Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Dy. Commissioner of Police v. Suman Teotia

09 Sep 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:375-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order allowing a widow's claim for family pension and quashing disciplinary proceedings against her deceased husband, rejecting delay and locus standi objections.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant locus standi delay and laches family pension disciplinary proceedings

J.C. Thind v. UOI & Ors.

02 Sep 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:1158-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the sealed cover procedure for promotions during pending disciplinary proceedings and ruled that penalties take effect from the date of imposition, dismissing the petitioner's challenge.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant Departmental Promotion Committee sealed cover procedure charge memorandum disciplinary proceedings

S. Shankar v. M/S. Rama Panels Pvt. Ltd.

22 Aug 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3755

The Delhi High Court held that a second suit claiming mesne profits and damages for the same period as an earlier suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and dismissed the subsequent suit alleging misuse of leased premises.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mesne profits leave and license agreement penal clause Order 2 Rule 2 CPC

S. Shankar v. M/s. Rama Panels Pvt. Ltd.

22 Aug 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3756-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a second suit claiming mesne profits and damages for the same period of unauthorized occupation is barred without leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and upheld the enforceability of a penal license fee clause as a reasonable pre-estimate of loss.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mesne profits leave and license agreement Order 2 Rule 2 CPC penal clause

Jishan Ali v. State

25 Jul 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:2809-DB

The Delhi High Court modified a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony and absence of intent to kill.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant eyewitness testimony Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part-II IPC culpable homicide

DTC v. Manjeet Singh

21 Jul 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7122-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal of DTC, setting aside the Labour Court's award and reinstating the dismissal of an employee for proven misconduct despite procedural objections.

labor appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary inquiry misconduct dismissal from service Industrial Disputes Act

Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute v. Rajesh Kumar Ravi

17 Jul 2003 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9298-DB

The Delhi High Court held that mandatory procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings under Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules vitiate dismissal, ordering reinstatement while remanding the issue of back wages for fresh consideration.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings natural justice Delhi School Education Rules 1973 Rule 120

Goutam Bhadra v. Gouri Bhadra

21 Jun 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Deepa Sharma · 2014:DHC:1666-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming equal partition rights of widow, son, and daughter in a Hindu intestate estate, holding that vague family settlement and oral declaration pleas are insufficient defenses post deletion of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 23 deletion family settlement oral Will

Jitendra Nath Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

19 Jun 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:984-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful dismissal of a BSF constable absent without leave for 348 days, holding that no inquiry is required if the show cause notice is unanswered.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant BSF Act 1968 Section 11(2) dismissal from service show cause notice

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Kanwal Sibal & Ors.

11 Mar 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:6695-DB

The Delhi High Court held that co-owners of different floors on a single plot can independently utilize their proportionate increased FAR without requiring joint consent, dismissing NDMC's appeal against such recognition.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Floor Area Ratio MPD-2021 ownership in severalty building bye-laws

Raj Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Anr

11 Feb 2003 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2018:DHC:6337
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking allotment of an adjacent plot, holding that the plot does not qualify as an additional strip of land under relevant policies and the petitioner is not entitled to relief as a substituted allottee.

property petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 Constitution of India mandamus allotment of land additional strips of land

ARUN OSWAL v. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

06 Feb 2003 · V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2015:DHC:9342

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking pension benefits under SVRS 2003, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to pension without completing 20 years of service as per valid administrative instructions, and that the Supreme Court judgment on SVRS 2004 was not applicable.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme Pension eligibility Delay and laches Administrative instructions

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi –IV v. Shiv Raj Gupta

28 Jan 2003 · Sanjiv Khanna; V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:7310-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that a Rs. 6.6 crore non-compete fee received by the assessee was a capital receipt not taxable under Section 28(ii) of the Income Tax Act, rejecting Revenue's claim of a colourable device to avoid tax.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant non-compete fee capital receipt Section 28(ii) Income Tax Act restrictive covenant

Jai Bhagwan v. State

14 Jan 2003 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:4753-DB

The Delhi High Court reduced the appellant's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC based on post-mortem evidence and lack of murderous intention.

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

Sudhir Udar v. Land & Building Department

09 Dec 2002 · The Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:7448-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that a 13-year delay in applying for allotment of an alternate plot post land acquisition is inordinate and unjustified, thus disentitling the appellant from relief under the scheme.

property appeal_dismissed Significant land acquisition alternate plot allotment inordinate delay compensation

Ms. Rekha Palli, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Punam Singh, Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Ms. Shruti Munjal, Ms. Garima Sachdeva and Mr.S.A. Akhtar, Advocates. v. UOI & ORS. .....

15 Nov 2002 · HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.... · 2017:DHC:1767-DB

The Delhi High Court held that candidates selected before the New Pension Scheme's commencement but appointed late due to administrative delays are entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Old Pension Scheme New Pension Scheme Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 Review Medical Board

Phool Chand v. State

22 Oct 2002 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3376-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Phool Chand for murder and theft based on circumstantial evidence, recent possession of stolen property, and false explanations under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC Section 404 IPC

UBV Infrastructures Limited v. National Highways Authority of India

11 Oct 2002 · Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:5200

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award terminating the contract due to forged Bank Guarantees, validating the respondent’s recovery claims and rejecting the petitioner’s counterclaims for return of machinery and compensation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Contract termination Fundamental breach

Pramod Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

23 Sep 2002 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:682-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that a CRPF personnel posted in LWE areas had a legitimate expectation to retain his family quarter beyond five years and quashed the demand for market rent for the disputed period.

administrative petition_allowed Significant CRPF Family Accommodation Rules 2008 legitimate expectation family quarter retention Left Wing Extremist areas

L/Naik Naveen Kumar v. UOI

28 Aug 2002 · Pardeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:1866-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of reverting Indian Army personnel from the Parachute Regiment to their Parent Regiments based on voluntary applications and conviction under the Army Act.

administrative petition_dismissed Parachute Regiment Parent Regiment Army Act Reversion