Delhi High Court

94,729 judgments

Year:

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
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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

Manjeet Kaur & Ors v. Daya Singh Alias Suphwas Srichawla & Anr

03 May 2005 · S. Muralidhar · 2013:DHC:6672

The Delhi High Court held that pre-emptive rights under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act do not survive once registered sale deeds have been executed in respect of heirs' shares, dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit for declaration of such rights.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Hindu Succession Act Section 22 pre-emptive right partition

Ex. Asst. Sub Inspector Kehar Singh v. U.O.I. & Ors.

01 May 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; V. Kameswar Rao · 2013:DHC:6514-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the dismissal of a police officer for unauthorized absence as disproportionate, granted pension benefits, and declined reinstatement due to superannuation.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant unauthorized absence disciplinary penalty dismissal from service proportionality of punishment

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
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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

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

04 Jan 2005 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:512-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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