Delhi High Court

72,805 judgments

Year:

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

Tanveer El Umar Khan v. State & Anr

21 Mar 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:2382-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 379 IPC and Section 135 Indian Electricity Act following amicable settlement and payment by the petitioner, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC illegal abstraction of electricity Section 379 IPC

Ali Emam Khan v. State & Anr

21 Mar 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:2834-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under the Indian Electricity Act for illegal abstraction of energy following an amicable settlement and payment of dues by the petitioner.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Indian Electricity Act 2003 illegal abstraction of electricity amicable settlement

Sanjay Kumar Dubey v. Union of India

18 Mar 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:2323-DB

The Delhi High Court modified the removal and dismissal penalties imposed on two CISF personnel for misconduct during a scuffle, emphasizing limited judicial review and proportionality in disciplinary actions.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry disciplinary proceedings CISF service revolver

Sanjay Kumar Dubey v. Union of India

18 Mar 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:2322-DB

The Delhi High Court modified the removal and dismissal penalties imposed on two CISF personnel for misconduct, holding that while evidence supported misconduct, the punishment was disproportionate and warranted reduction.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry disciplinary proceedings judicial review Article 226

Navayuga Engineering Co. P Ltd v. Public Works Department

15 Mar 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:2151-DB

The Delhi High Court restored parts of an arbitral award allowing market rate claims for delay caused by the employer under Section 55 of the Contract Act, while rejecting bonus claims based on altering the scheduled completion date.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration award Extension of time Market rates Section 55 Indian Contract Act

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

Symantec Software Solutions v. R Modi & Ors.

27 Jan 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5398-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s discretionary order permitting additional witnesses to be summoned, emphasizing that such orders should not be disturbed unless legally erroneous or causing grave injustice.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant software copyright software piracy additional witnesses Order XVI Rule 1 CPC

Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra & Anr. v. Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction & Ors.

14 Jan 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:1747-DB

The Delhi High Court held that its earlier procedural order did not decide the substantive issue of Bench competence under Section 12(3) SICA and directed the appellate authority to decide the petitioners' objection afresh.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 Section 12(3) SICA Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction Bench constitution

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