Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Rajendera Prasad Verma v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to provide reasons for applying the sealed cover procedure in the petitioner's promotion case, emphasizing compliance with the Supreme Court precedent in K. V. Janakiraman.
Tapan Chetry v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to provide reasons for using the sealed cover procedure in the petitioner's promotion case, emphasizing adherence to Supreme Court guidelines and allowing the petitioner to challenge such reasons.
Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that judicial officers qualifying the suitability test under the 65% promotion quota are entitled to promotion based on individual merit without comparative ranking, granting appellants notional promotion and consequential benefits.
RajeeB Kalita v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that access to safe, clean, and separate toilet facilities in courts is a fundamental right under Article 21 and directed all High Courts and States to ensure their construction, maintenance, and accessibility for all genders including transgender persons and persons with disabilities.
CUDDALORE POWERGEN CORPORATION LTD v. M/S CHEMPLAST CUDDALORE VINYLS LIMITED
The Supreme Court held that a second suit for specific performance is not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC when it arises from a different cause of action than a prior suit for injunction, restoring the plaint and directing trial on merits.
Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that it has no power to condone delay beyond 120 days for appeals under Section 42 of the PMLA, 2002, dismissing the appeal filed after such delay.
Delhi Administration v. Hari Chand
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal in a food adulteration case, holding that discrepancies in scientific reports and the double presumption of innocence warranted upholding the respondent's acquittal.
Mithlesh Kumar & Ors. v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for causing grievous injuries under Section 308 IPC but modified their sentence to the period already served considering mitigating factors.
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging medical unfitness in CRPF recruitment for lack of territorial jurisdiction, upholding the binding nature of jurisdiction clauses in recruitment advertisements.
Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court denied interim bail to a riot-accused petitioner to contest elections but granted custody parole with strict conditions to enable filing nomination papers.
Mohd. Sirajudeen v. State (EOW South-East) Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a forgery and cheating case after investigation completion, emphasizing that pre-trial detention must not be punitive and bail is the rule, not the exception.
Ex Const Crew Pramod Yadav v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the BSF dismissal order for lack of territorial jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in Assam.
Anand Kumar v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging CISF dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens, directing the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court in Tamil Nadu.
Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF Pay Clerk for financial misconduct and denied compassionate allowance, emphasizing limited judicial interference in departmental inquiries conducted per natural justice.
Rahul Jain v. M/S Yes Bank Limited
The Delhi High Court reduced the surety bond amount in a cheque dishonour case, emphasizing that bail conditions must be reasonable, individualized, and not excessive to ensure meaningful access to bail.
Ramesh Chandra v. State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act against a petitioner for mere unconscious possession of a single live cartridge, reaffirming that conscious possession is essential for criminal liability under the Arms Act.
Rajan Handa v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC in a family dispute involving alleged forgery and breach of trust, holding that the matter was essentially civil and police investigation was not warranted at this stage.
Gurushiddappa N Shirol v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s disability benefits claim as a representation and decide it within a specified time, without adjudicating on the merits.
S. Vaikundarajan v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging cancellation of an Exploration License, granting liberty to approach the Supreme Court where identical issues are pending.
Aayub v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s framing of charges under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, holding that a prima facie case existed and defenses raised by the accused are to be tested at trial, not at the charge framing stage.