Delhi High Court

82,660 judgments

Year:

Sher Singh Dagar v. Secretary Labour GNCT of Delhi and Anr.

05 May 2015 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2015:DHC:4012

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte Labour Court award for lack of proper service of summons and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with opportunity to both parties.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Rule 18 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 service of summons ex-parte award

G.S. Gaini & Ors. v. Sanjay Chiripal

05 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4013

The Delhi High Court held that criminal proceedings based on unaccepted Special Audit Reports cannot be quashed at the summoning stage and that prior sanction for prosecuting public servants under Section 197 CrPC is to be considered at the charge framing stage.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Special Audit Reports Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 prior sanction Section 197 CrPC

J. Khushalani v. Badarpur Thermal Power Station and Ors.

05 May 2015 · Hima Kohli · 2015:DHC:4014

The Delhi High Court upheld the imposition of a minor penalty of withholding two increments on an employee under NTPC CDA Rules, holding that the procedure for minor penalties was correctly followed and the penalty was not a major penalty requiring a full inquiry.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings minor penalty major penalty withholding increments

All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prof. Kaushal K. Verma

05 May 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.K. Gauba · 2015:DHC:4005-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioners' recusal plea against the Bench, holding that expression of preliminary views in interim orders does not constitute bias warranting recusal absent a real likelihood of unfairness.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant judicial bias recusal reasonable apprehension pre-judgment

Neena Mohini Williams and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

05 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:4062-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Government must specifically apply its mind under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act before dispensing with Section 5A inquiry rights, and failure to do so renders the acquisition invalid.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 17(4) Section 5A emergency acquisition

Neena Mohini Williams and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

05 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:4065-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Government must specifically apply its mind under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act before excluding Section 5A rights, and failure to do so renders the acquisition invalid.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 17(1) Section 17(4) Section 5A

Neena Mohini Williams and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

05 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:4063-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Government must specifically apply its mind under Section 17(4) before excluding Section 5A objections in emergency land acquisition, and quashed acquisition proceedings lacking such application.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 17(1) Section 17(4) Section 5A

Neena Mohini Williams and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

05 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:4064-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the Government must specifically apply its mind under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act before dispensing with Section 5A inquiry, and failure to do so invalidates the acquisition.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 17(4) Section 5A emergency acquisition

Pankaj Shandilya v. State & Anr.

05 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4034

The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on a mediated settlement, applying the principles of Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of court process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute mediated settlement

Anil Saini v. Vikesh Kumar Singh & Anr.

05 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4033

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, rejecting the petitioner's claim of no debt and unproven loss of cheque, affirming liability for cheque dishonour.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Burden of proof Debt or liability

Mohit Dhawan & Ors. v. State & Ors.

05 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4032

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement in a matrimonial dispute, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Raj Baldev & Anr. v. State & Anr.

05 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4031

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the principles under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR amicable settlement landlord-tenant dispute

Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. State (N.C.T of Delhi) & Anr.

05 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4030

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a full settlement between parties, applying the principles of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute settlement

Satwant Singh & Ors. v. State & Anr.

05 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4029

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

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Tarun Chopra & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Ors.

05 May 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:4028

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, applying the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

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

Gulab Singh v. Sher Singh

05 May 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:4022

The Delhi High Court held that subsequent events affecting the landlord's bona fide requirement must be considered in eviction proceedings, setting aside the dismissal of the tenant's leave to defend application.

civil appeal_allowed Significant eviction Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) bona fide requirement

Riyazuddin & Ors v. Saira (Widow) & Ors

05 May 2015 · Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:4023

The Delhi High Court granted leave to defend in an eviction petition under the DRC Act, holding that prior litigation history and ownership of multiple properties must be considered before declining leave on bonafide requirement grounds.

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

Sunita Nayyar v. Director of Education & Ors.

05 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:4019

The Delhi High Court directed the Directorate of Education to act on substantiated complaints of harassment and poor conditions in a school within six weeks, ensuring compliance with the Delhi School Education Act and Rules.

administrative petition_allowed harassment Delhi School Education Act, 1973 Enquiry Committee report Article 226

Gaynesh P. Soti v. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College & Anr.

05 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:4016

The Delhi High Court held that an employee placed in charge of a higher post is entitled to 1/10th of the basic pay of that post under Rule 31(i) of the University Non-Teaching Employees Rules, even without formal appointment.

administrative petition_allowed Significant writ petition Article 226 higher post pay University Non-Teaching Employees Rules

Manoj Malhotra v. University of Delhi

05 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2015:DHC:4015

The Delhi High Court held that a contractual employee is entitled to payment only for the period authorized by competent authority and dismissed the claim for payment beyond the contract expiry without formal extension.

administrative petition_dismissed contractual employment monetary emoluments competent authority attendance records