Delhi High Court

80,117 judgments

Year:

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Kanwal Sibal & Ors.

11 Mar 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:6695-DB

The Delhi High Court held that co-owners of different floors on a single plot can independently utilize their proportionate increased FAR without requiring joint consent, dismissing NDMC's appeal against such recognition.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Floor Area Ratio MPD-2021 ownership in severalty building bye-laws

Raj Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Anr

11 Feb 2003 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:6337
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking allotment of an adjacent plot, holding that the plot does not qualify as an additional strip of land under relevant policies and the petitioner is not entitled to relief as a substituted allottee.

property petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 Constitution of India mandamus allotment of land additional strips of land

ARUN OSWAL v. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

06 Feb 2003 · V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2015:DHC:9342

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking pension benefits under SVRS 2003, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to pension without completing 20 years of service as per valid administrative instructions, and that the Supreme Court judgment on SVRS 2004 was not applicable.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme Pension eligibility Delay and laches Administrative instructions

Sudhir Udar v. Land & Building Department

09 Dec 2002 · The Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:7448-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that a 13-year delay in applying for allotment of an alternate plot post land acquisition is inordinate and unjustified, thus disentitling the appellant from relief under the scheme.

property appeal_dismissed Significant land acquisition alternate plot allotment inordinate delay compensation

Ms. Rekha Palli, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Punam Singh, Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Ms. Shruti Munjal, Ms. Garima Sachdeva and Mr.S.A. Akhtar, Advocates. v. UOI & ORS. .....

15 Nov 2002 · HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.... · 2017:DHC:1767-DB

The Delhi High Court held that candidates selected before the New Pension Scheme's commencement but appointed late due to administrative delays are entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Old Pension Scheme New Pension Scheme Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 Review Medical Board

Phool Chand v. State

22 Oct 2002 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3376-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Phool Chand for murder and theft based on circumstantial evidence, recent possession of stolen property, and false explanations under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC Section 404 IPC

UBV Infrastructures Limited v. National Highways Authority of India

11 Oct 2002 · Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:5200

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award terminating the contract due to forged Bank Guarantees, validating the respondent’s recovery claims and rejecting the petitioner’s counterclaims for return of machinery and compensation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Contract termination Fundamental breach

M/S Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S SJVN Limited

09 Aug 2002 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5412

Execution petition filed after 12 years seeking enforcement of a Dispute Review Board recommendation is barred by limitation and not maintainable under Order XXI CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant execution petition limitation period Article 136 Limitation Act Section 51 Limitation Act

Rajbir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation

06 Aug 2002 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7388-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal's approval of dismissal requires only summary scrutiny of domestic inquiry and prima facie case, and non-informing of Defence Assistant right does not vitiate inquiry absent a request.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act domestic inquiry Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction dismissal approval

Mahender Singh v. The State & Ors.

01 Jul 2002 · Manmohan, ACJ; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J · 2024:DHC:2704-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order in a probate appeal, holding that Section 100A CPC bars further appeals beyond the Single Judge in appeals arising under special enactments like the Indian Succession Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Letters Patent Appeal Section 100A CPC Indian Succession Act probate

F.S. Chauhan v. UOI & Ors.

21 Jun 2002 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:7783
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of an NTPC employee after a disciplinary enquiry, holding that procedural irregularities and allegations of bias did not vitiate the enquiry where the petitioner was given a fair opportunity and charges were supported by evidence.

labor petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary enquiry natural justice bias in enquiry procedural irregularities

Kripa Narain Shahi v. New Delhi Municipal Council

24 May 2002 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:227-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of petitioners' claim for retrospective regularization on the Regular Muster Roll, affirming that regularization is governed by prescribed eligibility criteria and cannot be antedated without lawful basis.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Regular Muster Roll Temporary Muster Roll Regularization NDMC

Lalita Yadav v. Mam Raj Yadav

15 May 2002 · C. Hari Shankar

The Delhi High Court allowed transfer of matrimonial petitions from Tis Hazari to Dwarka Courts for the petitioner's convenience, directing expeditious disposal within eight months.

family appeal_allowed transfer petition Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 restitution of conjugal rights domestic violence

S.P. Thapliyal v. Secretary General & Anr.

01 May 2002 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:9672-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, an employee is entitled to the second financial upgradation after 24 years of service irrespective of prior promotions, and directed grant of such benefit to the appellant.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme financial upgradation promotion career advancement

ACME Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Union of India

31 Mar 2002 · Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:5258
Cites 0 · Cited by 13

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award ordering refund of advance payment for defective and uncommissioned Hot Mix Plants, affirming limited judicial interference in technical findings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Composite contract Supply, erection and commissioning

Parveen Kumar v. UOI

26 Nov 2001 · C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:798

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging appointments of Assistant Directors in the Export Inspection Council, holding the petitioner ineligible and the appointments valid under the Recruitment Rules.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ petition Article 226 quo warranto Export Inspection Agency Recruitment Rules 1980

Prabhakar Tiwari v. Bank of India and Anr.

10 Nov 2001 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:805
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court held that the Prathama Pariksha Certificate is not equivalent to matriculation for appointment in public sector banks, affirming employer autonomy in prescribing eligibility qualifications.

employment petition_dismissed Significant Prathama Pariksha Certificate matriculation equivalence public sector banks Government of India Notification 2001

M/S VIMAL TELEKRTONIX PRIVATE LTD v. M/S TATA TELECOM LTD

21 Sep 2001 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7022-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a Board resolution authorizing a director to sign all documents includes authority to institute suit, but claims for extra work require proper proof and work orders to succeed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Board resolution Authority to institute suit Extra work claims Quantum meruit

Union of India v. Punita Devi

22 Jun 2001 · Vipin Sanghi; A.K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:377-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Delhi High Court held that compassionate appointment applications must be considered only within the concerned Ministry under the 5% vacancy ceiling, rejecting the claim for All India consideration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment Office Memorandum 22 June 2001 5% direct recruitment quota Central Administrative Tribunal

Vandhna Wadhwa v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

30 May 2001 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:9111-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition concerning interim custody and visitation rights of a minor child, affirming Family Court jurisdiction over custody disputes.

family other habeas corpus child custody interim custody visitation rights