Home Page

Judgments

High Court of Delhi

The Delhi High Court is one of the most prominent courts in India, known for its Delhi High Court orders judgements and the Delhi High Court orders that impact the nation. Established on 31 October 1966, the Delhi High Court was established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1966, after the enactment of the Constitution of India.

The Delhi High Court came into existence as a result of the reorganisation of the Punjab High Court, which was originally established in 1919. The Punjab High Court had jurisdiction over Delhi, Punjab, and Haryana. However, after the reorganisation, Delhi became a separate Union Territory, and the Delhi High Court was established to serve the needs of the new territory.

Initially, the Delhi High Court had only four judges, including the Chief Justice. However, over the years, the number of judges has increased to 60. The court is known for its efficient and speedy disposal of cases, thanks to its dedicated judges and staff.

Delhi High Court

The HC Delhi is located in the heart of the national capital, in Sher Shah Suri Road, near India Gate. The location of the court makes it accessible to lawyers, litigants, and visitors from all parts of the city.

The Delhi High Court building is an architectural marvel, with its imposing facade and grand interiors. The building is designed to provide a comfortable and conducive environment for judges, lawyers, and litigants. The court complex has several courtrooms, chambers, and administrative offices, all equipped with modern amenities.

The Delhi High Court has jurisdiction over Delhi and its union territories, making it a crucial judicial body for the national capital region. The court handles a vast array of cases, including civil, criminal, and constitutional matters. The Delhi High Court also has appellate jurisdiction over the lower courts in the city.

Delhi High Court Jurisdiction

The HC Delhi has been instrumental in passing several landmark judgements and Delhi High Court orders that have shaped the legal landscape of the country. These Delhi High Court orders have covered a wide range of issues, including civil rights, human rights, property rights, and commercial disputes.

Location of Delhi High Court

Here are the three important Delhi Court judgements,

In this landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court decriminalised homosexuality, striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised consensual same-sex relations.

This case is notable for establishing guidelines for the protection of women against sexual harassment in the workplace, commonly known as the Vishaka guidelines.

In this case, the Delhi High Court directed the government to implement measures to ensure the safety of women in public transport, in response to the horrific gang-rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi in December 2012. The case led to the formation of a committee to review the safety of women in public transport and resulted in the implementation of several safety measures for women in Delhi's public transport system.

Important Delhi Court Judgments

Apart from delivering judgments, the Delhi High Court also has a distinguished panel of judges. The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is the head of the court and is assisted by other judges of the court. The current Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is Satish Chandra Sharma.

Apart from the Chief Justice, the Delhi High Court has many other judges who have made significant contributions to the legal system in India. Justice Prathiba M. Singh, who was appointed as a judge of the Delhi High Court in 2017, has delivered several important judgments. In the case of Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, she held that copyright owners have the right to seek dynamic injunctions against internet service providers to prevent online piracy of their content.

Another notable judge of the Delhi High Court is Justice S. Muralidhar, who is known for his judgments in cases related to human rights and civil liberties. In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, he was one of the judges who decriminalised homosexuality in India.

Judges of High Court 

The Delhi High Court is a crucial court in India, with a large number of judges who oversee a significant number of cases. However, as of 2023, there are 45 permanent Judges and 15 Additional Judges serving in the Delhi High Court. The High Court's ability to function with a full complement of judges is essential to reduce the burden of cases that are pending and to ensure that justice is delivered promptly.

Number of Judges Present

The procedure for the appointment of judges in the Delhi High Court is governed by the Constitution of India, and it requires the appointment to be made by the President of India. In practice, the appointment of High Court judges is done through the collegium system, which is composed of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The collegium makes recommendations for appointments to the President, who then issues the warrant of appointment.

The appointment of judges to the Delhi High Court is a rigorous process that involves a thorough scrutiny of the candidates' credentials, including their legal expertise and professional background. The selection process also considers factors such as regional representation, gender diversity, and community representation.

In recent years, the appointment of judges to the Delhi High Court has faced criticism due to delays in the process and allegations of political interference. The need for transparency and accountability in the appointment process has been highlighted by various stakeholders, including the legal fraternity and civil society organisations.

Judges Appointment Procedure 

Delhi High Court Former Chief Justices,

Stay updated with latest High Court of Delhi judgments for free. Get access to legal precedents and landmark judgments for informed decisions.

New Delhi High Court Judgement Directory

From historic cases to latest legal judgements, our Indian court decisions search portal is the go-to source for all things related to Delhi High Court. Our expert team has compiled all the Delhi High Court judgments. Choose a year and get all the information. Whether you're a legal professional or just interested in the legal system, we have everything you need!

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL) CM.APPL No.12122/20231. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. Application is disposed of.FAO 58/2023 & CM.APPL No.12121/20231. By way of the present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, the appellant/defendant No.1 seeks setting aside of order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the learned ADJ-08, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Misc. DJ No.320/2020 in New Suit No.08/2007 (Old Suit No.2261/1997) whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.2. The NHAI floated a tender as a part of the Bharat Mala Project under the Bharat Mala Scheme for engaging entities to provide consultancy services, for the preparation of the 'Detailed Project Report' (DPR).3. The Petitioners- Isan Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (`Isan India') and Specialized Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., (`Specialised') which had formed a consortium, had submitted their bid and were declared successful bidders. Pursuant to this, a 'Consultant's Contract Agreement' (hereinafter 'the agreement') dated 11th May, 2017 was entered into between the Petitioner-consortium and NHAI. The said agreement described the project as under:

1. Vide the present petitioner, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:"a.) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing movement order dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner has been relieved from 178Bn BSF Mathura - U.P. and directed to report at 44Bn BSF, Malda-West Bengal; andb) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to process with the Application/representation dated Nil sent by the Petitioner (Annexure P-3) whereby reinstating the Petitioner to 167 Bn W.P.(C) 4702/2023 Page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:15.04.2023 13:38:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: 2023:DHC:2549-DB BSF currently posted at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh."

Prathiba M. Singh, J.1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. Factual background:2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Ms. Shuchi Goel challenging the order dated 27th October, 2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner (hereinafter, "DC"), Department of Revenue, GNCTD. Vide the said order, the DC dismissed the appeal against the eviction order passed by the District Magistrate (East) (hereinafter, "the DM") dated 25th February 2021 under Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereinafter, "2009 Rules"). The said order of the DM arose out of a petition bearing no. Eviction No. 218/2019 filed by Respondent No. 1-Smt. Shashi Goel who is the mother-in-

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants against the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in WP (C) 15398/2022 whereby the Ld. Single Judge has rejected the petition titled "Kamaladityya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rail Land Development Authority & Anr", filed by the Appellant herein seeking quashing and setting aside of the letter dated 02.11.2022 terminating the EPC Agreement dated 02.12.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 herein.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.1. The hearing in this case has been done through hybrid mode.2. In the present case, the Petitioner- K Murugan is aggrieved by the rejection of his application dated 21st April, 2017 by the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter 'the Board') for the release of his pension and, thus, prays for the release of the pension along with arrears with interest.Brief Facts3. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a construction worker who had obtained his registration with the Board in March, 2012. He had also been issued the Registration Card bearing registration number 6120321899. At that time, in the registration card his recorded age was shown as 57 years. His family is shown as consisting of his wife and one son. The Petitioner has deposited the membership fee on four occasions, i.e., March, 2012, March, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 8972/2021 Page 1 of 13 Signing Date:14.04.2023 16:09 2023:DHC:2534 2013, March 2014 and March 2015.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.1. The hearing in this case has been done through hybrid mode. Background2. In the present case, this Court is concerned with the issue of pension in respect of the Petitioner- Raghunath, a building and other construction worker. The Petitioner had applied to the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter 'the Board') for release of pension as per Rule 273 of the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter 'the Rules').

I.A. 16467/2022(Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC) The lis The plaint1. The plaintiff alleges piracy, within the meaning of Section 22(1)1 of the Designs Act, 2000, of the Design No. 324727-001, registered in the petitioner's favour for a ―Pressure Cooker with Container and Lid (Set) for Household‖. The suit design was registered on 1st July 2020, w.e.f. 13th December 2019.22. Piracy of registered design. -(1) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person -

Prathiba M. Singh, J.1. The hearing in this case has been done through hybrid mode. Background2. In the present case, this Court is concerned with the issue of pension in respect of the Petitioner- Jagdish, a building and other construction worker. The Petitioners had applied to the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter 'the Board') for release of pension as per Rule 273 of the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter 'the Rules').

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant herein against the judgment dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 11410/2021, wherein the Court dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the Appellant-herein. The Appellant-herein had Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA LPA 532/2022 Page 1 of 25 Signing Date:15.04.2023 14:27:27 Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2544-DB preferred the underlying writ petition challenging a communication dated 31.08.2021 issued by the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) which was based on the amendments made to Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arms Act') by way of the Arms (Amendment) Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as „the 2019 Amendment‟).The instant appeal raises a question regarding the interpretation of Section 3 of the Arms Act i.e., whether a member of the Rifle Club or Rifle Association, which is licensed and recognized by the Central Government, can, in addition to two fire arms, possess a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice or not.

High Court Of Delhi - 1799