Delhi High Court

29,725 judgments

Year:

M/S MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD v. MAHAVEER ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR.

08 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:8191
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the Court's role is limited to prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement's existence without delving into arbitrability or validity.

civil petition_allowed Significant arbitration agreement Section 11 Arbitration Act prima facie examination appointment of arbitrator

Anything Skool Ltd. v. Liberty Footwear Company

08 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7940-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of long-pending family business appeals due to repeated failed settlement attempts, granting liberty to revive if disputes remain unresolved.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant amicable settlement family business dispute mediation interim orders

CLIX CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LTD v. SH RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH

08 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3022
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 a valid arbitration agreement, emphasizing limited judicial scrutiny and deferring substantive disputes to arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of arbitrator arbitration agreement

Chootu v. State

08 Sep 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:8136

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of a minor girl's sexual assault under Section 376(2)(g) IPC based on credible prosecutrix testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, dismissing the appellant's appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sexual assault Section 376(2)(g) IPC prosecutrix testimony delay in FIR

Ashish Chopra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

08 Sep 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:8074-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed illegal tax demands and refund adjustments against the petitioner arising from employer defaults, directing removal of demands from the portal and refund of adjusted amounts.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 221(1) Section 205 demand notice

Mahendra Kumar Jhanwar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1) New Delhi

08 Sep 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:7874-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court remanded the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessing Officer to decide the limitation and validity issues through a reasoned order in light of recent judicial precedents.

tax other Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A Section 149(1) limitation

Kanodia Technoplast Ltd v. DCIT, CEN CIR 19, Delhi

08 Sep 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:8071-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued beyond the three-year limitation period and involving escaped income below Rs. 50 lakhs, holding such proceedings invalid under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

tax petition_allowed Section 148 Income Tax Act reassessment notice limitation period escaped income

M/S SPML INFRA LIMITED v. MIS BHAVANI ENTERPRISES

08 Sep 2025 · V. KAMESWAR RAO; VINOD KUMAR · 2025:DHC:7800-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upholding the arbitral award for claim no.1 as within limitation and separable from other barred claims.

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

Chegg India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner CGST Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate

08 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7836-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the GST Appellate Authority has full power to reconsider refund claims afresh and remanded the matter for comprehensive adjudication to avoid contradictory findings on export of services and ITC refund claims.

tax remanded Significant Input Tax Credit refund claim export of services Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Soham Ramesh Kumbhar v. National Medical Commission

08 Sep 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:8062

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking a fifth attempt at the Phase I MBBS exam, holding that the four-attempt limit under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations is mandatory and cannot be relaxed by the Court on compassionate grounds.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Regulation 7.[7] Graduate Medical Education MBBS examination attempts National Medical Commission

SU KAM POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED v. OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANR.

08 Sep 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:7987

The Delhi High Court held that a company sold as a going concern under the IBC cannot be held liable for offences committed prior to the sale, and prosecution lies only against the officers in default at the relevant time.

administrative petition_dismissed Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Companies Act, 2013 Section 148 Section 32A(2) IBC

Gandhi Kusth Krishi Sanstha v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

08 Sep 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:8019
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that disputed revenue records do not confer ownership rights over government land, and the petitioner failed to establish any legal title or possession.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant revenue records mutation entry ownership government land

R V Sinha v. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

08 Sep 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:8017

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging unauthorized construction on grounds that the petitioner lacked locus standi as no fundamental or legal right was affected, reaffirming that neighbors have no automatic legal right against illegal construction absent infringement of easementary rights.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 writ petition unauthorized construction locus standi

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Neha Singh

08 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7866-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT order condoning delay without reasons and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of limitation and delay before adjudicating the respondent's claim for Child Care Leave regularization.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay limitation Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 21

N.K. Singh v. Gaurav Sharma

08 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7880-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing adherence to 10% EWS reservation by creating supernumerary posts, dismissing the petition challenging correction of reservation shortfall in recruitment.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant EWS reservation supernumerary posts recruitment advertisement reservation policy

Union of India & Ors. v. Sh Harish Chander Raheja

08 Sep 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7797-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition upholding the Tribunal's order restoring pay fixation and refunding gratuity deductions, relying on binding precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Central Administrative Tribunal pay fixation gratuity deduction interest on refund

COACH COM Through Its Sole Proprietor Smt. Lalita Devi Sureka v. SR. DME, Northern Railway

08 Sep 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:7982

The Delhi High Court held that pre-arbitral conciliation and DAB reference are directory, not mandatory, and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under a Railway contract.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12(5) pre-arbitral steps

Colonel Sujata Sirohi v. Union of India and Ors.

08 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7935-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a disability arising during military service is presumed attributable to service unless the Medical Board provides cogent reasons otherwise, entitling the petitioner to disability pension.

administrative petition_allowed Significant disability pension attributability Review Medical Board military service

NEXT GEN PHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. CD PHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

08 Sep 2025 · C. HARI SHANKAR; OM PRAKASH SHUKLA · 2025:DHC:7937-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the 120-day limitation period for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC excludes only the date of service of summons, and a written statement filed even one day late cannot be taken on record.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant written statement limitation period Order VIII Rule 1 CPC General Clauses Act

Jamotri Devi & Anr. v. Government of Chhattisgarh

08 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7914-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Clause 6(a) of the 2013 Instructions barring compassionate appointment if any family member is already in government service and dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of such appointment.

administrative petition_dismissed compassionate appointment Clause 6(a) government service daughter-in-law