Delhi High Court
81,561 judgments
Rajbir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation
The Delhi High Court upheld the termination of a conductor by DTC, ruling that hearsay evidence and non-examination of summoned witnesses in domestic inquiry do not invalidate charges if there is credible evidence.
Amitav Chaudhuri v. National Research Development Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal to set aside an ex parte decree due to sufficient cause shown by the appellant arising from the death of his counsel and lack of knowledge of the decree, emphasizing a liberal approach to such applications.
Anil Kumar Chawla v. Delhi Development Authority
The Delhi High Court held that transfers between co-sub-lessees who are family members do not attract unearned increase or composition fee, quashing DDA's demand and directing mutation in petitioner's name.
University of Delhi v. Kanwar Kumar Gambhir; University of Delhi v. Surinder Kumar
The Delhi High Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to University of Delhi employees, applying the amended gratuity ceiling as per the date of liability crystallization, and dismissed the University’s appeals against gratuity payment orders.
University of Delhi v. Kanwar Kumar Gambhir
The Delhi High Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to University of Delhi employees, and the statutory gratuity ceiling is determined by the date liability crystallizes, dismissing the University’s appeals and upholding gratuity payments with interest.
Veer Service Station v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court struck down Explanation 2 to Section 2(1)(zd) of the DVAT Act as unconstitutional for permitting VAT on a deemed sale price not reflective of the actual completed sale, reaffirming that tax must be levied only on the actual sale price.
Sony India Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner of Trade & Taxes
The Delhi High Court held that DSCs are not IT products under Entry 41 before 7th August 2005 but are included under amended Entry 41A from 30th November 2005, allowing the petitioner to pay 4% VAT for the latter period and setting aside penalty for the earlier period.
Sony India Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner of Trade & Taxes
The Delhi High Court held that DSCs are not IT products under Entry 41 before 8th August 2005 but are included under amended Entry 41A from 30th November 2005, allowing the petitioner 4% VAT rate and setting aside penalty and differential tax demands accordingly.
IFCI Limited v. S Surendra and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held the respondents guilty of contempt for wilfully disobeying court-ordered repayment undertakings, rejecting their defence based on a Corporate Debt Restructuring package to which the petitioner was not a party.
Mangat Ram v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is neither paid nor offered within five years, and that mere deposit of compensation in the treasury without possession does not prevent lapse.
N S Rana v. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the age criterion for regularization in the settlement was clear and enforceable, and the appellant failed to prove eligibility, affirming termination and denying condonation of delay.
Gulshan Sethi & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application seeking enquiry under Section 340 CrPC for alleged perjury and forgery in a writ petition, holding that such proceedings require a strong prima facie case and cannot be initiated on inconclusive or vendetta-driven allegations.
Mohd Talha v. State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner’s application to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the importance of a fair trial and materiality of evidence.
Azad Singh Dagar v. The State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the committal order in a murder complaint case, affirming that recording pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and the Magistrate need not apply mind to merits at committal.
Delhi Development Authority v. Rakesh Bhatnagar
The Delhi High Court directed the CAT to decide the maintainability of the respondent’s OA challenging eviction notices while allowing eviction proceedings to continue, dismissing the DDA’s writ petition.
Surender Kumar v. Hari Singh Thr Lrs & Ors.
The Delhi Rent Control Act does not apply to tenancies of vacant land without buildings at the time of letting, and subsequent tenant constructions do not alter this status.
Uday Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
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 after the award, regardless of possession.
Shri Sher Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
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, granting the petitioners relief accordingly.
Ram Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid or offered, and that mere deposit of compensation in the treasury without possession does not prevent lapse.
Parmanand v. State
The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 499-502 IPC based on a settlement between parties, affirming the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences arising from family disputes.