Delhi High Court

29,725 judgments

Year:

Heena Kausar v. MCD

15 Sep 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:8139
Cites 0 · Cited by 11

The Delhi High Court upheld the MCD's authority to demolish only declared dangerous portions of a building while preserving tenants' occupation rights in safe areas and allowing further inspection for repairs or demolition.

property appeal_allowed dangerous building demolition Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 Sections 348 and 349

Amber Bawa v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

15 Sep 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:8140

The Delhi High Court held that a writ petition to enforce prior orders for de-sealing property is maintainable and directed the petitioner to comply with MCD requirements for de-sealing.

administrative petition_allowed writ petition sealing de-sealing Monitoring Committee

Satish Kumar & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

15 Sep 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:8138
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted interim protection against demolition to petitioners due to improper service of notices and allowed them to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.

administrative petition_allowed Significant demolition order show cause notice unauthorized construction service of notice

Raju Sunar v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

15 Sep 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:8137
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of repeated penetrative sexual assault charges under the POCSO Act due to contradictions in child witness testimonies and lack of corroborative medical evidence, emphasizing the need to establish foundational facts before invoking statutory presumptions.

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

Ajay @ Bobby v. State

15 Sep 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:8109

The Delhi High Court suspended the appellant's 20-year sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act pending appeal, emphasizing the exceptional nature of suspension of sentence and the strength of scientific evidence supporting conviction.

criminal sentence_modified Significant suspension of sentence Section 389 CrPC POCSO Act penetrative sexual assault

Sh. Kewal Krishan v. Sh. Gulshan Kumar & Ors.

15 Sep 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:8097

The High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to condone delay in filing the Written Statement beyond 90 days under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, holding that delay due to obtaining certified copies from another litigation is not an exceptional circumstance.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Written Statement Condonation of delay Civil Procedure Code amendment 2002

Budh Bhaskar v. State

15 Sep 2025 · Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:8104

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for attempt to murder but modified the robbery conviction to theft and reduced the sentence considering mitigating factors.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 307 IPC Attempt to murder Robbery Section 392 IPC

Sardul Singh v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

15 Sep 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:8025-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court held that pendente lite and future interest can only be awarded on the principal sum and not on pre-suit interest, dismissing the appeal against the execution court's order limiting interest accordingly.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant pendente lite interest future interest pre-suit interest interest upon interest

Zameer Ahmad & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8023

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 34, and 506 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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Delhi v. Sony India Private Limited

12 Sep 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:8011-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal upholding the ITAT's order allowing depreciation on block of assets basis and rejecting additional AMP benchmarking adjustments in Sony India's transfer pricing dispute.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 depreciation block of assets Section 32

M/S RST Batteries & Anr. v. Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence Gurugram Zonal Unit & Anr.

12 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8154-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a CGST demand for fraudulent ITC, directing the petitioners to pursue statutory appellate remedies under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Input Tax Credit fraudulent availment writ jurisdiction Article 226

SHES AIR AND AUTOMATION v. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

12 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1471
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, only a prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement is to be examined and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, leaving issues of limitation and arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Appointment of Arbitrator Prima facie examination

MRVS VALUE STRAIGHT PVT. LTD. v. BRIGHTSTAR RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED

12 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1471
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act after prima facie finding of an arbitration agreement, limiting judicial scrutiny to existence and leaving validity and arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration Act prima facie examination arbitration agreement competence-competence

Tanveer Zaki v. Anand Prakash Dube

12 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:8150-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Tribunal's order granting retrospective MACP benefits to an employee redeployed from Lino Operator to Offset Machine Man, affirming consistent judicial precedents and principles of non-discrimination.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant MACP benefits redeployment Lino Operator Offset Machine Man

91 Springboard Business Hub Private Limited v. RCPL Logistics Private Limited

12 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:8273
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court's role is limited to prima facie satisfaction of the existence of an arbitration agreement and directed appointment of an arbitrator accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Appointment of arbitrator Prima facie examination

Axis Finance Limited v. Laxman Pralhad Chavan & Pushpa Laxman Chavan

12 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3022
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act after prima facie finding of an arbitration agreement, emphasizing limited judicial scrutiny and deferring substantive issues to the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) appointment of arbitrator prima facie examination

Axis Finance Limited v. Nitin Negi

12 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:8271
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the Court’s role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving substantive disputes to arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act arbitration agreement prima facie examination appointment of arbitrator

M/S IG PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

12 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8196-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging amendments to the Customs Tariff Act as infructuous since the amendments had not come into force due to lack of government notification.

administrative petition_dismissed Customs Tariff Act, 1975 Finance Act, 2023 Section 134 notification

M/S KANTA FOOD PRODUCT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

12 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8194-DB

The Delhi High Court held that provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act cannot continue beyond one year and set aside the attachment accordingly.

administrative petition_allowed Significant provisional attachment Section 83 CGST Act bank account attachment time limit

M/S SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, NEAR IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI

12 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8199-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed appeals restoring them to CESTAT for merits adjudication, holding that DRI officials are proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Canon-II.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant proper officer Section 28 Customs Act Directorate of Revenue Intelligence show cause notice