Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Mehar Kaur Talwar v. Gurjit Singh Talwar

20 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7148

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to file a written statement after her defence was struck off, emphasizing procedural fairness and permitting her to place her version on record at the initial stage of the suit.

civil petition_allowed Significant written statement striking off defence communication gap Will genuineness

Sh. Rama Kant Sinha and Anr. v. Sh. Bhupesh Kumar Bansal

20 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7150

The High Court allowed belated filing of the written statement subject to costs and a strict deadline, setting aside the Trial Court's order closing the right to file it.

civil appeal_allowed written statement extension of time closure of right costs

Deepa Raheja v. Bank of Baroda & Anr.

20 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7151

The Delhi High Court directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of a pending interlocutory application following delays despite appellate directions.

civil petition_allowed Debt Recovery Tribunal expeditious disposal interlocutory application Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal

Rajender Kumar Ahuja v. Jawahar Lal

20 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7152

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's suo moto order to implead disputed co-owners as necessary parties in a partition suit, dismissing the petition challenging the same.

civil petition_dismissed partition suit necessary parties relinquishment deed suo moto power

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. B.S. Chauhan

20 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7153

The Delhi High Court upheld consumer fora orders awarding interest at the builder's default rate on refund due to delayed possession, dismissing supervisory jurisdiction challenge under Article 227.

consumer petition_dismissed Significant interest award consumer dispute delay in possession Article 227

Naveen Bansal v. State (GNCTD)

20 Aug 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:7130

Police cannot investigate offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act but may investigate related IPC offences; chargesheet filed directly before Sessions Court without Magistrate's cognizance is invalid and must be remanded for trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 32 D&C Act Police investigation jurisdiction IPC offences

Parmeet Singh Anand & Anr. v. Subhash Chand Aggarwal & Anr.

20 Aug 2025 · Nitin Wasudeo Sambre; Anish Dayal · 2025:DHC:7156-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an FSL report can justify limited police inquiry but not conclusive proof of forgery at interlocutory stage and upheld refund of consideration amount in a specific performance suit absent compensation claim.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant specific performance forgery FSL report prima facie evidence

Union of India and Ors v. Ex WO Om Prakash Retd

20 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 895
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming the presumption of service connection and limiting certiorari review to errors of law apparent on the record.

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

J1 v. Union of India and Ors

20 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7136-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Delhi High Court quashed disciplinary punishment imposed without providing the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report or an opportunity to defend, holding it violated natural justice principles.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant sexual harassment complaint Internal Complaints Committee natural justice disciplinary proceedings

Bhanu Pratap v. State

20 Aug 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:7163
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 POCSO based on the credible testimony of a child victim, emphasizing that minor contradictions and delay in FIR do not vitiate the prosecution case.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant child sexual assault POCSO Act Section 6 POCSO Section 29 POCSO presumption

EX SEP/DVR Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

20 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7199-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the removal of a CRPF constable whose appointment was void ab initio due to submission of a forged driving license, dismissing his writ petition for reinstatement.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant forged driving license void ab initio appointment disciplinary action CRPF Rules 1955

Jitender Pal Singh HUF v. M/S OYO Apartments Investments (LLP)

20 Aug 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld arbitral awards dismissing challenges to termination of management agreements for material breaches including failure to furnish documents and unauthorized rent collection, emphasizing limited judicial interference under the Arbitration Act.

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

Dilshad Khan v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

20 Aug 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025 INSC 533
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed a delayed appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act for failure to show sufficient cause to condone an 87-day delay beyond the 60-day limitation period prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act.

commercial appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 37 appeal Limitation period

Hansraj Goswami v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

20 Aug 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:7239

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking mutation of property in the petitioner's name due to disputed ownership and non-possession, holding that mutation requires established title and possession.

property petition_dismissed Significant mutation property ownership writ petition Article 226

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. v. Shri Jagannath Memorial Education Trust

19 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1604

The Delhi High Court set aside the Trial Court's order dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 34 SARFAESI Act for failure to consider jurisdictional and valuation grounds, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 115 CPC Order VII Rule 11 CPC Section 34 SARFAESI Act Commercial Courts Act 2015

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mahi Lal Anand

19 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7012-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing payment of salary and allowances to an employee performing higher duties on a look-after charge basis, affirming the principle of equal pay for equal work.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant look-after charge equal pay for equal work salary entitlement temporary promotion

Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Sandhar Technologies Ltd

19 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7085-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of an interlocutory injunction in a patent infringement suit, holding that numerical references in patent claims are binding aids for claim construction and that the respondents' fuel cap did not prima facie infringe the appellant's patent.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant patent claim construction main circular plate engagement projections fuel cap patent

Union of India and Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar Sharma

19 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7017-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's delayed challenge to a Tribunal order granting second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, affirming the binding nature of timely Tribunal findings on service classification.

administrative petition_dismissed MACP Scheme financial upgradation RBE Circular No. 100/2012 Screening Committee

Railtech Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Union of India

19 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7189
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the contractual disputes.

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

Krishan Lal @ Raj Suneja v. Surinder Mohan Jindal

19 Aug 2025 · Nitin Wasudeo Sambre; Anish Dayal · 2025:DHC:7157-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal to set aside an ex parte decree caused by the lawyer's default and medical incapacity of the defendant, restoring the suit for fresh trial subject to deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order IX Rule 13 CPC ex parte decree setting aside decree lawyer's default