Delhi High Court

31,999 judgments

Year:

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. M/S Central Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

07 Jul 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:5405-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the Assessee satisfactorily explained share capital receipts under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and that such receipts were not taxable income when received through banking channels from genuine investors.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 68 Income Tax Act share capital unexplained cash credit banking channels

Union of India & Ors. v. Sumit Mudgal

07 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5390-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's order directing re-examination of a candidate declared medically unfit, emphasizing that medical boards must provide reasons when disregarding specialist opinions.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant medical fitness Assistant Loco Pilot specialist medical opinion Central Administrative Tribunal

Narubiona Pranathi v. Union of India

07 Jul 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:5404

The Delhi High Court held that a candidate cannot be allowed to change her NEET (UG) category to PwD after the application and correction deadlines and after appearing in the exam under the non-PwD category.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant NEET (UG) 2025 Persons with Disability (PwD) category disability certificate application deadline

Bhupender Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.

07 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5406-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging penalties for fraudulent ITC under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, holding that such penalties are valid if contemplated in the show cause notice and that writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for complex factual disputes in GST fraud cases.

tax petition_dismissed Significant CGST Act 2017 Section 122(1A) Input Tax Credit fraudulent ITC

Manju v. Union of India & Anr.

07 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5350-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of a writ petition acknowledging concurrent proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal and disposed of the petition accordingly.

administrative other writ petition withdrawal Central Administrative Tribunal judicial restraint

Randhir Jaiswal v. Union of India & Ors.

07 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5349-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's application under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 within four weeks, emphasizing timely administrative action and procedural fairness.

administrative petition_allowed writ petition Rule 29 CRPF Rules 1955 timely decision administrative delay

MS Fiberfill Engineers & Anr. v. MS Rampur Engineering Company Limited & Anr.

07 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:5389

The Delhi High Court held that civil revision petitions and Article 227 petitions against interlocutory orders of Commercial Courts are barred by Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and such jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly to uphold legislative intent.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 8 Commercial Courts Act Section 115 CPC Article 227 Constitution of India

M/S TULIKA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. v. M/S ALLIED TUBES PVT. LTD.

07 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5388

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's discretion to allow additional documents in a commercial suit before framing of issues, dismissing the petition under Article 227 for lack of any gross illegality.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC Article 227 Constitution of India discretionary power commercial suit

SURAJ KAPUR v. SUBODH GUPTA

07 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5385

The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s valuation of a suit for injunction reliefs and dismissed the petition challenging it, holding that valuation by the plaintiff must be accepted unless shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

civil petition_dismissed Significant suit valuation injunction court fees Order VII Rule 10 CPC

UDAANSURE PRIVATE LIMITED v. MS SAPNA GOYAL

07 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5383

The High Court allowed the petitioner’s belated written statement to be taken on record with costs, emphasizing discretion to condone delay caused by unavoidable circumstances while ensuring expeditious trial.

civil appeal_allowed written statement delay in filing condonation of delay costs

Goodrich Maritime Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Rashvinz Exports

07 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5382

The High Court allowed the petitioner to examine an additional witness despite the witness not being listed, emphasizing fairness and the absence of objection from the respondent.

civil appeal_allowed Significant examination of witness witness list review of order no objection

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. Punjab National Bank

07 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5381

The Delhi High Court granted limited interim protection restraining the bank from proceeding under the SARFAESI Act to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal once it became functional.

civil petition_allowed Article 227 Constitution of India Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal interim protection SARFAESI Act 2002

Rajesh Sharma v. Akhil Sharma & Ors.

07 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5380

The Delhi High Court directed the Trial Court to prioritize and expeditiously dispose of the petitioner’s pending application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC to protect his rights to perform religious duties.

civil other Procedural Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC Section 151 CPC injunction religious rights

Malik Traders v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

07 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5437-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to denial of proper notice and hearing, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of extension notifications to the Supreme Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Goods and Services Tax Section 168A show cause notice natural justice

Hari Singh v. State NCT of Delhi

07 Jul 2025 · Sanjeev Narula · 2025:DHC:5533
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the Sentence Review Board’s rejection of premature release for a life convict, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions considering reformative potential beyond the gravity of the offence.

criminal other Significant premature release Sentence Review Board Anti-Hijacking Act life imprisonment

R Archith Sai v. Union of India and Ors

05 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5185-DB

The Delhi High Court directed a Review Medical Board to reassess the petitioner’s fitness for Navy Flying Branch appointment post-hernia surgery, with the decision to be binding on both parties.

administrative other medical fitness inguinal hernia Review Medical Board Navy Flying Branch

Dilawar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

04 Jul 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5026

The Delhi High Court allowed an application to correct its earlier order by recording the appearance of the respondents' Counsel, issuing a corrigendum to maintain accurate court records.

procedural other appearance of counsel corrigendum court order correction procedural accuracy

MR AJAY & ORS. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

04 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5254

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 377, 406, and 34 IPC on the basis of a mutual settlement and divorce by consent, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

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

Sh Giri Nish Kumar alias Girnesh alias Bobby and Ors v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

04 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5243

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual divorce, holding that continuing criminal proceedings would be unfair and an abuse of process.

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

Rakesh Kumar v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

04 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5241

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on an amicable settlement between the parties, reaffirming the principle that criminal cases can be ended in the interest of justice when disputes are resolved voluntarily.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 BNS abuse of process