Delhi High Court

79,582 judgments

Year:

Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.

12 Aug 2015 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:6509-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a compulsory licence restricting use within India does not permit export of the patented drug abroad under Section 107-A, and directed expedited disposal of the related writ petition with regulatory authorities impleaded.

intellectual_property other Significant compulsory licence Section 84 Patents Act Section 107-A Patents Act export of patented drug

Rekha Vohra Bhalla v. The State and Anr.

12 Aug 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:6508

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under the Indian Electricity Act on the basis of an amicable settlement between parties at an early investigation stage, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR non-compoundable offence settlement between parties

Syed Mohd. Nadeem Alias Mohsin and Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr

12 Aug 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:6510

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement and dissolution of marriage, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

Aslam v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi & Anr.

12 Aug 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:6502

The Delhi High Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 796/2013 by referring to a detailed common judgment in a related appeal, without delivering a separate judgment.

criminal other Procedural criminal appeal disposal common judgment Delhi High Court

M/S SHARMA KALYPSO PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOAN HOTELS & CLUBS PVT LIMITED

12 Aug 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:6529

The Delhi High Court returned the plaint for presentation before the territorially competent Goa court, disposing of the suit and pending application accordingly.

civil other territorial jurisdiction summary suit leave to defend Order XXXVII CPC

Sunil Badolia & Ors v. State & Ors

12 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6513

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR based on a mediated settlement that failed to provide adequate permanent alimony to the dependent spouse.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant mediated settlement quashing of FIR permanent alimony maintenance

Prof V S Ramamurthy & Anr. v. Tulsinarayan Prasad

12 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6527

The Delhi High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings before framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC, directing petitioners to raise objections at trial court and emphasizing the trial court's duty to apply mind at the notice framing stage.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 482 CrPC Section 251 CrPC quashing petition defamation

Rajnesh v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

11 Aug 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:6480

The Delhi High Court held that street vendors are protected from eviction under Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 until a Town Vending Committee is constituted, but courts will not grant interim restraint orders without statutory verification and balancing of public interests.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Street Vendors Act 2014 Section 3(3) Town Vending Committee street vending regulation

Jai Vir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6485-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a transport employee convicted for rash and negligent driving causing death, holding that no separate departmental enquiry was required when criminal conviction establishes misconduct.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant criminal conviction dismissal from service departmental enquiry Section 304A IPC

Abhimanyu Pandey v. UOI and Ors.

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6486-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the dismissal of a Railway Protection Force constable who was wrongly held to have suppressed information about a criminal case that was closed prior to his appointment and ordered his reinstatement.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant suppression of information final police report Section 156(3) CrPC dismissal from service

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6478-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging the Indian Air Force's refusal to discharge personnel based on pay scale eligibility, holding that subsequent pay revisions cannot retrospectively qualify posts as Group 'A' for discharge purposes.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant Indian Air Force discharge from service Group A posts pay scale eligibility

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6477-DB

The Delhi High Court held that eligibility for discharge from the Indian Air Force based on pay scale criteria must be determined as per the pay scales prevailing at the time of application, and subsequent pay scale revisions cannot be considered retrospectively.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant Air Force Order 14/2008 Group A posts pay scale revision discharge from service

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6476-DB

The Delhi High Court held that eligibility for discharge from the Indian Air Force to join bank posts depends on pay scales applicable at the time of application, and subsequent pay revisions do not alter this criterion.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant Indian Air Force discharge from service Group A posts pay scale eligibility

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6475-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Indian Air Force's refusal to discharge personnel for bank posts due to non-fulfillment of pay scale and service conditions under Air Force Order 14/2008, rejecting reliance on subsequent pay revisions.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant Air Force Order 14/2008 discharge from service Group A posts pay scale eligibility

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6479-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the Indian Air Force's refusal to discharge personnel for bank posts, holding that eligibility must be determined based on pay scales prevailing at the time of application as per Air Force Order 14/2008.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant Indian Air Force discharge from service Air Force Order 14/2008 Group A posts

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6481-DB

The Delhi High Court held that eligibility for discharge from Indian Air Force service depends on the pay scale at the time of application, rejecting retrospective application of subsequent pay scale revisions by banks.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant Air Force Order 14/2008 Group A post pay scale revision No Objection Certificate

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6482-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging the Indian Air Force's refusal to discharge personnel for bank PO posts, holding that eligibility depends on pay scales at the time of application, not subsequent revisions.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Indian Air Force discharge from service Air Force Order 14/2008 pay scale eligibility

Girish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

11 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:6484-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a past censure does not permanently bar appointment through LDCE if the candidate has maintained an unblemished service record thereafter, directing the CRPF to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner.

service_law petition_allowed Significant Limited Departmental Competitive Examination censure penalty unblemished service record Standing Order No.1 of 2010

M/S N.K. SECURITIES v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

11 Aug 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:6439-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the tender conditions for security services in government schools, ruling that judicial interference is limited unless the tender process is mala fide or arbitrary.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant tender process judicial review mala fide arbitrariness

ANIL SHANDILYA v. B K GUPTA (HUF)

11 Aug 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:6438-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the refusal to restore a suit for specific performance, holding that the plaintiff was not continuously ready and willing to perform his contractual obligations as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness Order 9 Rule 4 CPC non-prosecution