Delhi High Court
31,373 judgments
Rakesh Bhatara v. Sakshi Bhatara
The Delhi High Court upheld an order enhancing maintenance to Rs. 1,00,000 per month under the Domestic Violence Act, rejecting the husband's claims of medical expenses and financial incapacity due to lack of evidence.
Mahesh Kumar v. State of NCT Delhi and Ors.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging refusal to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC in a land possession dispute, affirming that such disputes are primarily civil and police intervention is discretionary.
Ashok Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi
Anticipatory bail granted in a forgery and property dispute case due to long delay in FIR, settled possession, and cooperation with investigation, with authenticity of documents left for trial.
Moti @ Mohit v. State, NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that pendency of a writ petition challenging premature release does not entitle a convict to extension of furlough or parole, dismissing the petition seeking such extension.
Anwar Khan @ Chacha & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that re-arrest after an initial arrest declared illegal on procedural grounds is permissible if procedural safeguards are complied with and sufficient material exists, upholding the petitioners' re-arrest and judicial custody.
Manish Handa v. Neha Handa & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's order directing interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month plus school fees, affirming the prima facie income assessment and rejecting the husband's challenge.
Subendu v. State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a sexual offence case under POCSO and IPC, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and lack of corroborative evidence at the bail stage.
Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The Delhi High Court held that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not authorize directing a person to produce a demand draft and set aside the CBI's order seeking recovery of Rs. 50 lakhs as proceeds of crime under this provision.
Anirudh Dawar & Ors. v. State & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 323, 341, 506, 509, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.
M/S Mandhar Marketing A Partnership Firm & Ors. v. Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that revision petitions under Section 115 CPC are barred against interlocutory orders of Commercial Courts by Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, and constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly, restoring and then dismissing the petition on withdrawal.
SH Vinay Mishra & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
Rishab Arora & Ors. v. The State Govt. NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, emphasizing the Court's power under Section 528 BNSS 2023 to prevent unnecessary criminal proceedings.
Chirag Adlakha and Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute-related FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
Raj Saha @ Tarzen v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a murder case, holding that the serious nature of the offence, advanced trial stage, and prior conviction preclude bail despite prolonged incarceration.
Ex Hav (GD) Jag Mohan v. Union of India
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Suresh Chand & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and pass a reasoned order within four weeks, disposing of the petition accordingly.
GEM SALES CORPORATION v. SHIVAM CORPORATION INDIA
The Delhi High Court dismissed the commercial appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings due to non-maintainability under Section 13A of the Commercial Courts Act and Order XLIII CPC.
Rajmani v. Union of India & Anr.
The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to reconsider the petitioner's representation on posting with reasons for any rejection, while requiring the petitioner to report to the posting immediately.
Tridib Mondal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that street vendors with valid Certificates of Vending must comply with conditions including non-encroachment of public spaces and may not be disturbed if compliant, dismissing the petition challenging removal and confiscation by MCD.
M/S GS Marbles v. M/S Shree Granites
The Delhi High Court upheld a decree for recovery against a defendant who failed to file a Written Statement within the statutory 120-day period, affirming the mandatory nature of procedural timelines under Order VIII CPC.