Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Rani Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

23 Dec 2005 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5041-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a police officer absconding after criminal charges, ruling that family pension is not payable despite presumed death after seven years, as dismissal without enquiry was valid and pension rights forfeited.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant family pension dismissal from service absconding departmental enquiry

KTM-AG v. Honda Motorcycles and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

22 Dec 2005 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8769

The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute petition as settled and directed cancellation of the "DUKE" trademark registration in accordance with the parties' Settlement Agreement.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Settlement Agreement Trademark cancellation Trade Mark Registry DUKE trademark

Romi Sharma v. Secretary Labour

19 Nov 2005 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; DEEPA SHARMA · 2015:DHC:11260-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that res judicata bars fresh writ petitions on disciplinary dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Government's refusal to grant prosecution sanction was lawful and not arbitrary.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33 Section 31 sanction to prosecute res judicata

Mr. Chatanya Siddhartha, Advocate. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

01 Nov 2005 · JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA; 25.01.2019 SANJ... · 2019:DHC:7933-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 15

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act once possession is taken and compensation paid, dismissing stale claims of continued possession by landowners.

property petition_dismissed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) 2013 Act possession compensation

Manoj Kumar v. State

07 Oct 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:5178-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for murder of an accused who fired indiscriminately into a crowd, holding that such act amounts to murder under clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC despite absence of premeditation or specific intent to kill.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant indiscriminate firing private defense culpable homicide Section 300 IPC clause fourthly

Babloo & Pappu v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

27 Sep 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:335-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court reduced the appellant’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, maintaining other convictions and adjusting the sentence to time already served.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant culpable homicide not amounting to murder murder Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC

Omkar Singh v. Union of India; Braham Prakash Singh v. Union of India

25 Sep 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:436-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside compulsory retirement penalties imposed on force personnel for failing to intervene in a sudden assault, holding that disciplinary authorities must consider all relevant circumstances including natural human reactions before imposing punishment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings compulsory retirement cowardice omission to act

Omkar Singh v. Union of India; Braham Prakash Singh v. Union of India

25 Sep 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:435-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside compulsory retirement penalties imposed on force personnel for failing to intervene in a sudden assault, holding that absence of reasonable opportunity to react negates misconduct.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings compulsory retirement cowardice negligence

Ram Kawar HUF v. M/S SMC GLOBAL SECURITIES LIMITED

08 Sep 2005 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:1837

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to summon irrelevant documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in a Section 138 NI Act complaint, emphasizing that such power cannot be used for fishing expeditions or to delay trial.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 91 Cr.P.C. Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act summoning of documents cross-examination

Ashok Kumar v. Mona

19 Aug 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6533-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court dismissed the divorce petition for cruelty and mental unsoundness due to the appellant's failure to prove specific incidents or produce medical evidence establishing incurable mental disorder.

family appeal_dismissed Significant Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(ia) Section 13(1)(iii) cruelty

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Ajay Bhatia

17 Aug 2005 · Anu Malhotra · 2021:DHC:3792
Cites 1 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals challenging execution orders on grounds of inaccurate site plan, holding that the decree's finality bars re-agitation of property identity issues in execution proceedings.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Execution of decree Site plan accuracy Section 47 CPC Order XXI Rule 97 CPC

Blue Coast Hotels Limited v. Kamal Sharma & Ors.

31 Jul 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:928-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against an interlocutory order restraining disbursement of funds, holding such pro-tem protective orders under Section 151 CPC are not appealable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant interlocutory order Section 151 CPC pro-tem order assured return agreement

Rajeev Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

28 Jul 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:1667-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court upheld disciplinary action against a CISF Sub-Inspector for dereliction of duty in airport baggage screening, giving primacy to contemporaneous official records over conflicting computer logs.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant dereliction of duty airport security X-ray screening standing operating procedure

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. M/S Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation

25 May 2005 · Yashwant Varma; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2024:DHC:4536-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 15

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision allowing a charitable trust to claim exemption on deemed income arising from temporary donations to other charitable trusts under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 11 Income Tax Act accumulated income deemed income charitable trusts

Satya Pal Singh v. State

20 May 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3438-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of a husband for murdering his wife, emphasizing the burden on the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain the homicidal death when presence at the crime scene is proved.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 106 Indian Evidence Act Homicidal death Burden of proof

M/S RAMA TENT HOUSE v. Sh. Inderjeet and Anr.

20 May 2005 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2021:DHC:1197

The Delhi High Court upheld Labour Court awards granting compensation to workmen retrenched by Rama Tent House, affirming the employer-employee relationship and continuous service under the Industrial Disputes Act.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant employer-employee relationship Industrial Disputes Act 1947 continuous service retrenchment

Meera Goyal v. Priti Saraf

04 May 2005 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8640
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award awarding ₹38 crores to the buyer, holding that the seller's failure to fulfill contractual conditions novated payment obligations and that the arbitration proceedings and award were valid and not liable to be set aside.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Agreement to Sell Compulsory Requirements

Ramesh KC v. Union of India; Ex. NK. Jyoti Kanta Mahapatra v. Union of India

27 Jan 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:616-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the administrative dismissal of army personnel involved in espionage, affirming that administrative action under the Army Act can be validly taken independent of General Court Martial proceedings.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant administrative action Army Act General Court Martial Official Secrets Act

Ramesh KC v. Union of India; Ex. NK. Jyoti Kanta Mahapatra v. Union of India

27 Jan 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:617-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of army personnel for espionage, affirming that administrative action independent of Court Martial proceedings is valid when the competent authority applies its mind and due process is followed.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Army Act Administrative action General Court Martial Official Secrets Act

Ravinder Rana v. State through CBI

17 Jan 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3936-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Ravinder Rana for the murder and attempted murder of fellow constables based on credible eyewitness and scientific evidence, dismissing his appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed murder attempt to murder eyewitness testimony injured witnesses