Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

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prior institution of a suit and resistance to a Section 8 application does not bar invoking arbitration if the suit is withdrawn unconditionally, and appointed an arbitrator to resolve partnership disputes.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 35

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

Sunita Devi v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

12 Nov 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:9737-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner’s claim for seniority and increments was not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant res judicata constructive res judicata Order 2 Rule 2 CPC cause of action

Indian Hockey Federation v. UOI & Ors.

01 Nov 2014 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:182

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the recognition of Hockey India as the National Sports Federation for hockey, holding the petition infructuous in light of binding international arbitration and subsequent recognitions.

administrative petition_dismissed National Sports Federation Recognition Indian Olympic Association Court of Arbitration for Sports

Union of India v. M/S. Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. & Anr.

31 Oct 2014 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2019:DHC:6492
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that delay beyond the 120-day period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be condoned, and administrative delay does not constitute sufficient cause for such condonation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34(3) condonation of delay limitation period

SPML INFRA LIMITED v. GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED

31 Oct 2014 · Jyoti Singh · 2020:DHC:1074

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging an arbitral award due to failure to show sufficient cause for delay beyond the strict limitation period and held that fundamental filing defects render the petition invalid to stop limitation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant condonation of delay Section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act limitation period sufficient cause

Jiwan Ram v. Union of India

14 Oct 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8096-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court directed grant of one notional increment for pension calculation to a retired government employee, subject to the outcome of a pending Supreme Court Review Petition.

administrative petition_allowed Significant notional increment pension calculation retirement benefits Department of Personnel & Training

PNB Housing Finance Ltd v. Ms. Pinky Aggarwal & Ors.

26 Sep 2014 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6990
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 upon finding a valid arbitration agreement and timely petition, directing disputes to arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(5) Section 21 notice arbitration agreement

Bhim Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

19 Sep 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8114-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Delhi High Court held that a government servant formally appointed to hold charge of a higher post outside his cadre is entitled to the pay of that post under FR 49(iii), quashing the Tribunal’s dismissal of the petitioner’s claim for pay difference as Store Keeper.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Fundamental Rule 49(iii) Store Keeper look-after charge pay entitlement

Ravinder Kumar v. Govt. of NCT Delhi

08 Sep 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:9122-DB

Recovery of alleged excess pay from a Group-C employee retiring within one year is impermissible without prior undertaking, quashing the recovery order under State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.

administrative petition_allowed Significant excess payment recovery Assured Career Progression Scheme Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme Group-C employees

Vodafone India Ltd. and Ors. v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

04 Sep 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2017:DHC:5063
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that TRAI's refusal to share the cost model during consultation on interconnection charges does not violate its statutory duty of transparency under Section 11(4) of the TRAI Act, dismissing the petition challenging the process.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Mobile Termination Charges Interconnection Usage Charges Transparency

The Chief Executive Officer J and K Era Srinagar Kashmir v. Abhiram Infra Projects Pvt Ltd

01 Sep 2014 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5880

The Delhi High Court held that arbitration seated in Delhi is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 notwithstanding the contract's governing law being Jammu and Kashmir law, and dismissed the petitioner's challenge based on the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant seat of arbitration curial law governing law Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 1997

Mangalmay Institute of Management & Technology v. GGSIP University

31 Aug 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao, J · 2017:DHC:3119

The Delhi High Court struck down the moratorium on affiliation of new educational institutions in NCR outside Delhi imposed by the Government and University as arbitrary, discriminatory, and ultra vires the governing Act, directing consideration of affiliation applications on merits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant affiliation Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Act, 1998 National Capital Region moratorium

Union of India and Ors. v. Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha

26 Aug 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1244
Cites 3 · Cited by 165

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of a dismissal order where the disciplinary authority's disagreement note was conclusive rather than tentative and critical evidence was not properly proved, emphasizing adherence to natural justice in departmental proceedings.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disagreement note departmental inquiry natural justice proof of documents

K.L. Enterprises LLP & Ors. v. Bajaj Finance Limited

21 Aug 2014 · Jyoti Singh · 2020:DHC:2227

The Delhi High Court granted interim protection restraining the sale of pledged shares by the lender during the Covid-19 pandemic, balancing contractual rights with regulatory moratoriums and pandemic-induced hardships pending arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement Covid-19 pandemic

National Highways Authority of India v. Yedeshi Aurangabad Tollway Limited

05 Aug 2014 · C. Hari Shankar · 2025:DHC:424
Cites 0 · Cited by 13

The Delhi High Court held that stay of an arbitral money award requires 100% deposit or security as per amended Section 36(3) and CPC principles, dismissing NHAI's stay application against a ₹1503 crore award in favor of Yedeshi.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Section 36(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act Stay of Execution Money Decree

Someshwar Dayal v. Anupama Dayal

28 Jul 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5811-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a spouse cannot withdraw a guardianship petition and continue to benefit from interim custody orders, allowing the other spouse to be transposed as petitioner to protect the children's welfare.

family appeal_allowed Significant Guardians and Wards Act Section 25 interim custody orders withdrawal of petition