Delhi High Court
93,075 judgments
Represented by: Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Mr. Shubham Saxena and v. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND ORS
The Delhi High Court upheld the applicability of the EPF Act to a school employing over 20 persons, emphasizing the employer's duty to produce evidence to disprove coverage and the statutory authority's power to rely on available records.
Mr.V.M.Issar, Advocate. v. SH. TINKU WADHWA & ORS. ......
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging a trial court's consent order allowing withdrawal of a suit, holding such orders are not challengeable under Article 227 of the Constitution.
M.M. SHARMA FRGS ..... Petitioner v. LT. GEN. DEPINDER SINGH .....
The Delhi High Court held that an arbitrator can award costs even without a specific issue framed if the matter is raised in pleadings and evidence, and reduced the costs awarded to the respondent accordingly.
Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate. v. SMT. ARCHANA GUPTA ......
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on the ground of landlord's bonafide necessity to use the premises for business, finding no suitable alternative accommodation available.
Through: Mr.Vibhor Goela, Advocate v. SH. SURENDER KUMAR MALHOTRA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS
The Delhi High Court held that a bonafide necessity eviction petition survives the landlord's death if the need persists for other family members, dismissing the tenant's challenge and upholding eviction.
Mr. S. R. Mehta, Advoctae. v. MR. GULSHAN KUMAR ANAND .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition against a rent control judgment after the Supreme Court dismissed the related SLP with reasons, holding that the matter had attained finality and further review was an abuse of process.
Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahir Malhtora & Ms. Medha Sachdev, Advocates with petitioner in person Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Advocate for petitioner No.2 v. STATE .....
The Delhi High Court held that family courts must prioritize matrimonial matters involving migration and cannot refuse pre-ponement of hearings solely due to heavy pendency without administrative escalation.
Mr. S.P. Kalra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate v. MUKHTYARI DEVI & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of the appellants' appeal, affirming that a mandatory injunction suit is maintainable against licensees and that unchallenged procedural orders barring defence are final.
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate v. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ORS.....
The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by applying the minimum wages standard for loss of dependency of a deceased homemaker, following the principles in Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Manmeet Singh.
Mr.Niraj Jha, Advocate. v. SH.KEWAL ......
The Delhi High Court held that when the limitation period for filing a leave to defend application under the Rent Control Act expires during court vacations, the application filed on the first day after court re-opening is not barred by limitation.
Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State with Ms.Shinjan Jain, Adv. and SI Alok Kumar Rajan, PS Sarai Rohilla. v. SONU KUMAR YADAV .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's leave petition upholding the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to contradictions in evidence and lack of proof of identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Mr. Sarojanand Jha, Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Yash Srivastava, Advocates v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....
The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act by recording a consent order regulating bank guarantees and directing parties to proceed directly to arbitration due to the inefficacy of the contractual DRE mechanism.
AMARJIT SINGH AND ANR v. For the
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, and accordingly declared the petitioners' land acquisition proceedings lapsed.
delivered on: November 25, 2014 W.P.(C) No.3635/2011 v. CORAM:
The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision reinstating an employee dismissed for unauthorized absence due to compelling circumstances, emphasizing proportionality of punishment and adherence to natural justice.
VED PRAKASH v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's award granting compensation instead of reinstatement to daily wage workers terminated on the basis of forged appointment letters, emphasizing the discretion of tribunals and the void nature of forged appointments.
MAHAJAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
The Delhi High Court held that 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 to the landowner, and mere deposit of compensation in court without offering it does not constitute payment.
OM APARTMENTS PVT. LTD v. For the
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years of the award, granting the petitioner a declaration of lapse.
BANWARI LAL & BROTHERS v. For the
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years from the award date.
SUNDER LAL & ORS v. For the
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 physical possession.
W.P.(C) 805/2013 v. SWAGATAM TOURS AND TRAVELS (P) LTD
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Labour Court's finding that the petitioner failed to prove an employer-employee relationship with the respondent, thereby upholding the dismissal of his claim for illegal termination.