Delhi High Court
98,981 judgments
Delhi Development Authority v. B.B. Jain
The Delhi High Court held that statutory Nazul Land Rules, 1981 govern eligibility for allotment under the Rohini Residential Scheme, overriding conflicting scheme terms, and dismissed DDA's appeals against allotment to respondents owning residential flats/plots under 67 sq. meters.
Delhi Development Authority v. B.B. Jain
The Delhi High Court held that statutory Nazul Land Rules, 1981 govern allotments under the Rohini Residential Scheme, overriding inconsistent scheme terms, and eligibility is determined as on the date of allotment.
Avnija Ahluwalia v. Vikaas Ahluwalia
The Delhi High Court fixed interim maintenance at Rs.75,000 per month with arrears and directed the defendant to bear education, medical, and car expenses for the wife and minor daughter under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Mohd. Husain v. State of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compensation for alleged custodial death, holding that disputed factual issues must be resolved in civil courts and that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable after withdrawal of a similar petition under Article 32.
ISHAR GASOIL PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court held that Letters of Credit and Bank Guarantees issued for a company's own trading obligations do not constitute contingent liabilities on revenue account under AS-29 and should not be deducted from net worth for bidding eligibility.
The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Ms. Rajni & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that the directive limiting declared results to notified vacancies is arbitrary and mandated maintaining a reserve list to ensure all public posts are filled, modifying the CAT's order accordingly.
Nagesh Kumar & Anr. v. Nagesh Hosiery Exports Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal against the CLB order on oppression and mismanagement in NHEL, remanding for proper valuation of shares and factual determination of possession, clarifying the scope of appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956.
M/S. BINDAL AGRO CHEM. LTD. v. M/S. V.M.J. ENTERPRISES
The Delhi High Court partially allowed the appeal in a contractual payment dispute, modifying the decree to reduce the amount payable by the defendant due to lack of credible evidence by the plaintiff and unjustified deductions by the defendant.
Rajesh Shukla v. State
The Delhi High Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2000 by referring to a common detailed judgment delivered in a related appeal on the same day.
Oberoi Flight Services v. Sudesh Yadav
The High Court held that it cannot reappreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction and upheld disciplinary findings of theft against the employee, setting aside the order of reinstatement with back wages.
Jeetu Saini v. State NCT of Delhi
The High Court allowed the petitioner’s application to recall prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the accused’s right to a fair trial and directing the trial court to complete the process without undue delay.
Sh. R.K. Kohli v. The Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that the DISCOM taking over erstwhile DVB employees is liable to pay their service dues, rejecting delay and penalty objections, and directed payment with interest.
Jai Bhagwan v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court upheld the discharge of an Air Force personnel based on unchallenged disciplinary red ink entries, holding that failure to contest punishments timely precludes challenging the discharge order.
M/S SUNSOVI INFOTECH PVT LTD v. LALA RAM SARUP INSTITUTE OF TUBERCULOSIS & RESPIRATORY DISEASES
The Delhi High Court held that a clause titled 'Arbitration' in a work order constituted a valid arbitration agreement and appointed an independent arbitrator after the respondent failed to do so.
M/S SPORTS LEISURE WORLDWIDE v. WOMENS GOLF ASSOCIATION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration Act, holding that delay attributable to pendency of a prior suit does not bar arbitration and limitation issues are to be decided by the arbitrator.
Godrej Consumer Products Limited v. Dabur India Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld the imposition of Rs. 1,00,000 costs as a condition precedent for filing a delayed written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, affirming the discretionary power of courts to impose substantial costs for procedural delays under Section 35B CPC.
Raja Ram v. Union of India
Delhi High Court set aside compulsory retirement of CISF constable for extortion due to lack of evidence and resiling complainant, emphasizing judicial review of disciplinary findings.
Devinder Kumar Narula v. Virender Kumar
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for injunction due to suppression of material facts regarding an Exchange Agreement, allowed withdrawal subject to costs, and directed payment of deficient court fees.
O.N. Kaul v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld framing of charges under Section 304-A IPC against an airline duty manager for criminal negligence in failing to provide medical assistance to an off-loaded passenger, emphasizing that strong suspicion suffices at the charge framing stage.
Kanwaljeet Kaur Bedi v. Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 starts only upon delivery of the signed award by the arbitrator to the party, and condoned delay where such delivery was not made.