Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Efacec Swithgear India Pvt. Ltd. v. Efacec India Pvt. Ltd.

20 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2692

The Delhi High Court allowed the application for a Scheme of Amalgamation between two companies, dispensing with the requirement of convening meetings of shareholders and creditors based on their written consents under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 Shareholders consent

Lalit Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:2684-DB

The Delhi High Court held that pay cannot be revised to an employee's detriment nor recoveries made without issuing a show cause notice and opportunity to be heard, quashing the impugned pay revision order.

service_law petition_allowed Significant pay fixation 6th Central Pay Commission show cause notice recovery of salary

Anita v. Union of India & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:2687-DB

The Delhi High Court held that adverse pay fixation and salary recovery require prior notice and opportunity to be heard, quashing the respondents' unilateral downward revision of the petitioner's pay and recovery without such procedure.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pay fixation show cause notice salary recovery 6th Central Pay Commission

Gulshan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:2690-DB

The Delhi High Court held that pay fixation cannot be revised to an employee's detriment without issuing a show cause notice and opportunity to be heard, and salary recoveries without fraud or misrepresentation are impermissible without due process.

service_law petition_allowed Significant pay fixation 6th Central Pay Commission show cause notice salary recovery

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd v. Vikas Garg

20 May 2014 · G.S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2681

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application for leave to defend in a summary suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of a home equity loan, holding that the defence was sham and the suit maintainable on a liquidated demand.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order 37 CPC leave to defend loan agreement liquidated demand

Asif v. State

20 May 2014 · Indermeet Kaur · 2014:DHC:2666

The Delhi High Court set aside convictions under Section 397 IPC for lack of evidence of use of deadly weapon but upheld robbery convictions under Section 394 IPC, modifying sentences accordingly.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 397 IPC deadly weapon robbery disclosure statement

Harish & Ors. v. Sarla Devi & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2677

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding possession decree where government had not taken possession under Land Acquisition Act, death of proforma defendant did not cause abatement, and suit property was sufficiently demarcated.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 16 Land Acquisition Act Section 100 CPC possession suit

Dharmender Kumar Sharma v. Chairman, Rajya Sabha Secretariat & Anr

20 May 2014 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2014:DHC:2669

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging disciplinary orders holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and upheld compulsory retirement, emphasizing limited judicial interference in departmental proceedings.

administrative petition_dismissed disciplinary proceedings CCS Conduct Rules 1964 compulsory retirement judicial review

Vinod Kumar Aggarwal v. Shakuntla Kapoor & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2678

The Delhi High Court held that a legal notice terminating tenancy was duly served, tenancy devolves only on limited heirs under Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and granted possession to the landlord after the death of the tenant's spouse.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 tenancy succession service of legal notice residential tenancy

Bidhan Chand Biswas through LRs v. Prakash Chand Bansal & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2679

The Delhi High Court upheld the first appellate court's declaration of ownership in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that a power of attorney executed for consideration cannot be unilaterally cancelled and that the plaintiffs had better title than the defendants.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant power of attorney Cancellation Deed Transfer of Property Act Contract Act Section 202

Davinder Kumar v. Ram Kaur

20 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2680

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal, upholding possession and damages decreed in favor of the respondent, holding that the appellant failed to prove adoption or co-ownership of the suit property.

civil appeal_dismissed adoption co-ownership possession user charges

Holland Company LP & Anr v. S.P. Industries

20 May 2014 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:2665

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction against the defendant for alleged copyright infringement of Automatic Twist Lock designs, holding that design registration application surrenders copyright and no prima facie case was made out.

civil petition_dismissed Significant copyright infringement industrial drawings design registration Automatic Twist Locks

CTCI Overseas Corporation Ltd v. Director of Income Tax-I, International Taxation

20 May 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:2670-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the Authority for Advance Rulings' finding of an Association of Persons between the petitioner and CINDA, remitting the matter for fresh factual determination applying clarified legal principles on AOP under the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Association of Persons AOP Income Tax Act 1961 Authority for Advance Rulings

Dharmender Kumar v. Union of India

20 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2675

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and condoned a 227-day delay in filing a Railway Claims Tribunal petition, emphasizing that claims should be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds.

civil appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 23 Limitation Act

Khem Chand v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

20 May 2014 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:2682-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition directing appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate whose experience certificate was improperly discredited by the appointing authority despite valid documentary evidence and firm confirmations.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant experience certificate verification appointment Scheduled Caste reservation administrative tribunal

Syed Mohd. Jawed Alam v. The General Manager Northern Railways

20 May 2014 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:2683-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the acceptance of the petitioner's voluntary retirement under Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, holding that failure to withdraw the notice and deemed acceptance after three months rendered the retirement valid.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant voluntary retirement Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 Master Circular No.35 deemed acceptance

Saint Soldier Modern Senior Secondary School v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

20 May 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:2668

The Delhi High Court held that the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 120 days as prescribed under the Act and Rules, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Employees’ Provident Fund Act limitation condonation of delay appeal

Abhishek Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:2689-DB

The Delhi High Court held that government employees' pay cannot be arbitrarily reduced or recovered without issuing a show cause notice and providing an opportunity to be heard, quashing the impugned pay re-fixation order against the petitioner.

service petition_allowed Significant pay fixation 6th Central Pay Commission show cause notice recovery of excess pay

Jitendra Ray v. Union of India & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:2688-DB

The Delhi High Court held that pay cannot be revised to an employee's detriment without issuing a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing, and recovery of excess salary without fraud is impermissible without due process.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pay fixation 6th Central Pay Commission show cause notice recovery of salary

S.S. Suhag & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:2691-DB

The Delhi High Court held that government employees' pay cannot be reduced or recovered without a reasoned show cause notice and opportunity to be heard, quashing arbitrary pay re-fixation orders against CRPF Head Constables.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant 6th Central Pay Commission pay fixation show cause notice natural justice