Delhi High Court

94,461 judgments

Year:

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. Federal-Mogul Goetze (India) Limited

07 Mar 2003 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2013:DHC:7798-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Commissioner's revisionary powers under Section 263 to correct erroneous assessment orders excluding revaluation reserve withdrawals from book profits and failing to disallow expenditure under Section 14A.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 263 Income Tax Act Section 115JA book profits Section 14A disallowance revaluation reserve

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. Goetze (India) Limited

07 Mar 2003 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2013:DHC:6339-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Commissioner's revision under Section 263, holding the Assessing Officer's order erroneous and prejudicial for incorrect book profit computation and failure to apply Section 14A, clarifying the scope of revision and book profit adjustments under the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 263 Income Tax Act Section 115JA book profits Section 14A disallowance revaluation reserve

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
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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 3

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

L/Naik Naveen Kumar v. UOI

28 Aug 2002 · Pardeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:1868-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful reversion of petitioners from the Parachute Regiment to their Parent Infantry Regiments under the Army's policy, dismissing claims of coercion and absence of Parent Regiments.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Parachute Regiment Parent Regiment Reversion Army Act 1950

L/Naik Naveen Kumar v. UOI

28 Aug 2002 · Pardeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:1869-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of reverting Indian Army personnel from the Parachute Regiment to their Parent Regiments under the 2002 policy, dismissing claims of coercion and entitlement to continued service in the Para Regiment.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Parachute Regiment Parent Regiment Army Act 1950 Section 69

M/S Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S SJVN Limited

09 Aug 2002 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5412

Execution petition filed after 12 years seeking enforcement of a Dispute Review Board recommendation is barred by limitation and not maintainable under Order XXI CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant execution petition limitation period Article 136 Limitation Act Section 51 Limitation Act

Rajbir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation

06 Aug 2002 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7388-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal's approval of dismissal requires only summary scrutiny of domestic inquiry and prima facie case, and non-informing of Defence Assistant right does not vitiate inquiry absent a request.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act domestic inquiry Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction dismissal approval

Sanjiv Kumar v. UOI & Ors.

22 Jul 2002 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:1255-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the removal of a CISF constable for theft based on circumstantial evidence and procedural fairness in the departmental inquiry despite absence of direct eyewitness or certain documents.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant departmental inquiry misconduct circumstantial evidence preliminary inquiry report