Delhi High Court

46,774 judgments

Year:

Dr Brij Rani Pandey v. Electrotherm India Ltd and Anr

06 Nov 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:8597

The Delhi High Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 227 challenging NCDRC orders when the cause of action arose outside Delhi, permitting withdrawal with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant Article 227 jurisdiction National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cause of action

Sh. Surinder Singh Bedi Thr. LRs v. Sh. Surjit Singh Bedi Thr. LRs & Anr.

06 Nov 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:8596
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking late impleadment of defendants in a partition suit due to inordinate delay and prior knowledge of the transfer by the plaintiff.

civil petition_dismissed impleadment Order I Rule 10 CPC Section 151 CPC Article 227 Constitution of India

P v. State Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

06 Nov 2024 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2024:DHC:8601

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal in a POCSO case, holding that the trial court's findings were plausible and delay in reporting affected the complaint's credibility.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act sexual assault delay in reporting acquittal

Chet Ram & Others v. Union of India & Another

06 Nov 2024 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8543

The Delhi High Court upheld the reference court's enhanced compensation for land acquisition, rejecting the appellants' claim of commercial land use and higher valuation based on post-notification evidence and sale exemplars.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 market value compensation land use

Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi

06 Nov 2024 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8541

The Delhi High Court held that a court-sanctioned scheme of amalgamation is exigible to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, rejecting exemption claims and upholding the Collector's order imposing duty and penalty.

tax petition_dismissed Significant stamp duty scheme of amalgamation Indian Stamp Act, 1899 section 394 Companies Act

YUM! RESTAURANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. A.N. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED & Ors.

06 Nov 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:8592

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition and upheld the grant of leave to defend in a summary suit where the claimed amount included interest and adjustments beyond the admitted liability under the contract, holding that such suits require leave to defend under Order XXXVII CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Summary Suit Order XXXVII CPC Leave to defend Liquidated amount

Court on Its Own Motion v. Sanjeev Kumar

06 Nov 2024 · Prathiba M. Singh; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:8587-DB

The Delhi High Court held Sanjeev Kumar guilty of criminal contempt for filing frivolous complaints and making derogatory allegations against judicial officers, sentencing him to imprisonment and fine.

criminal conviction_upheld Significant criminal contempt Section 156(3) CrPC locus standi hearsay evidence

Court on its Own Motion v. Sanjeev Kumar

06 Nov 2024 · Prathiba M. Singh; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:8587-DB

The Delhi High Court held that baseless complaints and derogatory conduct against judicial officers constitute criminal contempt and sentenced the contemnor to imprisonment and fine.

criminal conviction_upheld Significant criminal contempt Section 156(3) CrPC hearsay evidence locus standi

MRS VINTI MEHROTRA & ORS. v. MR KUMAR VAIBHAV & ORS.

06 Nov 2024 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2024:DHC:8580
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application to amend the plaint to challenge a Will, holding the amendment barred by limitation and prejudicial to defendants' accrued rights.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VI Rule 17 CPC Amendment of plaint Limitation Act 1963 Time-barred claim

Ravinder Mandal v. M/S D.L.F. Universal Ltd.

06 Nov 2024 · Girish Kathpalia · 2024:DHC:8540

The Delhi High Court upheld a Labour Court Award holding that a bona fide transfer order without malafide does not amount to illegal termination even if the employee refuses to comply.

labor petition_dismissed Significant transfer order illegal termination workman Industrial Disputes Act Section 2(s)

Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Ms. Meenakshi Ogra, Mr. Tarun Khurana, Mr. Samrat S. Kang and Mr. Rajat Sabu v. OZONE OVERSEAS PVT LTD

05 Nov 2024 · Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:8764

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents in a patent infringement suit in response to the defendant's objections under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, clarifying the scope of filing documents post-pleading.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC additional documents patent infringement permanent injunction

National Institute of Health & Family Welfare v. Dr. C.P. Rai & Anr.

05 Nov 2024 · Yashwant Varma; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:8517-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of a removal order due to the inquiry officer's failure to provide a reasoned report and disproportionate punishment, directing reinstatement with partial back wages.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary inquiry reasoned inquiry report natural justice proportionality of punishment

M/S HCC VCCL Joint Venture v. Union of India & Ors.

05 Nov 2024 · Yashwant Varma; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:8662-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a revisional authority cannot stay a refund order under Section 108 CGST Act without forming a prima facie opinion that the order is illegal or prejudicial to revenue, and balances in Electronic Cash and Credit Ledgers are treated equally for refund purposes.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 108 CGST Act Electronic Cash Ledger Electronic Credit Ledger Refund sanction

Maj Gen Jitendra Kumar Shukla VSM v. Union of India & Ors.

05 Nov 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8545-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal's delayed and erroneous order, restoring the petition for fresh adjudication expeditiously.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Armed Forces Tribunal delay in pronouncement Confidential Report judicial delay

Barun Kumar & Ors. v. Sashastra Seema Bal & Anr.

05 Nov 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8508-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Sashastra Seema Bal to consider the petitioners' claim for promotion to Commandant (GD) in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and communicate its decision within four weeks.

administrative other promotion Sashastra Seema Bal Recruitment Rules 2013 seniority

Maj. Anish Murlidhar v. Dhanuli Devi

05 Nov 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8677-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order condoning a shortfall in qualifying service for second service pension under DSC, ruling that statutory pension regulations override Ministry of Defence policy letters prohibiting such condonation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant second service pension Defence Security Corps condonation of service shortfall Armed Forces Tribunal jurisdiction

Rahul Kumar v. Union of India and Ors

05 Nov 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8656-DB

The Delhi High Court held that rejection of extension requests for joining duty must be by a reasoned order and not solely on the lapse of a fixed period, directing respondents to reconsider the petitioner's representation accordingly.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant extension of joining time appointment letter speaking order Central Industrial Security Force

SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Munni Devi & Ors

05 Nov 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:9159
Cites 0 · Cited by 54

The Delhi High Court held the Insurance Company liable to pay revised compensation based on Delhi minimum wages for permanent injury, excluding death-related damages, and upheld 9% interest in a motor accident claim.

motor_accident_compensation appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Compensation Minimum wages Gratuitous passenger

Rajesh Kumar Bhalla v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

05 Nov 2024 · Jyoti Singh · 2024:DHC:8986

The court held that acceptance of voluntary retirement under a VRS Scheme bars claims for past stagnation increments as the scheme constitutes full and final settlement of all claims.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Voluntary Retirement Scheme Stagnation increments Full and final settlement Estoppel

Rajbir Singh v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.

05 Nov 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:9034

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation for permanent disability and non-pecuniary damages in a motor accident claim, recognizing loss of future earning capacity despite no immediate salary loss.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Permanent Disability Loss of Future Earning Capacity Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Compensation Enhancement