Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Arman Mohd v. State, Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr

07 Aug 2025 · Arun Monga · 2025:DHC:7860

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act against a petitioner found unknowingly in possession of a single cartridge, holding that mere possession without knowledge and complementary parts does not constitute an offence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Arms Act, 1959 Section 25 Arms Act Section 45(d) Arms Act possession of ammunition

Manku Vanshkar and Ors v. National Insurance Company Ltd

07 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:7606
Cites 8 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the exclusion of a married daughter from financial dependency for compensation calculation but enhanced the interest rate awarded on the compensation from 6% to 8% per annum.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation dependency married daughter

Union of India v. M/S. Wishwa Mittar Bajaj and Sons & Anr.

07 Aug 2025 · Jasmeet Singh, J · 2025:DHC:7277

The Delhi High Court set aside a non-speaking arbitral award lacking adequate reasoning under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reaffirming the necessity of reasoned awards in arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitral Award Non-speaking Award Section 34 Arbitration Act Reasoning in Arbitration

Union of India v. M/S ERA CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD

07 Aug 2025 · Jasmeet Singh, J · 2025:DHC:7213

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award for lack of reasoning and disregard of contractual terms, emphasizing limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Arbitral Award Escalation Clause

Shri Sheetal Dawer v. M/S Moda Cocktail & Ors.

07 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7175
Cites 2 · 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 dispute under DIAC rules.

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

Cargill Incorporated v. The Registrar of Trade Marks

07 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:7113

The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register the trade mark 'TOPCITHIN' for failure to consider prior use and pending rectification, remanding the application for fresh examination.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 11(1) deceptive similarity prior use

Sheikh Intaz @ Sheikh Imtyaz v. State (NCT of Delhi)

07 Aug 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:7103

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction under Section 397 IPC due to lack of credible evidence of use of a deadly weapon but upheld other convictions, modifying the sentence to the period already served.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 397 IPC robbery with deadly weapon material improvement afterthought

Sardar Sarabjit Singh Bedi v. State of NCT of Delhi

07 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7072

The Delhi High Court granted Letters of Administration to the petitioner for the estate of the deceased under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, affirming that such grant authorizes estate administration but does not confer ownership.

civil petition_allowed Letters of Administration Indian Succession Act, 1925 Will Estate administration

Banwarilal v. Union of India & Ors.

07 Aug 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:7044-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a BSF constable for assisting cattle smugglers, ruling that judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings is limited to cases of manifest perversity or procedural violations.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Summary Security Force Court BSF Act 1968 disciplinary proceedings Article 226 jurisdiction

Neha Dutta v. Commissioner of Police

07 Aug 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6976
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking FIR registration against police officials, holding that alternate remedies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must be exhausted before approaching the High Court.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant FIR registration Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Article 226 Constitution Section 482 Cr.P.C.

H D F C ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. RAMJI & ORS

07 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:6943

The Delhi High Court upheld motor accident compensation awards, holding the insurer liable due to failure to prove violation of insurance policy by producing vehicle permit or proof of legal notice service.

motor_accident_claims appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Insurance liability Vehicle permit Order XII Rule 8 CPC

Tata 1MG Healthcare Solutions Private Limited v. QRG Medicare Limited

07 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:6938
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator accordingly, leaving merits and frivolity issues to the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act appointment of arbitrator scope of judicial scrutiny prima facie arbitration agreement

Tata 1Mg Healthcare Solutions Private Limited v. North East Health Care Private Limited

07 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:6937
Cites 1 · 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 a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the collaboration agreement.

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

Tata 1MG Healthcare Solutions Private Limited v. Marengo Asia Healthcare Private Limited

07 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:6936
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 a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Collaboration Agreement.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Appointment of arbitrator Judicial scrutiny

Azad Market RWA (Regd.) v. Mamta Yadav

07 Aug 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:6932

Delhi High Court dismissed petitions filed by Azad Market RWA for unauthorized construction due to abuse of process, suppression of facts, and lack of locus standi, imposing costs and referring counsel for disciplinary action.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant unauthorized construction writ petition locus standi abuse of process

Pani Ram v. Mohan Lal Joshi

07 Aug 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6846

The Delhi High Court held that in a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint, issuance of notice under Section 223 B.N.S.S. before examining the complainant is valid as the affidavit filed suffices as evidence at the pre-cognizance stage.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 223 B.N.S.S. cognizance pre-summoning evidence

PROGNOSYS MEDICAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

07 Aug 2025 · DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA; TUSHAR RAO GEDELA · 2025:DHC:6725-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging tender conditions, holding that an unsuccessful bidder who withdrew and was disqualified without timely challenge cannot later question the tender process at an advanced stage.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant judicial review tender process locus standi Make in India

Bela Dalmia & Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council

07 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6818

The Delhi High Court quashed a municipal property tax assessment order due to a 14-year delay in adjudication, holding such delay unreasonable and allowing fresh reassessment under the NDMC Act.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Section 72 NDMC Act rateable value enhancement inordinate delay municipal assessment

M/S Nakoda Food Marketing & Ors. v. M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited

07 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6635-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal to vary the injunction restraining the appellants from using the trademark "SALONI" in Class 30 after they obtained registration, holding that co-existing registered proprietors may use identical marks in their respective classes without infringement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Registered proprietor Co-existing trademarks Interlocutory injunction

Manoj Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi

07 Aug 2025 · Arun Monga · 2025:DHC:6808

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to furnish one consolidated surety for 21 pending cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act, holding that excessive bail conditions defeating liberty can be modified under inherent powers of the court.

criminal petition_allowed Significant bail conditions consolidated surety Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 528 BNSS 2023