Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Nishant S. Diwan v. High Court of Delhi

25 Mar 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R.V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1639-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the 3% reservation for persons with disabilities under the Disabilities Act applies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service posts, and exclusion thereof is discriminatory and unlawful.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 Section 33 reservation Delhi Higher Judicial Service locomotor disability

Nagandra Singh v. Director General ITBP & Ors.

25 Mar 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:1640-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a review promotion committee must apply the original grading criteria for promotions and dismissed the petition challenging the petitioner’s grading and ranking.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Departmental Promotion Committee grading criteria Annual Confidential Reports merit-cum-seniority

K. Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India

25 Mar 2014 · Reva Khetrapal; Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1653-DB

The Delhi High Court held that refusal of concurrence by the parent employer for absorption of a deputationist by the Intelligence Bureau was illegal and directed reconsideration in accordance with extant policies.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant deputation absorption concurrence parent employer

Pfizer Products, Inc v. R.K. Singh & Anr.

25 Mar 2014 · G.S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:1655

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and punitive damages to Pfizer for infringement and passing off of its registered trademark "VIAGRA" by defendants using the deceptively similar mark "VIHAGRA".

civil appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement passing off permanent injunction punitive damages

Delhi Transport Corporation v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1 and Anr.

25 Mar 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:1647

The Delhi High Court held that illegal termination of a daily wager under Section 25-F does not mandate reinstatement and awarded compensation instead.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25-F Section 25-G termination of service

Guru Swarup Srivastava v. State & Anr.

25 Mar 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:7494

The Delhi High Court allowed modification of bail conditions in Section 138 NI Act cases permitting the petitioner to furnish Fixed Deposit Receipts and surety through his wife to secure his presence at trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act surety Fixed Deposit Receipt bail bonds

Inder Raj Malhotra v. Canara Bank & Anr.

25 Mar 2014 · Sanjiv Khanna; G.P. Mittal · 2014:DHC:1648-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a suspension order against an employee of a merged bank continues to operate despite the merger and Supreme Court directions granting continuity of service, and dismissed the review petition challenging this position.

labor petition_dismissed Significant bank merger suspension order continuity of service departmental proceedings

TEERTHANKER MAHAVEER UNIVERSITY ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Kapur, Mr. Vijayender Kumar, Ms. Megha Bansiwal, Advocates v. KESHAV DESIRAJU .....

25 Mar 2014 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MI... · 2014:DHC:1650

The Delhi High Court disposed of the contempt petition regarding delay in nomination to the Medical Council of India after respondents assured imminent compliance and petitioner withdrew the petition.

administrative petition_dismissed contempt of court nomination Medical Council of India delay in administrative action

Rajiv Kumar Gupta v. S.C. Swami

25 Mar 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:1657

The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit for refund and damages against an Ayurvedic doctor, holding that the Delhi courts lacked jurisdiction and the suit was barred by limitation despite the petitioner’s claimed mental illness.

civil petition_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction limitation period mental illness schizophrenia

Rikesh Kumar Gaur v. Devi Charan Sharma & Ors.

25 Mar 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1642

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellate court's modification directing the bank to keep the jointly held FDR proceeds in abeyance, affirming the appellate court's power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to modify decrees to do justice.

civil appeal_dismissed Order 41 Rule 33 CPC appellate court powers modification of decree fixed deposit receipt

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sh. Jai Pal and Anr.

25 Mar 2014 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:1645

The Delhi High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s award directing regularization of a muster roll employee as Electric Motor Driver based on employer’s admission and established principles of point-to-point regularization.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant regularization muster roll employees point-to-point basis Industrial Tribunal award

Naveen Arora and Ors. v. Suresh Chand

25 Mar 2014 · Najmi Waziri · 2014:DHC:1656

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of tenants under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, recognizing the landlord’s bona fide need for the tenanted shop to carry on his cloth business in Chandni Chowk.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) bona fide need landlord eviction

Manoj Gulshan v. Jai Dev Gulshan & Anr.

25 Mar 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1644

The Delhi High Court allowed the appellant to exhibit original documents after initially filing photocopies and restored the suit for final arguments, relying on the principle that documents can be exhibited absent objections, especially when defendants are ex parte.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance exhibition of documents original documents photocopies

State v. Deepak Bansal

25 Mar 2014 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2014:DHC:1643
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The High Court upheld the acquittal of a food vendor accused of adulteration, ruling that non-refrigeration of a perishable milk product sample rendered it unfit for analysis and created reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Chenna Paneer Sample refrigeration

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Union of India and Anr

25 Mar 2014 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8003-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT’s order directing MTNL to grant out of turn promotion to a sportsperson employee based on his medal-winning achievements, rejecting the employer’s arbitrary denial.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant out of turn promotion increment medal-winning performance Recruitment Rules

Rohtash v. State

24 Mar 2014 · S. P. Garg · 2014:DHC:1606

The Delhi High Court affirmed the appellant's conviction for robbery but modified the sentence considering the period of incarceration already served.

criminal appeal_allowed robbery Section 392 IPC Section 394 IPC Section 411 IPC

MS Shoes East Ltd. v. Rajendra Nahata

24 Mar 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:1613

The Delhi High Court allowed extension of arbitration proceedings under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 post-award and decreed the arbitral award in favor of the plaintiff against the ex parte defendant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Act 1940 Section 28 extension Arbitral award enforcement Ex parte proceedings

Vaibhav Bhatia & Anr. v. M/S L&T Finance Ltd. & Anr.

24 Mar 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:1607

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of time-barred objections to an ex parte arbitral award, holding that returned postal notices constituted valid service under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 objections Deemed service Limitation period

MS Shoes East Ltd. v. Arihant Credit Capital Market Ltd.

24 Mar 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:1614

The Delhi High Court allowed extension of arbitration time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 post-award and decreed the arbitral award in favor of the plaintiff in an ex parte suit for recovery of underwriting liability.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Act 1940 Section 28 extension Arbitral award enforcement Ex parte proceedings

MS Shoes East Ltd. v. W.G.F. Securities Ltd.

24 Mar 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:1615

The Delhi High Court allowed extension of arbitration time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 post-award and enforced the arbitral award by passing a decree with interest and costs against the defendant who failed to appear.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Act 1940 Section 28 extension Arbitral award enforcement Ex parte proceedings