Delhi High Court

31,373 judgments

Year:

Utkarsh Arora v. Additional Commissioner CGST, Delhi North Ward

10 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5599-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a GST demand order for fraudulent ITC, holding that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily available in such cases and permitting the petitioner to file a belated appeal.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Input Tax Credit GST fraudulent ITC writ jurisdiction

Paul Onyeji Atuh v. The State NCT of Delhi

10 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5526

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a large-scale organized cyber fraud case, holding that the gravity of offences and risk of absconding preclude bail.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant regular bail cyber fraud fake matrimonial profiles impersonation

Deepak Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

10 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5554-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s transfer order by treating the writ petition as a representation and passing a reasoned order, staying the transfer’s implementation pending decision.

administrative petition_allowed Significant transfer order writ petition representation reasoned order

Naresh Kumar v. Om Prakash & Ors.

10 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:5581

The Delhi High Court held that revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against interlocutory orders that do not finally dispose of the suit, dismissing the petition challenging the dismissal of an interim application.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 115 CPC Revision jurisdiction Interim order Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC

Sanjay Bansal v. Income Tax Officer

10 Jul 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:5450-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued beyond the prescribed limitation period is invalid, and time spent in challenging earlier notices cannot extend the limitation period.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act Section 149 limitation time-barred notice reassessment proceedings

Babita Kumari v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

10 Jul 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:5566
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

Bail was denied to the accused in a serious sexual assault case under IPC and POCSO Act due to gravity of offences and risk of tampering with evidence despite her claims of innocence and cooperation.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail abetment POCSO Act sexual assault

Rohit Chaturvedi v. Rachna Chaturvedi & Ors.

10 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5557

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking to set aside an ex parte decree, holding that unsubstantiated claims of non-service and unauthorized representation do not justify setting aside the decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed ex parte decree Order IX Rule 13 CPC setting aside decree service of summons

Abhishek and Anr. v. Union of India and Others

10 Jul 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:5524
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment, holding that in absence of a general policy and with a valid classification limited to Covid-19 deaths, no entitlement arises under Article 14.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant compassionate appointment Article 14 classification public employment

PFIZER LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, DELHI & ORS

10 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:5546
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The High Court held that the Referral Authority must apply its mind and frame terms of reference reflecting the real dispute before referring to the Labour Court, setting aside a mechanically issued referral order.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Referral Authority Labour Court Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 terms of reference

Divay Bhasin v. Sharad Kumar Sachan

10 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:5538

The High Court set aside the dismissal of a civil suit for non-appearance due to international travel, granting a final opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence subject to payment of costs.

civil appeal_allowed Section 115 CPC dismissal for non-appearance adjournment non-prosecution

M/S TRIGO IMAGEMENT SLOVAKIA v. MADHUSUDAN AUTO LIMITED

10 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:5537

The Delhi High Court transferred a preliminary-stage winding up petition to the National Company Law Tribunal in line with the Supreme Court's directive and statutory provisions governing corporate insolvency proceedings.

corporate other Significant winding up petition Companies Act, 1956 Companies Act, 2013 National Company Law Tribunal

Dolby International AB & Anr. v. Lava International Limited

10 Jul 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:5426
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that an implementer who delays FRAND negotiations and acts as an unwilling licensee must make pro tem security deposits for use of Standard Essential Patents, balancing equities without detailed merits examination.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Standard Essential Patents FRAND protocol pro tem security deposit patent infringement

Rajmeet Singh LR v. Harleen Kaur & Anr.

10 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5517

The court allowed the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff to summon three official witnesses after closure of evidence, granting one final opportunity to substantiate the suit for cancellation of sale deed.

civil appeal_allowed legal representative deceased plaintiff summoning witnesses closure of evidence

Sunil@Maya v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

10 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5502

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of murder and attempt to murder after prolonged pre-trial detention exceeding ten years, considering his limited role and trial delays.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant regular bail prolonged incarceration serious offences role of accused

Sanjeev Chanana v. J. S. Vohra

10 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5515

The Delhi High Court recalled non-bailable warrants against a company director in execution proceedings on condition of his compliance with court directions.

civil petition_allowed execution petition non-bailable warrants director of judgment debtor company asset ascertainment

DELHI KANNADA EDUCATION SOCIETY v. SHISHUPAL

10 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5514

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's order striking off the defendant Society's defense for failure to comply with a mediation settlement and non-filing of the written statement despite repeated opportunities.

civil petition_dismissed mediation settlement written statement Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Section 5 Limitation Act

Mr. Rahul Kumar; Ms. Nimisha Gupta; Ms. Indira Murthy; Mr. Pranshu Prakash v. Saurabh Goel

10 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5512

The High Court held that attachment warrants cannot be issued without first deciding an objection petition filed under Order XLVII CPC in execution proceedings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant execution petition objection petition Order XLVII CPC attachment warrants

Jitender Singh Alias Babbu and Ors. v. The State (NCT) of Delhi and Anr.

10 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5439

The Delhi High Court quashed a cheating FIR and all proceedings against accused based on an amicable settlement under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, following Supreme Court precedent.

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

Divanshu Sharma v. The State NCT of Delhi

10 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5438

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement between the parties, reaffirming the court's power to end criminal proceedings on compromise under Section 528 BNSS 2023.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS 2023 settlement in criminal case Section 498A IPC

Prakash Chand & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

10 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5452

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent of the parties in a matrimonial dispute.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita matrimonial dispute settlement deed