Delhi High Court

100,822 judgments

Year:

Union of India v. Vinay Kumar

18 Aug 2008 · V. Kameswar Rao; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2023:DHC:9134-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 34

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order allowing deputation period to count towards residency for promotion under the Flexible Complementary Scheme, clarifying the applicability of the 2013 Rules excluding deputationists from FCS eligibility.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant deputation period absorption Flexible Complementary Scheme in-situ promotion

North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. R&T Enterprises

08 Aug 2008 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5771
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

Delhi High Court upheld arbitral award awarding compensation and interest to contractor for delayed site handover and payments by Municipal Corporation, dismissing challenge on limitation and evidentiary grounds.

civil petition_dismissed Significant arbitration agreement appointment of arbitrator limitation fundamental breach

Mohd Nafish Khan & Ors v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

17 Jul 2008 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2017:DHC:2574

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging land conversion proceedings under the DLR Act, holding they were not barred by limitation and procedural requirements were met.

property petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 Section 81 DLR Act Limitation Unauthorized construction

Center for Research Planning and Action v. National Medicinal Plants Board Ministry of Ayush Government of India

09 Jul 2008 · Yashwant Varma; Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:15-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the arbitral award, holding that judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited and the award by an expert arbitrator was not patently illegal or against public policy.

commercial_arbitration appeal_allowed Significant arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration Act patent illegality public policy of India

Badol Farazi v. The State

02 Jul 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3569-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Badol Farazi for murder and robbery, holding that credible eyewitness identification and recovery of incriminating evidence outweighed the appellant's alibi based on a passport issued after the offence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Identification of accused Test Identification Parade Alibi defence Porous Indo-Bangladesh border

COIM India Pvt Ltd v. Kurt O John Shoe Componentsci) Pvt Ltd & Anr

30 Jun 2008 · S. Muralidhar · 2013:DHC:6688

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendants' leave to defend in a summary suit for recovery of outstanding payment with interest, affirming jurisdiction and contractual liability based on invoices and dishonoured cheques.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant summary suit Order XXXVII CPC leave to defend territorial jurisdiction

Dr. Ashok K. Keshari v. Indian Institute of Technology

27 Jun 2008 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:294

The Delhi High Court upheld IIT Delhi's discretionary denial of HAG scale and Head of Department appointment to the petitioner based on objective performance criteria and administrative statutes, dismissing claims of arbitrariness.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) scale Head of Department appointment Article 14 academic promotion

Binda Devi v. Dabboo Yadav @ Sanjeev Yadav

24 Apr 2008 · Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:6354

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition upholding the Family Court’s order denying maintenance due to failure to prove a valid marital relationship between the parties.

family appeal_dismissed Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance marital relationship valid marriage

Babita @ Pinki v. Sunil Sharma

21 Apr 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5726-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that customary divorce was not pleaded or proved and the second marriage was invalid as the first husband was alive at the time of marriage.

family appeal_dismissed Significant customary divorce Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 5(i) marriage annulment

Pradeep @ Kuldeep v. State

31 Mar 2008 · Pardeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:6560-DB

Pradeep @ Kuldeep v. State

31 Mar 2008 · Pardeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:6561-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

Ashish Nandwana v. State

30 Mar 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:4283-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Ashish Nandwana for murder, rejecting the defense claim of accidental injury based on credible forensic and medical evidence disproving accidental fall and affirming the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant murder sharp-edged weapon accidental injury dying declaration

Pardeep Dev v. State

27 Mar 2008 · Pardeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:5714-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that absence of threat or harm to the kidnapped child negated Section 364A IPC, but upheld convictions for kidnapping for ransom and conspiracy under Sections 363 and 120B IPC, modifying the sentence accordingly.

criminal sentence_modified Significant kidnapping ransom Section 364A IPC Section 363 IPC

Pardeep Dev v. State; Vishnu Vishwas v. State

27 Mar 2008 · Pardeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:5715-DB

The Delhi High Court modified the appellants' conviction from kidnapping with threat under Section 364A IPC to kidnapping for ransom under Section 363 IPC and conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, sentencing them to the period already served.

criminal sentence_modified Significant kidnapping ransom Section 364A IPC Section 363 IPC

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani

31 Jan 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:8516-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that departmental proceedings against pensioners cannot be initiated for events older than four years under Regulation 48(2) of the Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations, dismissing the bank's appeal.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant departmental proceedings pension regulations limitation period withholding pension

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani

31 Jan 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:8512-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that departmental proceedings against pensioners cannot be initiated for events older than four years under Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations, dismissing the bank's appeals.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant departmental proceedings pension regulations limitation period Regulation 48(2)

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani

31 Jan 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:8510-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that departmental proceedings against pensioners cannot be initiated for misconduct occurring more than four years prior, upholding the limitation under Regulation 48(2) of the Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant departmental proceedings pension regulations limitation period Regulation 48(2)

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani

31 Jan 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:8507-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that departmental proceedings against pensioners cannot be initiated for events older than four years under Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations, dismissing the bank's appeal.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant departmental proceedings limitation period pension regulations withholding pension

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani

31 Jan 2008 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:8508-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that departmental proceedings against pensioners are barred if initiated more than four years after the alleged misconduct under Regulation 48(2) of Punjab & Sind Bank Pension Regulations, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of UP v. Krishna Pandey.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant departmental proceedings pension regulations limitation period withholding pension

Bharti Infratel Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

31 Jan 2008 · Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar · 2019:DHC:282-DB
Cites 11 · Cited by 43

The Delhi High Court held that reassessment beyond four years under Section 147 is invalid if the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all material facts, and reopening on mere change of opinion is impermissible.

tax petition_allowed Significant reassessment Section 147 Income Tax Act full and true disclosure change of opinion