Delhi High Court

95,375 judgments

Year:

Dilip Kumar Pandey v. UOI

08 Mar 2006 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:353-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF constable for misconduct involving intoxication on duty and threatening a superior officer with a cocked rifle, affirming that courts will not interfere with disciplinary findings supported by some evidence.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary inquiry Central Reserve Police Force Act misconduct dismissal from service

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8 v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

26 Feb 2006 · Yashwant Varma; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2024:DHC:5082-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 12

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision that royalty payments made by Samsung India Electronics to its parent for technological know-how were at arm's length and not subject to transfer pricing adjustments, rejecting the Revenue's claim that the payments were to itself as a contract manufacturer.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant transfer pricing arm's length price royalty payments contract manufacturer

SH.PREM NATH CHOPRA DECEASED THRU LRS v. SH.ARUN CHOPRA & ORS.

09 Feb 2006 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:1078-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the mutation and wills relating to a Defence Colony property, holding the will of Sham Lal Chopra genuine and the plaintiff's challenge barred by limitation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partition suit mutation will validity Hindu Succession Act

Mukesh Kapil v. Parag P Tripathi & Ors.

07 Feb 2006 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6196-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a consent decree based on a settlement agreement in a property redevelopment dispute, dismissing challenges alleging fraud and invalidity, and clarified that agreements to sell do not transfer ownership until registered sale deeds are executed.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Settlement Agreement Consent Decree Collaboration Agreement Agreement to Sell

Mukesh Kapil v. Parag P Tripathi & Ors.

07 Feb 2006 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6198-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a consent decree based on a settlement agreement in a property redevelopment dispute, rejecting challenges of fraud and invalidity and directing execution of sale deeds as per agreed terms.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Settlement Agreement Consent Decree Collaboration Agreement Agreement to Sell

Mukesh Kapil v. Parag P Tripathi & Ors.

07 Feb 2006 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6197-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a consent decree based on a settlement agreement in a property redevelopment dispute, holding that agreements to sell do not create interest in property until registered sale deeds are executed and dismissing challenges based on alleged fraud and breach.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant consent decree settlement agreement collaboration agreement agreement to sell

Messer Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.

16 Jan 2006 · S. Muralidhar · 2013:DHC:6170

The Delhi High Court held it has jurisdiction to execute a foreign money decree under Section 44A CPC, dismissed all objections to the foreign English judgment, and allowed enforcement against the Judgment Debtor.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Execution of foreign decree Section 44A CPC Delhi High Court jurisdiction Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1973

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. Hi-Tech Vocational Training Centre

16 Jan 2006 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7887-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Provident Fund Commissioner has discretion to levy damages under Section 14B and that payment of dues before proceedings does not bar initiation of penalty proceedings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Section 14B Employees Provident Fund Act discretion to levy damages Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 penalty for default

Vikram Singh & Anr. v. Ajit Inder Singh

12 Jan 2006 · Pradeep Nandrajog; R. V. Easwar · 2014:DHC:1010-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a family settlement memorandum as valid and binding, dismissing claims of coercion and confirming equal partition of property despite a prior will.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant family settlement partition suit coercion doctrine of election

Ram Phal v. Union of India & Ors.

01 Jan 2006 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5502-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that pre-2006 pensioners are entitled to pension fixation as per the 6th CPC recommendations without arbitrary cut-off restrictions, quashing the denial of upgradation benefits and directing revision with arrears.

service_pension petition_allowed Significant pension fixation pre-2006 pensioners 6th Central Pay Commission Office Memorandum

SI (GD) Hanumant Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India

01 Jan 2006 · S. Muralidhar; Sanjeev Narula · 2018:DHC:9011-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 17

The Delhi High Court held that CRPF Sub-Inspectors are entitled to pay fixation at Rs. 10,230 plus grade pay of Rs. 4,200 under the ACP Scheme by applying the 1.86 multiplier, directing respondents to grant consequential benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP Scheme Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 pay fixation

Rani Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

23 Dec 2005 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5041-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a police officer absconding after criminal charges, ruling that family pension is not payable despite presumed death after seven years, as dismissal without enquiry was valid and pension rights forfeited.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant family pension dismissal from service absconding departmental enquiry

KTM-AG v. Honda Motorcycles and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

22 Dec 2005 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8769

The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute petition as settled and directed cancellation of the "DUKE" trademark registration in accordance with the parties' Settlement Agreement.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Settlement Agreement Trademark cancellation Trade Mark Registry DUKE trademark

Romi Sharma v. Secretary Labour

19 Nov 2005 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; DEEPA SHARMA · 2015:DHC:11260-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that res judicata bars fresh writ petitions on disciplinary dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Government's refusal to grant prosecution sanction was lawful and not arbitrary.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33 Section 31 sanction to prosecute res judicata

Mr. Chatanya Siddhartha, Advocate. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

01 Nov 2005 · JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA; 25.01.2019 SANJ... · 2019:DHC:7933-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 15

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act once possession is taken and compensation paid, dismissing stale claims of continued possession by landowners.

property petition_dismissed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) 2013 Act possession compensation

Manoj Kumar v. State

07 Oct 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:5178-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for murder of an accused who fired indiscriminately into a crowd, holding that such act amounts to murder under clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC despite absence of premeditation or specific intent to kill.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant indiscriminate firing private defense culpable homicide Section 300 IPC clause fourthly

Babloo & Pappu v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

27 Sep 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:335-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court reduced the appellant’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, maintaining other convictions and adjusting the sentence to time already served.

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

Omkar Singh v. Union of India; Braham Prakash Singh v. Union of India

25 Sep 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:436-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside compulsory retirement penalties imposed on force personnel for failing to intervene in a sudden assault, holding that disciplinary authorities must consider all relevant circumstances including natural human reactions before imposing punishment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings compulsory retirement cowardice omission to act

Omkar Singh v. Union of India; Braham Prakash Singh v. Union of India

25 Sep 2005 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:435-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside compulsory retirement penalties imposed on force personnel for failing to intervene in a sudden assault, holding that absence of reasonable opportunity to react negates misconduct.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings compulsory retirement cowardice negligence

Ram Kawar HUF v. M/S SMC GLOBAL SECURITIES LIMITED

08 Sep 2005 · Navin Chawla · 2024:DHC:1837

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to summon irrelevant documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in a Section 138 NI Act complaint, emphasizing that such power cannot be used for fishing expeditions or to delay trial.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 91 Cr.P.C. Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act summoning of documents cross-examination