Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Nitesh Kumar Singh; Aliza Alam; Mohnish Sehrawat v. K. U. Siddique

22 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5870-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order setting aside denial of promotion due to non-disclosure of adverse material and lack of departmental enquiry, reinforcing natural justice in administrative promotions.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant promotion Merit Promotion Scheme natural justice departmental enquiry

Union of India and Ors. v. Rashmi Sinha

22 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5882-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that compassionate allowance is a discretionary benefit not contingent on minimum qualifying service and directed reconsideration of the respondent’s claim without insisting on service length.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compassionate allowance minimum qualifying service discretionary relief CCS Pension Rules 1972

SI Himanshu v. Mahender Singh

22 Jul 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:6277

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a forgery and cheating case, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence and the prosecution's failure to prove key facts beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant double presumption of innocence appeal against acquittal Section 378 CrPC forgery

Kalu Ram Dhingra v. Shree Jee Financial Consultant LLP

22 Jul 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:6238-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the refusal to recall an ex parte decree, holding that mere negligence of counsel without sufficient cause or corroboration does not justify setting aside the judgment under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order IX Rule 13 CPC sufficient cause ex parte decree negligence of counsel

Pooja Finlease Ltd. v. Ajay Sharma

22 Jul 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6433

The Delhi High Court held that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a victim entitled to file an appeal as a matter of right under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. against acquittal, without seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act victim definition CrPC Section 372 CrPC proviso Section 378(4) CrPC leave to appeal

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India

22 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:5949-DB

The Delhi High Court granted leave to withdraw an infructuous writ petition and dismissed it as withdrawn.

constitutional petition_dismissed Procedural writ petition withdrawal infructuous petition leave to withdraw

M/S Fregnence Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. v. Nazar Mohammad

22 Jul 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6486

The High Court held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is a victim entitled to appeal acquittal orders as a matter of right under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 372 CrPC proviso Section 378(4) CrPC victim definition CrPC

Laxmi Sanitary Store v. Shyam Sunder Singh

22 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:6534
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside a wage claim award under the DSE Act, holding the claim barred by limitation and precluded by a signed full and final settlement.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 Section 21 limitation wage claim full and final settlement

Amit Amarchand Narang and Anr. v. Narendra Kanjani & Ors.

22 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6014

The Delhi High Court held that costs imposed on suspended directors for non-personal appearance despite counsel representation were unjustified without specific direction and allowed them to seek waiver before the NCDRC.

civil other National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cost imposition personal appearance representation by counsel

Major Anish Muralidhar v. Mukesh Kumar Balodhi

22 Jul 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 writ interference to errors of law.

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

Chaman Lal v. Union of India

22 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6068-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the transfer of an SSB employee to Guwahati after the respondents passed a reasoned order allowing retention of Delhi accommodation to mitigate medical and familial hardships.

administrative petition_dismissed transfer service law judicial review medical hardship

Pawan Kumr Jain v. Mamta Bansal

22 Jul 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6478

The Delhi High Court held that a complainant who is a victim under Section 138 N.I. Act has a substantive right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 372 Cr.P.C. Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. victim's right to appeal Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act

Tushar Gupta v. Krishan Rai & Ors.

22 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844

The Delhi High Court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the trial court's order, holding that the suit for malicious prosecution and damages was barred by limitation and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC Limitation Act 1963 Article 74 Limitation Act Article 113 Limitation Act

Ashu Mahendru v. Nitasha Arora

22 Jul 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6477

The Delhi High Court held that a complainant who is a victim under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. has a substantive right to appeal acquittals under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 372 Cr.P.C. Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. victim's right to appeal Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act

Anoop Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

22 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:5945-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw a writ petition challenging a memorandum of understanding, holding that certain reliefs sought were not maintainable under Article 226 and granted liberty to file a proper petition.

constitutional petition_dismissed Article 226 writ petition memorandum of understanding Golden Jubilee Seema Prahari Kalyan Kavach

Ajay Kumar v. Lokesh Kumar @ Lokesh & Anr.

22 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6005

The High Court dismissed the petition seeking restoration of struck-off defence in a partition suit due to the petitioner's failure to justify delay and timely challenge the order.

civil petition_dismissed written statement striking off defence Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC Section 151 CPC

Jagdish Lal Sachdeva v. Dharam Singh & Ors.

22 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6001

The High Court allowed the petitioner to lead evidence afresh after the Trial Court prematurely closed his evidence due to the absence of his counsel.

civil appeal_allowed closure of evidence presence of counsel leading evidence cross-examination

Mohd. Samar v. Waseem Ahmed & Anr

22 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6004

The Delhi High Court held that in execution objections, the issue must focus on whether the objector is bound by the decree and has independent possession rights, directing re-casting of issues and dismissal of the supervisory petition.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant execution proceedings objection petition decree binding independent right of possession

Usha Shriram Enterprise Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Ajeet Singh

22 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6007

The Delhi High Court allowed belated filing of the written statement with costs, directing the trial court to proceed, emphasizing procedural discipline balanced with substantive justice.

civil appeal_allowed written statement time limit closure of right belated filing

Shri Brij Behari Sharan v. Sanjay Malhotra

22 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:6003

The Delhi High Court held that eviction petitions for slum-notified premises require prior permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act and that eviction applications against successors must be filed before the Trial Court, granting liberty to landlords to move fresh applications if pending appeals succeed.

property petition_dismissed eviction slum-notified area Section 19 Slum Areas Act Delhi Rent Control Act