Delhi High Court

29,725 judgments

Year:

Sharda Devi & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

21 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:9840-DB

The Court held that cashiering alone does not justify withholding pension without a separate forfeiture order but allowed the respondents liberty to proceed under the CCS Pension Rules for pension forfeiture.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant cashiering pension withholding forfeiture of past service Army Act 1950

M/S BHAGIRATI ENTERPRISES AND ANR v. M/S KIRTI ENTERPRISES

20 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7145-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a written statement filed beyond the 120-day statutory limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act cannot be admitted, and a party is bound by its earlier sworn admissions before the trial court.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant written statement Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Commercial Courts Act 2015 condonation of delay

Rishi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi North & Anr.

20 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7353-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a consolidated GST order issued within limitation by email service in a fraudulent ITC availment case and dismissed the writ petition, permitting appeal on merits.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Input Tax Credit Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 74 CGST Act Show Cause Notice

Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Pvt Ltd and Ors. v. Mallcom India Ltd

20 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7270-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of a commercial appeal as withdrawn after the parties settled the underlying dispute and the settlement was decreed.

civil appeal_dismissed settlement appeal withdrawal commercial suit decree

Sehrawat v. Ashok Mudgal

20 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7125-DB

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's unreasoned order granting higher ACP benefits and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with directions for expeditious disposal.

administrative other Procedural Assured Career Progression Scheme financial upgradation Central Administrative Tribunal pay scale

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Agrawal & Anr.

20 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7073-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing pay refixation of a senior employee at par with his junior, rejecting limitation and option non-exercise defenses.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant pay fixation senior vs junior pay anomaly Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1) limitation period

M/S. MINDRAY MEDICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. v. M/S. VISION RAY HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.

20 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7340
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 appointment stage, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed the sole arbitrator despite objections on impartiality.

other appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment judicial scrutiny arbitration agreement

Rudra Developers and Contractors v. H. S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Limited

20 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7341
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that judicial scrutiny at this stage is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving merits to the arbitral tribunal.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) appointment of arbitrator prima facie arbitration agreement

Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited v. Amar Greengrass Healthcare and Diagnostics Private Limited

20 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7352
Cites 3 · Cited by 1

Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that judicial scrutiny at this stage is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement without delving into merits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of arbitrator Scope of judicial scrutiny Prima facie existence of arbitration agreement

Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

20 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7334-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first, holding that Rule 18 of the CISF Rules applies post-appointment and a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved by a mere social deed.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant CISF Rules 2001 Rule 18 CISF second marriage dismissal from service

S v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

20 Aug 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:7345

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a sexual assault and criminal intimidation case, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence and unreliability of the prosecutrix's testimony.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant appeal against acquittal double presumption of innocence sexual assault Section 376 IPC

Meena Chawla v. Income Tax Officer Ward 61 (1) Delhi & Ors.

20 Aug 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:7132-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging reassessment orders under the Income Tax Act, holding that efficacious alternative remedies before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) must be availed before invoking writ jurisdiction.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Reassessment notices

MS Preeti & Anr. v. Ankit Bhardwaj & Ors.

20 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:7537

The Delhi High Court set aside the Trial Court’s rejection of compensation in a motor accident claim, holding that death was caused by the vehicle accident based on preponderance of probability and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 preponderance of probability post mortem report cause of death

Ravi Prakash v. Vijay Kumar

20 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7347-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the entitlement of employees promoted on ad hoc basis before recruitment rule amendments to regularization against existing vacancies, directing a review promotion process with consequential benefits.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant ad hoc promotion regularization recruitment rules vacancies

M/S Tushar Products v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi North

20 Aug 2025 · Pratibha M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7184-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a single Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years is permissible under the CGST Act, 2017 in cases of fraudulent Input Tax Credit claims and dismissed the petition challenging such consolidated proceedings.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Input Tax Credit Show Cause Notice Consolidated Notice CGST Act 2017

Samsher Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

20 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7274-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging disqualification from CRPF recruitment due to LASIK surgery, holding that participation with knowledge of eligibility criteria bars subsequent challenge absent statutory or constitutional violation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant LASIK surgery eligibility criteria selection process waiver and estoppel

Jasminder Pal Singh v. Enforcement Directorate

20 Aug 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:7728

The Delhi High Court held that at the charge framing stage, documents not relied upon by the prosecution cannot be summoned under Section 91 Cr.P.C., dismissing the petition seeking production of certain letters by the Enforcement Directorate.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 91 Cr.P.C. framing of charge proceeds of crime Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Manish Goel HUF v. The Commissioner Delhi Goods and Services Tax

20 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7174-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively without a specific Show Cause Notice proposing such cancellation and a reasoned order, setting aside the retrospective cancellation and directing fresh adjudication.

tax appeal_allowed Significant GST registration cancellation retrospective cancellation Section 29(2) CGST Act Show Cause Notice

M/S SHREE SHYAM POLYMERS v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH

20 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7187-DB

The Delhi High Court held that consolidated Show Cause Notices and orders for multiple financial years are valid under the CGST Act in cases of fraudulent Input Tax Credit availment, dismissing the petition and allowing the petitioner to file an appeal.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Input Tax Credit Show Cause Notice Consolidated Notice CGST Act 2017

Suman v. Bharati College

20 Aug 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Vimal Kumar Yadav · 2025:DHC:7591-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a waitlisted candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment once selected candidates have joined, and vacancies arising thereafter require a fresh recruitment process.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant waitlist appointment indefeasible right termination