Delhi High Court
92,628 judgments
Vineet Taneja v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
The Delhi High Court upheld IREDA's recruitment shortlisting criteria favoring candidates with experience in listed organizations, dismissing the petition challenging exclusion of a candidate lacking such experience.
Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Ms. Urmila Sharma, Ms. Deepika Kalra, Ms. Venni Kakkar v. Sachin
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing a re-review medical examination, holding that medical unfitness must be based on expert opinion on the candidate's ability to perform specific duties, not merely on the presence of a disqualifying condition.
NHPC Ltd. v. V3S Infratech Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed NHPC Ltd.'s appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, holding that non-filing of the arbitral award with the Section 34 petition renders it non-est and counsel's mistake cannot excuse such procedural non-compliance.
Sh. Govind Ram Sharma v. Sh. Gajender Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent failed to prove possession and concluded sale, thus dismissing his suit for possession and declaration of ownership based on unregistered documents and revocation deeds.
Ms. Shreya Lamba v. LOREAL SA
The Delhi High Court held that a trial court becomes functus officio after passing a final decree and cannot suo moto assume jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceedings, setting aside the impugned orders passed without jurisdiction.
Ms. Shreya Lamba v. LOREAL SA
The High Court held that a trial court becomes functus officio after passing a decree and cannot suo moto initiate fresh proceedings related to the same matter, setting aside such orders as nullities under its superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227.
Ms. Shreya Lamba v. LOREAL SA
The Delhi High Court held that a Trial Court becomes functus officio after passing a final decree and cannot suo moto assume jurisdiction to initiate separate proceedings, quashing such orders under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Sudhakar Reddy v. Kakarthi @ Aarthi
The High Court held that a Trial Court cannot arbitrarily deny a defendant the right to cross-examine and lead evidence for non-payment of adjournment costs and directed one effective opportunity to be granted.
M/S TOP MOTOCOMPONENTS PVT LTD v. AADITYA EMOTORS PVT LTD & ORS
The court held that defendants whose right to file written statements is closed cannot lead evidence and are limited to cross-examination and final arguments, setting aside the trial court's order permitting otherwise.
Seema Rani Jain v. M/S Canadian Speciality Vinyls
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's petition to file a belated amended written statement in a commercial suit subject to costs, clarifying the applicable timelines and scope of Order VI Rule 18 CPC.
Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Mahesh Chand Sharma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court directed maintenance of status quo pending trial court hearing after the trial court vacated an interim order due to counsel’s absence for bona fide reasons.
RPS Infrastructure Limited v. Ashwanidewan
The Delhi High Court held that the NCDRC cannot dispose of an appeal adversely affecting a party without giving them notice and opportunity of hearing, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeal for fresh disposal.
Zenith Vipers Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Jasmeet Singh Marwah
The High Court held that pendency of applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not extend time to file written statement and dismissed the petition seeking further extension after multiple opportunities were granted and not availed.
National Medical Commission v. ANS Global
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's allowance of a clarificatory amendment to the plaint and directed adjudication of a pending summary dismissal application before trial.
Vishal Maheshwari v. G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The High Court upheld the trial court's order setting aside an ex-parte decree due to improper service and pandemic-related administrative directions, dismissing the petition under Article 227.
Shashi v. Arya Kumar
The High Court directed the Trial Court to allow the petitioner one opportunity to cross-examine the husband and emphasized expeditious disposal of the pending interim maintenance application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Ramesh Chand & Anr v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking compensation for death in a railway accident, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and died due to his own negligence, not an untoward incident under the Railways Act.
Rani Dutta v. Babli Ghosh @ Sharmila Ghosh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, holding the Will validly executed and the appellant as absolute owner entitled to possession and injunction against respondents occupying the property on a terminated license.
Shahzad Khan & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioners' plea to restrain demolition of unauthorized constructions in an ecologically sensitive floodplain area, holding that such colonies in Zone 'O' are excluded from regularisation under the PM-UDAY Scheme and must be cleared to protect the environment.
N.V. Ramami v. The Government of Canada
The Delhi High Court held that a sole residential property exempt from attachment cannot be considered sufficient means to pay court fees, directing a fresh inquiry into the petitioner's indigency before proceeding with the appeal.