Delhi High Court

29,724 judgments

Year:

Preeti Pahwa and Anr. v. MCD & Ors.

04 Nov 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9711

The Delhi High Court allowed repair and strengthening work on a disputed property subject to MCD permissions after an independent structural engineer found no dangerous condition, dismissing the petition against alleged illegal construction.

property petition_dismissed illegal construction repair and renovation Unified Building Bye-Laws 2016 structural stability

Rajbir Singh v. Delhi Cantonment Board

04 Nov 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9709
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a regularization application against a demolition notice and restrained coercive action during its pendency, directing the Cantonment Board to consider the application fairly.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Demolition Notice Cantonments Act, 2006 regularization application possession

BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ved Prakash & Anr.

04 Nov 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9708

The Delhi High Court modified CGRF orders directing BSES Yamuna Power Limited to issue notices to MCD, holding that the petitioner must assess property status from MCD’s website and that CGRF cannot impose procedural directions beyond its statutory authority.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Municipal Corporation of Delhi Electricity connection Unauthorized construction

Rajesh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

04 Nov 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9707

The Delhi High Court directed the MCD to consider representations for protection under the Delhi Special Laws 2011 before proceeding with demolition of properties alleged to have unauthorized construction.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant unauthorized construction demolition Delhi Special Laws 2011 Municipal Corporation of Delhi

TV Today Network Ltd. & Ors. v. Ramesh Bidhuri

04 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9668

The Delhi High Court held that Magistrates have no power to discharge accused in summons triable criminal defamation cases and dismissed the petitioners’ applications seeking discharge, directing them to face trial.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant discharge in summons trial Section 482 CrPC criminal defamation Section 499 IPC

Rajneesh Pandey Alias Vipul Pandey & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

04 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9693

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 354(B), 506, and 34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement and divorce between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

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

Manish Pandey & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

04 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9695

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

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

Prashant Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

04 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9682

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.

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

Naresh Kumar and Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

04 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9696
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on a voluntary and amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Puneet Verma and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

04 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9697

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 377, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between estranged spouses, exercising 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

Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

04 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:9630-DB

Delhi High Court dismissed appellant's appeal against refusal of interim injunction in trademark dispute due to appellant's concealment of material facts and invalid registration of the word mark QUANTUM.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement passing off interim injunction Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC

Irina Tankha v. Anirudh N. Tankha

04 Nov 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:9656-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld interim custody of a minor child with the father, emphasizing the child's welfare over statutory presumptions and restraining the mother from removing the child from India amid apprehensions of flight risk.

family appeal_dismissed Significant child custody Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Family Courts Act, 1984

Roopinder Singh v. Emaar MGF Ltd. & Ors.

04 Nov 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:9652-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal holding that the appellant's bona fide and diligent prosecution of earlier proceedings before consumer fora and civil courts lacking jurisdiction entitled him to exclusion of such time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, setting aside the dismissal of his suit as barred by limitation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 14 Limitation Act due diligence good faith consumer forum

Patparganj FIE Entrepreneurs Association v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

04 Nov 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:9672-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging MCD’s parking proposal on an arterial road, holding that expert traffic police recommendations permitting parking on one side must be respected and that such municipal decisions do not violate the statutory layout plan if traffic flow is not impeded.

administrative appeal_dismissed layout plan parking facility traffic police survey Municipal Corporation of Delhi

INTIME VINCOM PVT LTD v. GAIL INDIA LIMITED

04 Nov 2025 · DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ; TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J · 2025:DHC:9671-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld GAIL's lawful annulment of a tender without assigning reasons, holding that such power is not arbitrary if exercised with procedural fairness and within the tender terms.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant tender annulment arbitrariness Article 14 judicial review

Ajmera Ramulu v. B Chandrakala

04 Nov 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:9657-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a marriage solemnized by Scheduled Tribe members according to Hindu rites is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 despite statutory exclusions, dismissing the appeal challenging the Family Court's jurisdiction.

family appeal_dismissed Significant Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 2(2) exclusion Scheduled Tribes Hinduisation

Anuradha Bhattacharjee v. Anu Radha

04 Nov 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:9658-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for trial, holding that damages claims for unauthorized use of a person's name cannot be dismissed without affording an opportunity to lead evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant damages unauthorized use right to publicity injunction

Shravan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement

04 Nov 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:9687

The Delhi High Court upheld the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner for wilful evasion of investigation in a serious economic offence, rejecting his plea to appear via video conferencing and dismissing allegations of mala fide and discrimination.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Non-bailable warrant Section 73 Cr.P.C. Prevention of Money Laundering Act Video conferencing

Kingsley Nwanne v. Narcotic Control Bureau

04 Nov 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:9686

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of a foreign national accused of narcotics trafficking under the NDPS Act, holding that the stringent twin conditions for bail in commercial quantity cases were not met despite procedural irregularities and delay in trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS bail commercial quantity

Jascent Nakalungi v. Narcotic Control Bureau Delhi Zonal Unit

04 Nov 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:9685

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail for a foreign national accused of trafficking commercial quantities of narcotics, upholding the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act despite prolonged custody and delay in trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail NDPS Act Section 37 commercial quantity