Delhi High Court

82,305 judgments

Year:

Symantec Software Solutions v. R Modi & Ors.

27 Jan 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5398-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s discretionary order permitting additional witnesses to be summoned, emphasizing that such orders should not be disturbed unless legally erroneous or causing grave injustice.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant software copyright software piracy additional witnesses Order XVI Rule 1 CPC

Rahul v. State NCT of Delhi

21 Jan 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:504

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 376 IPC of a minor prosecutrix but modified the sentence considering the subsequent marriage between the appellant and prosecutrix after she attained majority.

criminal sentence_modified Significant Section 376 IPC rape minor consent

M/S VISIONAIRE INDIA v. M/S IBM INDIA PVT LTD

15 Jan 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:432-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the condonation of delay in filing the written statement caused by the agent's negligence and improper service at a non-principal office.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay written statement service of summons agent's negligence

Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra & Anr. v. Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction & Ors.

14 Jan 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:1747-DB

The Delhi High Court held that its earlier procedural order did not decide the substantive issue of Bench competence under Section 12(3) SICA and directed the appellate authority to decide the petitioners' objection afresh.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 Section 12(3) SICA Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction Bench constitution

Ved Praksh Dubey v. M/S Maheshwari Gas Service

13 Jan 2015 · CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2016:DHC:7638-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, representation by Advocates before the Labour Court is barred and prior judicial orders disallowing such representation cannot be circumvented by implied consent.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 36(3) representation by Advocate implied consent

Ved Praksh Dubey; Jai Prakash Dubey; Ram Bachan Soni v. M/S Maheshwari Gas Service

13 Jan 2015 · CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2016:DHC:7640-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Management cannot be represented by an advocate before the Industrial Adjudicator contrary to the bar under Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and prior final court orders, and that implied consent to such representation was not established.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 36(3) advocate representation implied consent

Ved Praksh Dubey; Jai Prakash Dubey; Ram Bachan Soni v. M/S Maheshwari Gas Service

13 Jan 2015 · CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2016:DHC:7637-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the statutory bar under Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on advocate representation for Management is absolute and cannot be overridden by implied consent, setting aside orders allowing such representation.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 36(3) advocate representation implied consent

Rahul v. State

11 Jan 2015 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:215

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Rahul by referring to a detailed common judgment delivered in a related case.

criminal appeal_dismissed appeal dismissal criminal appeal High Court of Delhi common judgment

Gaurav Virmani & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

08 Jan 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2016:DHC:155

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

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute settlement agreement

Rohit Mittal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

08 Jan 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:179-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from a matrimonial dispute following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 482 CrPC Article 226 Constitution

Union of India v. Shiv Charan Lal Sharma

07 Jan 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:5914-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the ACC lawfully rejected the appointment of Shiv Charan Lal Sharma as Presiding Officer of the National Highway Tribunal on valid suitability grounds, setting aside the earlier order directing his appointment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Appointments Committee of the Cabinet National Highway Tribunal Selection Committee recommendations Suitability vs eligibility

Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Anr v. State & Anr

06 Jan 2015 · Suresh Kait · 2016:DHC:71

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's order rejecting discharge of accused based on a CBI closure report filed after impermissible reinvestigation, directing trial to proceed on the original charge sheet with discharge to be considered only after hearing arguments on charge.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant discharge application closure report further investigation reinvestigation

Mohd. Abid v. State (NCT of Delhi)

06 Jan 2015 · Pratibha Rani; Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:8371

The Delhi High Court refused bail to accused in a gang rape case due to non-production of the prosecutrix and directed authorities to trace her for recording evidence before considering bail.

criminal petition_dismissed bail application Section 439 Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C. rape

The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Master Vipin & Ors.

05 Jan 2015 · G. P. Mittal · 2015:DHC:3964

The Delhi High Court held that an insurer is liable to pay compensation to a motor accident victim even if the driver held a fake licence, with a right to recover the amount from the driver later.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim insurance liability fake driving licence Section 149 Motor Vehicles Act

Saroj Khemka v. Mukat Behari Khemka & Ors.

23 Dec 2014 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5358

The Delhi High Court held that prior institution of a suit and resistance to a Section 8 application does not bar invoking arbitration if the suit is withdrawn unconditionally, and appointed an arbitrator to resolve partnership disputes.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration agreement Section 11(6) Arbitration Act Section 8 Arbitration Act waiver of arbitration

Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Business Solutions Pvt Ltd

08 Dec 2014 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023 SCC OnLine Del 38

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application, holding that prior admission of descriptiveness and common usage of words in its trademark disentitles it from exclusive rights against the defendants' similar mark.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Order XXXIX CPC interim injunction descriptive mark

Shiv Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

17 Nov 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:3221-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 36

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s pending representation against his transfer within two weeks and stayed the transfer order for one week thereafter to protect his rights.

administrative petition_allowed transfer order autistic child government policy representation

Sunita Devi v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

12 Nov 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:9737-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner’s claim for seniority and increments was not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant res judicata constructive res judicata Order 2 Rule 2 CPC cause of action

Indian Hockey Federation v. UOI & Ors.

01 Nov 2014 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:182

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the recognition of Hockey India as the National Sports Federation for hockey, holding the petition infructuous in light of binding international arbitration and subsequent recognitions.

administrative petition_dismissed National Sports Federation Recognition Indian Olympic Association Court of Arbitration for Sports

Union of India v. M/S. Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. & Anr.

31 Oct 2014 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2019:DHC:6492
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that delay beyond the 120-day period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be condoned, and administrative delay does not constitute sufficient cause for such condonation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34(3) condonation of delay limitation period