Delhi High Court

29,725 judgments

Year:

Gajraj @ Amit @ Kalicharan v. State NCT of Delhi

09 Oct 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:9053
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction from attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC to attempt to cause grievous hurt under Section 308 IPC, reducing the sentence to the period already served due to lack of evidence of intent to cause death.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 307 IPC Section 308 IPC common intention attempt to murder

Union of India and Ors. v. Kartar Singh

09 Oct 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:8976
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court held that non-availability of information does not constitute denial under the RTI Act and set aside the penalty imposed on the CPIO for alleged denial of information.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 6(3) RTI Act Section 20 RTI Act denial of information

IRB Westcoast Tollway Ltd. & Ors. v. National Highways Authority of India

09 Oct 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2020 SCC OnLine Del 659

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the reconstitution of the Arbitral Tribunal after its recusal, holding that arbitral fees must be fixed as per Schedule IV and that courts have limited jurisdiction in arbitration matters.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Schedule IV Arbitral Tribunal fees Recusal of arbitrators

Texmaco Rail and Engineering Ltd. v. Ircon International Ltd.

09 Oct 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:8975

The Delhi High Court held that a contract rescission letter limiting participation in balance work does not constitute a general debarment without due process, setting aside IRCON's impugned debarment communications for violating natural justice.

administrative petition_allowed Significant debarment blacklisting natural justice show cause notice

Central Bank of India v. Sohan Kumar

09 Oct 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:8973
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes lacks jurisdiction to interfere with finalized disciplinary actions and must exercise restraint in summoning senior officials, setting aside the NCSC order summoning the bank's Board and CMD.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant National Commission for Scheduled Castes Article 338 Constitution of India jurisdiction disciplinary proceedings

Natera Inc and Anr. v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

09 Oct 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2025:DHC:8937

The Delhi High Court held that diagnostic methods for treatment are excluded from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, but permitted certain claim amendments supported by the original specification, partially allowing the patent appeal.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Section 3(i) Patents Act diagnostic methods patentability exclusions lung cancer detection patent

EMD Millipore Corporation v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

09 Oct 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2025:DHC:8928

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of a patent application for a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, interpreting the exclusion broadly to cover diagnostic processes including in vitro methods.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Section 3(i) Patents Act diagnostic methods patentability in vitro diagnostic methods TRIPS Agreement Article 27.3

Sequenom Inc & Anr. v. The Controller of Patents

09 Oct 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2025:DHC:8926

The Delhi High Court held that non-invasive prenatal screening tests are not excluded diagnostic methods under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, and are patentable subject matter.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Section 3(i) Patents Act diagnostic methods non-invasive prenatal screening patentability exclusions

Rajni and Ors v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

09 Oct 2025 · Vivek Chaudhary; Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:9037-DB

The Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition seeking production of a major daughter who expressed her independent choice to stay with her husband and not return to her parents.

constitutional petition_dismissed Habeas Corpus majority personal autonomy Article 226

Nilesh Agarwal v. Income Tax Office

09 Oct 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8961
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed prosecution against company Directors under the Income Tax Act for non-impleadment of the Company, holding that the Company must be prosecuted first under Section 278B before its officers can be held liable.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 278B vicarious liability prosecution of company directors

Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Munshi & Ors.

09 Oct 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:8889-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of interim injunction and upheld exemption of the suit property from lis pendens, holding that a non-binding MoU and lack of valid consideration preclude specific performance.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance oral agreement Memorandum of Understanding interim injunction

Delhi Transco Limited v. M/s Hindusthan Urban Infrastructure Limited

09 Oct 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:8941-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that once delay in filing a Section 34 petition is condoned, limitation cannot be revisited, and upheld the arbitral award despite minor omissions, emphasizing narrow appellate interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

commercial appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 petition Section 37 appeal Limitation

The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. M/S R.S. Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

09 Oct 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:8938-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed condonation of a 55-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act by the State, holding that procedural delays in State machinery constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 37 appeal Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Limitation Act, 1963

Vivek Nagrath v. Divya Goglani

09 Oct 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:7620-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of a Hindu marriage on grounds of non-performance of Saptapadi, holding that such a petition is not maintainable under the Hindu Marriage Act and barred by estoppel after marriage registration.

family appeal_dismissed Significant Hindu Marriage Act Section 7 Saptapadi Marriage solemnisation

Nausad Khan & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

09 Oct 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8959

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 354, 509, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the 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

Jaiveer & Anr. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

09 Oct 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8979

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes 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 matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

Manish Yadav v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

09 Oct 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8972

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 498A IPC based on an amicable settlement between estranged spouses, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 498A IPC Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR amicable settlement

Devika Sharma & Ors. v. Nira Infrastructures Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

09 Oct 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:8931-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an order granting mandatory injunction for possession of property, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness for specific performance and that the collaboration agreement was determinable and rightly terminated by defendants.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mandatory injunction specific performance collaboration agreement commercial contract

Gopal Bansal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

09 Oct 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:8965-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed a reassessment notice and order issued beyond the statutory limitation period under the pre-amendment Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relying on binding precedents.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A(d) Section 149

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd.

09 Oct 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:8968-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that AMP expenses do not constitute an international transaction and upholding the Tribunal's deletion of transfer pricing adjustments for AY 2017-18 based on prior authoritative rulings.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Advertisement Marketing and Promotion expenses International transaction Transfer pricing Bright Line Test