Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Suman Kumar Seth v. Neelu Kapur

18 Nov 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:10895
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding no arbitrable dispute existed as the petitioner’s claim for interest accrued on investment was not supported by the family settlement deed.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Family Settlement Deed Arbitrable dispute

J M Jain Prop Sh Jeetmal Choraria v. Union of India

18 Nov 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:10505-DB

The Delhi High Court held that presumptions under the Income Tax Act do not apply to GST proceedings but the GST Department can independently scrutinize seized materials to issue a valid Show Cause Notice, dismissing the petition challenging the SCN and the constitutional validity of Section 75(2) of the CGST Act as premature.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Show Cause Notice Section 75(2) CGST Act Section 132(4) Income Tax Act Section 292C Income Tax Act

G. Ramakrishna v. State C.B.I.

18 Nov 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4788
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for unauthorized issuance of a Bank Guarantee under the Prevention of Corruption Act but reduced the sentence to the period already served considering mitigating factors including delay, age, and health.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Bank Guarantee Financial authority Sentencing principles

Shabir @ Shakir v. State (NCT of Delhi)

18 Nov 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:10428

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for robbery-related offences and directed concurrent running of sentences in two closely connected cases involving the same accused under Section 427 Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 427 Cr.P.C. concurrent sentences robbery Section 392 IPC

Sharp Business Systems India L v. UOI & ANR

18 Nov 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:10218-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that service tax exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST applies only to goods sold with documentary proof, granting relief to the petitioner against tax demand on consumables in composite services.

tax petition_allowed Significant service tax composite services Notification No. 12/2003-ST Finance Act 1994

GRID SOLUTIONS SAS v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

18 Nov 2025 · V. KAMESWAR RAO; VINOD KUMAR · 2025:DHC:10137-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a reassessment notice issued after the limitation period due to delay in electronic dispatch is invalid, quashing the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Notice issuance Limitation period

Pulak M. Pandey v. Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

18 Nov 2025 · Dinesh Mehta; Vimal Kumar Yadav · 2025:DHC:10232-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against a censure recorded after a domestic inquiry, holding that the Single Judge rightly refused to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 in absence of any manifest error.

administrative appeal_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India writ jurisdiction domestic inquiry sexual harassment inquiry

Kavita Kharbanda and Others v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another

18 Nov 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:10145

The Delhi High Court invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 to appoint the wife of a vegetative state patient as his legal guardian with authority over his medical care and property management.

civil petition_allowed Significant parens patriae jurisdiction legal guardian vegetative state comatose state

Vivek Rastogi & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

18 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:10160

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and divorce between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Fahiq Siddiqui & Ors. v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

18 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:10143

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered for cyber fraud under BNS after the parties amicably settled, holding that criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement non-compoundable offences

Mohd. Rashid & Ors. v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

18 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:10142

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308/34 IPC based on a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement non-compoundable offence

Amit Sethi v. Union of India & Ors.

18 Nov 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:10147
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed Look Out Circulars issued against a personal guarantor in absence of any criminal charges or investigation, holding that banks lack authority to request such LOCs under a quashed Ministry of Home Affairs memorandum.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Look Out Circular personal guarantor fundamental right to travel Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum

Taekwondo Federation of India v. Union of India and Ors.

18 Nov 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:10148

The Delhi High Court held that the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports must follow procedural safeguards under the Sports Code before withdrawing recognition of a National Sports Federation and quashed the recognition granted to a parallel body, affirming the petitioner as the sole recognized NSF for Taekwondo in India.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant National Sports Federation Recognition Suspension Withdrawal

Pawan Malik v. Union of India

18 Nov 2025 · Sanjeev Narula · 2025:DHC:10170

The Delhi High Court upheld the MEA’s order directing a magisterial inquiry into the extradition of an Indian national to Canada, holding that the dual criminality requirement under the India-Canada Extradition Treaty is satisfied by the conduct alleged.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant extradition dual criminality failure to stop after accident Section 304A IPC

Union of India and Ors. v. 648216 Ex HFO Rakesh Babu Chaturvedi

18 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 318 (2025) DLT 711
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming the presumption of service connection and limiting certiorari interference to errors of law apparent on record.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces Primary Hypertension Release Medical Board

Irshad v. The State of NCT of Delhi

18 Nov 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:10173
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the rape conviction to attempt to rape due to insufficient medical evidence and procedural lapses, while upholding other convictions related to robbery and assault.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant rape attempt to rape identity medical evidence

Puneet Kapoor v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Madhu Arora

18 Nov 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:10138

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner as cognizance was taken beyond the limitation period without condonation of delay or hearing, and the complaint was found to be mala fide and vexatious.

criminal petition_allowed Significant limitation period Section 468 Cr.P.C. Section 473 Cr.P.C. condonation of delay

M/S Saraswati Eduvision Pvt Ltd v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

18 Nov 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:10094-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging refusal of interim relief by the DRAT in a SARFAESI Act auction dispute, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking Article 226 jurisdiction.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 SARFAESI Act Debts Recovery Tribunal Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

Satpudke Tarkeshwar Dashrath v. Union of India

18 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:10196-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the disciplinary punishment order.

administrative appeal_dismissed writ petition disciplinary proceedings inquiry report punishment order

Aryan Infraheight P Limited v. Signature Global India Ltd

18 Nov 2025 · Jyoti Singh

Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act where cause of action arises outside Delhi and arbitration clauses restrict appointment to a non-appointed arbitrator.

civil petition_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction arbitration and conciliation act 1996 exclusive jurisdiction clause section 11 arbitration