Delhi High Court

81,561 judgments

Year:

GOVT SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (MIGRANTS) REGD. AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

18 May 2015 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2015:DHC:4393

The Delhi High Court held that Kashmiri migrant teachers engaged on contractual basis are entitled to pay parity and regularization with regular teachers under the principle of equal pay for equal work, rejecting the State's reliance on contractual status and Uma Devi judgment.

labor appeal_allowed Significant equal pay for equal work contractual employment regularization Kashmiri migrant teachers

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd.

18 May 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:4394-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that conversion of interest into a term loan or issuance of debentures does not constitute actual payment under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 43B Income-tax Act actual payment interest deduction term loan

Sasken Communication Technologies Limited v. Prime Telesystems Ltd. & Ors.

18 May 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:4395

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application to recall its order restraining the judgment debtor from leaving the country without permission, holding that the order was lawful and within jurisdiction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant recall of order execution petition restraint on travel Order 21 Rule 30 CPC

Raj Kumar Rastogi v. P.O. Labour Court-X & Anr.

18 May 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:4396

The Delhi High Court upheld that a person appointed as a trainee receiving stipend under a training contract is not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and dismissed the petition challenging his termination.

labor petition_dismissed Significant workman definition Industrial Disputes Act 1947 trainee vs workman Apprentices Act 1961

Kanta Devi v. M/S Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya & Anr

18 May 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:4397

The Delhi High Court held that a worker engaged and paid by a private Parent-Teacher Association is not an employee of the school or government and is not entitled to relief under labour laws for illegal termination.

labour petition_dismissed Significant employment relationship Parent-Teacher Association PTA fund industrial disputes

UOI THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. SHRI ANIL KUMAR & ORS

18 May 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:4398
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a government defence establishment engaged in non-sovereign activities qualifies as an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and illegal termination of casual labourers amounts to retrenchment warranting compensation instead of reinstatement with back wages.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2(j) industry definition Section 25-F retrenchment casual labour termination

UOI THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. SHRI ANIL KUMAR & ORS

18 May 2015 · Deepa Sharma · 2015:DHC:4399
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a defence establishment performing non-sovereign functions is an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and casual workers terminated illegally are entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back wages.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2(j) industry definition Section 25-F retrenchment casual labour termination

M/S R.K. ASSOCIATES & HOTELIERS PVT. LTD. v. INDIAN RAILWAYS CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION

18 May 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:4383

Delhi High Court held that IRCTC must grant the petitioner a three-year extension of the catering license as its discretion must be exercised fairly and not arbitrarily, affirming writ jurisdiction despite an arbitration clause.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant license extension discretionary power legitimate expectation principles of natural justice

M/S S.D.BUILDWELL PVT.LTD. v. RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

18 May 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:4384

Delhi High Court allowed writ petition directing refund of Rs. 30.32 crores paid for railway land leased under misrepresentation, holding arbitration application not maintainable and affirming writ jurisdiction in such circumstances.

civil petition_allowed Significant writ petition arbitration agreement misrepresentation refund of money

M/S MASS ESTATE (P) LTD v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI

18 May 2015 · BADAR DURREZ AHMED; SANJEEV SACHDEVA · 2015:DHC:4429-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation have not been completed within five years of the award.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse

Salim @ Amir v. The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

18 May 2015 · Sunita Gupta · 2015:DHC:4428

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 376 IPC based on the credible testimony of the prosecutrix and corroborative evidence, holding that slight penetration suffices to constitute rape even if hymen is intact.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape Section 376 IPC prosecutrix testimony corroboration

Ved Pal v. State NCT of Delhi

18 May 2015 · Sunita Gupta · 2015:DHC:4427

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for dacoity under Section 395 IPC based on credible eyewitness and police evidence, while reducing their sentence from 14 to 10 years.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dacoity Section 395 IPC robbery country made pistol

Shri Sant Kumar Jain v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

18 May 2015 · Sunita Gupta · 2015:DHC:4426

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under serious IPC sections on the ground of amicable compromise between parties in a personal dispute, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC non-compoundable offences compromise

Indian Bank v. M/S Rexima Exports Pvt. Ltd.

18 May 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:4438

The court held that the Recovery Officer must determine final liabilities in light of the DRT's order despite ongoing SARFAESI proceedings, allowing the bank to proceed with auction but subjecting sale proceeds appropriation to final liability adjudication.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 SARFAESI Act Debt Recovery Tribunal Recovery Officer jurisdiction

Beena Anand v. Anuj Kumar Bishnoi & Ors.

18 May 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2015:DHC:4402

The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt petition holding that the respondents did not disobey its order as the direction did not extend to treating further ad hoc service as qualifying service for promotion.

administrative petition_dismissed contempt proceedings ad hoc promotion Recruitment Rules qualifying service

State v. Nashrulla @ Najrulla @ Babbia

18 May 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:4425

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a child sexual assault case due to lack of reliable identification and insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed sexual assault child victim identification parade Section 376 IPC

Raj Kumar v. The State (G.N.C.T of Delhi)

18 May 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2015:DHC:4404

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal of a juvenile offender convicted of kidnapping and rape, setting aside his conviction and ordering his release after determining he was under 18 at the time of the offence and had served the maximum juvenile sentence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant juvenile justice juvenility ossification test kidnapping

Nirmala Devi v. Directorate of Education

18 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:4423

The Delhi High Court dismissed a seven-year delayed writ petition seeking appointment on the ground of forgery, holding it barred by delay and laches, non-maintainable due to disputed facts, and untenable due to abolition of the post.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ petition delay and laches limitation appointment

Dr. M. Velayudhan Nair v. Union of India & Anr.

18 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:4407

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of enhanced retirement age of 65 years as the policy was prospective and did not apply to employees retired before its effective date.

administrative petition_dismissed retirement age administrative decision Ministry of HRD circular Ministry of Culture

Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

18 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:4406

The Delhi High Court dismissed as premature a writ petition challenging a show cause notice alleging examination malpractice based on scientific analysis of identical wrong answers, upholding the validity of such expert methods and directing the petitioner to await the competent authority's final decision.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant show cause notice unfair means objective type test identical wrong answers