Delhi High Court

74,231 judgments

Year:

Chamanlal Verma v. Union of India & Ors.

23 Feb 2015 · V.K. Shali · 2016:DHC:1523

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the trial court's refusal to restore a suit dismissed for non-prosecution, holding that negligence of counsel does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Order IX Rule 9 CPC.

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

Shweta Sharma v. M/S. Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd.

23 Feb 2015 · V.K. Shali · 2016:DHC:1517

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the repossession order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for non-maintainability, directing the appellant to first seek modification before the original court.

civil appeal_dismissed Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 Section 37 repossession

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

Sunagro Seeds Pvt Ltd v. National Seeds Corporation Ltd

16 Feb 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:755-DB

The Delhi High Court held that liquidated damages at 3% of the cost of un-lifted seeds, as per the contract schedule, is the correct measure of damages payable for breach of contract, reducing the arbitrator’s award accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant liquidated damages breach of contract measure of damages arbitration award

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

City Palace Electronics (P) Ltd v. M/S Sony India (P) Ltd

06 Feb 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:1560-DB

The Delhi High Court held that goods sold on principal-to-principal basis vest ownership in the buyer, dismissed Sony's claim to repossess goods, set aside warranty-related interim directions beyond suit scope, and imposed costs on Sony for frivolous pleadings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant principal to principal sale legal ownership of goods interim injunction Order 37 CPC

Vishal @ Nanu & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

04 Feb 2015 · Siddharth Mridul, J · 2016:DHC:917-DB

Pooja Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

04 Feb 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:918-DB

Pooja Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

04 Feb 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:919-DB

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

M/S VISIONAIRE INDIA v. M/S IBM INDIA PVT LTD

15 Jan 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:432-DB

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

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