Delhi High Court

81,413 judgments

Year:

D.K.SOOD & ANR v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

21 May 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:4577-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld Punjab National Bank's revised promotion placement policy excluding age-based exceptions, holding the bank's administrative decision bona fide and binding under the employee settlement.

labor appeal_dismissed promotion policy placement guidelines age-based exception administrative discretion

D.K.SOOD & ANR v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

21 May 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:4575-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the bank's revised promotion placement policy excluding employees above 57 years from special exceptions, holding the decision bona fide and binding under the employee-management settlement.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant promotion policy placement guidelines age-based exception employee settlement

Mukesh Kumar v. The Administrator

21 May 2015 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2015:DHC:4576

The Delhi High Court held that disputes concerning election of delegates to a Multi-State Cooperative Society are not arbitrable under Section 84 of the Act, and dismissed the petition challenging the election notice condition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

administrative petition_dismissed arbitrability Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 Section 84 Section 9 Arbitration Act

DELTA ENERGY SYSTEMS(INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. DIAC SERVICES & ANOTHER

21 May 2015 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:4593

The Delhi High Court granted a perpetual injunction restraining defendants from sending defamatory SMSs damaging the plaintiff's business reputation through a registered website.

civil appeal_allowed perpetual injunction defamation electronic communication SMS

Shri Kulbhushan Dania v. Shri Ashok Kumar Dania & Anr.

21 May 2015 · Indermeet Kaur · 2015:DHC:4587

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for partition of property held solely in the father's name, holding that without proof of joint family funds or contribution, the property is self-acquired and not subject to partition.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partition suit joint family property self-acquired property burden of proof

Sudesh Jain v. Directorate of Education & Anr.

21 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:4592

The Delhi High Court directed the Director of Education to decide the petitioner's claims for pay scale fixation, ACP benefits, and interest on delayed payments as a representation, without adjudicating merits, and clarified limitation for such claims.

administrative petition_allowed Procedural writ petition pay scale fixation Assured Career Progression Scheme salary arrears

Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

21 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:4588-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a Section 148 notice issued without prior recording of reasons and without disposing of objections by a speaking order is invalid, quashing the reassessment proceedings.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act reasons for reassessment recording of reasons G.KN Driveshafts

Deepa Singh v. Sharda Jootla & Ors.

21 May 2015 · Jayant Nath · 2015:DHC:4618
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's belated and mala fide application to amend the plaint to include a property acquired after the deceased's death in a partition suit, holding such amendment impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint partition suit bona fide amendment

M/S SHREE JI SAREES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH. PANKAJ JAIN v. VED PRAKASH SHARMA

21 May 2015 · V. P. Vaish · 2015:DHC:4581

The Delhi High Court set aside a Labour Court award holding that the respondent failed to prove employer-employee relationship due to lack of original or properly proved documents, thereby allowing the writ petition.

labor appeal_allowed Significant employer-employee relationship burden of proof appointment letter labour court

Meyyappan VR & Ors. v. The State & Anr

21 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4595

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial offence FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Anil Kumar Sharma v. Om Prakash & Ors

21 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4596

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 304A IPC based on an amicable settlement, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process and contrary to justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 304A IPC Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR amicable settlement

AMS Building Materials v. Pooja Garg

21 May 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:4601

The Delhi High Court upheld the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court over a recovery suit where cause of action arose partly in Delhi and parties contractually agreed to Delhi jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction cause of action contractual jurisdiction clause Limitation Act

Gopal Krishan Chandna v. Gurmeet Kaur

21 May 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:4600

The High Court held that leave to defend once granted in an eviction petition cannot be denied in a subsequent petition on the same facts, and directed the trial court to grant leave to defend to the tenant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant eviction petition leave to defend bona fide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act

Sampat Kumar v. Rama Kapoor & Anr

21 May 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:4599

The High Court held that summons served by registered post under the Delhi Rent Control Act are deemed served within 7 days of posting, making the petitioner’s leave to defend application filed after 15 days time barred and dismissal of the application and eviction order valid.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 25B service of summons registered post

Raisa Begum v. State

21 May 2015 · Manmohan Singh · 2015:DHC:4621

The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the refusal to order police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in light of the Supreme Court's Lalita Kumari ruling mandating FIR registration upon disclosure of cognizable offences.

criminal other Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. FIR registration Cognizable offence Forgery

Shashi Sharma and Ors. v. Doon Public School and Ors.

21 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:4580

The Delhi High Court held that private school employees are entitled to gratuity payments prior to 1997 under the Delhi School Education Act, and post-1997 gratuity disputes must be resolved by the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

labor petition_dismissed Significant gratuity Delhi School Education Act, 1973 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 10(1)

Bihari Lal Aggarwal v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd

21 May 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:4582

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant and disposed of the criminal appeal as settled following a compounding of offences under the Electricity Act before the National Lok Adalat.

criminal appeal_allowed Electricity Act Section 135 Section 138 compounding offence

S M Matloob v. Director General, Indian Council for Cultural Relations

21 May 2015 · Kailash Gambhir; I.S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:4620-DB

The Delhi High Court granted the petitioner 50% back wages after being prevented from joining his transfer posting and subjected to compulsory retirement, applying the discretionary principle of 'No Work, No Pay' in service law.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant No Work No Pay back wages transfer order disciplinary proceedings

Kulbhushan Dania v. Ashok Kumar Dania & Anr

21 May 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7516-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal in a partition suit for failure to prove joint family property or contribution, emphasizing the necessity of proving blending of assets and common kitchen in joint Hindu family claims.

civil appeal_dismissed partition suit joint Hindu family blending of assets common kitchen

Alliance Strategies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General)

20 May 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R. K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:11848-DB

The Delhi High Court reduced the pre-deposit condition from 20% to 10% of the penalty in Customs penalty appeals, applying a government notification and balancing the interests of justice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant pre-deposit Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT penalty