Delhi High Court judgments

Delhi High Court rules that CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2024 cannot restrict the statutory discretion under Section 119(2)(b) to condone minor delays in return filing for loss carry forward. The court held that a 7-day delay, if justified, must be condoned to prevent denial of rights under Section 80, reinforcing judicial discretion over administrative circulars.

Delhi High Court rules that the Delhi Prisons Rules do not impose an outright prohibition on granting simultaneous furlough to co-accused. Courts must exercise discretion with reasoned justification, balancing rehabilitation rights under Article 21 and public safety concerns, even when co-accused are not family members.

Delhi High Court reinforces that disciplinary penalties must strictly align with the degree of misconduct proved. Removal from service based on a 'partly proved' corruption allegation-without full evidentiary backing-violates principles of natural justice and proportionality, warranting judicial intervention for government employees.

Delhi High Court rules that disciplinary actions taken by an unauthorized body cannot be retrospectively validated, even via ratification by a higher authority. The judgment underscores that statutory service rules mandate prior delegation of disciplinary powers, impacting all public sector employees facing termination proceedings.

The Delhi High Court ruled that when multiple landowners are affected by the same acquisition notification and share an identical evidentiary record, compensation must be uniform regardless of procedural delays or administrative errors. This enforces judicial parity under Section 28A, ensuring fairness for delayed claimants and setting a binding standard for future land acquisition cases in Delhi.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the absence of a railway ticket is not fatal to a compensation claim if the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger is established through witness testimony, GRP records, and post-mortem findings. This clarifies that beneficial legislation like the Railways Act must be interpreted liberally to protect vulnerable travelers in untoward incidents, shifting burden from formal proof to substantive evidence.

The Delhi High Court ruled that procedural defects in terminating casual workers do not automatically entitle them to reinstatement, especially when they are nearing retirement and reinstatement serves no meaningful purpose. Monetary compensation is the appropriate remedy in such cases, balancing statutory protections with practical realities of employment continuity.

Delhi High Court rules that senior officers denied pay parity with juniors due to administrative inaction-not individual fault-must be granted arrears for three years prior to rejection, with 6% interest. The judgment reinforces that continuing wrongs under FR 23 cannot be excused by bureaucratic delays, binding authorities to rectify pay discrepancies retroactively.

Delhi State Consumer Commission rules that developers' failure to deliver possession is a continuing deficiency in service, extending limitation periods. The Commission also caps forfeiture of earnest money at 10% of the sale price, deeming higher deductions unreasonable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This sets a precedent for homebuyers seeking relief against delayed projects and excessive penalties.

The Delhi State Consumer Commission ruled that failure to deliver plot possession constitutes a continuous deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, and any forfeiture of earnest money beyond 10% of the sale consideration is unconscionable and unenforceable. This sets a critical precedent for homebuyers facing unjust penalties from developers who delay or deny possession, reinforcing buyer protections in real estate transactions.

The Delhi High Court holds that arbitration costs formally submitted by a party and left unchallenged by the opposing side become enforceable even if not separately quantified in the award. This clarifies that silence in arbitration proceedings constitutes waiver, streamlining enforcement and reducing litigation risk for award holders.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that CARA cannot substitute a No Objection Certificate with informal support letters when adoptive parents seek to relocate children adopted under HAMA to Hague Convention countries. This mandates strict compliance with international child protection standards, directly impacting thousands of intercountry adoption cases pending clearance.

The Delhi High Court ruled that NHAI’s termination of a toll contract before expiry under Clause 35(6) is valid if it safeguards the public exchequer, even absent contractor breach. The ruling clarifies that contractual termination clauses in public infrastructure projects override commercial expectations, but only when justified by fiscal necessity-not speculative profit.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that discharging a soldier before 15 years of service without a mandatory Release Medical Board recommendation nullifies the statutory intent behind pension entitlements. An indifferent administrative attitude cannot substitute prescribed medical due process, reinstating the petitioner with full service benefits and setting a binding precedent for all medical discharges under Army Rules.

The Delhi High Court holds that requiring physically present IHBAS medical evaluations for severely incapacitated patients violates the RPWD Act’s mandate of reasonable accommodation. Private treating doctors’ reports must be accepted as legally sufficient, ensuring dignity and access to justice for those with irreversible cognitive and physical disabilities.

Delhi High Court rules that credible and unshaken testimony of a single witness is enough to establish misconduct in industrial disputes, even without corroboration. Procedural irregularities in departmental enquiries do not invalidate proceedings unless prejudice to the employee is demonstrated, reinforcing employer discretion in disciplinary actions.

Delhi High Court sets aside a divorce decree under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, ruling that allegations of cruelty must be supported by cumulative, corroborated evidence. The court held that procedural flaws, such as drawing adverse inferences without issuing a Section 73 notice under the Evidence Act, vitiate the decree. The judgment reinforces that marital cruelty must involve grave and sustained conduct, proven by credible evidence.

Delhi High Court rules that a corrigendum under the CGST Act cannot bypass statutory limitation periods or revive proceedings already concluded. The court reaffirms that statutory appeals under Section 107 are the exclusive remedy, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary reopening of cases beyond prescribed timelines.

NCDRC rules that suppression of pre-existing tuberculosis and cancer at the time of policy revival constitutes a material misrepresentation, justifying LIC's repudiation of the claim. The ruling reinforces that insurers are not obligated to verify medical history during revival if the insured provides false declarations, protecting insurers from fraudulent claims.

Delhi High Court sets aside a Rs. 15.9 crore mesne profits award, ruling that arbitral awards under Section 34 must be grounded in evidence and reasoning. The court held that guesswork or lack of evidentiary basis constitutes patent illegality, impacting future arbitration claims for damages.

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holds that repudiating an insurance claim solely on grounds of an invalid driving licence constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The ruling underscores that insurers cannot evade liability without proving wilful misconduct or commercial use exception, awarding full claim value with interest and costs to the complainant.

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rules that insurers must pay interest on delayed insurance payouts from the policy maturity date, not the date of actual disbursement. The Commission enhanced compensation to Rs. 50,000 and imposed a 45-day compliance deadline, reinforcing consumer protection against service deficiencies in insurance claims.

Delhi High Court rules that transfers based on administrative exigency cannot be challenged merely for deviating from internal tenure norms, even if preceded by an NHRC complaint. The judgment clarifies that internal guidelines are directory, not mandatory, and do not confer enforceable rights on employees.

The Delhi High Court ruled that recruitment authorities may deviate from advertised weightage criteria and rely solely on interview marks if compelled by binding judicial directives and administrative necessity, ensuring uniform treatment of all candidates. This holding underscores the flexibility of administrative bodies in public employment recruitment while balancing fairness and legal compliance.