Delhi High Court

59,406 judgments

Year:

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

M/S MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT)

12 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8197-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed appeals challenging CESTAT orders, holding that DRI officers are proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, and restored the appeals for merits adjudication following the Supreme Court's ruling in Canon-II.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 28 proper officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

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

12 Sep 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:8010-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals upholding that AMP expenses do not constitute an international transaction requiring transfer pricing adjustments under the 'Bright Line Test', following established precedent.

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

MS Chetak Motors Pvt Ltd and Ors v. Additional Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate & Anr.

12 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8101-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the invocation of Section 74 CGST Act for wilful suppression of GST liabilities, directing supply of relied upon documents and fair adjudication, while dismissing the writ petition at the threshold.

administrative petition_dismissed Section 74 CGST Act Input Tax Credit reversal wilful suppression GST evasion

M/S Eros Resorts & Hotel Ltd v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

12 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:8145
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of property tax classification and rates imposed on star-rated hotels by the MCD under the DMC Act, affirming the reasonableness of the MVC's recommendations and rejecting challenges to the use of star ratings and inclusion of basements in tax calculations.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant property tax user multiplier factor Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 Municipal Valuation Committee

Aadil & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

12 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8129

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act following an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 135 Indian Electricity Act Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement

Anil Shekhawat v. Director General Border Security Force

12 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:8082-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Director General of BSF to decide the petitioner's post confirmation petition within six weeks, emphasizing the obligation of administrative authorities to decide duly received petitions within a reasonable time.

administrative petition_allowed writ petition post confirmation petition administrative decision judicial direction

Union of India & Ors. v. Capt. (In) Roy Joseph (Retd.)

12 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:8069-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming the presumption that diseases arising during service are attributable to military service unless rebutted by the employer.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Primary Hypertension Armed Forces Tribunal certiorari jurisdiction

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Po Log Ashok Kumar

12 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:8085-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's discretionary refusal to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, dismissing the Union of India's writ petition.

administrative petition_dismissed Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Section 31(1) leave to appeal discretionary jurisdiction

Satish Kumar v. Union of India and Ors

12 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:8084-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending representation within four weeks by a reasoned order, reserving the petitioner's right to challenge the decision thereafter.

administrative petition_allowed writ petition representation reasoned order timely decision

Zeeshan Vasim Hashmi v. Apeirogon Technologies Private Limited & Anr.

12 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:8081-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the commercial appeal with liberty to pursue other legal remedies and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

civil appeal_dismissed appeal withdrawal liberty to withdraw exemption application procedural flexibility