Delhi High Court

94,045 judgments

Year:

Ajit Kumar and Others v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

11 Jul 2023 · Siddharth Mridul; Gaurang Kanth · 2023:DHC:4630-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to allow duly licensed street vendors to vend peacefully within their zones strictly in accordance with their Certificates of Vending and applicable laws.

administrative petition_allowed Street Vendors Act 2014 Certificate of Vending Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Vending Committee

Subhash Mendiratta v. Sureshb Mendiratta

11 Jul 2023 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2023:DHC:4927

The Delhi High Court held that a suit cannot be dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC solely on the basis of a DNA report without formal expert evidence and trial, emphasizing the need for clear admissions before summary judgment.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC DNA evidence admission of fact expert evidence

Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors. v. Vikash Kumar

11 Jul 2023 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:4911

The Delhi High Court declared the trademark VERIZON as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, granting it protection in relation to telecommunication services.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant well-known trademark Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 11(6) Section 2(1)(zg)

Omansh Thakur v. Union of India

11 Jul 2023 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2023:DHC:4968
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of the 75% Class XII marks eligibility criterion for NIT admissions and dismissed the petition of a candidate who failed to meet this criterion and complete admission formalities.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant eligibility criteria 75% marks requirement Class XII examination JEE Main 2023

Kanwal Nain Singh & Ors. v. State & Ors.

11 Jul 2023 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2023:DHC:5189

The Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs arising from a private neighbor dispute based on a mutual settlement, subject to conditions including tree plantation to promote social good.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR private dispute Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement

Rajiv Kumar & Ors. v. The State Govt NCT of Delhi & Anr.

11 Jul 2023 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2023:DHC:5108

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes after the parties amicably settled and obtained a mutual consent divorce.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

Ravinder Dabas v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

11 Jul 2023 · Manmohan; Mini Pushkarna · 2023:DHC:4942-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging land mutation due to inordinate delay and held that non-substitution of legal representatives of a deceased respondent led to abatement of the appeal in toto.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Order XXII Rule 4 CPC abatement of appeal delay condonation Delhi Land Revenue Act 1954

Union of India v. M/S Parishudh Machines Pvt. Ltd

11 Jul 2023 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2023:DHC:4651
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed release of the entire deposited arbitral Award amount to the MSME respondent under its inherent powers after dismissal of the challenge petition, subject to security, to prevent undue hardship and ensure justice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 151 CPC Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration Act Inherent powers of Court

Pradeep Kumar Verma & Ors. v. State & Anr.

11 Jul 2023 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2023:DHC:5166

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on an amicable settlement between estranged spouses, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

Ragini Sharma v. NCT of Delhi and Another

11 Jul 2023 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2023:DHC:5107

The Delhi High Court quashed a theft FIR under Section 380 IPC on the ground of an amicable family settlement, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 380 IPC theft

Raju Ranjan v. Union of India and Anr.

11 Jul 2023 · V. Kameswar Rao; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2023:DHC:4930-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the mandatory typing speed requirement for SSA post must be relaxed for candidates with one arm disability, granting exemption and directing appointment of the petitioner.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 typing skill test exemption reasonable accommodation disability discrimination

Anup Kumar @ Anoop & Ors. v. State & Anr.

11 Jul 2023 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2023:DHC:4977

The Delhi High Court quashed FIRs under Sections 308, 341, 506, and 34 IPC on the basis of a bona fide compromise between neighbors, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and promote social harmony.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences compromise

Capt. Amit Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

11 Jul 2023 · Gaurang Kanth · 2023:DHC:4920

The Delhi High Court upheld the DGCA's suspension of a pilot's license based on positive pre-flight breath analyzer tests, rejecting reliance on subsequent blood and urine tests and affirming the regulatory procedure's validity.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant pre-flight Breath Analyser Test pilot license suspension Civil Aviation Requirement blood alcohol content

Dr. Yatin Malhotra v. Union of India

11 Jul 2023 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Manoj Jain · 2023:DHC:4883-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a candidate for Armed Forces Medical Services on medical grounds, refusing to interfere with prescribed dental fitness standards applied uniformly to all candidates.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant medical fitness standards Armed Forces recruitment dental points malocclusion

Sanjay Kalra v. State

11 Jul 2023 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2023:DHC:4650
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed a civil contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of a 2014 order, holding that subsequent court permissions and compelling circumstances negated any wilful contempt.

civil petition_dismissed Significant civil contempt wilful disobedience Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 order dated 14th November 2014

Iftikhar Saifi v. State NCT of Delhi

11 Jul 2023 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2023:DHC:4826

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of theft and criminal trespass, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with investigation and compliance with court directions.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. Section 380 IPC Section 454 IPC

Gurupreet Sangla v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

11 Jul 2023 · Rajiv Shakdher; Girish Kathpalia · 2023:DHC:4872-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside assessment orders passed without granting personal hearings under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, emphasizing the necessity of natural justice and procedural compliance.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148A(d) Section 148 personal hearing

Vijay v. State (NCT of Delhi)

11 Jul 2023 · Vikas Mahajan · 2023:DHC:4830

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of murder, holding that inconclusive evidence and inadmissible co-accused statements do not justify continued custody pending trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 Cr.P.C. murder statement of co-accused

Ashish Gupta v. State Govt NCT of Delhi

11 Jul 2023 · Tushar Rao Gedela · 2023:DHC:4611

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a large-scale economic offence case under section 406 IPC, emphasizing parity with co-accused, adequacy of alternative security, and completion of investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant regular bail section 439 CrPC section 406 IPC economic offences

DR RAMESH CHANDER MUNJAL & ORS. v. DR SURAJ MUNJAL & ORS.

11 Jul 2023 · C. Hari Shankar
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition challenging the direction to list two suits together, holding that an erroneous submission by counsel without consequential error is not a ground for review.

civil petition_dismissed Procedural Review Petition Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC Erroneous submission Conjoint hearing