Delhi High Court

32,373 judgments

Year:

Planet Advertising Private Limited v. MS Ambience Pvt Ltd & Ors

02 Jul 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathanshankar · 2025:DHC:5245-DB

The Delhi High Court held that only claims supported by TDS payments within limitation are recoverable, rejecting exclusion of time spent in winding up proceedings and starting limitation from denial of payment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Article 18 Limitation Act Section 14 Limitation Act Section 19 Limitation Act

National Project Constructions Corporation Ltd v. M/S S S Sharma and Company

02 Jul 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:5244-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a non-speaking order dismissing a Section 34 challenge to an arbitral award and remanded the matter for fresh reasoned consideration on merits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Reasoned order Non-speaking judgment

State v. Ramesh Chand & Ors.

02 Jul 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:5242-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal in a child kidnapping and murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence benefit of doubt disclosure statement Section 27 Indian Evidence Act

Santosh Dochnia @ Guddi v. Late Smt Gindo Devi & Ors.

02 Jul 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:5235

The Delhi High Court waived the costs imposed on the petitioner by the trial court on grounds of financial hardship without deciding the merits of the underlying application.

civil petition_allowed Section 115 CPC Order XII Rule 6 CPC costs waiver financial hardship

M/S. ACCUFIL AUTOMATION v. CHITKARA BEVERAGES & ORS.

02 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5231

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of a no cause of action application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that such issues require evidence and that supervisory interference under Article 227 is limited in commercial suits.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action rejection of plaint Article 227 Constitution of India

Vipin Wadhwa v. Prashant Enterprises & Ors.

02 Jul 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:5229

The Delhi High Court held that a suit challenging a consent decree on the basis of an unlawful compromise is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC even for strangers to the decree, and that a suit for specific performance filed beyond the three-year limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act is time-barred.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC consent decree specific performance limitation

Deepanshu & Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5191

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308/34 IPC based on a voluntary and amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS 2023 amicable settlement compromise agreement

Sulabh Arora v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

02 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5173

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 341, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties, holding that continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Sections 406, 341, 34 IPC

Manish Pandey & Ors. v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5177

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties, applying established Supreme Court principles.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Sections 498A IPC matrimonial dispute

Vinod Kumar @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi)

02 Jul 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:5131-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting his claim of sudden fight exception and affirming the sufficiency of consistent eyewitness, medical, and forensic evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC murder culpable homicide Exception 4 Section 300 IPC

Ajay Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5179

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406 and 498A IPC based on a bona fide amicable settlement between the married parties, promoting reconciliation and peace.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 528 BNSS

Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi II v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited

02 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5195-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act as not maintainable, holding that appeals involving taxability issues lie exclusively before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 35G Central Excise Act Section 35L Central Excise Act Appellate jurisdiction Taxability

Narender Gulia & Ors. v. The State N.C.T of Delhi & Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5188

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC following a voluntary and amicable mediation settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC

M/S SHREEHARI ANANTA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD PATPARGANJ

02 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5194-DB

The Delhi High Court moderated onerous security conditions imposed by Customs for provisional release of imported roasted areca nuts, directing reasonable bond and bank guarantee amounts consistent with the goods' value and use restrictions.

administrative petition_allowed Significant provisional release customs duty advance ruling bond

Aditya Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:5193-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the government to ensure information under the RTI Act is provided in electronic modes like email and pen drives, subject to safeguards, by framing appropriate rules or issuing directions.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 electronic mode public information officer information dissemination

Neelam Ranolia v. State NCT of Delhi

02 Jul 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:5190-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted bail to appellants accused of disrupting Parliament with smoke canisters, holding their acts did not prima facie constitute terrorist acts under UAPA.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant UAPA bail terrorist act prima facie

PACE DIGITEK PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ORS.

02 Jul 2025 · HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. · 2025:DHC:5142-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging BSNL's rejection of the petitioners' techno-commercial bid for non-compliance and non-genuine documents, holding that BSNL acted within its rights and tender conditions.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Tender evaluation Techno-commercial bid Work Experience Certificate BSNL

Mahesh Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:5160

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under IPC and POCSO where the victim, a major, had settled with the accused and the complainant withdrew prosecution, holding that continuing trial was not in the interest of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR POCSO Act victim majority age settlement between parties

Shiv Murat Dwivedi v. Directorate of Enforcement

02 Jul 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:5186-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the attachment of properties under PMLA as proceeds of crime, holding that money laundering is a continuing offence covering properties acquired before registration of predicate offences if linked to ongoing criminal activity.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 proceeds of crime continuing offence attachment of property

Gulshan Babbar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

02 Jul 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:5184

The Delhi High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions seeking court-monitored investigation into alleged financial fraud by IREO group, holding the petitioner lacked locus standi and the petitions were an abuse of process amid ongoing lawful investigations.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant locus standi court-monitored investigation public interest litigation Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002