Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Sh Ved Prakash Anand v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that issuance of a departmental charge memo after retirement without meeting statutory conditions under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is barred by limitation and quashed the charge memo and related tribunal order.
Delhi Development Authority v. Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that non-filing of the arbitral award with a Section 34 application renders the filing non-est, causing the limitation period to continue running and barring the challenge if filed beyond the prescribed period.
Mahadev Enterprises v. The Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax
Delhi High Court set aside GST demand order issued beyond limitation without personal hearing, pending Supreme Court's decision on validity of extension notification under Section 168A CGST Act.
KRISHNA TRADERS v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
The Delhi High Court upheld the GST demand order after considering the reply but allowed the petitioner to file a timely appeal pending Supreme Court's decision on the validity of extension notifications under Section 168A of the GST Act.
Sulender Shah and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner / Joint Commissioner CGST Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Show Cause Notice and held that judicial interference is not warranted at the pre-adjudication stage where the notice specifies the tax and penalty amounts.
M/S K-NXT LOGISTICX PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
The Delhi High Court held that refund sanctioned by the Appellate Authority under CGST Act cannot be withheld solely on departmental opinion under Section 54(11) without a pending appeal, directing immediate refund with interest.
Praveen Sain v. The Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of appointment on grounds that a candidate cannot rectify an inadvertent caste category mistake or produce caste certificates after the cut-off date in a recruitment process.
North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach v. M/S Rhino Bamboo Industry
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award on the ground that the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed and thus ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Deepak Kumar Yadav; Rekha Rani Yadav v. Mohit Jain
The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Dilip Rawal v. M/s Mothers Pride Education Personna Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging an interlocutory order of the Commercial Court, holding that Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act bars such revision petitions and that Article 227 jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly.
Vineet Taneja v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
The Delhi High Court upheld IREDA's recruitment shortlisting criteria favoring candidates with experience in listed organizations, dismissing the petition challenging exclusion of a candidate lacking such experience.
Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Ms. Urmila Sharma, Ms. Deepika Kalra, Ms. Venni Kakkar v. Sachin
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing a re-review medical examination, holding that medical unfitness must be based on expert opinion on the candidate's ability to perform specific duties, not merely on the presence of a disqualifying condition.
NHPC Ltd. v. V3S Infratech Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed NHPC Ltd.'s appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, holding that non-filing of the arbitral award with the Section 34 petition renders it non-est and counsel's mistake cannot excuse such procedural non-compliance.
Sh. Govind Ram Sharma v. Sh. Gajender Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent failed to prove possession and concluded sale, thus dismissing his suit for possession and declaration of ownership based on unregistered documents and revocation deeds.
Ms. Shreya Lamba v. LOREAL SA
The Delhi High Court held that a trial court becomes functus officio after passing a final decree and cannot suo moto assume jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceedings, setting aside the impugned orders passed without jurisdiction.
Ms. Shreya Lamba v. LOREAL SA
The High Court held that a trial court becomes functus officio after passing a decree and cannot suo moto initiate fresh proceedings related to the same matter, setting aside such orders as nullities under its superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227.
Ms. Shreya Lamba v. LOREAL SA
The Delhi High Court held that a Trial Court becomes functus officio after passing a final decree and cannot suo moto assume jurisdiction to initiate separate proceedings, quashing such orders under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Sudhakar Reddy v. Kakarthi @ Aarthi
The High Court held that a Trial Court cannot arbitrarily deny a defendant the right to cross-examine and lead evidence for non-payment of adjournment costs and directed one effective opportunity to be granted.
M/S TOP MOTOCOMPONENTS PVT LTD v. AADITYA EMOTORS PVT LTD & ORS
The court held that defendants whose right to file written statements is closed cannot lead evidence and are limited to cross-examination and final arguments, setting aside the trial court's order permitting otherwise.
Seema Rani Jain v. M/S Canadian Speciality Vinyls
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's petition to file a belated amended written statement in a commercial suit subject to costs, clarifying the applicable timelines and scope of Order VI Rule 18 CPC.