Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Sudesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:2685-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 recovery of excess salary without fraud is impermissible without due process.

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

Shyam Sunder Roy v. Union of India & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:2686-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an employee's pay cannot be reduced or excess salary recovered without issuing a show cause notice and providing an opportunity to be heard, quashing the impugned pay revision orders.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pay fixation show cause notice natural justice recovery of excess salary

Manish Yadav and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

20 May 2014 · Manmohan · 2014:DHC:2671

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking directions to alter the DNB counselling schedule, holding that the principle against carrying forward medical seats does not apply to DNB's biennial admissions and courts should not interfere in academic policy matters.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Diploma of National Board counselling schedule seat carry forward medical admissions

Pradeep Kanodia & Ors. v. Ashok Kanodia & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2693

The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt petition holding that an unaccepted undertaking before the Company Law Board does not constitute a binding undertaking to the Court enforceable by contempt.

civil petition_dismissed Significant contempt petition undertaking to the Court Company Law Board breach of undertaking

Pankjani Swain v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:2674

The Delhi High Court held that a Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to refuse directing police to register an FIR if the complaint lacks substance requiring police investigation, and dismissed the petition challenging such refusal.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. FIR registration Magistrate discretion Cognizable offence

Pradeep Chand Giri v. Harish Sethi

20 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2673

Execution court's dismissal of objections without framing issues and allowing evidence was improper; matter remanded for fresh trial in accordance with Order 21 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant execution petition objections to execution Order 21 CPC framing of issues

Narender Singh Chawla v. State & Ors.

20 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2672

The Delhi High Court upheld probate granted on a duly executed and registered 1982 Will, rejecting objections based on an unproved subsequent Will dated 1987.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant probate Indian Succession Act, 1925 Will execution attestation

Rajeev Kumar & Anr. v. Microsoft Corporation & Anr.

20 May 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:2664-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the seizure and sealing of computer systems containing pirated software to preserve evidence, rejecting the appellants’ plea for mirror imaging as insufficient, and indicated the suit for permanent injunction was maintainable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant software piracy copyright infringement Court Commissioner seizure and sealing

Anita Kaur v. Universal Weather and Aviation India Private Limited & Anr

20 May 2014 · Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. · 2014:DHC:2663-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a parent company is not a necessary party in a suit against its wholly owned subsidiary for illegal termination of employment, affirming the principle of separate legal entity and employer liability.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant separate legal entity corporate veil necessary party employer liability

Rajeev Kshetrapal v. Dr Vinay Kshetrapal

20 May 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2676

The Delhi High Court decreed a suit for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement, restraining interference with the plaintiff's possession of the disputed property.

civil appeal_allowed permanent injunction Order VIII Rule 10 CPC written statement possession

Pawan Kumar Kohli v. Suesh Kumar Kohli

20 May 2014 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2014:DHC:2667

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of a respondent in a defamation case, holding that a good faith complaint made without intent to harm reputation does not constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant defamation Section 499 IPC Section 500 IPC good faith complaint

Vijay v. Usha

19 May 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:2662

The High Court dismissed the divorce petition for cruelty due to the petitioner's failure to prove allegations and unexplained delay in filing the appeal.

family petition_dismissed Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(i-a) divorce cruelty

PSB Realtors Private Limited v. Land Rush Estate India Private Limited

19 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2660

The Delhi High Court allowed a Scheme of Arrangement under the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and creditors based on their written consents and absence of secured creditors.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Arrangement Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 Board of Directors approval

Sushil Jain v. Ritu Jain & Ors.

19 May 2014 · V.K. Shali · 2014:DHC:2635

The Delhi High Court held that a suit for declaration of ownership filed after more than a decade is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant limitation declaration of ownership benami property Article 58 Limitation Act

DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD. & ANR v. SANDEEP CHOHAN @ SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS.

19 May 2014 · V.K. Shali · 2014:DHC:2632

The Delhi High Court refused ex-parte interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit due to plaintiff's delay in filing and absence of demonstrated irreparable loss.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant ex-parte injunction trademark infringement delay in filing suit irreparable loss

Estio Builders & Developers Private Limited & Ors. v. Felicite Builders & Constructions Private Limited

19 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2661

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors based on their written consents.

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

M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LTD

19 May 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:2640
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award allowing rate revision and escalation claims under contract clauses, rejecting the petitioner's challenge on merits and limitation grounds.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Variation Orders Bill of Quantities

Vijay Kumar v. UOI & Anr.

19 May 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:2625-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the administrative dismissal of a BSF constable for unauthorized absence, holding that dismissal without inquiry is valid if no response is filed to the show cause notice and no factual dispute arises.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant administrative dismissal unauthorized absence BSF Act 1968 show cause notice

Rajesh Singh v. UOI & Anr.

19 May 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:2626-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the dismissal of a CRPF constable for negligence and desertion, reinstating him without back wages while emphasizing proportionality in disciplinary penalties.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant CRPF Act 1949 disciplinary proceedings negligence of duty desertion

Rajinder Prasad & Anr. v. State

19 May 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:2650-DB

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants of murder charges due to unexplained delay in FIR and conflicting evidence, emphasizing the benefit of doubt in criminal cases.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant delay in lodging FIR benefit of doubt uncorroborated testimony Section 302 IPC