Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Allahabad Bank v. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi
The Delhi High Court held that employees’ asset information disclosed to their employer is exempt from RTI disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) unless larger public interest is recorded, setting aside CIC orders directing disclosure.
Allahabad Bank v. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi
The Delhi High Court held that asset and liability information of bank employees is personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless larger public interest justifies disclosure, setting aside CIC orders directing disclosure without such satisfaction.
Shri Romi Sharma v. The Management of Hotel The Oberoi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions challenging workmen's dismissal, holding that the matter had attained finality and was barred by res judicata due to suppression of earlier judicial decisions.
HI-TEK OT’S PRIVATE LIMITED v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
The Delhi High Court upheld NDMC's corrigendum amending tender eligibility conditions and bid evaluation method, dismissing the petition alleging arbitrariness and favoritism.
Bijender Kumar and Anr v. Attar Singh and Anr
The Delhi High Court held that adverse possession claims under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act require clear hostile possession, especially between close relatives, and dismissed the petitioners' claims for bhumidar rights due to lack of such evidence.
Bijender Kumar and Anr v. Attar Singh and Anr
The Delhi High Court held that adverse possession claims under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act require stronger evidence and disclosure when the alleged possessor is closely related to the recorded bhumidar, dismissing the petitioners' claims for lack of hostile possession and non-disclosure of relationship.
Raj Kishore & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that civil courts lack jurisdiction over land acquisition disputes under the Land Acquisition Act, and constructions after notification do not confer rights, while condemning the appellants for abuse of process in delaying public development.
Akram v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court set aside the appellant's conviction and ordered his immediate release upon establishing he was a juvenile at the time of offence and had already served the maximum sentence permissible under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's finding that expenses incurred after the business was 'set up' but before commercial operations commenced are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that training expenses incurred before manufacturing commenced were revenue expenditure deductible as business expenses, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that defective stock must be valued at the lower of cost or market value and does not constitute an unascertained liability for book profit computation under Section 115JA, and that training expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure.
Dilshad Ahmed v. U.O.I & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's rejection of a delayed pay revision claim based on pay parity, holding that classification, qualifications, and nature of duties must align and that review cannot substitute appeal.
M/S ESTER INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 115JA and 115JAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, confirming that minimum alternative tax on book profits is a valid tax on income and not arbitrary or discriminatory.
P. Nagesh and Another v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conviction based on circumstantial evidence for murder and remanded the case for fresh consideration due to failure to address key discrepancies.
Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of re-evaluation and revised merit list by the examination board but directed reappointment of candidates who served bonafide for over three years at the bottom of the revised list without back benefits.
Manoj v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court upheld convictions under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC based on a reliable dying declaration recorded by a Medical Officer, dismissing the appeal and affirming the sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
Lokesh Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court quashed a 13-year-old FIR under Section 409 IPC due to prolonged investigation without evidence and the accused's exoneration in departmental proceedings, affirming the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees Union
The Supreme Court held that the 1988 Government Resolution on wages and service benefits applies to all daily wage workers of the Forest Department, entitling those with over five years' service to regularization benefits, modifying earlier High Court orders accordingly.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. BALKAR RAM
The Supreme Court held that an insurance company remains liable to pay compensation if intimation of cheque dishonour and policy cancellation is given after the accident, dismissing the insurer's appeal.
Santosh Rajaram Wankhede v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC based on consistent dying declarations and absence of premeditation.