Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Renuka Jain v. State (NCT of Delhi)

06 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:61

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by the complainant de facto seeking directions for expeditious trial in a State prosecution under Section 420 IPC, holding that she lacked locus standi to do so.

criminal petition_dismissed locus standi complainant de facto Section 420 IPC expeditious trial

Ghanshyam @Tippu Pandit v. State of NCT of Delhi

06 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:57

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused involved in a loot case, considering his limited role, partial recovery, and bail granted to co-accused.

criminal appeal_allowed bail regular bail recovery loot

Ajay Sharma; Purnima Sharma; Kunal Sharma v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi

06 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:53

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused in a property mortgage dispute, emphasizing their legal interest in the property, regular loan repayment, and incomplete investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail mortgage immovable property legal heirs

SJVN Ltd. v. Patel Gammon Joint Venture

06 Jan 2026 · Jasmeet Singh · 2026:DHC:72
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award on haulage payment, holding the award valid and that courts in Himachal Pradesh have exclusive jurisdiction as per the contract.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge seat of arbitration venue of arbitration

China Trust Commercial Bank v. State of NCT of Delhi & Arun Jain

06 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:51

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal complaint under Section 409 IPC against a bank and its officials, holding that presentation of a security cheque under a loan agreement does not constitute criminal breach of trust absent dishonest misappropriation.

criminal petition_allowed Significant criminal breach of trust Section 409 IPC security cheque loan agreement

JLT ENERGY 9 SAS v. HINDUSTAN CLEAN ENERGY LIMITED & Ors.

06 Jan 2026 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2026:DHC:71
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the automatic termination clause in the SPA operated due to non-fulfillment of the NA Conversion Condition, rejecting the petitioner's claim for interim relief and specific performance.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Condition Precedent Condition Subsequent Automatic Termination Specific Performance

Sanya Bhasin v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

06 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:52

The Delhi High Court held that lawful medical termination of pregnancy within statutory limits, including on grounds of mental trauma from marital discord, does not constitute an offence under Section 312 IPC, affirming a woman's reproductive autonomy under Article 21.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 Section 312 IPC Reproductive autonomy Article 21 Constitution

Ram Kuber v. State (NCT of Delhi)

06 Jan 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:50

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and 12-year sentence of Ram Kuber for repeated rape of a minor, affirming the reliability of the child victim's testimony despite minor discrepancies and DNA mismatch.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sexual assault POCSO Act child witness rape

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
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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