Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Rajender Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation
The Delhi High Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's mechanical dismissal of a departmental enquiry challenge and remanded the matter for proper consideration of merits and contentions.
INSP/GD Jagdish Prasad Jat v. Union of India and Ors
The Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation for pay parity and consequential benefits in light of prior judicial directions, reserving all rights.
Major Anish Muralidhar v. Ex Hav/GD Sarwan Singh
The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order granting disability pension benefits to an army veteran whose diabetes was aggravated by service conditions, dismissing the Union of India's challenge.
Ram Singh Saini and Ors v. Staff Selection Commission and Ors
The Delhi High Court directed a fresh medical examination for petitioners disqualified on physical standards in CAPF recruitment, allowing them to participate further if found fit.
Vikki Kumar Paswan v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that multiple bona fide corrections in Aadhaar details cannot alone justify rejection of a candidate’s recruitment in the Indian Coast Guard without holistic verification of all documents.
Nitesh Singh Alias Nitesh & Ors. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 341, 506, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties under Section 528 BNSS, emphasizing the Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process in minor offence cases.
Nivesh & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323/354A/34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes due to an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process.
Ajay Yadav v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 354D, and 506 IPC following an amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process.
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. RAUSHAN KUMAR
The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals challenging and seeking enhancement of compensation in a motor accident claim, affirming no contributory negligence and reasonable assessment of disability and damages.
Sita Devi v. Tan Singh Rana
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a Suit for Specific Performance based on an insufficient receipt and barred by limitation, and confirmed that injunction reliefs survive against legal heirs after the original party's death.
United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Yash Aggarwal
The Delhi High Court held that a minor driving without a license is not automatically contributorily negligent and enhanced compensation including future prospects and loss of marriage prospects, while adjusting income and interest rates accordingly.
Hazi Acchey Mian & Anr v. Mohd Shahid & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition holding that the petitioner failed to prove prior possession and illegal dispossession within six months under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that reliefs other than possession are not available under this provision.
OYO WORKSPACES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. EDUUIS TECHO SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the court’s role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement without delving into validity or arbitrability.
Manju Devi; Satvir Singh v. United India Insurance Co Ltd; Vipul Das
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal in a motor accident claim, holding that rash and negligent driving causing death was proved despite delay in FIR registration, and remanded the matter for compensation determination.
Amit Tara & Ors. v. Deepak Tara & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that the mandatory 120-day time limit for filing written statements under its Original Side Rules cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period, even for settlement talks or pending applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
TATA CAPITAL LIMITED v. M/S. AADINATH STEEL & ORS.
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 upon the respondent's failure to respond to arbitration notice, enforcing the arbitration clause in a loan agreement.
Neetu Yadav v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the cancellation of a candidate’s appointment for TGT (Maths) post due to non-fulfillment of essential educational qualifications, affirming that courts cannot substitute employer-prescribed eligibility criteria absent ambiguity or illegality.
Shalini Kapoor v. Himanshu Kapoor
The Delhi High Court restored interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 each to the wife and child, affirming the husband's income assessment and emphasizing factual evaluation of maintenance entitlement under Section 24 HMA.
Rakesh Kumar Saini v. The Power Finance Corporation Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking premature cancellation of PFC bonds under Section 54EC, holding that the statutory five-year lock-in period and contractual terms prohibit early redemption and such disputes are not maintainable under writ jurisdiction.
Tara Singh Jeena v. Government of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging termination of a kiosk license at ISBT Sarai Kale Khan, holding that government redevelopment decisions and termination clauses in license agreements are conclusive and enforceable.