Delhi High Court

31,373 judgments

Year:

Davinder Singh v. Delhi Cantonment Board

11 Jul 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:5545

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of eviction notice upon expiry of a thirty-year lease, directing due process for eviction and mandating consideration of petitioner's representation for fresh lease independently of eviction proceedings.

property petition_dismissed Significant lease agreement lease expiry eviction notice Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971

Brij Bhushan Airy v. Delhi Cantonment Board

11 Jul 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:5544

The Delhi High Court held that a lease limited to thirty years cannot be extended unilaterally beyond its term, but directed the lessor to consider the lessee’s renewal representation before eviction following due legal process.

property petition_dismissed Significant lease agreement lease renewal expiry of lease eviction

Rahul Verma v. Delhi Cantonment Board

11 Jul 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:5543

The Delhi High Court held that a lease limited to thirty years cannot be extended without mutual consent, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s renewal request, and mandated eviction only after due legal process post lease expiry.

property petition_dismissed Significant lease agreement lease renewal lease expiry transfer of leasehold rights

Shagufta Feroz and Anr v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

11 Jul 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:5542

The Delhi High Court directed de-sealing of petitioners' property upon their undertaking to use it lawfully and compliance with procedural requirements, affirming the necessity of Show Cause Notices before sealing.

administrative appeal_allowed Sealing Order Show Cause Notice Municipal Corporation of Delhi Master Plan for Delhi 2021

Anand Yadav & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

11 Jul 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:5541

The Delhi High Court directed the MCD to consider the petitioners' application for de-sealing their shop used for permissible activities, subject to undertaking and assessment of misuse charges.

administrative petition_allowed sealing de-sealing National Green Tribunal pollution control

Suniti Madan v. New Delhi Municipal Council

11 Jul 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:5540

The Delhi High Court remanded the NDMC demand for outstanding dues for reconciliation and directed clear communication and hearing before finalizing charges for condonable breaches in a leased commercial property.

property other Significant condonation of breaches misuse charges demand letter lease deed

Manju Devi v. M/S Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd.

11 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:3702

The Delhi High Court held that family pension and similar benefits cannot be deducted from statutory compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, allowing the appellant's challenge to such deduction in a motor accident claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation family pension deduction

Prakash Chand v. Bahadur Singh

11 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:5536

The High Court dismissed the petition for default and nonprosecution due to the petitioner's repeated nonappearance and failure to comply with court orders including payment of costs.

civil appeal_dismissed dismissal for default nonprosecution adjournments costs

Akhil Kumar Alias Dev and Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr

11 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5519

The Delhi High Court quashed an 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.

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

Sachin Rajput v. State and Anr.

11 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5513

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings against the petitioner following a voluntary and amicable settlement between the parties under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

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

Amit Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

11 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5510

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 341, 506, and 34 IPC based on a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the court's power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

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

Daman Preet Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

11 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5504

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR under Sections 279 and 337 IPC based on a voluntary settlement between the parties, emphasizing the promotion of peace and avoidance of futile litigation.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR motor vehicle accident Section 279 IPC Section 337 IPC

Manjeet Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

11 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5509

The Delhi High Court quashed a motor accident FIR under Sections 279 and 337 IPC following an amicable settlement and compensation paid to the victims, relying on its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Sections 279 and 337 IPC amicable settlement

Neera Misra v. Rakesh Chandra Misra

11 Jul 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:5480

The Delhi High Court allowed amendment of the plaint to include the Trust as plaintiff and a declaratory relief of ownership, dismissed the defendant's rejection application, and held the suit maintainable on the basis of possession and pleadings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VI Rule 17 CPC Order VII Rule 11 CPC amendment of plaint declaration of ownership

Vidya Rai v. National Testing Agency & Anr.

11 Jul 2025 · Vikas Mahajan, J · 2025:DHC:5479

The Delhi High Court held that challenges to examination answer keys must be made within the prescribed window and refused to entertain belated objections raised for the first time in a writ petition, dismissing the petition.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant provisional answer key challenge window examination authority finality of examination results

Vinod Rai @ Bhullan v. State (NCT of Delhi)

11 Jul 2025 · Amit Sharma · 2025:DHC:5481
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the appeal by acquitting the appellant of certain offences but upheld his conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, reducing his sentence to 20 years rigorous imprisonment.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant POCSO Act aggravated penetrative sexual assault child victim age proof DNA evidence

Agya Singh v. Commissioner of Customs

10 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5609-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that used gold jewellery worn by a passenger is exempt as personal effects under the Baggage Rules and set aside unlawful detention by Customs for failure to issue Show Cause Notice within the statutory period.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Show Cause Notice personal effects Baggage Rules, 2016

CDR Yogesh Mahla v. Union of India & Ors.

10 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5583-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's challenge to a show cause notice issued for sexual harassment, holding that no appeal lies to the Armed Forces Tribunal against ICC recommendations absent service rules, and that premature judicial interference at the show cause notice stage is unwarranted.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Sexual Harassment POSH Act Internal Complaints Committee Show Cause Notice

Anish Muralidhar v. Susanta Kar

10 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5500-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 the employer's burden to disprove service connection under the Military Pension Rules.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Primary Hypertension Armed Forces Tribunal Government of India (Military Pension) Rules 2008

Mrityunjay v. Rajesh Kumar

10 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5499-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Diabetes Mellitus Type-II, holding that the employer must prove non-attribution to service and that the court's certiorari jurisdiction is limited.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Diabetes Mellitus Type-II Armed Forces Tribunal certiorari jurisdiction