Companies

03 May 1972 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:3915
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to restore complaints dismissed for non-appearance, quashing the restoration and summons orders in a Companies Act offence case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant restoration of complaint functus officio non-appearance Section 482 CrPC

Jurgaj Singh v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited

15 Dec 1971 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2023:DHC:5361
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus to compel supply of documents for appeal against removal, holding that the respondent had duly performed its public duty and provided fair opportunity of hearing.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ of mandamus disciplinary proceedings natural justice public duty

Harmeetpal Singh Bindra & Ors. v. Citibank & Anr.

04 Oct 1970 · Jayant Nath · 2018:DHC:4236
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that surrender of a life insurance policy under Section 6 of the Married Women’s Property Act with trustee consent is valid and directed the insurer to release the policy proceeds for the benefit of minor beneficiaries.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Married Women’s Property Act insurance policy surrender trustee consent Indian Trust Act

National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj v. K. N. Sati and Ors.

07 Feb 1967 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's decision invalidating the downward refixation of pay and recovery of alleged excess payments without prior notice, holding such recovery barred after five years and emphasizing strict compliance with natural justice.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant pay fixation downward refixation recovery of excess payment natural justice

Chetan Sabharwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 28 (1)

09 Jan 1967 · S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh · 2019:DHC:3837-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging reopening of income tax assessments under Sections 147/148, holding that investigation reports constituted sufficient material and no impermissible change of opinion occurred.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Reopening of assessment

Jeger Ali Oagaz v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

17 Sep 1966 · Jasmeet Singh · 2024:DHC:9124
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act against a petitioner who unknowingly carried one cartridge, holding that conscious possession is essential to constitute an offence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 25 Arms Act 1959 conscious possession constructive possession quashing of FIR

Ram Murti Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.

22 Sep 1964 · Jyoti Singh · 2022:DHC:5295
Cites 0 · Cited by 19

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking retrospective promotion after a 21-year delay, holding that delay and laches bar interference with settled seniority and promotion rights under Article 226.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant delay and laches promotion seniority Article 226

Balvinder Kaur & Ors. v. University of Delhi & Ors.

22 Sep 1964 · Jyoti Singh · 2024:DHC:5719

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by legal heirs seeking retrospective promotion of a deceased lecturer due to inordinate delay, laches, and non-fulfillment of mandatory eligibility criteria under the Merit Promotion Scheme.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant delay and laches promotion Merit Promotion Scheme Article 226

Central Board of Trustee v. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Anr.

31 May 1963 · C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:63
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a public library society employing over twenty persons is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds Act via Notification GSR 1294, requiring Provident Fund contributions despite not charging subscription fees.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 1(3)(b) Notification GSR 1294 Notification GSR 728

Sangeeta Jeswani & Ors. v. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors.

16 Apr 1963 · Vibhu Bakhru; Amit Mahajan · 2024:DHC:101-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a prior equitable mortgage and dismissed the petitioners' challenge to the recovery and sale of the mortgaged property, rejecting their bona fide purchaser and forgery claims.

civil petition_dismissed Significant equitable mortgage bona fide purchaser recovery of debts attachment and sale

Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v. UOI & Ors.

08 Nov 1962 · Vipin Sanghi; A.K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:195-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the 48-month limitation for filing a request for examination of a patent application under Rule 24B(1)(i) is mandatory, must be computed from the earlier of the priority date or filing date, and delay beyond this period cannot be condoned, resulting in deemed withdrawal of the application.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant patent application request for examination Rule 24B(1)(i) Section 11-B(4)

Anil Pandhoh v. Kamlesh Nagpal and Ors.

07 Jun 1959 · Jayant Nath · 2017:DHC:1218

The High Court allowed the tenant's revision petition granting leave to defend eviction proceedings by holding that an Agreement to Sell can terminate the landlord-tenant relationship, warranting trial of disputed facts.

property appeal_allowed Significant Agreement to Sell landlord-tenant relationship Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e)

Vipin Kumar Jain v. Ram Babu Jain & Ors.

25 Apr 1958 · Sanjiv Khanna; Navin Chawla · 2017:DHC:4092-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a Hindu female's life interest in property with a pre-existing right converts into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, setting aside a preliminary decree dividing property shares without adjudicating the validity of competing Wills.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 14 life interest absolute ownership

Rajinder Kumar Sethi v. Sushil Kumar Sethi

09 Oct 1957 · G. S. Sistani · 2016:DHC:7682

The Delhi High Court decreed possession and mesne profits in favor of the plaintiff, holding that he was the absolute owner of the suit property and dismissing the defendant's claim of family settlement and adverse possession.

civil appeal_allowed Significant possession mesne profits family settlement adverse possession

MAS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. MAGUS CONSORTIUM ORCHID AVENUE (P) LTD.

16 Aug 1956 · CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J · 2023:DHC:1314

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award for lack of adequate reasoning and invalid termination based on delay where time was not the essence of the contract.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 31(3) Indian Contract Act, 1872

WINGS PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD v. PRAVEEN BHASIN

23 Jun 1947 · G.S. Sistani · 2016:DHC:6834

The Delhi High Court held that a suit based on a single buyer-seller relationship is barred by limitation as no open mutual current account existed, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC limitation open mutual current account Article 1 Schedule Limitation Act

Anil Kumar v. High Court of Delhi

13 Jul 1938 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6804-DB

Delhi High Court partially allowed writ petitions challenging answer keys of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, correcting some answers, deleting ambiguous questions, and clarifying principles of judicial review and adverse possession.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant judicial review answer key Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination adverse possession

Anil Kumar v. High Court of Delhi

13 Jul 1938 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6807-DB

Delhi High Court partially allowed writ petitions challenging answer keys of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, correcting certain answers and deleting ambiguous questions based on legal principles and precedents.

administrative petition_allowed Significant judicial review answer key Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination adverse possession

Anil Kumar v. High Court of Delhi

13 Jul 1938 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6809-DB

Delhi High Court partially allowed writ petitions challenging answer keys of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, clarifying judicial review limits, correcting key answers, deleting ambiguous questions, and addressing related legal principles.

administrative petition_allowed Significant judicial review answer key Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination adverse possession

Nand Kishore v. DDA

05 May 1938 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2021:DHC:3857

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking conversion of a temporary lease into a permanent lease over government-acquired land, holding that possession alone does not confer right to permanent lease absent a policy or obligation by the authority.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant mandatory injunction temporary lease permanent lease Delhi Development Authority