Delhi High Court

58,461 judgments

Year:

Rajwanti Deshwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

09 Oct 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9063
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted interim protection against demolition of the petitioner’s property due to disputed service of notices and absence of a Presiding Officer in the appellate tribunal, allowing time to file an appeal.

administrative petition_allowed Demolition Order Principles of Natural Justice Show Cause Notice Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Dass Paper Mart v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

09 Oct 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9062

The Delhi High Court granted temporary de-sealing of business premises sealed without prior notice, directing the petitioner to file an appeal and emphasizing adherence to natural justice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Sealing Order Principles of Natural Justice Show Cause Notice Factory License

Manauvar Ali v. Union of India & Ors.

09 Oct 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9061

Delhi High Court held it has jurisdiction to grant a seven-month extension to a catering licensee affected by COVID-19, emphasizing uniformity of Railway policy and parity with similarly placed petitioners.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction Article 226 Indian Railways Commercial Circular No. 20/2017

Arun Kumar Saini v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

09 Oct 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9060

Delhi High Court granted interim protection restraining MCD from coercive demolition action pending hearing of a statutory appeal before a non-functional Appellate Tribunal.

administrative petition_allowed Significant statutory appeal demolition order interim protection municipal corporation

ARTI ENTERPRISES v. Union of India & Ors.

09 Oct 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9068
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

Delhi High Court held it has jurisdiction to grant a seven-month extension to petitioner’s Indian Railways catering licenses, aligning with prior relief granted to similarly placed parties under uniform Railway policy.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction Article 226 Indian Railways Catering Policy license extension

Sayra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

09 Oct 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:9059

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking demolition of illegal construction as not maintainable due to a pending civil suit and directed the MCD to grant a hearing before any demolition.

administrative petition_dismissed writ petition illegal construction demolition order abuse of process

Hitesh Kumar v. University of Delhi

09 Oct 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:9054

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the University of Delhi's admission notification process, holding that candidates must vigilantly check all official website notifications and relief cannot be granted after admission closure.

administrative petition_dismissed admission notification University of Delhi PG Admission CUET PG Examination

M/S WELCUT INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI, NORTH COMMISSIONERATE

09 Oct 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:9000-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the GST demand as pre-deposit to stay recovery proceedings pending the functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal and permitted filing of appeal thereafter.

tax petition_allowed Significant CGST Act Section 112 pre-deposit stay of recovery

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