Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Staff Selection Commission v. Arun; Staff Selection Commission v. Nitish Kumar
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order directing fresh medical examination of candidates declared unfit, emphasizing limited judicial review but requiring fair procedure and consideration of curable medical conditions.
Jagdish Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors.
The High Court set aside an ex parte order passed despite representation through counsel, holding that applications under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside ex parte orders are not time-barred and should be liberally construed to decide cases on merits.
Satish Kumar v. Holistic Child Development India and Others
The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's finding that the respondent is not an industry and no employer-employee relationship existed, dismissing the petitioner's claim for reinstatement and back wages under Article 226.
EX CT Hardayal Yadav v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition for Disability Pension due to inordinate delay and non-availability of medical records necessary to establish causal connection between disability and service.
Inspector Min Gajendra Kumar v. Sandeep Kulharia
The Delhi High Court held that during the pendency of a stay on an Office Memorandum restricting government accommodation retention, applications for regularisation cannot be denied for non-payment of damages, which must await final adjudication.
Tarun Nuhani v. M/S Hightech Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the setting aside of an ex-parte decree due to improper service of summons on an incorrect email address despite availability of the correct email, emphasizing the necessity of valid service under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
U P State Road Transport Corporation v. Raj Rani & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially allowed the appeal reducing compensation by applying correct multiplier and deducting job-specific allowances, while affirming that married children can be considered dependents for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Pankaj Kapal Mehra v. Union of India & Anr.
A director cannot be personally penalized under the FTDR Act without specific allegations and findings of duty and conscious failure; mere directorship does not impose automatic liability.
Ajmer Singh v. Director of Education & Ors
The Delhi High Court quashed a compulsory retirement penalty imposed after a departmental inquiry that violated natural justice by denying the petitioner effective cross-examination and clarified that the Directorate of Education cannot modify penalties under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act.
Saleem Ahmad v. Jaipal
The Delhi High Court held that absence of a valid driving license alone does not establish sole negligence of the injured in a motor accident claim and remanded the matter for fresh compensation assessment.
Kunderu Lakshmy v. Info Edge (India) Limited
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from termination of a subscription service on Naukri.com, affirming the enforceability of the arbitration clause.
Satya Narain Agrawal v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking pro rata pension for Air Force service, holding that the petitioner did not meet the mandatory ten-year qualifying service requirement under the 1972 Pension Rules.
Veer Singh & Anr. v. Naveen @ Bablu & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that an owner who initially verified a driver's license and where the license expired only shortly before the accident without disqualification is not liable to reimburse the insurer for compensation paid.
United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Ashok Kumar Joshi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding compensation awarded to an injured advocate in a motor accident case, affirming negligence proof by chargesheet and validating income and disability assessments.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. M/S Maxflow Pumps India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that limitation objections do not bar appointment and must be decided by the arbitrator.
Govind Saran Sharma v. General Manager, Northern Railways and Anr
The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT’s dismissal of a retired railway employee’s claim for additional allowance and promotion benefits, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on merits including amended prayers.
Indraprastha Gas Limited v. M/S Chintamani Food and Snacks
The Delhi High Court held that a prima facie arbitration agreement exists under the Gas Supply Agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes, limiting its role to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement without delving into merits.
MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD v. SAPNA ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate loan repayment disputes where the respondent defaulted and failed to respond to notices.
Rambir v. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education
The Delhi High Court held that the 2018 UGC Regulations do not exclude promotion as a mode of appointment to Assistant Librarian posts and directed the University to consider the petitioner’s promotion claim under existing Recruitment Rules.
Pacific Development Corporation Ltd v. DJT Realtors Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a Licence Agreement containing a valid arbitration clause.