Delhi High Court

59,406 judgments

Year:

Rajinder v. The State NCT of Delhi

09 Sep 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:7871

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of an accused involved in an organized child trafficking racket, holding that the commercial sale of newborns constituted exploitation under Section 370 IPC and bail was not warranted given the gravity and prima facie evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant child trafficking Section 370 IPC exploitation bail application

Dr. Azra Abidi v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.

09 Sep 2025 · Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:7903

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of respondent no.5's selection as Reader by interpreting UGC Regulations to allow cumulative teaching and research experience and declined to interfere with the expert selection committee's decision.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant UGC Regulations 2000 Reader post eligibility teaching and research experience judicial review of selection committee

Alcon Inc v. Controller of Patents and Designs

09 Sep 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:9987

Delhi High Court allowed the patent appeal and remanded the application for fresh consideration, holding that the Controller failed to properly apply the legal test for inventive step under the Patents Act.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant inventive step obviousness person skilled in the art five-step test

ICRA Limited v. Naresh Takkar

08 Sep 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:8326

The Delhi High Court held that amounts payable under an arbitral award and settlement constitute judgment debts exempt from TDS deduction, directing the deductor to seek refund of wrongly deducted TDS from tax authorities.

civil appeal_allowed Significant judgment debt Tax Deducted at Source TDS refund arbitral award

JV Industries Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.

08 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8034-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that redemption fine under the Central Excise Act is covered as penalty under the SVLDR Scheme and waived upon payment of duty, directing refund of encashed redemption fine and issuance of discharge certificate.

tax petition_allowed Significant Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 redemption fine Central Excise Act 1944 penalty in rem

Lokesh Pathak v. Designated Committee, SVLDRS, Central GST, Delhi West

08 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8167-DB

The Delhi High Court held that redemption fine is covered under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme's waiver of penalty and duty, allowing petitioners to avail scheme benefits and directing issuance of discharge certificates.

tax petition_allowed Significant Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 redemption fine confiscation Central Excise Act 1944

Gaurav Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

08 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8258-DB

The Delhi High Court held that redemption fine is covered under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme and discharge certificates must be issued for show cause notices involving confiscation upon payment of prescribed duty, overruling the CBIC's exclusion of redemption fine.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 redemption fine confiscation discharge certificate

Remco Industries India v. Union of India

08 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8027-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that redemption fine is covered under the SVLDR Scheme as penalty or duty, and taxpayers who pay the settled amount, even with minor delays due to technical glitches, are entitled to discharge certificates and relief from further proceedings.

tax petition_allowed Significant Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 redemption fine discharge certificate Central Excise Act 1944

Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. Union of India

08 Sep 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:8261-DB

The Delhi High Court held that redemption fine is covered under the penalty waiver of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, and discharge certificates must be issued without requiring separate payment of redemption fine.

tax petition_allowed Significant redemption fine Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 Central Excise Act 1944 penalty in rem

Meeta Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

08 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:8130-DB

Writ petitions challenging resignations tendered over two decades ago were dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay and laches without examining merits, applying principles of constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC.

administrative petition_dismissed writ petition resignation delay and laches constructive res judicata

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