Delhi High Court

29,725 judgments

Year:

May and Baker Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Runos Health Cares & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7252
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, the court’s role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, leaving merits to the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Appointment of Arbitrator Scope of judicial scrutiny

XXXX v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Amit Sharma · 2025:DHC:7178
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the discharge of accused doctors from SC/ST Act and IPC charges due to lack of prima facie material, emphasizing the necessity of caste-based intent and public view for offences under the Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(r) caste discrimination charge framing

Neha Arora v. Guru Nanak Public School & Anr.

22 Aug 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:7257

The Delhi High Court held that a school suspension order lapses after 15 days without Director of Education approval, entitling the suspended employee to full salary during the interim period.

administrative petition_allowed Significant suspension order Delhi School Education Act, 1973 Section 8(4) approval of suspension

Swaraj Basu v. Indira Gandhi National Open University

22 Aug 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:7231

Pension and gratuity cannot be withheld merely on the basis of ongoing investigation; formal departmental or judicial proceedings instituting charges and finding guilt are necessary under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pension withholding provisional pension gratuity leave encashment

Mohd Shamim v. Smt Bala and Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:7258

The High Court held that FIR registration alone cannot justify deleting an insurance company from a motor accident claim before trial and set aside the impugned order accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India Order I Rule 10 CPC FIR registration forged insurance policy

Deepak v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

22 Aug 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:7260

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a school sweeper for sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl, affirming that reliable child testimony alone can sustain conviction under the POCSO Act despite absence of hymenal injury.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant child witness testimony POCSO Act Section 29 presumption rape without hymenal injury sexual assault of minor

Sachin @ Model v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

22 Aug 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:7263

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for robbery and possession of stolen property but released him on the period already served, maintaining the fine and default sentence.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed robbery recovery of stolen property Section 394 IPC Section 411 IPC

Digvijay Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:7265

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the suspension of the petitioner from the Boxing Federation of India, holding that reinstatement was not possible after the term expired and fresh elections were held, especially since the petitioner participated and lost in the new elections.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ petition suspension order Boxing Federation of India elections

Mir Fasil Khurseed v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

22 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7233-DB

The Delhi High Court directed compliance with the appellate order partially allowing the Customs Department's appeal by releasing seized gold bars on payment of fine and remanding the adjudication of a seized watch for re-assessment with a hearing.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act 1962 seizure of goods redemption of confiscated goods appellate authority

Mr. Jai Ahuja, Mr. Sanidhya Sharma, Mr. Akshay Saxena and Ms. Shivali Saxena v. Surendra Singh Mehta

22 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain

The Delhi High Court allowed Customs appeals, holding that DRI officers are proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, restoring appeals to CESTAT for adjudication on merits in line with Supreme Court rulings.

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

Subodh Kumar Agarwal v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 61 Zone 5 Delhi & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7224-DB

Delhi High Court allowed petitioner to file appeal against GST demand orders beyond limitation period pending Supreme Court’s decision on validity of extension notifications under GST Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant GST Act Section 168A Show Cause Notice Limitation

MS Shree Saravana Trading Corp v. Sales Tax Officer Class II VATO Ward 39 State Goods and Service Tax & Anr

22 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7222-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to file a belated appeal against a GST demand order pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the validity of the underlying notification, without deciding the notification’s validity at the writ stage.

tax petition_dismissed Significant GST Notification validity Section 168A CGST Act Show Cause Notice Personal hearing

M/S PRINCE VINNY ENTERPRISES v. Union of India & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7230-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST tax demand order passed without hearing, granting the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and be heard, while leaving the validity of related notifications to the Supreme Court.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Goods and Services Tax Section 168A Show Cause Notice Natural Justice

Mohinder Pahuja v. Daya Nand Tokas

22 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7299

The Delhi High Court held that the time for filing a written statement in a civil suit is directory, allowing a belated written statement on record subject to costs for delay.

civil appeal_allowed written statement delay in filing directory time period costs for delay

Chander Shekhar Sethi and Anr v. Vinod Sethi

22 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7300

The Delhi High Court granted the defendant one final opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff in a possession suit despite prior non-appearance due to a clerical error, subject to payment of costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cross-examination final opportunity clerical error

Rajesh Ghai v. Attechi House Through Its Partners

22 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7290

The High Court dismissed the petition as the defendant had filed the application seeking leave to defend within time, directing the parties to proceed before the trial court.

civil petition_dismissed application seeking leave to defend summary suit regular suit procedural compliance

Vinay Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. Ajay Kumar Gupta & Ors.

21 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:8378

The Delhi High Court held that a co-owner suing for declaration that a conveyance deed is null and void need not seek possession relief if in joint possession, dismissing the revision petition challenging the trial court's order.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC Section 34 Specific Relief Act joint possession co-owners

Yoginder Singh Yadav v. Union of India

21 Aug 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Vimal Kumar Yadav

The Delhi High Court held that uncommunicated reprimand orders cannot be the basis for denying promotion and directed reconsideration after due communication and opportunity to explain.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant promotion denial uncommunicated reprimand departmental promotion committee Border Security Force Act, 1968

Chandra Shekhar v. Rohini Ghavari

21 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7075

The Delhi High Court held that in defamation suits, territorial jurisdiction lies where the plaintiff suffers maximum reputational damage, and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold merely on jurisdictional grounds without evidence.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Section 19 CPC Order VII Rule 11 CPC defamation

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4 Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

21 Aug 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:7308-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, affirming ITAT’s order allowing various deductions and rejecting transfer pricing adjustments on royalty payments for AY 2010-11, relying on binding precedents and principles of tax law.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 43B deduction Section 35(2AB) R&D deduction Transfer pricing