Delhi High Court

81,413 judgments

Year:

Ravi Dutta v. State

17 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait, J. · 2015:DHC:5716

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial offence FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement and divorce, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Suraj Bhan v. State

17 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:5715

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR for offences under IPC based on a bona fide compromise between parties before framing of charges, subject to payment of agreed amounts and withdrawal of related proceedings.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR compromise anticipatory bail Section 420 IPC

Amit Kumar v. State

17 Jul 2015 · Suresh Kait, J. · 2015:DHC:5714

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC based on an amicable settlement and divorce decree, affirming the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to do so in such cases.

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

M/S U.K.IMPEX v. SH. DHARAMVEER BAITHA

17 Jul 2015 · J.R. Midha · 2015:DHC:5733

The Delhi High Court dismissed the employer’s appeal against the compensation awarded to an employee injured in a factory accident, holding that no substantial question of law arose and the employer-employee relationship was established.

labor appeal_dismissed Employee’s Compensation Act compensation employer-employee relationship accident at workplace

Najreen Bang & Ors v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors

17 Jul 2015 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:11234

The Delhi High Court quashed two cross FIRs arising from a neighborly dispute over loud music following an amicable settlement, subject to costs payable by the petitioners.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement compromise deed

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Siel Foods and Fertilizer Industries & Anr

17 Jul 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:11272-DB

The Delhi High Court held that employees of third-party transport contractors are not employees under the Employees Provident Fund Act, and the principal party is not liable for provident fund contributions or bonus for such workers.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees Provident Fund Act Section 2(f) employee definition third-party contractor

Avtar Singh v. State & Anr

17 Jul 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:11618

The Delhi High Court held that accused declared Proclaimed Offenders cannot benefit from bail and refused to transfer the investigation to CBI, disposing of the petitions accordingly.

criminal petition_dismissed bail cancellation Proclaimed Offender transfer of investigation CBI

Anil Kumar Khanna and Ors. v. The Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

17 Jul 2015 · Jayant Nath · 2015:DHC:5721

The Delhi High Court held that mesne profits are payable from 1.2.1980 till delivery of possession despite the Supreme Court granting time to vacate, rejecting the defendant's plea of merger and limitation under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant mesne profits doctrine of merger Order 20 Rule 12 CPC Special Leave Petition dismissal

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. KANTA DEVI & ANR

17 Jul 2015 · JAYANT NATH · 2015:DHC:5722

The Delhi High Court upheld the compensation awarded for loss of dependency in a motor accident claim, affirming the use of the deceased’s age for multiplier and inclusion of future prospects in income assessment.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant loss of dependency multiplier future prospects compensation assessment

M/S OSWAL GREENTECH LIMITED v. ANTRIKSH BHAWAN FLAT OWNER & OCCUPANT WELFARE SOCIETY(REGD.)

17 Jul 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:5705

The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition as the petitioner chose not to press it following subsequent developments.

civil petition_dismissed contempt petition withdrawal of petition disposal of petition subsequent events

State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India & Anr.

17 Jul 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:5738-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT order quashing the charge-sheet against an IPS officer deployed with the UN Peacekeeping Mission, holding that she was duty-bound to comply with the Ministry of Home Affairs' directions despite the State Government's recall.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant UN Peacekeeping Mission Disciplinary proceedings Charge-sheet Recall order

Mirza Islam Baig & Ors. v. State & Anr.

17 Jul 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2015:DHC:5734-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the summoning of accused under Sections 323/341/325/452/34 IPC, ruling that summons can be issued on prima facie material without detailed scrutiny of contradictions at the summoning stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed summoning order Section 204 CrPC prima facie evidence cognizable offence

Lalita Kumari v. Union of India

17 Jul 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:5735-DB

A candidate promoted on relaxed eligibility criteria is entitled to seniority and pay fixation but not to arrears of pay from the date juniors were promoted.

service_law petition_dismissed promotion eligibility qualifying service deferred promotion pay fixation

Ajit Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

17 Jul 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:5736-DB

The Delhi High Court held that physical standards for direct recruits do not apply to LDCE promotion candidates and directed CRPF to consider the petitioner eligible for promotion despite not meeting the direct recruitment height criteria.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Limited Departmental Competitive Examination CRPF promotion physical standards height requirement

INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EXCELLENCE v. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION; ACN COLLEGE OF PHARMACY v. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

17 Jul 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:5691

The Delhi High Court upheld AICTE's refusal to grant approval beyond the Supreme Court-mandated deadline, emphasizing strict adherence to the time schedule for educational institution approvals.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant AICTE approval time schedule judicial review Article 226

Mange Ram v. Mahesh Sharma

17 Jul 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:5711

The court dismissed the petition in default and for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to comply with court orders and absence at the hearing.

civil petition_dismissed non-prosecution dismissal in default ex parte proceeding failure to pay costs

Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. M/S. Mapletree Property & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

17 Jul 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:5688-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim arbitral award directing refund of amounts paid under a contract based on clear admissions, affirming that such awards can be passed under Section 31(6) of the Arbitration Act even if the parent agreement's validity is disputed.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Interim Arbitral Award Section 31(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act Order XII Rule 6 CPC Admission

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. P.O. Labour Court- VIII & Ors.

17 Jul 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:5692

The Delhi High Court held that suspension of an employee is not an industrial dispute, invalidating the Labour Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the suspension reference and setting aside the award.

labor petition_allowed Significant suspension industrial dispute Labour Court jurisdiction contract labour

Uma Shankar Sitani v. Veni Mehta

17 Jul 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:5698-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming that ₹25,00,000 received was a loan from the respondent, not advance rent, and upheld the decree for repayment with interest.

civil appeal_dismissed loan recovery advance rent cheque transaction oral agreement

Rama Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.

17 Jul 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:5693

The Delhi High Court held that female government employees who become mothers through surrogacy are entitled to maternity leave under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services Leave Rules, interpreting 'maternity' to include commissioning mothers in light of scientific and social developments.

administrative petition_allowed Significant maternity leave surrogacy commissioning mother Central Civil Services Leave Rules