Delhi High Court

75,184 judgments

Year:

Mandir Shri Krishan Bhagwan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

10 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3737-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years from the award date.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse non-payment of compensation

Sanjay Khanna v. M/S Vasu Tech Ltd. & Ors.

06 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:3576

The Delhi High Court dismissed defendant's leave to defend application in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, holding that a corporate guarantee with personal endorsement constitutes a written contract and that frivolous defenses of duress cannot defeat recovery.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Corporate Guarantee Order XXXVII CPC Leave to defend Written contract

Shiv Lal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

02 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3405-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, granting the petitioners a declaration of lapse.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24(2) acquisition proceedings lapse

Shiv Lal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

02 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3408-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years of the award, regardless of possession claims.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 compensation non-payment acquisition proceedings lapse

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

Patricia Helen Atwal v. M/S ING Vyasa Bank Ltd.

31 Mar 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:705-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's claim of title over a property, remanding the matter for fresh consideration of all facts and evidence regarding alleged sham transactions and the prospective effect of Supreme Court rulings on property transfers.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 agreement to sell power of attorney sham transaction

Surinder Singh Sachdev v. Canara Bank & Ors.

23 Mar 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Indermeet Kaur · 2016:DHC:395-DB

The Delhi High Court held that conditional acceptance does not constitute a binding one-time settlement under the Contract Act, set aside the appellate order decreeing the bank's claim, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

civil other Significant one-time settlement acceptance contract formation Debts Recovery Tribunal

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

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

Hari Kishore Sharma v. Chief Secretary Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

16 Feb 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:62-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against refusal of interim stay in a writ petition challenging deputation-based appointment over contractual extension, holding that interim relief in employment matters requires exceptional circumstances.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant interim relief contractual employment permanent absorption deputation