Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Abhishek v. University of Delhi & Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld the cancellation of a Junior Assistant appointment due to the candidate's failure to attend the mandatory interview, affirming the employer's discretion in recruitment and compliance with natural justice.
Workmen of MCD v. MCD
The Delhi High Court held that delay and latches cannot bar claims under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits.
Pran Gopal Chatterjee v. M/S. Jain Sons Export Corporation
The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation awarded to a long-serving employee declared surplus due to unit closure, rejecting reinstatement but granting additional monetary relief.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of withdrawing relaxation granted under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme due to consecutive financial losses, holding that Scheme conditions apply constructively to relaxation orders and are intra vires the Act.
Hardayal Singh Mehta v. Joginder Singh Mehta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against execution of an arbitral award, holding that sale of family property by the joint family Karta on legal necessity is subject to separate trial, and acquiescence bars claims to recover sold property.
M/S PARLE AGRO PVT LTD & ANR v. ANMOL LIFELINE
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to Parle Agro Pvt Ltd against Anmol Lifeline for trademark and copyright infringement of the "BAILLEY" mark by the deceptively similar "BAILLAY" mark on packaged drinking water.
Dharam Kaur & Ors v. Lt. Governor-Cum-Administrator & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation is unpaid for over five years, allowing the petitioners' claim and permitting fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act.
Nepal Airlines Corporation v. Girish Kumar Singh
The Delhi High Court held that a debtor's written acknowledgment and promise to pay a time-barred debt extend limitation and constitute a valid contract, allowing recovery of principal but rejecting interest claims without written agreement.
Calcom Electronics Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax / VAT Delhi
The Delhi High Court modified the pre-deposit conditions imposed by the VAT Appellate Tribunal, allowing the appellants to pay reasonable amounts to enable their sales tax appeals to be heard on merits after prolonged pendency.
Sudama Singh & Ors. v. Mr Deepak Mohan Spolia & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with relocation directions, holding that relief was confined to named petitioners and ambiguity in the order precluded contempt.
MCD General Mazdoor Union v. MCD
The Delhi High Court delivered an oral judgment in a labor dispute writ petition filed by MCD General Mazdoor Union against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on December 16, 2014.
Ashish Narang v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid by offering it to the landowner, even if compensation is deposited in court.
KRISHAN KUMAR HUF v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the old Land Acquisition Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession or compensation is pending for over five years, regardless of Court stay orders.
Manish Uppal v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse by operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not effected within five years, and this benefit extends to subsequent purchasers.
M/S HARMONY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation is effected within five years, and a subsequent purchaser can claim this benefit.
B K Uppal v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending without possession or compensation for over five years under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and this benefit extends to subsequent purchasers.
Sattar Mohd v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, regardless of possession claims.
Tejpal Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act with an award older than five years and unpaid compensation are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, entitling heirs of the recorded owner to claim this benefit.
Yogendra Kumar Modi v. M.K. Modi & Another
The Delhi High Court held that furnishing security by way of immovable property requires deposit of original title deeds as per Court rules, and acceptance of surety without such deposit is invalid.
Gaurav Grover & Anr v. The State (The Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes following an amicable settlement and divorce by mutual consent, applying its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.