Delhi High Court

102,696 judgments

Year:

Anil Mithas v. Mrs Sudha Banga & Ors.

02 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:880

The Delhi High Court recalled the summoning order against a former Director not liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as he had resigned prior to issuance of the cheques.

criminal appeal_allowed Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Director resignation Summoning order recall Cheque dishonor

Bhagat Singh & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr

02 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:878

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the basis of an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC

Mohan Yadav @ Mohan Singh & Ors. v. State & Anr.

02 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:874

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC Dowry Prohibition Act matrimonial dispute

Kamlesh Prasad v. Sahadeo Ram

02 Feb 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:1062

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against an ex parte decree for possession, holding that service by affixation was valid and the Appellant’s claim of adverse possession was untenable.

civil appeal_dismissed ex parte decree service of summons Order IX Rule 13 CPC adverse possession

Ajay v. Union of India & Ors.

02 Feb 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:827-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the termination of a probationary RPF constable for alleged rape due to lack of departmental inquiry and violation of Article 311 safeguards, directing reinstatement with partial back wages.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant termination probationary employee Article 311 natural justice

Union of India & Ors. v. JWO Anand Kumar (Retd.)

02 Feb 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:1046-DB
Cites 7 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of disability pension under the Entitlement Rules, 2008, holding that the burden to disprove attributability lies on the military administration and unreasoned Medical Board opinions are insufficient to deny pension.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Entitlement Rules 2008 Medical Board opinion attributability

Union of India v. SGT Rajesh Kumar Singh (Retd.)

02 Feb 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:1047-DB
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of disability pension under the Entitlement Rules, 2008, holding that the burden to prove non-entitlement lies on the military establishment and mere medical board opinions without cogent reasons are insufficient to deny pension.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Entitlement Rules 2008 Release Medical Board NANA (Not attributable nor aggravated)

Sh. Pardeep Singh Rathee & Anr. v. The State N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

02 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:873

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on a bona fide compromise and mutual consent divorce.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC matrimonial dispute compromise

Raj Kumar Rai alias Raj Kumar Ray & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr

02 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:869

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the basis of a full and final settlement between the parties and the complainant's no objection.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC matrimonial dispute compromise

Pawan Kumar v. Sandeep Goel

02 Feb 2026 · Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2026:DHC:825

The High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's application to file additional documents beyond the statutory 15-day period under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, emphasizing the inflexibility of the limitation period and dismissing the petition under Article 227 as devoid of merit.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VIII Rule 1A CPC leave to defend application condonation of delay Article 227 Constitution of India

Manoj Kumar v. C.B.I.

02 Feb 2026 · Chandrasekharan Sudha · 2026:DHC:796
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a police officer for demanding bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that credible evidence and statutory presumptions sustain conviction despite minor procedural lapses and witness contradictions.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7 PC Act Section 13(1)(d) PC Act demand of bribe

Surjeet Singh Choudhary v. State

02 Feb 2026 · Chandrasekharan Sudha · 2026:DHC:797
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant in a corruption case due to doubtful prosecution evidence, invalid sanction, and procedural lapses, emphasizing the need for independent sanction and proof beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act sanction for prosecution demand and acceptance corruption

Ashok Kumar@AK v. State

02 Feb 2026 · Chandrasekharan Sudha · 2026:DHC:809

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a stepfather for penetrative sexual assault on his minor stepdaughter under the PoCSO Act and IPC, while reducing the sentence from 20 to 15 years rigorous imprisonment.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act penetrative sexual assault child victim testimony medical evidence

Sunil v. State

02 Feb 2026 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2026:DHC:849

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of rape and kidnapping charges, holding that the prosecutrix was over 16 years old as per radiological evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant age of consent radiological age determination Section 375 IPC rape

The Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited & Anr.

02 Feb 2026 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2026:DHC:807-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a partial arbitral award deferring essential issues is not executable and an order dismissing its enforcement on such grounds is not appealable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Foreign Award Enforcement Section 48 Section 50

Gayasuddin v. State NCT of Delhi

02 Feb 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:819

The Delhi High Court allowed temporary custody of the accused to solemnize marriage with the consenting major prosecutrix before returning him to jail, disposing of the interim bail application.

criminal other interim bail temporary custody marriage consent POCSO Act

Ravi@Rinku v. State of GNCT Delhi

02 Feb 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:830

The Delhi High Court denied interim bail in a serious arms offence case but allowed temporary custody release for the accused to attend a family marriage under strict supervision.

criminal other interim bail temporary custody release serious offences Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Rajender Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

02 Feb 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:824

The Delhi High Court dismissed a second revision petition challenging the summoning order in a property fraud case, holding that statutory prohibition on second revisions cannot be bypassed without showing gross injustice.

criminal petition_dismissed second revision petition Section 438(3) BNSS gross injustice power of attorney

Sanjay Malik v. State, Govt. of NCT, Delhi

02 Feb 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:818

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused in a theft case due to questionable authenticity of CCTV evidence and insufficient cogent proof linking him to the crime.

criminal bail_granted bail CCTV footage evidence authenticity theft

Gaurav Enterprises v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

02 Feb 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:808-DB

The Delhi High Court held that tender conditions must comply with statutory rules on security supervisor ratios and that GeM's random algorithm clause overrides inconsistent award criteria, allowing the writ petition challenging the tender.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 Delhi Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2023 GeM General Terms and Conditions tender conditions