Delhi High Court

98,981 judgments

Year:

Marico Limited v. Adani Wilmar Ltd

18 Apr 2013 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2013:DHC:1947

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction applications, holding that the defendant's comparative advertisements extolling 100% Rice Bran Oil were not disparaging or false under Indian law.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant comparative advertising disparagement interim injunction Rice Bran Oil

Marico Limited v. Adani Wilmar Ltd

18 Apr 2013 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2013:DHC:1953

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction applications, holding that the defendant's comparative advertisements extolling 100% rice bran oil were not disparaging or untruthful to an extent warranting relief.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant comparative advertising disparagement interim injunction commercial speech

RDS Project Ltd v. Ratangiri Gas and Power Pvt Ltd

18 Apr 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2013:DHC:1952-DB

The Delhi High Court held that RDS Projects Ltd. satisfied the original tender eligibility criteria by constructing a qualifying breakwater project as a single contract, quashing the amended clause and directing fresh tendering without altering eligibility conditions.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Tender eligibility criteria Breakwater construction Single contract experience Public procurement

Vodafone Infrastructure Ltd. v. Indus Towers Ltd.

18 Apr 2013 · S. Muralidhar · 2013:DHC:1951

The Delhi High Court sanctioned a telecom infrastructure sharing Scheme under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, rejecting Income Tax Department objections and affirming that such sanction does not impede tax recovery rights.

corporate petition_allowed Significant Scheme of Arrangement Companies Act 1956 Sections 391 to 394 Income Tax Department objections

Mr.Jagdeep Dhankar, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.S.Mathur, Mr.G.Mathur, Advocates. v. AJAY SINGH .....

18 Apr 2013 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V... · 2013:DHC:1948-DB

The Delhi High Court held that limited seasonal service as daily wage water boys without requisite qualifications does not entitle respondents to re-engagement over fresh appointees in different job categories, quashing the Tribunal's orders favoring respondents.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant daily wage employment seasonal workers re-engagement seniority

Ajit Kumar v. Commissioner of Police and Ors.

18 Apr 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; V. Kameswar Rao · 2013:DHC:1973-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

A conviction, even if followed by release on probation, does not prevent denial of appointment in government service, especially police, as the stigma of guilt remains and Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not bar disciplinary consequences.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Section 12 Probation of Offenders Act conviction and government service disqualification from service

Mr.Jagdeep Dhankar, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.S.Mathur, Mr.G.Mathur, Advocates. v. AJAY SINGH .....

18 Apr 2013 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V... · 2013:DHC:1950-DB

The Delhi High Court held that seniority-based re-engagement rights of casual daily wage workers do not apply indiscriminately across different job categories with distinct qualification requirements, dismissing claims of seasonal Water Boys for preference over fresh appointees.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant daily wage workers seniority re-engagement minimum qualification

Mr.Jagdeep Dhankar, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.S.Mathur, Mr.G.Mathur, Advocates. v. AJAY SINGH .....

18 Apr 2013 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V... · 2013:DHC:1949-DB

The High Court held that seniority-based preference in re-engagement applies only within the same category of employment and dismissed claims of daily wage water boys for re-engagement as messengers without requisite qualifications.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant daily wage water boys seniority re-engagement minimum educational qualification

Jeet Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation; Yashpal Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation

18 Apr 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2013:DHC:1955-DB

The Delhi High Court held that employees removed before attaining superannuation age are entitled to back wages only up to the vested right age of 55 years, not beyond, as continuation beyond 55 years is contingent on medical fitness.

labor petition_dismissed Significant vested right contingent right back wages service rules

M.A. Khan v. State

18 Apr 2013 · S.P. Garg · 2013:DHC:1957

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking CBI investigation into alleged custodial torture, holding that unsubstantiated allegations and prior inquiries do not warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant custodial torture FIR registration Article 226 Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Kingsway Camp Shop-Keepers Welfare Association v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

18 Apr 2013 · V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:1965

The Delhi High Court upheld DDA's authority to modify layout plans and allot disputed passage land after modification but restricted allotment to 900 sq.ft. as per court order, directing refund for excess land.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Development Authority layout plan modification Section 11A Delhi Development Act land allotment

Yashpal Singh v. D.D.A.

18 Apr 2013 · V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:1966

The Delhi High Court upheld cancellation of land allotment and forfeiture of earnest money due to delayed payment beyond policy limits, directing refund of balance with interest.

property petition_dismissed land acquisition alternative plot allotment payment delay earnest money forfeiture

Raj Kumar Saini v. DDA and Anr.

18 Apr 2013 · V. K. Jain · 2013:DHC:1967

The Delhi High Court held that DDA's cancellation of a residential plot allotment was unjustified without attempting to serve the allottee at his updated address and directed fresh allotment if eligibility is established.

property appeal_allowed Significant allotment cancellation change of address Delhi Development Authority Rohini Residential Scheme

Shyam Singh v. DDA & Anr.

18 Apr 2013 · V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:1968

The Delhi High Court held that allotment of alternative plots under the government scheme must follow the first-cum-first-serve principle and dismissed the petitioner’s claim for preferential allotment before his turn matured.

property petition_dismissed Significant alternative plot allotment land acquisition planned development first-cum-first-serve

M/S. Daulat Ram Industries v. Union of India

18 Apr 2013 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA · 2013:DHC:1970-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a concluded contract's price cannot be unilaterally revised during an extension period without consent, restoring an arbitration award favoring the original contract terms.

civil appeal_allowed Significant contract price revision extension of delivery arbitration award unilateral alteration

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma v. General Manager Punjab National Bank

18 Apr 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1971

The Delhi High Court held that an employee acquitted in a criminal case and against whom no departmental proceedings are initiated is entitled to full pay and allowances during suspension, rendering the suspension order void ab initio.

labor petition_allowed Significant suspension order acquittal departmental proceedings Memorandum of Settlement

UOI & Ors. v. Misri Lal

18 Apr 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; V. Kameswar Rao · 2013:DHC:1961-DB

The Delhi High Court held that retrospective promotion is not permissible without specific rules or mala fide delay, quashing the Tribunal's order and directing reconsideration with proper pleadings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant retrospective promotion service jurisprudence Departmental Promotion Committee mala fide

Banna Ram Saini v. Union of India

18 Apr 2013 · Gita Mittal; Deepa Sharma · 2013:DHC:1976-DB

The Delhi High Court held that CISF personnel have no absolute right to postings under transfer guidelines, which are subject to administrative and operational exigencies under Section 15 of the CISF Act, and dismissed the petition challenging the transfer order.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant CISF transfer policy Section 15 CISF Act 1968 transfer guidelines home zone posting

MR. SHANTANU BASU v. UOI & ORS.

18 Apr 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; V. Kameswar Rao · 2013:DHC:1960-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an inquiry officer must be senior to the officer under inquiry and that there is no automatic right to legal representation during departmental inquiries absent complicated legal or factual issues.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 departmental inquiry inquiry officer seniority legal representation in inquiry

Shiv Prasad Maurya v. Radhika & Ors

18 Apr 2013 · Suresh Kait · 2013:DHC:1959

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and directed a fresh inquiry into a motor accident claim where the Tribunal dismissed the petition due to discrepancy in the vehicle number without proper examination of evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Accident Claim Vehicle Registration Number Discrepancy Section 133 Motor Vehicles Act Burden of Proof