Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Parveen Kumar v. Export Inspection Council & Ors.

22 Jan 2026 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Tejas Karia
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that appointment of a retired public servant as Inquiring Authority under Rule 11(2) of the EIA Rules is permissible, but failure to grant personal hearing under Rule 11(4) vitiates disciplinary proceedings, warranting remand for fresh inquiry.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Disciplinary proceedings Inquiring Authority Retired public servant Rule 11(2) EIA Rules

Mohd. Mustak v. State NCT of Delhi

22 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:545

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused in a Section 302 IPC case due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and procedural delays, emphasizing that such issues must be tested at trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 302 IPC Section 308 IPC iron rod assault

Abdul Ahad v. State NCT of Delhi

22 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:542

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused in a mobile phone snatching case due to non-identification by the complainant and prior bail granted to co-accused.

criminal appeal_allowed bail Section 392 IPC Section 394 IPC Section 34 IPC

Sajan Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

22 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:538
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted bail to a young accused in an NDPS case, holding that insufficient evidence of conspiracy and non-commercial quantity of ganja justified release on bail.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act bail conspiracy commercial quantity

Modassir Kazmi v. Govt. of NCT Delhi

22 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:536

Anticipatory bail was denied to the accused involved in dealing stolen mobile phones with altered IMEI numbers due to the necessity of custodial interrogation and ongoing investigation.

criminal appeal_dismissed anticipatory bail stolen mobile phones IMEI number alteration custodial interrogation

Pali Hills Breweries Private Limited v. Carlsberg India Private Limited

22 Jan 2026 · Jasmeet Singh · 2026:DHC:555

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award granting liquidated damages for delay under a contract clause as a genuine pre-estimate of loss, dismissed most counterclaims, but set aside the rejection of one counterclaim due to contrary evidence.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Liquidated damages Genuine pre-estimate of loss

GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI v. GAURAV ENTERPRISES

22 Jan 2026 · Jasmeet Singh · 2026:DHC:556

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award awarding payments to a security services contractor, holding that judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited and the award was neither illegal nor against public policy.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 judicial interference public policy

Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Sh Rampal SO Hari Ram

22 Jan 2026 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2026:DHC:565

The Delhi High Court set aside a Labour Court award for lack of territorial jurisdiction as the labour dispute arose entirely outside Delhi.

labor petition_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction Labour Court Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cause of action

Aashish S Saxena v. Dr. Col. S. N. Katiyar

22 Jan 2026 · Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2026:DHC:543

The High Court allowed a petition under Article 227 to reopen the petitioner’s evidence due to illness, granting one more opportunity subject to costs.

civil petition_allowed Article 227 Constitution of India reopening evidence adjournment costs

S.C. Vohra v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India

22 Jan 2026 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2026:DHC:529-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld dismissal of a government servant for unauthorized audits and impersonation, affirming limited judicial review scope and rejecting res judicata bar in disciplinary proceedings.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings judicial review res judicata proportionality of punishment

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi XVII v. Royal Jordanian Airlines

22 Jan 2026 · Dinesh Mehta; Vinod Kumar · 2026:DHC:557-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal, directing interest recovery on TDS defaults while recognizing agents' prior tax payments and limiting further tax demands on the principal airline.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 194-H TDS Income Tax Act principal-agent relationship

IVY ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. KAJALBEN (KINJALBEN) NAGINBHAI MAHERIYA & ANR.

22 Jan 2026 · C. HARI SHANKAR; OM PRAKASH SHUKLA · 2026:DHC:574-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Commercial Court to decide the suit afresh without being influenced by the impugned order, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

civil appeal_dismissed Procedural commercial suit impugned order appeal disposal trial court jurisdiction

Siya Ram Kumar v. P.O. & Promod Kumar Tyagi and Anr.

22 Jan 2026 · Renu Bhatnagar · 2026:DHC:540

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's review application challenging subsistence wages granted under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, holding that modest family business income does not constitute gainful employment to deny relief.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Section 17B Industrial Disputes Act Review jurisdiction Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC Gainful employment

Prateek Goel v. Dhakkshinamoorthy Natarajan

22 Jan 2026 · Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2026:DHC:528
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that a prima facie valid arbitration agreement exists and territorial jurisdiction lies with Delhi courts, while deferring merits and coercion allegations to arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) arbitration agreement appointment of arbitrator

Union of India v. Brig. Surya Deo Prasad

22 Jan 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:558-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order granting disability pension for Primary Hypertension, holding that the administration must provide cogent reasons to deny service connection under the 2008 Entitlement Rules.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disability pension attributable to military service aggravated by military service Release Medical Board

Union of India & Ors. v. IC-43997N Col Shiv Kumar Singh

22 Jan 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:559-DB
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order granting disability pension to a retired officer, holding that the burden to disprove service connection lies on the administration and Medical Boards must provide cogent reasons to deny such benefits.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disability pension attributable to military service aggravated by military service Release Medical Board

Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar Mehra & Ors.

21 Jan 2026 · Prathiba M. Singh; Madhu Jain · 2026:DHC:587-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the ex-President of a cooperative society cannot act as office bearer after dissolution of the management committee and constitution of a new Ad-hoc committee, warning of contempt consequences for non-compliance.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Contempt of court Cooperative society management Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 Special General Body Meeting

MS Kanushi Enterprises v. Union of India & Ors.

21 Jan 2026 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2026:DHC:626-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld that unlocking mobile phones does not constitute 'taken into use' under Duty Drawback Rules and directed the Customs Department to release duty drawback amounts with interest following the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Department's challenge.

administrative petition_allowed Significant duty drawback unlocking mobile phones taken into use Customs Act

ANUPRIYA VIJ & ANR. v. ANURAG SANT

21 Jan 2026 · Subramonium Prasad · 2026:DHC:1070
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' application for a preliminary decree of partition under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that complex testamentary disputes require full trial despite alleged admissions in pleadings.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC preliminary decree of partition admissions in pleadings validity of Will

Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited & Anr. v. Seraphic Divine Beauty Private Limited & Ors.

21 Jan 2026 · Jyoti Singh · 2026:DHC:858

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from using the deceptively similar mark DIVINE MISS INDIA, holding it infringed the Plaintiffs’ registered trademark MISS INDIA and amounted to passing off.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off initial interest confusion permanent injunction