Delhi High Court

74,231 judgments

Year:

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rakesh Kumar

31 Jan 2014 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:11025
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the CBI's application for condonation of delay in filing a criminal appeal against acquittal in a bribery case, holding that procedural delays within government departments do not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay Section 5 Limitation Act 1963 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 government delay

Union of India v. Mukta Srivastava & Ors.

29 Jan 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1678-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 19

The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal's order protecting promotions based on a superseded seniority list, holding that promotions must be revisited following a revised seniority list issued in compliance with binding judicial directions.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant seniority list promotion Chemical Examiner-II Chemical Examiner-I

Sonu v. Premlata

28 Jan 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6437-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a maintenance award of ₹18,000 per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, emphasizing that courts may infer true income through guesswork when a spouse suppresses financial details.

family appeal_dismissed Significant maintenance pendente lite Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act income determination suppression of income

Sonu v. Premlata

28 Jan 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6435-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a maintenance pendente lite award of ₹18,000 per month to a wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, finding the husband concealed income and emphasizing courts may estimate income where full disclosure is lacking.

family appeal_dismissed Significant maintenance pendente lite Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act income concealment self-employed income assessment

Dinesh Kumar Meena v. Union of India and Ors.

30 Dec 2013 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8503-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed the rejection of a candidate's appointment based on handwriting mismatch after forensic examination confirmed the handwriting matched, directing his appointment with consequential benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant handwriting mismatch forensic examination principles of natural justice recruitment process

Vijay Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

30 Dec 2013 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8505-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 7

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition directing appointment of the candidate after forensic confirmation of thumb impression matching, overruling rejection based on handwriting/signature mismatch.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant handwriting mismatch signature mismatch thumb impression recruitment process

Yogesh v. Union of India & Ors.

30 Dec 2013 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8507-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 22

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Tribunal's order rejecting candidature on handwriting mismatch after forensic thumb impression verification confirmed the petitioner's identity, directing his appointment with consequential benefits.

administrative petition_allowed Significant recruitment handwriting mismatch forensic verification thumb impression

Dinesh Kumar Gurjar v. Union of India & Anr

30 Dec 2013 · C. Hari Shankar; Girish Kathpalia · 2024:DHC:8865-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court set aside cancellation of candidature based on handwriting mismatch, relying on FSL thumb impression report and emphasizing the need for expert examination and adherence to natural justice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant cancellation of candidature handwriting mismatch impersonation natural justice

Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar

30 Dec 2013 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9522-DB
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of candidature cancellation for minor OMR erasure, emphasizing adherence to recruitment instructions and binding coordinate bench precedent.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant OMR sheet candidature cancellation examination instructions coordinate bench decision

Priyanka Rani v. Government of India & Anr.

21 Dec 2013 · Yogesh Khanna · 2022:DHC:617

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for Nursing Officer due to non-compliance with the prescribed validity period of OBC (NCL) certificates as mandated by the recruitment advertisement and official notices.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate recruitment eligibility certificate validity period reservation

Pradeep Agarwal v. State Bank of India and Ors.

11 Dec 2013 · Indira Banerjee; V. Kameswar Rao · 2016:DHC:6626-DB

The Delhi High Court held that where a plea of fraud was already taken in the original securitization application, amendment to add the same plea may be refused, but the party can clarify it in replication, and the Tribunal shall consider it on merits.

civil petition_dismissed Securitization Application SARFAESI Act amendment of pleadings fraud and fabrication

Kalpana Mehdiratta v. Air Force Bal Bharati School

11 Nov 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:1097-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the selection of respondent No.4 as Vice-Principal, ruling that the Departmental Promotion Committee's overall assessment of merit and seniority is not subject to judicial interference absent mala fide or procedural irregularity.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Departmental Promotion Committee Vice-Principal appointment Delhi School Education Act, 1973 selection post

Hitesh Chhabra & Anr. v. Sandeep Chhabra

15 Oct 2013 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the Court must appoint an arbitrator upon failure of parties to agree, limiting its role to verifying the arbitration agreement and timeliness of the petition.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act arbitration agreement appointment of arbitrator Section 21 notice

Sandeep Sharma v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.

25 Sep 2013 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:1751
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed the removal order of an employee due to procedural irregularities and lack of evidence in the departmental inquiry, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

labor other Significant departmental inquiry natural justice Inquiry Officer disciplinary proceedings

Savita Jain v. State of N.C.T.

04 Sep 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:1094-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of accused tenants for murder and robbery based on reliable child witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and recovery of stolen property.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder robbery circumstantial evidence child witness

Savita Jain v. State of N.C.T.

04 Sep 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:1096-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for murder and robbery based on reliable child witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and recovery of stolen property establishing common intention.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder robbery child witness circumstantial evidence

AGP City Gas Private Limited & Anr. v. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board & Ors.

23 Aug 2013 · Yashwant Varma · 2023:DHC:1830
Cites 0 · Cited by 27

The Delhi High Court clarified that exclusivity granted to Authorized Entities under PNGRB Act is limited to pipeline CGD networks, allowing LNG stations dispensing LNG in liquid form by others, and upheld the Board's regulatory authority to balance exclusivity with consumer interests.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Authorized Entity City Gas Distribution Exclusivity Liquefied Natural Gas

Bennet, Coleman and Company Ltd v. Fashion One Television LLC

19 Aug 2013 · C. Hari Shankar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the respondent's trademark registrations containing the dominant element "NOW" in Class 38 infringe the petitioner's "NOW" family of marks and ordered their removal from the register.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 17 anti-dissection rule family of marks

Shailendra Garg v. K-7 Impex Pvt Ltd

13 Aug 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Yogesh Khanna · 2016:DHC:7480-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court modified a summary suit decree based on cheques and promissory notes, rejecting the appellant's defence involving a separate company and reducing the interest rate, while affirming the requirement of triable issues for leave to defend under Order XXXVII CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXXVII CPC leave to defend promissory note negotiable instruments

Vardhman Precision Profiles v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

05 Aug 2013 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6237
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting claims as non-arbitrable due to failure to comply with contractual notification requirements, affirming limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Notified claims Pre-arbitral protocol