Delhi High Court

37,583 judgments

Year:

Jagbir Singh v. Union of India

03 Feb 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:758-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for pay parity and pension re-fixation by passing a speaking order within twelve weeks, granting relief if merited with arrears limited to three years.

administrative other pay parity basic pay upgrade pension re-fixation representation

Anish Muralidhar v. EK NK Bhupal Singh

03 Feb 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:679-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order due to an unexplained delay of nearly five years, applying the doctrine of delay and laches.

administrative petition_dismissed delay and laches writ petition judicial review Armed Forces Tribunal

Rajnish v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Feb 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:660-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Medical Board's decision declaring the petitioner medically unfit due to convergent squint, emphasizing limited judicial interference in medical fitness assessments for disciplined forces.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Review Medical Examination Convergent Squint Medical Board Judicial Review

Amit Sharma v. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Ors

03 Feb 2025 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2025:DHC:626

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful termination of a probationary employee without confirmation, rejecting claims of mala fide or punitive dismissal in absence of specific confirmation order or constitutional violation.

labor petition_dismissed Significant probation deemed confirmation termination simpliciter mala fide termination

State Through RPF v. Farooq and Ors

03 Feb 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:628
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a railway property theft case due to lack of independent witnesses and procedural irregularities affecting the reliability of confessional statements made to RPF officials.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant confessional statement Railway Protection Force Section 100 CrPC extra-judicial confession

Creative Travels Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Feb 2025 · Yashwant Varma; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:645-DB

The Delhi High Court held that extended limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked without clear proof of wilful suppression of facts when the same facts were already disclosed in earlier proceedings, quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice against Creative Travels Pvt Ltd.

tax petition_allowed Significant Finance Act 1994 Section 73(1) extended period of limitation service tax

Rajendra Alexander & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

03 Feb 2025 · Jyoti Singh · 2025:DHC:625

The Delhi High Court held that retrospective recovery of alleged excess pay from retired NHPCL employees is impermissible without prior notice and lawful authority, and directed restoration of their medical benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant pay fixation stagnation increments retired employees recovery of excess payments

Manohar Lal v. The State

03 Feb 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:872

The Delhi High Court held that contempt proceedings are not the proper remedy to enforce Settlements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed enforcement through Sections 421 and 431 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Settlement enforcement Contempt proceedings Section 421 CrPC

Union of India v. Karan Sharma

03 Feb 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:630
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal under the NDPS Act, holding that the accused's statement under Section 67 was inadmissible without corroboration and that procedural lapses and lack of evidence justified the acquittal.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 67 NDPS confessional statement chain of custody

Oracle America, Inc. v. Sandeep Khandelwal and Anr

03 Feb 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:838

The Delhi High Court cancelled the respondent’s trademark registration for being deceptively similar and mala fide in violation of the petitioner’s prior JAVA trademark rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 47 Section 57 deceptive similarity

ASTELLAS PHARMA INC v. ASTELLAZ PHARMACEUTICALS

03 Feb 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:837

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to Astellas Pharma Inc. against Astellaz Pharmaceuticals for trademark infringement and passing off of the deceptively similar mark 'ASTELLAZ' in an unopposed suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Permanent injunction Deceptively similar mark

Etawah Chakeri (Kanpur) Highway Private Limited v. National Highway Authority of India & Anr

03 Feb 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:811

The Delhi High Court held that pre-arbitration conciliation is directory and referred the dispute under a concession agreement to arbitration, continuing interim relief restraining recovery from escrow pending arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 pre-arbitration conciliation directory vs mandatory dispute resolution clause

State v. Lalit

03 Feb 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:629
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape case, holding that the prosecutrix's testimony did not inspire confidence and that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was not perverse.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape sole testimony prosecutrix acquittal

Krishna Real Estate Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. Gurcharan Singh Syal & Ors.

03 Feb 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:778
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction over a suit for recovery of funds allegedly siphoned by defendants, returning the plaint for filing in the competent court in Punjab.

civil appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction Order VII Rule 10 CPC Section 20 CPC cause of action

Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh and Others

03 Feb 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:777

The Delhi High Court held that time spent in mediation is excluded from the limitation period for filing written statements under its Rules, allowing condonation of delay within the maximum 120-day period.

civil appeal_allowed Significant written statement condonation of delay mediation Section 89 CPC

J P Srivastava v. Hasan Akbar Kazmi & Anr

03 Feb 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:779

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's amendment application to include new defendants and facts based on forensic evidence, emphasizing a liberal approach to amendments necessary for effective adjudication without causing prejudice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant amendment of plaint Order VI Rule 17 CPC confidential information forensic analysis

Airports Authority of India v. East India Construction Company Ltd.

03 Feb 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:775

Delhi High Court set aside part of an arbitral award for ignoring contractual forfeiture clauses on performance bank guarantee, remanding the matter for reconsideration under principles of patent illegality.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 performance bank guarantee forfeiture

Ashish Kapur & Anr. v. Deepak Seth & Ors.

03 Feb 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:774

The Delhi High Court held that at the referral stage under Section 11(6) Arbitration Act, the Court must appoint the agreed arbitrator and leave the question of non-signatory parties' inclusion to the arbitral tribunal, following the Supreme Court's guidance in Cox and Kings Limited.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Agreement Section 11(6) Arbitration Act Non-signatories Group of Companies doctrine

GROSON ENGINEERS v. M/S RAJIV AGGARWAL & ANR.

03 Feb 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:712

The Delhi High Court held that judicial interference under Article 226 in interlocutory orders of an arbitral tribunal is permissible only in exceptional cases, and parties must await the final award to challenge it under the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Article 226 Constitution judicial intervention interlocutory orders

Jagdish Chandra v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd

03 Feb 2025 · Jyoti Singh · 2025:DHC:624
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that retired employees are entitled to full medical reimbursement for emergency hospitalization expenses despite circular-imposed ceilings, affirming the constitutional right to timely medical treatment under Article 21.

administrative petition_allowed Significant medical reimbursement emergency hospitalization Voluntary Retirement Scheme STC Medical Scheme