Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Santosh Kumar Dewan v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the DDA to decide the petitioner's representation for regularization of property by a speaking order within 12 weeks, restraining coercive action meanwhile.
Employees Provident Fund Organization and Another v. M. Arumugham
The Delhi High Court held that jurisdiction under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the cause of action arose and allowed withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.
Chandra Kala Rai v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies Delhi and Ors.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging cooperative society election results for non-availment of the statutory remedy under Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.
M/S ELECTRONIC PLANET v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
The Delhi High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 227 where the cause of action arose outside Delhi and allowed withdrawal with liberty to approach the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.
Ram Prabhakar v. Philips Paints Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the refusal to transfer an execution petition, holding that transfer requires genuine reasons beyond mere delay or apprehension of unfair hearing.
Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal upholding cancellation of a flat allotment due to breach of payment deadline and barred the challenge under constructive res judicata.
Lakshmi Bansal v. Suprabhat Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order closing the defendant's evidence and denying further opportunity to cross-examine in a commercial suit due to repeated non-compliance and delay.
Deepa Gupta v. Gurpreet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court directed provision of electricity supply to a tenant despite pending rent control proceedings, emphasizing electricity as a basic amenity and allowing the petition subject to compliance with conditions.
Shri Sumit Kumar v. Directorate General Border Security Force
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of a BSF constable for unauthorized absence, holding that the Commandant validly exercised dismissal powers under BSF Rules and that delay and lack of seriousness disentitled reinstatement.
M S Bishambhar Exports Pvt Ltd v. Punjab National Bank
The Delhi High Court directed the DRT to expeditiously decide the appeal against the setting aside of an auction sale of property, leaving the parties’ rights open and refusing to interfere at the writ petition stage.
Bhelave Arvind Malchandra v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim for Disability Pension within twelve weeks in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
EX HC GD BANSHI DHAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
The Delhi High Court held that a retired CRPF employee not informed about submitting an option form for Fixed Medical Allowance and who did not avail CGHS facilities is entitled to receive FMA for the disputed period, subject to verification.
Anil Kumar Jain & Anr. v. Naresh Jain
In a partition suit, the plaintiff must begin evidence unless the defendant admits the facts and contests entitlement to relief on legal or additional factual grounds, as per Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC.
Babli Pandey v. Mukut Lal Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff one final opportunity to summon an MCD official to prove communications in a decade-old civil suit, directing the Trial Court to facilitate this without causing undue delay.
Gautam Sehgal v. Well Trans Logistics Private Limited
The High Court held that territorial jurisdiction is a factual issue to be decided on evidence at trial and dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of the Order VII Rule 10 CPC application.
Manish Gupta v. National Insurance Company Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 for lack of territorial jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action arose.
Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt Ltd v. Serosoft Solutions Pvt Ltd
Delhi High Court allowed limited further cross-examination in arbitration proceedings, emphasizing minimal judicial interference under Article 227 except in exceptional circumstances.
Nitin Jaiswal & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld pre-arrest bail granted to accused in a disputed share transfer case, emphasizing that bail cancellation requires strong grounds and criminal courts should not act as recovery agents in civil disputes.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Mr Jagdish Kumar Sole Proprietor of Hari Ram Dharam Pal
The Delhi High Court held that pre-arbitral dispute resolution steps in an arbitration agreement are directory, allowing appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 despite non-compliance with such steps.
Aurionpro Solutions Limited v. Government of NCT of Delhi Transport Department
The Delhi High Court held that pre-arbitral dispute resolution steps are directory, appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, and directed the arbitrator to decide preliminary objections before merits.