Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Tilak Raj Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that change of LTC destination without prior permission and without unavoidable circumstances is impermissible and allegations of delay or victimization do not warrant judicial review.
U. SUDHEERA & OTHERS v. C. YASHODA & OTHERS
The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot grant interim relief in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC without first framing substantial question(s) of law, setting aside the impugned interim order.
SUNKARI TIRUMALA RAO v. PENKI ARUNA KUMARI
The Supreme Court held that a suit for recovery of money filed by partners of an unregistered partnership firm against another partner is barred under Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is not maintainable.
The State of Jharkhand & Others v. Vikash Tiwary
The Supreme Court upheld the lawful intra-State transfer of a life convict prisoner by prison authorities on administrative grounds, setting aside the High Court's quashing of the transfer order.
Surendra Kumar Jain v. Santobai & Another
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a 2,422-day delay in restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, holding that unexplained inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause warrant dismissal of the restoration application.
Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Article 32 petition challenging a Bombay High Court judgment, holding that such challenge must be pursued by recall or under Article 136, not by declaring the judgment illegal under Article 32.
Ankit Bhuwalka v. IDBI Bank Limited & Union of India
The Bombay High Court quashed the wilful defaulter declaration against the petitioner due to procedural violations including denial of access to documents and held that natural justice mandates meaningful hearing before such declarations.
Darshan Mahendra Nibjya v. Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Section 11 Court's role is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and appointed a substitute arbitrator without deciding complex privity issues, which are for the arbitral tribunal.
Asst Comdt Javed Ali (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending Post Confirmation Petition related to GSFC disciplinary proceedings within six weeks, ensuring procedural fairness despite concurrent separate disciplinary actions.
Rahul Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed a fresh medical examination by an independent Medical Board to determine if Genital Vitiligo disqualifies the petitioner from appointment under CAPFs medical guidelines.
Sunil Kumar Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that mere deformity without impairment of function does not justify medical disqualification for Assistant Sub-Inspector appointment and directed re-examination by a Medical Board.
WTC Noida Development Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Arti Khattar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a Section 9 petition, holding that arbitration agreements survive contract termination and cannot be dismissed without notice and proper consideration.
Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited v. Rampur Engineering Corporation Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the refusal to condone delay beyond 30 days in filing a Section 34 application against an arbitral award duly served on the appellant.
Anurag Gupta v. Arnika Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Family Court's ad interim maintenance order of Rs. 30,000 per month, affirming the pragmatic grant of interim relief despite appellant's unemployment claims.
Mal Chand Ajit Kumar v. Poonam Jain
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order on bona fide requirement grounds, holding that landlords need not specify the precise business and prior sale of other properties does not negate bona fide need under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Kanta Rani & Anr. v. Poonam Jain
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order on bona fide need grounds, holding that landlords need not specify the precise business and that sale of other properties does not negate bona fide need under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Madan Lal Bhatia v. Poonam Jain
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order on bona fide requirement grounds, holding that landlords need not specify the precise business and prior sales do not negate bona fide need under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Kundan Lal v. Poonam Jain
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order based on the landlord's bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that specifying the precise business is not necessary and prior sale of other properties does not negate bona fide need.
Om Prakash & Ors. v. Poonam Jain
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of tenants on bona fide requirement grounds under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that specifying the precise nature of business is not necessary and limiting its revisionary jurisdiction.
Om Prakash Since Deceased & Ors. v. Poonam Jain
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order on landlord’s bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that specification of business nature is not mandatory and prior sale of other properties does not negate bona fide need.