Delhi High Court

82,305 judgments

Year:

The University of Delhi v. Pratap Singh Bisht

11 Oct 2011 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:5558-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the University of Delhi's appointment of Shambhu Sharan Mishra by affirming the expert committee's discretion to relax eligibility criteria for PWD candidates and limiting judicial interference to cases of gross illegality.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant appointment relaxation of eligibility criteria PWD candidates expert selection committee

The University of Delhi v. Pratap Singh Bisht

11 Oct 2011 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:5557-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the appointment of Shambhu Sharan Mishra as Assistant Director, ruling that relaxation of eligibility criteria for PWD candidates by an expert committee is permissible and not liable to judicial interference absent gross illegality.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant appointment eligibility criteria relaxation PWD candidates

Babita Goyal v. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

10 Sep 2011 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5765
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that disputes under an arbitration agreement must be referred to arbitration if the Section 11(6) petition is filed within three years of the arbitration notice, without examining limitation or merits at this stage.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act arbitration notice limitation reference to arbitration

Paramjit Singh v. IOCL

31 Aug 2011 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2017:DHC:4058

The Delhi High Court held that minimum qualifying marks fixed before recruitment commencement and applied transparently do not invalidate selection even if not mentioned in the advertisement, dismissing the petition challenging IOCL's selection process.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant minimum qualifying marks recruitment process interview cut-off selection criteria

Tej Narain @ Narain v. State

29 Aug 2011 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:7085

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for kidnapping and rape of a minor girl, emphasizing the credibility of her testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence and the immateriality of consent due to her age.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sexual assault minor victim rape kidnapping

Tej Narain @ Narain v. State

29 Aug 2011 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:7081

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for kidnapping and rape of a minor girl, affirming that credible child testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence suffices for conviction even without a birth certificate.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sexual assault minor victim rape kidnapping

Tej Narain @ Narain v. State

29 Aug 2011 · Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:7080

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for kidnapping and repeatedly raping a minor girl, relying on credible child testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant child sexual abuse rape of minor kidnapping Section 376(2)(f) IPC

J. S. SEHRAWAT v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD AND ORS

28 Jul 2011 · HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RA... · 2017:DHC:1719-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of an employee by the designated Disciplinary Authority, rejecting the challenge based on authority competence and applying res judicata to bar re-litigation.

administrative appeal_dismissed Disciplinary Authority Appointing Authority Dismissal from service Res judicata

Sanjay Mittal v. State Govt. of Delhi & Anr.

12 Jul 2011 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:9008

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the criminal petition as withdrawn and later corrected the case year and party names in the order.

criminal petition_dismissed Procedural withdrawal of petition correction of order criminal miscellaneous petition High Court of Delhi

Lalit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

10 Jun 2011 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2025:DHC:1315-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 43

The Delhi High Court held that unauthorized absence charges must be set aside if leave was regularized, remanding the case for reconsideration of punishment for the remaining period of absence.

administrative other Significant unauthorized absence disciplinary proceedings regularization of leave CCS (CCA) Rules

National Highway Authority of India v. Unitech -NCC (JV)

16 May 2011 · C. Hari Shankar · 2025:DHC:4892
Cites 7 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award in favor of Unitech, holding that judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited to rare grounds such as perversity or patent illegality, which were not made out in this case.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 judicial review of arbitral award patent illegality public policy of India

XTRAA CLEANCITIES LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

10 May 2011 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2018:DHC:4639-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the Development Commissioner's jurisdiction to impose penalties under the Foreign Trade Act for false GSP certification by an SEZ unit, dismissing the petition challenging the penalty order.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Development Commissioner Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)

ABB India Ltd v. The Commissioner Trade Taxes & Anr

09 May 2011 · S. Muralidhar; Chander Shekhar · 2017:DHC:8158-DB

The Delhi High Court held that interest on tax refund must be calculated from the date of the refund claim, not from the dismissal of the tax authority's appeal, and directed payment of the differential interest to ABB India Limited.

tax petition_allowed Significant refund interest on refund Department of Trade & Taxes assessment year

GARG ACRYCLICS LTD v. UOI

28 Apr 2011 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:2384
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that loans sanctioned during the TUFS blackout period (30 June 2010 to 27 April 2011) are not eligible for scheme benefits, rejecting claims based on promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme TUFS promissory estoppel legitimate expectation

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. HIRA LAL DUGGAL

22 Mar 2011 · C. HARI SHANKAR; AJAY DIGPAUL · 2025:DHC:471-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant on the ground that the charge sheet was issued beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under the CCS (Pension) Rules.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant charge sheet issuance disciplinary proceedings limitation period Rule 9(2)(b)(ii)

Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt Ltd v. Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium & Ors.

10 Mar 2011 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:1782-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a partial decree for payment based on a clear admission in an email under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, rejecting defendants' claims of inadmissibility and affirming the Amendment Agreement as governing payment obligations.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC judgment on admission consortium agreement amendment agreement

Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt Ltd v. Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium & Ors.

10 Mar 2011 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Prateek Jalan · 2019:DHC:1777-DB

The Delhi High Court affirmed partial judgment on admission for ₹4.19 crore based on an email admission, holding that the Amendment Agreement governs payments and that the email was admissible and constituted clear liability admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC judgment on admission consortium agreement amendment agreement

Balbir Chand v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University

12 Feb 2011 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024 SCC OnLine Del 848

The Delhi High Court quashed JNU's expulsion order against a student for failing to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.

administrative petition_allowed Significant natural justice proctorial enquiry Statute 32(5) disciplinary proceedings

V Guard Industries Ltd v. MS Mahavir Home Appliances and Anr.

11 Feb 2011 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:9105
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court recorded an amicable settlement in a design infringement suit and referred the contentious issue of full versus half refund of court fees in private settlements without ADR intervention to a Division Bench for authoritative determination.

civil other Significant court fees refund private settlement Alternate Dispute Resolution Section 16 Court Fees Act

Aakash Educational Services Ltd. v. Sahib Sital Singh Bajwa & Ors.

26 Jan 2011 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2020:DHC:2179

The Delhi High Court held that restrictive covenants preventing franchisees from running competing coaching centers post-termination are void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, dismissing the petition for injunction and appointing an arbitrator for fee disputes.

civil petition_dismissed Significant franchise agreement restraint of trade Section 27 Indian Contract Act negative covenant