Delhi High Court

59,406 judgments

Year:

M/S SSM Engineers Pvt Ltd v. State (GNCT) of Delhi

19 Sep 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:8314

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition upholding conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that the petitioners failed to rebut statutory presumptions of cheque issuance against a legally enforceable debt.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Cheque bounce Presumption under Section 139 NI Act Rebuttal of presumption

Salman Sayeed Siddiqui v. State (NCT of Delhi)

19 Sep 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:8307

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of the accused in a sophisticated cyber fraud case, holding that substantial incriminating evidence and risk of tampering justified denial of bail.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail cyber fraud confessional statement virtual mobile numbers

Vishal Jaiswal v. State of NCT of Delhi

19 Sep 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:8309
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to Vishal Jaiswal in an NDPS case, holding that CDRs and co-accused disclosures alone cannot deny bail and emphasizing cooperation with investigation and compliance with conditions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail NDPS Act Tramadol call detail records

Union of India & Ors. v. Brijesh Singh through Lrs Vishal Saxena

19 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:8287-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's quashing of recovery of alleged shortage amount from a retired railway employee's retiral benefits due to lack of evidence and proper inquiry.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant recovery of public money retiral dues departmental inquiry pecuniary loss

XXXXX v. State NCT of Delhi

19 Sep 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:8340
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of an uncle for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his minor nephew, relying on credible child testimony, DNA evidence, and independent witness identification under the POCSO Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant child witness testimony POCSO Act Section 29 POCSO presumption sexual assault

Nitesh Kumar & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr

19 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8329

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a voluntary and amicable settlement between estranged spouses, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

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

Hoshiyar Singh & Ors. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

19 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8332

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

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

Shanti Devi v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

19 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8308

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under dowry harassment and related offences based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Sanjay Kumar v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

19 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8310

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 509, 506, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

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

Dharmender & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

19 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8323

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 quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Chintu Kumar & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

19 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8324

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 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC Section 482 CrPC

Naqibullah Rodaie v. Air Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi

19 Sep 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:8341

Bail was refused to an accused in a commercial heroin trafficking case under Section 37 NDPS Act due to failure to satisfy stringent twin conditions and high risk of absconding.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS commercial quantity

CBI v. V K Singh & Anr

19 Sep 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:8313
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that in cases involving official secrets, the accused is entitled to inspect sensitive documents but not necessarily to receive hard copies, balancing fair trial rights with State security.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Official Secrets Act, 1923 Right to fair trial Section 207 CrPC Inspection of documents

Chhotey Lal v. The State

19 Sep 2025 · Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:8305

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of rape under Section 376 IPC, holding that consent obtained on a false promise of marriage is not vitiated consent unless the promise was made without any intention to marry from the outset.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant consent false promise of marriage Section 376 IPC Section 90 IPC

JAIN SHIKANJI PRIVATE LIMITED v. SATISH KUMAR JAIN

18 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:8248-DB

The Delhi High Court corrected typographical errors in its judgment and emphasized that the appellant violated interim orders by continuing to use the old corporate name in transactions until compelled to change it after the respondent's complaint.

civil other interim orders undertakings trademark use corporate name change

Srishti Rustagi v. Securities and Exchange Board of India

18 Sep 2025 · Devender Kumar Upadhyay; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:8242-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld SEBI's refusal to disclose details of an ongoing investigation under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, dismissing the appellant's plea for further information and emphasizing confidentiality in regulatory probes.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 8(1)(h) SEBI investigation confidentiality

Soumya Bhattacharya v. Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors.

18 Sep 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:8289

The Delhi High Court held that a brother managing the estate and maintenance of the deceased's dependents has locus to file a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, dismissing the maintainability challenge.

consumer_protection petition_dismissed Significant locus standi consumer complaint legal heir representative

Umesh @ Kala v. State

18 Sep 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:8285
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail under MCOCA to an accused involved in organized crime, holding that delay in trial alone does not justify bail when the accused’s role and risk to society are significant.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant MCOCA bail organized crime syndicate Section 21(4) MCOCA

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/S Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

18 Sep 2025 · Jasmeet Singh
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award directing insurer United India Insurance to pay ₹33.26 crores to insured Valley Iron & Steel, holding that the consent letter was signed under economic duress and that arbitrable disputes survived despite prior settlement.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Insurance claim settlement Consent letter

Shadab @ Salman v. State (NCT of Delhi)

18 Sep 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:8297

The High Court acquitted the appellant in a robbery case due to failure of the prosecution to establish his identity beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of judicial TIP and examination of public witnesses.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant identification parade judicial TIP benefit of doubt non-examination of public witnesses