Delhi High Court

77,325 judgments

Year:

Binod Kumar Bawri & Ors v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited

24 Sep 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:8061-DB

The Delhi High Court held that Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC is inapplicable to Section 9 interim relief petitions under the Arbitration Act and set aside asset disclosure orders, remanding the matter for fresh consideration under correct legal principles.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 9 Arbitration Act Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC interim measures affidavit of assets

Binod Kumar Bawri & Ors v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited

24 Sep 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:8060-DB

The Delhi High Court held that Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC does not apply to interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and set aside asset disclosure orders, remanding the matter for fresh consideration applying correct legal standards.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 9 Arbitration Act Order 21 Rule 41(2) CPC interim measures affidavit of assets

State v. Kapil

24 Sep 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:8063

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's conviction and lenient sentence in a case of alleged kidnapping and rape, emphasizing discretion under Section 376(2) IPC where the prosecutrix's consent and age were disputed.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 376 IPC Consent Procuring minor Age determination

Bansal Dye Chem Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Value Added Tax, Delhi & Anr.

24 Sep 2015 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2015:DHC:8064-DB

The Delhi High Court held that penalty under the DVAT Act cannot be imposed without issuing a separate notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, setting aside the penalty order and remanding for fresh consideration.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 Penalty under Section 86(10) Natural justice Notice and hearing

Kallu Mal v. Babu Ram & Ors.

24 Sep 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:8065

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal challenging injunction relief denial where the defendant held possession under municipal license, condoned delay in filing appeal, and allowed the appellant to pursue separate remedy for obstruction of easementary rights.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant mandatory injunction prohibitory injunction possession Tehbazari

Bina Chadha v. Union of India and Anr.

24 Sep 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:8074-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner’s appointment as Junior Hindi Translator was a promotion, not direct recruitment, and dismissed her claim for additional financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme Junior Hindi Translator Promotion vs Direct Recruitment Departmental Promotion Committee

Virender Kumar v. CRPF

24 Sep 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:8075-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the termination of a probationary CRPF constable under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Servant) Rules, 1965, holding that serious allegations of misconduct require fair procedure including a show-cause notice and opportunity to be heard.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant termination of service temporary government servant Rule 5(1) CCS (Temporary Servant) Rules 1965 probationary employee

Arun Kumar Nayyar v. Rajtni Bahl

24 Sep 2015 · V. K. Shali · 2015:DHC:12020

The High Court dismissed the revision petitions as withdrawn and directed the lower forum to expedite disposal of the tenancy matters.

civil appeal_dismissed Procedural withdrawal of petition leave to defend expeditious disposal Additional Rent Controller

Ashok Kumar Kharya v. State of NCT of Delhi

09 Sep 2015 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2023:DHC:5795
Cites 1 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a supplementary chargesheet filed without prior court permission and dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the summoning order against the petitioner accused of criminal breach of trust and cheating in a housing society land fraud case.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant supplementary chargesheet Section 173(8) CrPC fair investigation Article 21 Constitution

The Metal Scrap Trading Corpn. v. Sunnaren Seaways Inc.

08 Sep 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:8505-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed MSTC's application for condonation of delay and restoration of appeal, holding that no sufficient cause was shown and emphasizing the need for finality and proper prosecution of appeals.

civil petition_dismissed Significant restoration of appeal condonation of delay arbitration award execution proceedings

S Rajagopal v. Union of India and Ors.

07 Sep 2015 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1794-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 46

The High Court held that disputes regarding entitlement to Ex-Serviceman status and ESM identity cards for retired armed forces personnel drawing pro-rata pension fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and the writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Ex-Serviceman status Armed Forces Tribunal jurisdiction pro-rata pension Kendriya Sainik Board

SH VARUN CHAUDDHARY & ORS v. STATE OF NCT & ANR

05 Sep 2015 · P.S. Teji · 2015:DHC:8362

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354A, 323, 509, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR amicable settlement inherent powers of High Court

C.S. Malik v. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research & Anr

31 Aug 2015 · C. Hari Shankar; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2024:DHC:8856-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed a hastily issued charge sheet against a retired CSIR officer for violating natural justice and directed payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits, while upholding procedural safeguards for post-retirement disciplinary action.

administrative petition_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings superannuation charge sheet natural justice

Sepoy Balwan Choudhary v. Union of India

27 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016 DHC 8847

The Delhi High Court held that the reduction in rank and imprisonment imposed on a soldier for assaulting a superior officer was disproportionate given provocation by the superior, and restored the soldier’s rank and benefits.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Army Act Section 40(a) Summary Court Martial Disproportionate punishment

The Statesman Limited v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

19 Aug 2015 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:4390

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition challenging an award under the Working Journalists Act, upholding the original decision for lack of grounds to interfere.

labor appeal_dismissed Review Petition Working Journalists Act Award Dismissal

Union of India v. Cairn India Ltd & Ors.

14 Aug 2015 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:7328
Cites 0 · Cited by 16

The Delhi High Court held that challenges to an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction post-final award must be pursued in the courts of the seat of arbitration, dismissing the suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitral tribunal jurisdiction functus officio territorial jurisdiction seat of arbitration

Kush Kalra v. Union of India & Anr.

02 Aug 2015 · Gita Mittal; C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:108-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court held that excluding women from recruitment as officers in the Indian Territorial Army is unconstitutional discrimination violating Articles 14, 15, and 16, and directed the respondents to allow women to apply on par with men.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant gender discrimination Territorial Army Articles 14 15 16 constitutional equality

Shiv Prakash Katiyar v. Jawahar Lal University & Ors.

27 Jul 2015 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8097-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that an interlocutory order issuing notice without deciding any controversy is not a "judgment" under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, and thus the Letters Patent Appeal against such order is not maintainable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Letters Patent Appeal judgment definition interlocutory order Clause 10 Letters Patent

Jai Balaji Security Services v. A.P.F.C. Delhi (North)

22 Jul 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:10241-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the 75% pre-deposit requirement under Section 7-O of the Employees Provident Funds Act applies only to appeals under Section 7-A, allowing the Tribunal to grant interim relief in appeals under Sections 7-Q and 14-B without such pre-deposit.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7-O pre-deposit Section 7-A Section 7-Q

Jai Balaji Security Services v. A.P.F.C. Delhi (North)

22 Jul 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:10244-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the 75% pre-deposit embargo under Section 7-O of the Employees Provident Funds Act applies only to appeals under Section 7-A, allowing appeals and interim stays under Sections 7-Q and 14-B without such pre-deposit.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7-O pre-deposit Section 7-A Section 7-Q