Delhi High Court

103,150 judgments

Year:

K.C. Sharma v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited

28 Feb 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1103

The Delhi High Court set aside disciplinary and appellate orders for lack of speaking reasons, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned orders to uphold principles of natural justice under Article 14.

administrative other Significant disciplinary proceedings speaking order natural justice Article 14

Ramesh Singh v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

28 Feb 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1102

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition of an RBI employee seeking permission to appear for the Research Officer exam, holding that he did not meet the prescribed educational qualifications under the 2006 recruitment rules.

administrative petition_dismissed Research Officer examination educational qualifications Master's degree in Mathematical Statistics M.Sc. Mathematics

Sh. P. Suresh Kumar v. Union of India

28 Feb 2013 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2013:DHC:1099-DB

The Delhi High Court held that colour blind personnel recruited prior to 2002 have a vested right to promotion and non-discriminatory treatment which cannot be withdrawn retrospectively by government policy, quashing orders denying such promotions.

administrative petition_allowed Significant colour blindness promotion paramilitary forces Central Armed Police Forces

BSES Rajdhani Power Limited v. SK Bhatia & Ors.

28 Feb 2013 · G. S. Sistani · 2013:DHC:1100

The Delhi High Court held that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi must bear the cost of shifting an electric pole causing obstruction on a public road, modifying the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum's order accordingly.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Electricity Act, 2003 Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Electric pole shifting Cost liability

Subhash Kapur v. Suraj Prakash Kapoor and Ors.

28 Feb 2013 · M.L. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1098

In two family partition suits tried together with overlapping issues, the defendant whose defence was struck off in one suit was entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff on matters relating to both suits and the common Will, as partial consolidation does not merge suits entirely.

civil other Significant consolidation of suits joint trial cross-examination partition suit

Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A. & Anr. v. Om Prakash Khushwant & Anr.

28 Feb 2013 · Manmohan · 2013:DHC:1097

Delhi High Court held that defendants' use of deceptively similar mark and label infringed plaintiffs' trademark and copyright, granting permanent injunction and damages including punitive damages.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement passing off copyright infringement artistic work

CIT v. Titan Securities Ltd.

28 Feb 2013 · S. Ravindra Bhat; R. V. Easwar · 2013:DHC:1122-DB
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the ITAT order deleting addition of share application money under section 68, holding that the Assessing Officer must be allowed to verify and discredit the assessee’s evidence when material indicates involvement with accommodation entry providers.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 68 share application money accommodation entries

Union of India & Ors. v. Malhotra Book Depot

27 Feb 2013 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2013:DHC:1069-DB

The Delhi High Court held that removal of a trademark without issuing the mandatory statutory notice in Form O-3 is invalid, entitling the proprietor to restoration and renewal beyond the prescribed limitation period.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark renewal Trademark removal Form O-3 notice Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958

Ravneet Singh v. Parul Tandon

27 Feb 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2013:DHC:1071-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a Family Court order modifying child custody without discussing evidence and directed a rehearing with reasoned consideration of all evidence.

family appeal_allowed Significant custody modification Hindu Marriage Act Section 26 reasoned order evidence discussion

Kartar Singh v. GNCT of Delhi & Anr.

27 Feb 2013 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2013:DHC:1078-DB

Delhi High Court set aside dismissal of a jail warder for smuggling tobacco and substituted a lesser penalty of stoppage of increments on grounds of proportionality.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant proportionality of penalty departmental inquiry dismissal from service smuggling tobacco

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Madhushree Gupta

27 Feb 2013 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; R. V. Easwar · 2013:DHC:1073-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) where the assessee made a bona fide claim based on prevailing judicial precedents, clarifying that mere incorrect claims do not automatically attract penalty.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 271(1)(c) penalty Section 80HHC deduction Section 80AB overriding effect bona fide claim

Mr Jos Chiramel, Adv. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....

27 Feb 2013 · HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN O R... · 2013:DHC:1086-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that delay barred the appellant's claims for confirmation and pay parity, and that such claims require executive evaluation beyond writ jurisdiction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant laches confirmation of service pay parity equal pay for equal work

Meena Tejrana v. Suresh Kumar Jindal and Anr.

27 Feb 2013 · Manmohan J · 2013:DHC:1070

The Delhi High Court decreed specific performance of a registered sale agreement, directing defendants to execute the sale deed and hand over possession after failing to perform their contractual obligations.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Specific Performance Agreement to Sell Permanent Injunction Registered Sale Deed

Brig. P.J.S. Rangar v. UOI & Ors.

27 Feb 2013 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Sudershan Kumar Misra · 2013:DHC:1074-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the cancellation of a promotion panel based on reiterated existing benchmarks, holding that no vested right to promotion arises before appointment orders are issued.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant promotion empanelment Office Memorandum Department of Personnel and Training

Divya Oram Kujur v. State & Anr

27 Feb 2013 · G. P. Mittal · 2013:DHC:1075

The Delhi High Court held that sexual intercourse induced by a man already married, making the woman believe she is his lawful wife, amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC, setting aside the discharge order.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 375 IPC Section 376 IPC Consent Rape

Divya Oram Kujur v. State & Anr

27 Feb 2013 · G. P. Mittal · 2013:DHC:1076

The Delhi High Court held that sexual intercourse obtained by deceiving a woman into believing she is lawfully married to the man constitutes rape under Section 376 IPC, setting aside the discharge of the accused.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape consent deception lawful marriage

Bachita Baruah v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr

27 Feb 2013 · Chief Justice; V. K. Jain · 2013:DHC:1087-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld Instruction No.42 directing Registering Officers not to examine the validity of documents presented for registration, holding that such matters are for courts and not within the Registering Officer's statutory duties.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Registration Act, 1908 Indian Contract Act, 1872 Instruction No.42 Registering Officer duties

Rajiv Mahendru & Anr. v. Chairman-MD, I.R.C.C., New Delhi & Anr.

27 Feb 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1084

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking promotion, holding no automatic promotion right exists without fitness and DPC approval, reservation policy justified junior ST promotion, voluntary retirement acceptance estopped claims, and sick PSU financial incapacity bars monetary benefits.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant promotion entitlement Departmental Promotion Committee reservation policy 40 point roster

Phool Chand & Ors. v. I.R.C.C., New Delhi & Anr.

27 Feb 2013 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2013:DHC:1085

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition on merits for Petitioner No.1 adopting prior reasoning and dismissed it as withdrawn for Petitioner No.2 who took voluntary retirement.

administrative appeal_dismissed writ petition voluntary retirement scheme withdrawal of petition service law

Dayanand v. Sunita & Ors.

27 Feb 2013 · Suresh Kait · 2013:DHC:1077

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to condone delay caused by counsel’s lapse and directed the tribunal to decide the review application on merits in a motor accident compensation claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant review application condonation of delay Limitation Act Section 5 motor accident claim