Delhi High Court

59,406 judgments

Year:

Kamal Kumar Makhija; Deepti Makhija; Radha Makhija v. Kamal Kapoor; M/s. 3K Enterprises; The Clovia V35; Arif Khan; Vineet Kant Parashar

09 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:8270

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the court's role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate lease disputes.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 arbitration agreement prima facie examination

LUOSSAVAARA KIIRUNAVAARA AB v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

09 Sep 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:8256
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of a patent application for lack of reasoned findings on double patenting and other objections, remanding the matter for fresh consideration with proper opportunity to the applicant.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant patent application double patenting Section 3(f) Patents Act Section 10(5) Patents Act

Union of India v. Ex NK Jadish Chandra DSC

09 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:8183-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s grant of disability pension to an ex-serviceman, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising during service are service-connected unless rebutted, and limiting its interference under certiorari jurisdiction.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces tribunal Medical Board presumption of sound health

Ajay v. State

09 Sep 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Vimal Kumar Yadav · 2025:DHC:8245-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the appellant was a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 at the time of the offence and set aside his conviction and sentence under the IPC, ordering his release.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant juvenile justice age determination juvenile offender Bone Ossification Test

Dr. Anuj Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

09 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:8037-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioners to exercise a one-time option for the Old Pension Scheme based on their recruitment advertisement date prior to 22.12.2003, directing ESIC to implement the benefit despite contrary views of the Department of Expenditure.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Old Pension Scheme New Pension Scheme Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Office Memorandum 03.03.2023

Inder Singh v. State & Ors.

09 Sep 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:8181

The Delhi High Court granted probate of a duly executed Will under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, exempting the petitioner from furnishing a surety bond due to No Objection Certificates from natural legal heirs.

civil petition_allowed probate Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 276 Will

Raj Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

09 Sep 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Vimal Kumar Yadav · 2025:DHC:8180-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a writ petition challenging a Recovery Notice under the Employees’ Compensation Act is not maintainable without an appeal against the compensation order, and upheld the employer-employee relationship and entitlement to compensation.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees’ Compensation Act, 1932 Section 30 appeal Recovery Notice employer-employee relationship

Lava International Ltd. v. Anurag Gupta

09 Sep 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:7895-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an arbitral award for non-production of original documents, affirming the limited scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 37 patent illegality

Anmol Tradex Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 25 Delhi

09 Sep 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:7966-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an order under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act for non-consideration of the assessee's last reply and remanded the matter for a fresh reasoned order.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A(1) Section 148A(3)

Manmeet Singh; Yashvardhan Bandi; Saru Sharma v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

09 Sep 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:8086

The Delhi High Court upheld the IBBI’s disciplinary order suspending an Insolvency Professional for excess fee withdrawal and procedural violations during liquidation and CIRP, affirming the Board’s inspection and disciplinary powers under the IBC.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Inspection and Investigation Disciplinary Proceedings Liquidator's Fee

Sh. Rohtas Kumar v. Ms. Vandana Devi

09 Sep 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:8059

The High Court held that an order dismissing an application for restoration of proceedings is interlocutory and not amenable to revision under Section 115 CPC, leading to dismissal of the petition.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 115 CPC revision jurisdiction interlocutory order Order IX Rule 4 CPC

Bhupinder Singh v. Ajit Pal Singh Bindra & Anr.

09 Sep 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:8057

The Delhi High Court held that non-joinder or misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, leaving all rights open for trial court adjudication.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC non-joinder of parties misjoinder of parties unregistered agreement to sell

Rekha v. Kamla Devi & Ors.

09 Sep 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:8054

The Delhi High Court directed the appellate court to expeditiously decide a nine-year pending civil appeal after arguments were concluded, emphasizing timely justice under Article 227.

civil petition_allowed Article 227 Constitution of India expeditious disposal appeal pending civil suit

Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Govt. of NCTD & Ors.

09 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7972-DB

The Delhi High Court held that procedural rules cannot override substantial justice and allowed additional pleadings and documents to be taken on record by the Central Administrative Tribunal despite delay.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Central Administrative Tribunal additional pleadings substantial justice procedure

M/S HARI DASHAN SEVASHRAM PVT. LTD. v. M/S PAUL SALES PVT. LTD.

09 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:8035

The Delhi High Court held that summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC cannot be granted based on a running ledger account without finality, requiring trial to determine disputed claims.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order XIII-A CPC summary judgment ledger account admission

Anju Chadha v. Bhavesh Madan

09 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:8028
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and that triable issues regarding joint family ownership and benami transactions require trial, dismissing the defendant's application to reject the plaint concerning a disputed property.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC partial rejection of plaint partition suit benami transaction

Amita Kishore Mansukhani v. Vikram Krishna & Ors.

09 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:8026

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for decree on admissions in a partition suit, holding that no clear and unequivocal admissions were made by defendants and documents were not properly proved.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC admissions in civil suit proof of documents mode of proof

National Institute of Fashion Technology v. Vijay Kumar Dua

09 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7953-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing retrospective consideration of respondents' promotion to Professor based on their ante-dated Associate Professor promotions, dismissing the petitioners' objections.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant retrospective promotion Departmental Promotion Committee Review DPC Recruitment Rules

J K Rohatgi v. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd & Anr

09 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7999-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of an employee for proven misconduct, holding that a disciplinary authority’s tentative disagreement note is not a final order and that the Court’s interference in disciplinary matters is limited to procedural irregularities.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings disagreement note natural justice excess payment

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. Y S Saini

09 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7998-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order that service as Yoga Teacher counts towards Selection Scale after conversion to PET, and disallowed post-retirement recovery without prior notice.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant conversion of post service counting selection scale recovery of excess payment