Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Shahnaj v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

24 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:5995

Bail granted to accused in NDPS conspiracy case where telephonic connectivity alone, without proximate or corroborative evidence, was insufficient to deny bail.

criminal bail_granted bail NDPS Act conspiracy telephonic connectivity

Sonu & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

24 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6016

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes on the ground of compromise and reconciliation between the parties.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC

Rahul Prajapati & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

24 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6000

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and divorce between the parties, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC amicable settlement Section 528 BNSS

Mohit v. State NCT of Delhi

24 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5990

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under various IPC sections following an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the court's power to end criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita abuse of process of law

Mohd Rizwan Ashraf v. National Investigation Agency

24 Jul 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:6022-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's reasoned extension of custody under UAPA, dismissing the appellant's default bail plea in a complex ISIS-related terrorism investigation.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant UAPA Section 43D(2) default bail Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. custody extension

Suman Srivastava v. Union Bank of India

24 Jul 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:6023-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 21 of the RDB Act for appeals in recovery proceedings, dismissing the writ petition filed by the legal heir challenging the recovery against mortgaged property.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 21 pre-deposit SARFAESI Act, 2002 Debt Recovery Tribunal

Agrasen Parents Association v. Maharaja Agrasen Model School and Anr.

24 Jul 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:6026

The Delhi High Court held that unaided private schools need not obtain prior approval from the Directorate of Education before fee hikes and restrained coercive action against students paying fees as per approved structures.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant fee fixation unaided private schools prior approval Directorate of Education

Union of India v. Major Anish Muralidhar

24 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6053-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The High Court dismissed the Union of India's petition and upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of 50% disability pension for life to a retired officer suffering from metabolic syndrome, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising during service are attributable to military service absent contrary proof.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces Diabetes Mellitus Type-II Hypertension

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex JWO Ganpat Rai Saxena

24 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6061-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension to a serviceman with Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Artery Disease, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising during service are attributable to military service unless the employer proves otherwise.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces Diabetes Mellitus Type-II Coronary Artery Disease

Dharmendra Pal v. Union of India & Ors.

24 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6064-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the BSF to treat a writ petition challenging retirement on medical grounds as a representation and decide it within six weeks, staying the order's operation for one week thereafter.

administrative petition_allowed Border Security Force Rules, 1969 Rule 25 physical unfitness retirement representation

Major Anish Muralidhar v. Ex Sub Maj Atma Singh

24 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6054-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension to an ex-serviceman, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising during service are attributable to military service unless disproved by the employer.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces primary hypertension IVth ventricular epidermoid

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

24 Jul 2025 · Jyoti Singh · 2025:DHC:5985

The Delhi High Court held that unconditional bank guarantees issued by the Plaintiff bank remain enforceable despite unilateral changes in payment methodology without the bank's consent, dismissing the Plaintiff's claim for discharge under the Indian Contract Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Bank Guarantee Escrow Account Indian Contract Act 1872 Section 133

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Urmila and Ors.

24 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:6082

The Delhi High Court held that a review order resulting in a fresh award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a substantive order challengeable only by appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dismissing the petition filed under Article 227.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Review application

Harnam Singh v. Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni

24 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:6084

Revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against interlocutory orders such as dismissal of adjournment applications under Section 151 CPC that do not finally dispose of the suit.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 115 CPC Section 151 CPC Revision petition Interlocutory order

Narayan Sewa Samiti v. Millennium Education Management Pvt. Ltd.

24 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6085

The Delhi High Court held that an interim arbitral order merges with the final award, rendering petitions challenging the interim order infructuous once the final award is passed and appropriately challenged.

civil petition_dismissed Arbitral Tribunal interim order final award Section 16 Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Sangeeta v. Sunita Mittal & Anr.

24 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6086

The High Court recalled non-bailable warrants issued against the judgment debtor's wife and father on their undertaking to appear and disclose the whereabouts of the judgment debtor in execution proceedings.

civil petition_allowed execution proceedings non-bailable warrants obstruction of bailiff disclosure of whereabouts

Saurabh Behal v. Aarushi Sachdeva

24 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6087

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's order closing the petitioner's right to lead evidence for non-payment of costs and abuse of process in a divorce proceeding, while granting one final opportunity to present his defence.

family appeal_dismissed cost order recall of witnesses Section 311 Cr.P.C. divorce petition

Government of NCT of Delhi v. M/s Harbel Singh & Sons

23 Jul 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:6031-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Government's appeal challenging an arbitral award on contract payment disputes, holding that the Arbitrator's plausible contract interpretation and award did not suffer from patent illegality warranting interference.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Section 37 appeal Contract interpretation

The State v. Surender Singh @ Pappu

23 Jul 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6206

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused for robbery and dacoity charges due to doubts in prosecution evidence, while maintaining conviction for voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant robbery dacoity Section 394 IPC Section 397 IPC

M/S Siddhi Vinayak Importers v. Commissioner of Customs

23 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:6119-DB

The Delhi High Court condoned a 273-day delay in filing a Customs appeal due to sufficient cause and restored the appeal for hearing on merits, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach over technicalities.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 delay condonation sufficient cause appeal limitation