Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Sandeep v. Union of India

07 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6713-DB

The Delhi High Court held that concurrence between the Detailed Medical Examination and Appeal Medical Board findings conclusively determines medical fitness, denying the petitioner a fresh medical examination despite a contrary independent medical opinion.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant medical examination Appeal Medical Board Bilateral Tympanic Membrane Perforation recruitment

M/S VAIDYA RISHI INDIA HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. SURESH DUTT PARASHAR & ORS.

07 Aug 2025 · C. HARI SHANKAR; OM PRAKASH SHUKLA · 2025:DHC:6644-DB

The Delhi High Court held that no infringement action lies between registered proprietors of identical or similar trademarks in their registered classes, setting aside an injunction granted solely on infringement grounds.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 registered trademark infringement passing off

Union of India v. Raj Bala

07 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:6686-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld from an employee on the ground of non-transfer of pro-rata pension by the previous employer and directed immediate release of pension with interest.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant pro-rata pension technical resignation pensionary benefits autonomous/statutory body

Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Union of India & Anr.

07 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:6607-DB

The High Court held that an appeal against a show cause memorandum praying for revocation of suspension must be treated as an appeal against the suspension order and directed the authority to decide it within two weeks.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant suspension order appeal against suspension Central Civil Services Rules show cause memorandum

Roshan Lal Saini v. Union of India and Ors

07 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:6684-DB

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging rejection of appointment under the withdrawn LARSGESS Scheme, holding no vested right arises from a discontinued government scheme.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff LARSGESS Scheme withdrawal Vested right

M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD v. MS. SURIYA NAHEED

07 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6727

The Delhi High Court held that it will not interfere under Article 227 with concurrent findings of fact by consumer fora absent patent illegality or perversity, dismissing the petition challenging refund amount in a deficiency of service complaint.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India supervisory jurisdiction consumer dispute concurrent findings

M/S INTEC CAPITAL LTD. v. FRONTLINE RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

07 Aug 2025 · C. HARI SHANKAR; OM PRAKASH SHUKLA · 2025:DHC:6636-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause providing for unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is not void ab initio and allowed the appeal setting aside the dismissal of the Section 9 petition seeking interim relief.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration clause unilateral appointment Section 9 Arbitration Act Section 21 Arbitration Act

Kausal Goyal and Ors. v. Awadh Oils Private Limited

07 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6639-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Commercial Court to rehear the interim injunction application afresh without being influenced by the impugned order, keeping all parties' rights open and dismissed the appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC interim injunction family settlement encashment of cheque

Sangeeta Patel & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

07 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6643-DB

The Delhi High Court transferred a writ petition concerning Physiotherapists' service matters to the Central Administrative Tribunal, recognizing the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

administrative other Central Administrative Tribunal Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19 service matters

M/S. TRANS INDIA LOGISTICS v. GSTO, WARD-60 & ANR.

07 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:6687-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order due to improper notice on the GST portal and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner a fair hearing, while leaving the validity of extension notifications to the Supreme Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST portal Additional Notices Tab Section 168A CGST Act

Jagan Deep Sandhu v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 61 Zone 5

07 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:6685-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside ex-parte GST demand orders due to defective service of Show Cause Notices and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard, while leaving the validity of extension notifications open pending Supreme Court decision.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST portal Additional Notices Tab Section 168A GST Act

Arvind Kumar @ Gaurav v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

07 Aug 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:6717

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant in a POCSO sexual assault case due to failure of prosecution to establish foundational facts and conclusive identification, thereby negating the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant POCSO Act Section 29 POCSO foundational facts sexual assault

Aarti Mangla Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Customs New Delhi

07 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:6613-DB

The Delhi High Court held that show cause notices issued within limitation under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 are valid and directed the Customs Department to hear petitioners willing to pay duty before passing orders on seized gold chains.

administrative other Customs Act, 1962 Section 110 show cause notice limitation period

Manoj Plastic v. The Govt of NCT of Delhi

07 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:6611-DB

Delhi High Court dismissed writ petition challenging GST time extension notifications, directing petitioner to file appeal with pre-deposit, pending Supreme Court's final ruling on notification validity.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST Act Section 168A Notification validity

TARA INTERNATIONAL v. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE (DRI)

07 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:6683-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the jurisdiction of DRI officials to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act and held that pre-notice consultation is not mandatory for notices under Section 28(4), dismissing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to file appeal before CESTAT.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence proper officer Section 28 Customs Act show cause notice

M/S NEW ALLIED LPG APPLIANCES v. SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO, WARD 79 & ORS

07 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:6688-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order due to improper service of notice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard, while leaving the validity of related GST notifications to the Supreme Court.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST portal Additional Notices Tab Section 168A CGST Act

Nurgozel Achilova v. Commissioner of Customs

07 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:6696-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that used jewellery worn by a foreign tourist is a personal effect exempt from confiscation, and that confiscation without proper show cause notice and hearing under Section 124 of the Customs Act is unlawful.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 124 Baggage Rules, 2016 personal effects

Ram Beer Bohra v. The State

07 Aug 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6721

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging refusal to register FIR in an unnatural death case, holding no immediate police investigation was warranted on the material before the court.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant FIR registration Section 156(3) CrPC custodial negligence unnatural death

Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks

07 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:6695

The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar's order rejecting a trademark application for violation of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh hearing and consideration.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 11(1) natural justice audi alteram partem

Puran Kumar Chug and Anr v. Raghbir Since Deceased Through Lrs and Ors

07 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:6712

The High Court held that revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against interlocutory orders such as those allowing impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and dismissed the petition accordingly.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 115 CPC revision jurisdiction interlocutory order Order I Rule 10 CPC