Delhi High Court

98,981 judgments

Year:

Roopa Sharma v. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors.

18 Apr 2013 · Suresh Kait · 2013:DHC:1958

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal of a motor accident claim petition due to procedural lapses, condoning delay and permitting the claimant to complete evidence under welfare legislation principles.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act claim petition cross-examination condonation of delay

B.P. Vaish v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

18 Apr 2013 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Najmi Waziri · 2013:DHC:1975-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an appointment made contrary to the Directorate of Education's final decision under the 1965 Education Code is illegal and cannot be validated retrospectively by deemed approval under the 1973 Rules.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Education Code 1965 Delhi School Education Act 1973 Rule 98(4) deemed approval appointment of principal

Apeejay School v. Suresh Chander Kalra

18 Apr 2013 · The Chief Justice; Jayant Nath · 2013:DHC:1974-DB

The Delhi High Court held that back wages upon reinstatement are not automatic and require proof of non-employment during absence, setting aside the Tribunal's order granting full back wages without such proof.

labor appeal_allowed Significant back wages reinstatement Delhi School Education Act, 1973 Delhi School Tribunal

Tejbir Singh v. Union of India and Others

18 Apr 2013 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA · 2013:DHC:1972-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a BSF constable by a Summary Security Force Court due to procedural irregularities, ordering a fresh trial in compliance with the BSF Act and Rules.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Border Security Force Act, 1968 Summary Security Force Court procedural irregularity misjoinder of charges

Balwant Singh v. UOI & Anr.

18 Apr 2013 · V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:1962

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for condonation of over seven years' delay in restoring a dismissed appeal, holding that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause and emphasizing the strict adherence to limitation laws.

civil petition_dismissed Significant condonation of delay limitation sufficient cause restoration of appeal

Bachni Devi v. Delhi Development Authority; Varinder Kaur v. Delhi Development Authority

18 Apr 2013 · V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:1963

The Delhi High Court held that petitioners must pay allotment cost at 2007 rates with 7% interest from allotment date to submission of address proof, excluding four months, under DDA's modified policy.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Development Authority New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 change of address allotment cost

Bachni Devi v. Delhi Development Authority; Varinder Kaur v. Delhi Development Authority

18 Apr 2013 · V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:1964

Delhi High Court held that petitioners under DDA's NPRS-1979 scheme must pay flat cost at allotment rates plus 7% interest for delayed submission of address proof, upholding DDA's policy on interest charges.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Development Authority New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 change of address interest on allotment cost

B K Uppal v. CBI; Anand Prakash Sharma v. CBI

18 Apr 2013 · Sunil Gaur · 2013:DHC:6648
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that revision petitions against charge framing orders are not maintainable once trial has commenced, and departmental exoneration does not bar criminal prosecution under the IPC.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant framing of charges revision petition departmental exoneration criminal prosecution

Jatinder Kumar Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs

18 Apr 2013 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2013:DHC:7186

The Delhi High Court held that the two-year period to take the oral examination for Custom House Agent licensing runs from the date of publication of written exam results, directing authorities to permit candidates accordingly.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 oral examination written examination results time period calculation

DELHI WAKF BOARD v. LAL CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST

18 Apr 2013 · Indermeet Kaur · 2013:DHC:7591

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of impleadment applications by Delhi Wakf Board and Hafiz Akram Jamal in a suit for possession and injunction, affirming the plaintiff's right to choose parties and the necessity of a party for effective adjudication.

civil appeal_dismissed impleadment Order I Rule 10 CPC necessary party proper party

Indus Towers Limited v. UOI and Ors.

18 Apr 2013 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; R.V. EASWAR · 2013:DHC:1969-DB

The Delhi High Court held that providing passive telecom infrastructure on a limited use-only basis does not constitute a transfer of right to use goods under VAT law, and thus is taxable only as a service under the Finance Act, 1994.

tax petition_allowed Significant passive infrastructure transfer of right to use goods value added tax Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004

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

18 Apr 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2013:DHC:1956-DB

The Delhi High Court held that employees have a vested right to serve and claim back wages only up to the fixed superannuation age of 55 years, while the right to serve beyond that age is contingent on medical fitness and does not entitle them to back wages if not established.

labor petition_dismissed Significant vested right contingent right back wages superannuation

UOI & Anr v. PS Purkayastha

18 Apr 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2013:DHC:1954-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside ex parte orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal that prematurely closed disciplinary proceedings without notice and proper consideration of mandatory UPSC consultation, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and procedural fairness.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant natural justice ex parte order Central Administrative Tribunal disciplinary proceedings

Guddu Rathore v. State

17 Apr 2013 · S.P. Garg · 2013:DHC:1922

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Guddu Rathore for rape based on circumstantial and forensic evidence, and admissible statements under the res gestae rule, dismissing his appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 376 IPC sexual assault circumstantial evidence res gestae

Pankaj Kumar v. The Union Public Service Commission and Anr.

17 Apr 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; V. Kameswar Rao · 2013:DHC:1938-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld UPSC's fixation of minimum qualifying marks for the interview stage in recruitment, dismissing the petitioner's challenge that such criteria were illegally imposed mid-process.

administrative petition_dismissed minimum qualifying marks interview cut off UPSC recruitment selection criteria

Sanchal Foundation v. Delhi Development Authority

17 Apr 2013 · Chief Justice; Jayant Nath · 2013:DHC:1927-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed the DDA to re-examine rehabilitation claims of slum dwellers with valid residency documents and mandated immediate relief for fire-affected slum residents, emphasizing adherence to procedural safeguards in eviction and rehabilitation.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant rehabilitation slum dwellers eviction Delhi Development Authority

M.A. Ansari v. Union of India

17 Apr 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2013:DHC:1920-DB

Retrospective promotion is not permissible without statutory authority or mala fide conduct; administrative delays do not justify retrospective promotion post-retirement.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant retrospective promotion Departmental Promotion Committee mala fide seniority

M/S. SAGAR RATNA RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TARSEEM KUMAR & ORS.

17 Apr 2013 · M. L. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1932

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, appointing a Receiver and Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from alleged unlawful termination and dispossession under a commercial lease agreement.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 Interim relief Termination notice

M/S DESEIN PVT LTD v. M/S INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

17 Apr 2013 · Manmohan Singh · 2013:DHC:1945

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that disputes arising from a lease deed, including claims after lease expiry where possession continues, fall within the arbitration clause and that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Lease Deed Arbitration Clause

Surjeet Singh v. State

17 Apr 2013 · G. P. Mittal · 2013:DHC:1937

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal holding the appellant to be a juvenile at the time of offence, setting aside the sentence under Section 376 IPC and directing his release in light of the Juvenile Justice Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant juvenile justice Section 7-A Juvenile Justice Act juvenility plea Section 376 IPC