Delhi High Court

29,724 judgments

Year:

Vinod Gupta v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

13 Oct 2025 · Vivek Chaudhary; Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:9138-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's application for suspension of sentence and bail during appeal, upholding the conviction based on credible dying declaration and corroborative evidence under Section 302 IPC.

criminal petition_dismissed dying declaration Section 302 IPC murder conviction suspension of sentence

Urmila Devi v. The State NCT of Delhi

13 Oct 2025 · Vivek Chaudhary; Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:9137-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of a Habeas Corpus petition after the missing daughter was produced before the Court and expressed her wish to return to her mother, negating claims of unlawful detention.

constitutional petition_dismissed Habeas Corpus missing person Article 226 free will

Sumant Batra v. State NCT of Delhi

13 Oct 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9120

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner in an economic offence case based on parity with co-accused, absence of direct incriminating evidence, and completion of investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail parity principle economic offences investigation complete

Dharmender Verma & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

13 Oct 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9083

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

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

Amit Kapania and Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

13 Oct 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9085

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

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

DELHI KI GALIYAN NGO v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS

13 Oct 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9109

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed fraudulently in the name of an NGO, imposed costs on the unauthorized petitioner, and directed police investigation for misuse of the judicial process.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant unauthorized construction writ petition NGO fraudulent filing

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. M. Bathla & Anr.

13 Oct 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9079

The Delhi High Court held that defendants infringed plaintiff's Indian Patent No. 175971 relating to digital audio compression in VCDs, granting permanent injunction and damages while rejecting defendants' non-joinder and invalidity defenses.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Patent Infringement Indian Patent No. 175971 Digital Transmission System Video Compact Disc (VCD)

Vishal Yadav & Anr. v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

13 Oct 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:9082

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC based on an amicable settlement between 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 offences

Ram Krishan Singh @ Dadu v. State of NCT of Delhi

13 Oct 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:9100

The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction under POCSO, setting aside charges of penetrative assault due to contradictions but upheld conviction for sexual assault by inappropriate touching, directing his release after considering time served.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant POCSO Act child sexual abuse penetrative sexual assault Section 29 POCSO presumption

Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Rajkumar Sabu & Ors.

13 Oct 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:9025-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of the registered proprietor Rajkumar Sabu over the trade mark 'SACHAMOTI', rejecting appellants' claims of prior use and ownership.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Trade Mark 'SACHAMOTI' Interim Injunction Prior User Rights Trade Marks Act 1999

Sh Dinesh Singhal alias Sindhal v. Deepak Jain & Anr.

13 Oct 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:9080

The High Court held that Sections 347B and 347E of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act do not bar civil suits for injunction and damages due to unauthorized construction and upheld dismissal of the petition challenging the plaint's maintainability.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC Delhi Municipal Corporation Act Section 347B DMC Act Section 347E DMC Act

Sandeep Kumar v. Nihal Chand

10 Oct 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:9001

The Delhi High Court upheld eviction of a tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, holding that the landlord's bona fide requirement was established and the tenant failed to raise a triable issue for leave to defend.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) Section 25B bona fide requirement

Sh Tek Chand (Deceased) Through His Lrs v. Smt Meenakshi Gupta & Anr

10 Oct 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:9010
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside an eviction order for failure to properly consider bona fide requirement and tenant's defense, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on landlord's genuine need under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant bona fide requirement eviction petition Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e)

Harish v. State (GNCT of Delhi) and Anr

10 Oct 2025 · Sanjeev Narula · 2025:DHC:9035

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a child sexual assault case due to prima facie doubts arising from inconclusive identification, CCTV, and DNA evidence, imposing strict conditions to protect the victim and trial integrity.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail sexual assault minor victim POCSO Act

Taranjeet Singh Kohli v. Kawaljeet Kaur Kohli

10 Oct 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:8997

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking condonation of a six-year delay in filing Written Statement, holding that negligence of previous counsel does not excuse such inordinate delay without a reasonable explanation.

civil appeal_dismissed condonation of delay Written Statement Section 151 CPC Order VIII Rule 1 CPC

AMD Estates and Developers Pvt Ltd v. VSR Infratech Pvt Ltd

10 Oct 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:9031

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief protecting the Owner's share in a delayed real estate project under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, while dismissing the Developer's injunction petition based on an unenforceable Right of First Refusal clause.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act interim relief Collaboration Agreement Right of First Refusal

National Council of Education Research & Training v. M/s Murli Industries Ltd.

10 Oct 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:9027
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award directing return of forfeited Performance Security, holding that machinery breakdown was not force majeure and time was not of the essence of the contract.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant force majeure performance security liquidated damages arbitral award

R.K. Jain v. Suraj Sunar & Ors.

10 Oct 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10085

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal for lack of territorial jurisdiction, limited the scope of review petition, and clarified that the plaintiff's residence alone does not confer jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Section 20 CPC cause of action review petition

Neelendra Singh Chauhan v. Central Warehousing Corporation Regional Office

10 Oct 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:9513
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as barred by the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, commencing from the date of the initial arbitration notice.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137

Apoorv Air Control v. GAIL India Limited

10 Oct 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:9502

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate contractual disputes and counterclaims between Apoorv Air Control and GAIL India Limited.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of arbitrator contract termination withholding payments