Delhi High Court
92,628 judgments
Mahabir Prasad v. Delhi Transport Corporation
The Delhi High Court held that reinstatement with continuity of service includes notional pay fixation and pension benefits for the intervening period unless specifically excluded, and directed DTC to grant these benefits to the petitioner.
Sh. Sunil Kumar Gaur v. UPSC and Ors.
The Delhi High Court reserved and pronounced judgment on a batch of writ petitions challenging UPSC decisions, referencing a connected detailed judgment in W.P.(C) 3894/2014.
Sh. Sunil Kumar Gaur v. UPSC
The Delhi High Court reserved and pronounced judgment on connected writ petitions challenging UPSC decisions, referring to a related detailed judgment.
Simran v. Ramanand Gupta
The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order on bona fide necessity grounds, ruling that acquisition by inheritance does not attract the five-year bar under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that alternative accommodation outside Delhi is not suitable.
Sh. Sunil Kumar Gaur v. UPSC
The Delhi High Court delivered a reserved judgment on writ petitions filed against UPSC, with detailed reasoning referenced in a connected matter.
Sh. Sunil Kumar Gaur v. UPSC and Ors.
The Delhi High Court delivered a consolidated judgment on multiple writ petitions challenging UPSC decisions, with detailed reasoning referenced in a connected case.
Sh. Sunil Kumar Gaur v. UPSC and Ors.
The Delhi High Court delivered a consolidated judgment on connected writ petitions challenging UPSC decisions, referring to a related detailed judgment for substantive reasoning.
Sh. Sunil Kumar Gaur v. UPSC and Ors.
The Delhi High Court delivered a reserved judgment on writ petitions challenging UPSC decisions, referencing a related case for detailed reasoning.
Santosh Pal Meena v. UPSC
The Delhi High Court held that UPSC's exclusion of candidates based on experience only after acquiring essential qualifications was impermissible, directing reconsideration of their eligibility for Principal posts in GNCT schools.
Dyal Singh College v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Delhi High Court directed the municipal authorities to approve the petitioner's building plans without linking them to the disputed ownership of a covered storm water drain, leaving the ownership issue open for separate adjudication.
KVTEK Power Systems Private Limited v. ETM Technologies Private Limited
The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between KVTEK Power Systems Private Limited and ETM Technologies Private Limited under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, approving the transfer of assets and liabilities and dissolution of the Transferor Company without winding up.
General Mills Marketing Inc & Anr. v. South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction restraining use of the deceptively similar trademark "D'DAAZS" infringing the registered mark "HAAGEN-DAZS", holding that copying an essential feature of a composite trademark constitutes infringement notwithstanding Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act.
M/S INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING & MANAGEMENT & ANR. v. M/S DESEIN PVT LTD
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim arbitral award granting mesne profits and property tax against tenants who admitted possession beyond lease expiry, affirming that an order under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed on admitted facts despite denial of liability.
M/S CONTINENTAL AUTO SERVICES v. THE SECRETARY-LABOUR AND ANR
The Delhi High Court held that a Senior Store Officer without managerial powers is not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with back wages.
Employee State Insurance Corporation v. M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The Delhi High Court held that ESIC's determination of contributions under Section 45-A is not barred by limitation under Section 77 and that liability continues despite closure and merger of the establishment.
Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Hotz Industries Ltd.
The Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act unless the order is conclusively found to be erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue’s interest.
Krishan Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that non-compliance with Rule 215(e) limiting the zone of consideration does not invalidate merit-based selection when the advertisement allows all eligible candidates to compete.
Parmanand v. Balram Bahri
The Delhi High Court held that subsequent changes in possession during a suit for specific performance fall under the doctrine of lis pendens and need not be pleaded by amendment, allowing the respondent to bring such facts on record without formal amendment.
Shashi Bhushan Lal v. Kanshi Ram
The Delhi High Court held that after repeal of second appeal provision, Article 227 cannot substitute it and upheld the three-year limitation period prior to legal demand notice for claiming rent arrears under the Delhi Rent Control Act.