Delhi High Court

98,981 judgments

Year:

National Highways Authority of India v. Sh. Mukul Saxena

15 Mar 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani

The Delhi High Court held that permanent absorption of deputation employees requires explicit consent from the Parent Department and quashed the tribunal's direction permitting deemed no objection.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant permanent absorption deputation employees Parent Department consent technical resignation

Ganga Ram & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

15 Mar 2013 · Sunil Gaur · 2013:DHC:7768

The Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs arising from a quarrel after the parties amicably settled their dispute, applying the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed in non-compoundable offences when continuation is futile and justice demands peace.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement non-compoundable offences Section 323 IPC

Rakesh v. UOI & Anr.

15 Mar 2013 · Reva Khetrapal · 2013:DHC:7904

The Delhi High Court condoned a 1625-day delay in filing an appeal and remanded the land acquisition matter for fresh determination of the appellant's share and correction of the Khasra number.

property appeal_allowed condonation of delay land acquisition apportionment of share Khasra number

Suresh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

15 Mar 2013 · S. N. Gaur · 2013:DHC:7823

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the six-month rigorous imprisonment sentence for theft under Sections 379 read with 34 IPC, relying on credible evidence and recovery of stolen goods.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 379 IPC Section 34 IPC Section 411 IPC theft

Tej Singh v. UOI & Anr.

15 Mar 2013 · Reva Khetrapal · 2013:DHC:7902

The Delhi High Court condoned a 1621-day delay in filing an appeal due to counsel's failure and financial hardship, and remanded the land acquisition dispute for fresh determination of the appellant's share.

property appeal_allowed condonation of delay land acquisition Section 30 Land Acquisition Act Section 31 Land Acquisition Act

Mukesh v. UOI & Anr.

15 Mar 2013 · Reva Khetrapal · 2013:DHC:7905

The Delhi High Court condoned a 1625-day delay and remanded a land acquisition appeal for fresh determination of the appellant's share and correct land particulars under Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act.

property appeal_allowed condonation of delay Land Acquisition Act Sections 30-31 apportionment of share

P.D. Goel and Sons v. Union of India & Ors

15 Mar 2013 · Reva Khetrapal · 2013:DHC:7916

The Delhi High Court condoned delay in filing an appeal and allowed compensation for land acquisition in Village Mundka based on a prior precedent fixing fair market value.

property appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay land acquisition compensation fair market value

Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

15 Mar 2013 · Sunil Gaur · 2013:DHC:7950

The Delhi High Court quashed FIRs arising from a quarrel after the parties amicably settled their dispute through mediation, holding that continuing criminal proceedings would be unjust and an abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement mediation abuse of process

Sahil Bansal v. Vasudha

15 Mar 2013 · V. K. Shali · 2013:DHC:1435
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that non-consummation under Section 12(1)(a) includes mental impotence and annulled a marriage as void ab initio since the respondent was not a Hindu, allowing the appeal.

family appeal_allowed Significant Hindu Marriage Act Section 12(1)(a) non-consummation impotence

Capt. Vijender Singh Chauhan v. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

15 Mar 2013 · S. Muralidhar · 2013:DHC:1429

The Delhi High Court dismissed a winding up petition against Parsvnath Developers Ltd., holding that a disputed debt claim does not warrant winding up under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956.

corporate petition_dismissed Significant winding up petition Companies Act 1956 Section 433(e) undisputed debt

World Phone India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. WPI Group Inc., USA

15 Mar 2013 · S. Muralidhar · 2013:DHC:1428

The Delhi High Court held that an affirmative vote clause in a shareholder agreement not incorporated into the Articles of Association is not binding on a private company, but procedural fairness in Board meetings must be observed, partially setting aside the CLB order invalidating a Board meeting.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Companies Act 1956 Section 9 Articles of Association Joint Venture Agreement

Krishna Kumar; Subhash Chandra Gupta; Dharmendra Kr. Lila v. Registrar of Companies

15 Mar 2013 · G. P. Mittal · 2013:DHC:1420

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking quashing of a complaint under Sections 63 and 628 of the Companies Act, holding that the magistrate was justified in taking cognizance based on the prospectus signed by the petitioners and that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 482 CrPC Companies Act 1956 Section 63 Companies Act prospectus liability

Roshanlal Vohra & Sons v. MCD & Anr

14 Mar 2013 · Manmohan Singh · 2013:DHC:8379

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to appoint a substitute arbitrator under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the original arbitrator expressed inability to act.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 15 Substitute arbitrator Appointment of arbitrator

Sh. Jeet Ram v. OC, CWG Delhi 2010 and Ors.

14 Mar 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1407

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging termination of a temporary employee appointed for the Commonwealth Games, holding that such termination was lawful and regular employment cannot be granted without following the prescribed recruitment process.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant temporary appointment co-terminus service Commonwealth Games Delhi 2010 termination of service

D.C. Tiwari & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

14 Mar 2013 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2013:DHC:1406-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the government's unilateral amendment of promotion criteria for ITBPF personnel, ruling no vested right was impaired and the changes were not arbitrary.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant promotion rules government servant service conditions departmental test

M.S. Ginti v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University & Ors.

14 Mar 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1413

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner, a non-academic Curator, is not entitled to the higher pay scale reserved for academic staff under UGC guidelines following the Fifth Pay Commission.

administrative petition_dismissed Fifth Pay Commission University Grants Commission pay scale revision academic staff

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMA LTD. v. HIDUSTAN MEDIBIOTIC

14 Mar 2013 · M.L. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1411

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction against the defendant for trademark and copyright infringement by adopting deceptively similar trademark and packaging for veterinary pharmaceutical products.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off copyright infringement pharmaceutical packaging

Lalit Kumar v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

14 Mar 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1410

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the reversion of a probationary officer to substantive cadre due to unsatisfactory performance, emphasizing employer discretion and barring relief on grounds of delay.

labor petition_dismissed probation reversion unsatisfactory performance extension of probation

Union of India & Ors v. Kamal Kumar

14 Mar 2013 · The Chief Justice; V.K. Jain · 2013:DHC:1387-DB

The Delhi High Court condoned a 136-139 day delay in filing government appeals under SAFEMA, holding that bona fide procedural delays with diligent efforts constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay limitation sufficient cause government appeals

ZTE Corporation v. Siddhant Garg & Ors.

14 Mar 2013 · Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Indermeet Kaur · 2013:DHC:1405-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the restoration of a struck off company under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, rejecting the appellant's challenge based on mala fide collusion and nullity of arbitral awards.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Section 560(6) Companies Act Restoration of company Struck off company Locus standi