Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

Sgt Manish Kumar Singh and Sgt Mritunjay v. Sgt Vikash Kumar Retd

14 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5626-DB
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 sound health at entry and limiting writ interference to errors of law apparent on the record.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Primary Hypertension Armed Forces Tribunal certiorari jurisdiction

V Chandran v. Union of India & Ors.

14 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5624-DB

The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw a writ petition containing typographical errors with liberty to file a corrected petition, dismissing the original petition as withdrawn.

other petition_dismissed petition withdrawal typographical error liberty to refile procedural fairness

Pardeep Dangi v. The State of NCT of Delhi

14 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5590

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under the Arms Act and IPC based on a voluntary and amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the futility of continuing proceedings.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 506 IPC Arms Act offences

Mritunjay v. Ex Sgt Upendra Kumar Bharti

14 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5615-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for generalized seizures, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising post-entry are attributable to military service unless disproved by the employer.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces generalized seizures Release Medical Board

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Hindustan Power Projects Pvt. Ltd.

14 Jul 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:5559-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in the absence of exempt income, dismissing the Revenue's appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 14A exempt income disallowance Section 263

South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/s PKSS Infrastructure Private Limited

14 Jul 2025 · Vibhu Bahkru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:5520-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the arbitral award granting interest on security deposits contrary to an express contractual prohibition, while upholding costs and bank charges awarded to the contractor.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 interest on security deposit contract performance guarantee party autonomy

Shyam Babu @ Shyamu & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

14 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5567
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 323, 354, 509, and 34 IPC based on a genuine amicable settlement between the parties, applying the principle that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita compromise in criminal cases

Tungsten Automation England Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

14 Jul 2025 · Vibhu BakhrU; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:5529-DB

The Delhi High Court held that payments for electronic invoicing services do not constitute fees for technical services under the India-UK DTAA as they do not 'make available' technical knowledge, thereby exempting such receipts from Indian taxation.

tax appeal_allowed Significant fees for technical services make available India-UK DTAA Income Tax Act 1961

Manish Kumar Jain v. State

14 Jul 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:5592
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that non-compliance with summons under the Customs Act is punishable under the Act's penalty provisions and not under IPC Section 174, quashing the criminal complaint and NBWs as an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 108 Customs Act Section 117 Customs Act Section 174 IPC Non-Bailable Warrants

Vikas @ Vicky @ Ponga v. State (NCT of Delhi)

14 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:5580

The Delhi High Court allowed furlough to a convict despite past parole violation, emphasizing furlough’s rehabilitative purpose and the need for appropriate conditions.

criminal petition_allowed Significant furlough emergency parole NDPS Act prison conduct

Sachin Pal v. The State NCT of Delhi

14 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:5558

Interim bail was denied to the accused on the ground of non-serious illness of his father despite serious firearm-related charges against him.

criminal bail_denied interim bail serious charges firearm humanitarian grounds

Adesh Kumar & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

14 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:5582

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC on the ground of amicable compromise and full settlement between parties in a matrimonial dispute.

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

ECGC LTD v. M/S INVENTION INDIA (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD

14 Jul 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:5528-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an insurer is not liable under an export credit insurance policy once the insured settles all disputes with the buyer releasing them from liability, extinguishing insurer's indemnity obligation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant contract of indemnity insurance policy buyer exposure policy unresolved dispute

M/S R.K. GOEL ABHEY KUMAR JAIN v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

14 Jul 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:5527-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the limitation period for recovery of contract dues begins from the certification of the final bill, not from work completion, and allowed the appeal dismissing the limitation defense.

civil appeal_allowed Significant limitation period final bill certification cause of action contractual payment

Umesh Verma v. State

14 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:5548

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail to the accused in a multi-victim crypto currency fraud case, holding that bail courts are not forums for money recovery and emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences and flight risk.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail economic offences crypto currency mediation

Rajesh Singh Alias Raj v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

14 Jul 2025 · Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:7050

The Delhi High Court upheld the framing of charge under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner, ruling that a prima facie case of rape, including on false pretext of marriage, was made out despite the parties being maternal cousins and the prosecutrix's pending divorce.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant framing of charge Section 376 IPC rape on false pretext of marriage prima facie case

Dr. Vimla Menon & Anr. v. Sh. Gopinath Menon

14 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:6557
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's order rejecting the petitioners' application to dismiss a defamation suit, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by a pending partition suit under Section 10 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC Section 10 CPC cause of action defamation suit

Nirmal Kumar Jain v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd

14 Jul 2025 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2025:DHC:6116

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's rejection of a damages suit as time-barred, holding that disconnection of electricity was a completed wrongful act and not a continuing tort under the Limitation Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant limitation continuing tort Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC Article 72 Limitation Act

Namita Khare and Anr. v. University of Delhi and Ors.

11 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2417
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that long-term, continuous ad-hoc service in sanctioned posts entitles employees to equitable regularisation despite procedural irregularities and exclusion from revised screening criteria.

labor petition_allowed Significant regularisation ad-hoc appointment Assistant Professor screening guidelines

Rohtash Kumar Godara v. Union of India & Anr.

11 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5465-DB

Delhi High Court quashed conviction and sentence of BSF court for sexual assault and house trespass due to material contradictions in complainant’s testimony and procedural irregularities, ordering reinstatement of petitioner.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Security Force Court Article 226 Rule 93(2) BSF Rules Section 354 IPC