Delhi High Court

95,375 judgments

Year:

Mukesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi

10 Apr 2009 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:3894-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Mukesh Kumar for dowry death and cruelty, affirming that persistent harassment for dowry establishes the requisite proximate link to death under Section 304B IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dowry death Section 304B IPC Section 498A IPC cruelty

Bengal Waterproof Ltd v. UOI and Anr

28 Mar 2009 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:1338-DB

The Delhi High Court held that BIFR cannot restrain a sick company from disposing of fixed assets through administrative practice directions without passing a formal statutory order under Section 22A of SICA.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 Section 22A SICA Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Restraint on disposal of assets

Pandya Kushalbhai Ghanshyambhai & Ors. v. Indira Gandhi National Open University Maidan & Ors.

25 Mar 2009 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:4819

Delhi High Court directs IGNOU to grant two-year extension to B. Tech students under IGNOU-VIEP to clear backlog papers, holding denial violates Article 14 discrimination principles.

education petition_allowed Significant IGNOU-VIEP Registration Period Extension Article 14 face-to-face engineering courses

M/S PRESTRESS WIRE INDUSTRIES v. M/S UPPAL BUILDERS PVT LTD

19 Mar 2009 · Yogesh Khanna · 2018:DHC:1006

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award allowing rebate only on tendered work, compensation for price escalation beyond contract period, and 18% interest, dismissing the petition challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Rebate applicability Price escalation

Akshem Chand through LR atlo Devi v. Suresh Bala & Ors.

18 Mar 2009 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:2157

The Delhi High Court dismissed a practicing advocate's application under Section 340 CrPC alleging fraud in a final civil judgment as an abuse of process, affirming that fraud allegations must be raised in original proceedings and imposing heavy costs to deter vexatious litigation.

civil petition_dismissed Significant abuse of process res judicata fraud on court Section 340 CrPC

Mohd. Ahmad Hussain v. State

11 Feb 2009 · Pardeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:6748-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and related offences in an acid attack case, holding that knowledge of the imminently dangerous nature of the act and resulting fatal injuries justified the convictions and sentences.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant acid attack culpable homicide not amounting to murder Section 304 IPC Section 307 IPC

Mohd. Ahmad Hussain v. State

11 Feb 2009 · Pardeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:6749-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for culpable homicide, attempted murder, and grievous injuries in an acid attack case, holding that knowledge of the imminently dangerous nature of the act suffices for criminal liability even if the primary target was another person.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant acid attack culpable homicide not amounting to murder Section 304 IPC Section 307 IPC

Parminder Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank

06 Feb 2009 · V. Kameswar Rao
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that departmental proceedings initiated after retirement and beyond the four-year limitation period under Punjab and Sind Bank Pension Regulations are not maintainable and quashed the charge sheets issued to retired employees.

administrative petition_allowed Significant departmental proceedings pension regulations limitation period charge sheet

DURGA SOFTELECOM PVT.LTD v. ARCENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.

07 Jan 2009 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7884-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging dismissal of injunction relief based on a disputed 15-year lock-in period in a lease deed, emphasizing territorial jurisdiction and document interpretation principles.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant lease deed lock-in period Schedule to lease deed mandatory injunction

Sarika v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board

20 Dec 2008 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1189-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld the DSSSB's discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks for reserved category candidates and dismissed the petition challenging non-selection despite appearing in the merit list.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant DSSSB minimum qualifying marks reserved category selection process

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD v. HICARE INDIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD

15 Dec 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:6849-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitration award holding that an agreement to lease is not a lease deed requiring registration, possession was permissive, and the appellant was liable for damages for breach of the agreement.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant agreement to lease agreement of lease arbitration clause permissive possession

Jaikishan Aggarwal v. Union of India & Ors

10 Dec 2008 · THE CHIEF JUSTICE; V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2018:DHC:9129-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 23

The Delhi High Court upheld HPCL's cancellation of a retail outlet allotment due to failure to provide land and held that the Chief Commissioner cannot direct preferential land allotment to persons with disabilities beyond statutory authority.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 Article 14 Constitution of India Letter of Intent cancellation preferential allotment

Anurag Sharma v. Manushi Sharma

06 Dec 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:7433-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal dissolving a turbulent marriage on the ground of mental cruelty, recognizing mutual bickering and irretrievable breakdown as relevant factors under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

family appeal_allowed Significant mental cruelty Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 divorce irretrievable breakdown

Om Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Dec 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:703-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that for ACP benefits, service period must be reckoned from initial appointment ignoring re-mustering to merged posts, dismissing review petitions challenging this interpretation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP Scheme re-mustering pay scale merger

Om Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Dec 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:702-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed review petitions and held that re-mustering does not reset service tenure for ACP benefits, applying DOPT clarifications on merged pay scales.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP benefits re-mustering financial upgradation

Om Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Dec 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:701-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that for ACP benefits, service period must be reckoned from initial appointment ignoring re-mustering to merged posts, applying DOPT clarifications to uphold petitioners' entitlement.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP benefits re-mustering pay scale merger

Om Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Dec 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:700-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that for ACP benefits, service must be reckoned from initial appointment ignoring re-mustering promotions before merger of posts, dismissing review petitions challenging this interpretation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP Scheme re-mustering financial upgradation

Om Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Dec 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:684-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 18

The Delhi High Court dismissed review petitions holding that for ACP benefits, service must be reckoned from initial appointment ignoring re-mustering to merged posts, as per DOPT clarifications.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP benefits re-mustering pay scale merger

Om Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Dec 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:699-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that for ACP benefits, service must be reckoned from initial appointment ignoring re-mustering to merged posts, dismissing review petitions challenging this interpretation.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP Scheme re-mustering pay scale merger

Castrol Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S Pandit Oil Company & Ors.

30 Nov 2008 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:1654

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to Castrol Ltd. against defendants for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off involving spurious lubricants and deceptive packaging.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off copyright infringement permanent injunction