Delhi High Court

28,224 judgments

Year:

Shaheen Malik & Anr v. Mohd. Sarfaraz

06 Jan 2026 · Sanjeev Narula · 2025 (1) KHC 543
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court enhanced maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. due to the respondent's failure to disclose true income and the inadequacy of the original quantum to ensure dignified sustenance for the wife and minor child.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance quantum financial disclosure earning capacity

Vishal Veersingh Sukhani v. State NCT of Delhi

06 Jan 2026 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2026:DHC:58

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case involving a redevelopment project, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation in serious economic offences.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant anticipatory bail economic offences cheating criminal breach of trust

State Bank of India v. Kundal Lal Arya

06 Jan 2026 · Renu Bhatnagar · 2026:DHC:49

The Delhi High Court held that a workman is entitled to interim wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act during pendency of proceedings if unemployed, shifting the burden to the employer to prove gainful employment.

labor petition_allowed Significant Section 17B Industrial Disputes Act interim wages gainful employment burden of proof

Kanta Sethi v. Hans Raj and Ors.

06 Jan 2026 · Amit Bansal · 2026:DHC:47
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the partition suit for non-joinder and improper valuation, upheld the validity of two Wills executed by the deceased parents, and granted probate to the Will executed by the father in favor of his son and grandson.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partition suit non-joinder of parties validity of Will probate petition

M D OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG

06 Jan 2026 · Amit Bansal · 2026:DHC:46

The Delhi High Court held that interest subvention benefits under the IE Scheme must be passed on upfront at the prevailing rate on disbursement date, and banks cannot recover amounts credited earlier due to subsequent reduction in rates.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Interest Equalisation Scheme Interest Subvention Export Credit MSME Exporters

RCCIVL-LITL (JV) v. Union of India

06 Jan 2026 · Amit Bansal · 2026:DHC:48

The Delhi High Court held that future interest at 10.5% per annum is payable on all claims granted by an arbitral award from the day following the award date, while pendente lite interest is payable only if expressly awarded by the tribunal.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 31(7) interest on arbitral award pendente lite interest

M/S UNIVERSAL FUTURE SHIPPING & LOGISTIC & ORS v. SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL

06 Jan 2026 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2026:DHC:471

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellants' belated challenge to territorial jurisdiction, holding that disputes over illegal forwarding charges are triable in Indian courts despite a jurisdiction clause in the Bill of Lading.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Order VII Rule 10 CPC Bill of Lading jurisdiction clause

Union of India v. 802855 NC(E) Prem Singh

06 Jan 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:110-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of disability pension to an armed forces retiree with Primary Hypertension, affirming that the burden to disprove service connection lies on the administration under the 2008 Entitlement Rules.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces 2008 Entitlement Rules burden of proof

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex WO Rajbir Singh

06 Jan 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:214-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension to an Air Force retiree, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising during service are attributable to military service unless rebutted.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Primary Hypertension Armed Forces Tribunal Release Medical Board

Union of India & Ors. v. 781466 EX SGT Krishna Kumar Dwivedi

06 Jan 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:200-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension under the 2008 Entitlement Rules, holding that the Medical Board must provide cogent reasons to deny attributability to military service, and mere onset at a peace station or classification as a lifestyle disease is insufficient to deny pension.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension 2008 Entitlement Rules 1982 Entitlement Rules attributability

Sgt. Mritunjay and Sgt. Padam Charan v. Ex Sgt Mahesh Kumar Dudeja

06 Jan 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:183-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension under the 2008 Entitlement Rules, affirming that the burden to disprove attributability lies on the administration and that absence of cogent reasons mandates presumption in favor of the serviceman.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension 2008 Entitlement Rules attributability burden of proof

Charan, DAV, Legal Cell, Air Force v. Air Cmde Raghvendra Kumar Tripathi Retd

06 Jan 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:193-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order granting disability pension to a retired Air Force officer, affirming the presumption that disabilities contracted during service are attributable to military service unless disproved by cogent reasons.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension military service attributability of disease Medical Board opinion

Sarvesh Puri v. Rishab Kumar

05 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:38

The Delhi High Court quashed a Section 138 NI Act complaint for delayed legal notice and filing beyond limitation without condonation, affirming strict adherence to procedural timelines despite COVID-19 extensions.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act legal notice limitation period security cheque

Ravinder Singh Gandoak v. State of NCT of Delhi & Harkirat Singh Sodhi

05 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:37
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 311A Cr.P.C., a Magistrate can direct a person to provide specimen handwriting for investigation even if not formally arrested, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to such an order.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 311A Cr.P.C. specimen handwriting proviso interpretation arrest requirement

Manoj Mishra v. State (GNCTD)

05 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:32
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal charges against security guards for wrongful restraint and outraging modesty, holding that their acts were bona fide and lawful under the circumstances.

criminal petition_allowed Significant wrongful restraint Section 341 IPC Section 354 IPC security guards

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kulwant Rai

05 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:40

The Delhi High Court allowed the CBI's appeal, convicting the respondent under Section 489-C IPC for possession of counterfeit currency notes, holding that minor discrepancies in counting do not vitiate recovery and statements under Section 108 Customs Act are admissible if voluntary.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant counterfeit currency notes Section 108 Customs Act Section 489-C IPC possession of fake currency

Avinash Singh v. State

05 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:35

The Delhi High Court held that a person accused of NDPS offences cannot be declared a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82(4) CrPC but only a Proclaimed Person, modifying the impugned order accordingly while upholding cognizance under Section 174A IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Proclaimed Offender Proclaimed Person Section 82 CrPC Section 174A IPC

Dharmendra Kumar v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

05 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:34

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act based on reliable sole testimony of a child victim despite minor contradictions and delay in FIR, while setting aside convictions under uncharged IPC sections.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act sexual assault child witness competency delay in FIR

Akash v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

05 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:30

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants convicted of robbery and related offences due to material contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence, setting aside convictions under Sections 392, 397, and 411 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC country-made pistol

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd v. Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarter

05 Jan 2026 · Jasmeet Singh · 2026:DHC:43
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award, holding that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to contest amended counter-claims and that judicial interference under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Amendment of claims Natural justice