Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Union Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Kumar Rohilla & Ors.

04 Jan 2005 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:512-DB

The Delhi High Court remitted a selection dispute to the Central Administrative Tribunal for reconsideration in light of a prior circular fixing interview cut-off marks, emphasizing procedural fairness and expeditious disposal.

administrative other Procedural Union Public Service Commission Central Administrative Tribunal minimum cut-off marks interview selection criteria

Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2 v. Pacific Consultants International Inc

20 Dec 2004 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:8447-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the deletion of penalty for concealment of income where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief, based on government agreements, that taxes would be paid by the Government, negating any intention to evade tax.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 271(1)(c) Penalty for concealment Tax exemption

Ramesh Kumar Sehgal v. Canara Bank

27 Nov 2004 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:1870

The Delhi High Court held that compulsory retirement imposed as a penalty entitles a bank officer to leave encashment under Regulation 38, rejecting delay objections and directing payment with interest.

service_law petition_allowed Significant compulsory retirement leave encashment Regulation 38 Canara Bank Officers Service Regulations

National Highway Authority of India v. MS Jas Toll Road Company Ltd

18 Oct 2004 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:5388

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award granting extension of the concession period to Jas Toll Road Company Ltd. due to force majeure events and revenue losses under the Concession Agreement with NHAI.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Concession Agreement Force Majeure Extension of Concession Period Toll Collection

Sewak Balkishan Gupta v. The State

19 Aug 2004 · I. S. Mehta · 2017:DHC:7422

The Delhi High Court upheld the framing of charges in a criminal conspiracy and forgery case, ruling that limitation for cognizance restarts from the Supreme Court's restoration of the quashed FIR.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant limitation period cognizance framing of charge Section 482 CrPC

Sewak Balkishan Gupta v. The State

19 Aug 2004 · I. S. Mehta · 2017:DHC:7421

The Delhi High Court upheld the framing of charges in a criminal conspiracy and forgery case, ruling that limitation restarts upon Supreme Court restoration of a quashed FIR and delay alone does not warrant quashing proceedings.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant limitation period cognizance charge framing Section 482 CrPC

Sewak Balkishan Gupta v. The State

19 Aug 2004 · I. S. Mehta · 2017:DHC:7427

The Delhi High Court held that cognizance taken and charges framed within three years of the Supreme Court's restoration of a quashed FIR are not barred by limitation, dismissing petitions challenging the framing of charges in a criminal conspiracy and forgery case.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant limitation period cognizance charge framing Section 482 CrPC

Sewak Balkishan Gupta v. The State

19 Aug 2004 · I. S. Mehta · 2017:DHC:7420

The Delhi High Court held that cognizance taken and charges framed within three years of the Supreme Court's restoration of a quashed FIR are valid, dismissing petitions challenging the framing of charges on limitation and sufficiency of evidence grounds.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant limitation period cognizance charge framing Section 482 CrPC

M/S. Tatvadarshi Bandhu Pvt. Ltd. v. Omaxe Limited

04 Aug 2004 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3650-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that failure of the landowner to obtain consolidation clearance, a contractual condition precedent, entitled the developer to terminate the agreement and claim refund with interest, dismissing the owner's appeal against the arbitral award.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant collaboration agreement condition precedent consolidation clearance land development

Manjeet Singh Kohli v. Mirajuddin & Anr.

03 Aug 2004 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2020:DHC:2077
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court allowed a compromise decree for specific performance in a land dispute, dismissed transposition applications by legal heirs lacking pleadings, and clarified that such compromise does not affect third-party rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance compromise decree transposition of parties Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. & ANR. v. M/S. TALUPULA ENGG. CO.

04 Jun 2004 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:520-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding that the appellant's termination of the contract was illegal and the delay was attributable to the appellant, dismissing the appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitral award contract termination delay in performance liquidated damages

Suman v. M/S BATA INDIA

28 May 2004 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5037-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a registered design cannot be protected as a trade mark or trade dress for passing off claims, dismissing suits based solely on passing off of registered designs as not maintainable.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant registered design passing off trade mark trade dress

Veena Khanna v. Indian Bank

03 Mar 2004 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2018:DHC:1502

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's finding of a concluded lease contract based on correspondence and dismissed the appeal challenging damages awarded for breach of contract.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant contract formation Indian Contract Act 1872 offer and acceptance communication of acceptance

Avinash Sharma v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

01 Feb 2004 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:3486

The Delhi High Court held that work-charged service and suspension period during which the petitioner was exonerated must be counted as qualifying service for pension, entitling the petitioner to pension and medical benefits despite voluntary retirement.

labor petition_allowed Significant qualifying service work-charged service suspension period dies non

Atul Goel v. Central Bureau of Investigation

28 Jan 2004 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:5703

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a share broker accused of abetting disproportionate asset accumulation, holding that verified share transactions during a stock market boom did not prima facie establish criminal liability.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. Prevention of Corruption Act disproportionate assets share transactions

Parma Nand Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

31 Dec 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:1422-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that candidates delayed in joining due to administrative lapses are entitled to seniority and pension benefits based on their merit position, not date of joining.

administrative petition_allowed Significant seniority review medical examination Staff Selection Commission pension scheme

Through: v. Through:

03 Dec 2003 · S. Muralidhar; I. S. Mehta · 2019:DHC:7802-DB

The Delhi High Court held that candidates whose delay in joining police training was due to their own circumstances are not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme benefits extended to those delayed by administrative lapses.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Old Pension Scheme Central Police Organization delay in joining training administrative delay

Indian Navigation Co. v. Works Thr Engineering Workers Lal Jhanda Union

25 Nov 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:6353-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an Industrial Tribunal award granting increments without considering the employer's financial capacity and prevailing wages, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Tribunal annual increment minimum wages financial capacity

Amita Vashisht v. Tarun Vedi

22 Nov 2003 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3718

The Delhi High Court held that Section 10 CPC does not mandate a stay of trial where the suits differ in parties, cause of action, subject matter, and relief, dismissing the petitioner's application to stay possession proceedings pending a declaratory suit.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 10 CPC stay of suit identity of parties cause of action

Grand Vasant Residents Wel.Ass v. DDA & Ors.

15 Sep 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:1197-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Delhi Development Authority must comply with statutory procedures and preserve park land use as per approved plans, drawing adverse inferences for evasive pleadings and allowing the appeal to protect residents' rights.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Development Authority Delhi Development Act, 1957 Master Plan Zonal Development Plan