Delhi High Court

80,866 judgments

Year:

Avinash Sharma v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

01 Feb 2004 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:3486

The Delhi High Court held that work-charged service and suspension period during which the petitioner was exonerated must be counted as qualifying service for pension, entitling the petitioner to pension and medical benefits despite voluntary retirement.

labor petition_allowed Significant qualifying service work-charged service suspension period dies non

Through: v. Through:

03 Dec 2003 · S. Muralidhar; I. S. Mehta · 2019:DHC:7802-DB

The Delhi High Court held that candidates whose delay in joining police training was due to their own circumstances are not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme benefits extended to those delayed by administrative lapses.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Old Pension Scheme Central Police Organization delay in joining training administrative delay

Indian Navigation Co. v. Works Thr Engineering Workers Lal Jhanda Union

25 Nov 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:6353-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an Industrial Tribunal award granting increments without considering the employer's financial capacity and prevailing wages, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Tribunal annual increment minimum wages financial capacity

Amita Vashisht v. Tarun Vedi

22 Nov 2003 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3718

The Delhi High Court held that Section 10 CPC does not mandate a stay of trial where the suits differ in parties, cause of action, subject matter, and relief, dismissing the petitioner's application to stay possession proceedings pending a declaratory suit.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 10 CPC stay of suit identity of parties cause of action

Dy. Commissioner of Police v. Suman Teotia

09 Sep 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:375-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order allowing a widow's claim for family pension and quashing disciplinary proceedings against her deceased husband, rejecting delay and locus standi objections.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant locus standi delay and laches family pension disciplinary proceedings

Jishan Ali v. State

25 Jul 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:2809-DB

The Delhi High Court modified a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony and absence of intent to kill.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant eyewitness testimony Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part-II IPC culpable homicide

DTC v. Manjeet Singh

21 Jul 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7122-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal of DTC, setting aside the Labour Court's award and reinstating the dismissal of an employee for proven misconduct despite procedural objections.

labor appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary inquiry misconduct dismissal from service Industrial Disputes Act

Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute v. Rajesh Kumar Ravi

17 Jul 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9298-DB

The Delhi High Court held that mandatory procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings under Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules vitiate dismissal, ordering reinstatement while remanding the issue of back wages for fresh consideration.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings natural justice Delhi School Education Rules 1973 Rule 120

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