Delhi High Court

32,492 judgments

Year:

Vimlesh Andhiwal and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5170

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings under sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 IPC based on a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties in a property dispute.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 BNSS property dispute

Mohan Lal & Ors. v. State of Not Delhi & Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5169

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on a genuine, voluntary settlement and mutual divorce, emphasizing prevention of abuse of process.

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

Sh. Nitin & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5164

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, 354, and 34 IPC based on a genuine and voluntary settlement between matrimonial parties, emphasizing the court's power to prevent abuse of process of law.

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

Navneet Singh and Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5165

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita following an amicable settlement between the parties, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC Section 528 BNSS amicable settlement

Zaid v. The State and Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5167

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 316(4) BNS following an amicable settlement between the parties, affirming the court's power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR amicable settlement abuse of process

Soni and Ors. v. State and Anr.

02 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:5166

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 115(2)/333/3(5) BNS and related IPC provisions following an amicable settlement between the parties, relying on its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement abuse of process

Ms. Naina Harpalani v. Ravi Kumar

02 Jul 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:5180

The Delhi High Court set aside a summary suit decree based on stale cheques not presented for encashment, holding that valid service of summons was effected by oral acceptance and directing the suit to be tried as an ordinary suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant summary suit Order XXXVII CPC service of summons leave to defend

Neeraj Kumar Jolly v. Raghu Nathrakheja

02 Jul 2025 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2025:DHC:5121

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on bona-fide requirement grounds, affirming the landlord's discretion to choose tenancy termination and limiting revisional interference with Rent Controller's factual findings.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bona-fide requirement eviction petition landlord-tenant dispute

Madhurbhashani & Ors. v. Ranjit Singh

02 Jul 2025 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8846

The Delhi High Court allowed eviction petitions by NRIs under the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that bona fide requirement is a genuine need judged by the landlord and not negated by NRI status or premises size.

property appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bona fide requirement eviction petition landlord-tenant relationship

Raheja Developers Limited v. Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd

01 Jul 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:5133
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed amendment of a timely Section 34 petition to include a jurisdictional ground that the arbitral award was passed beyond the statutory period without court-approved extension, holding such legal grounds are not barred by limitation.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 petition Section 29A extension functus officio

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Mr Siddhartha Mukherjee

01 Jul 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:5101

The Delhi High Court set aside CIC's show cause notices under Section 20 of the RTI Act, holding that CIC exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating policy matters and penalizing PIOs for not furnishing information not maintained by the public authority.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Right to Information Act, 2005 Central Information Commission Section 20 penalty Public Information Officer

Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.

01 Jul 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:5134

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s bid in a defence tender, ruling that use of compatible ammunition by other bidders was permissible and judicial interference in the tender process was unwarranted.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant public tender technical evaluation sniper rifle procurement ammunition compatibility

Himanshu Verma v. Chandni Verma

01 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5068-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance to a non-earning wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing that capability to earn does not preclude maintenance entitlement.

family appeal_dismissed Significant interim maintenance Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 24 HMA capability to earn

Avient Switzerland GmbH v. Treadfast Ventures & Anr.

01 Jul 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:5104

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the trademark opposition for fresh adjudication, holding that the opponent must prove prior use by evidence and mere registration or pleadings are insufficient to refuse registration.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 opposition proceedings burden of proof prior use

Major League Baseball Properties Inc v. Manish Vijay & Ors.

01 Jul 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:5103

The Delhi High Court held that the respondent’s trademark 'BLUE-JAY' was adopted in bad faith and ordered its cancellation, affirming the petitioner’s superior prior user rights in the 'BLUE JAYS' mark.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant prior user rights bad faith trademark cancellation Trade Marks Act 1999

Anita Sharma v. Naresh Kumar Sharma

01 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5066-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a Family Court decree dissolving marriage on grounds of cruelty, emphasizing that defamatory complaints to a spouse's employer constitute mental cruelty justifying divorce.

family appeal_dismissed Significant cruelty divorce Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 mental cruelty

Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v. LMW LIMITED

01 Jul 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:5122

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s interim injunction application as the patent IN759 had expired, holding that no protection or injunction can be granted post-patent expiry under Section 53 of the Patents Act.

intellectual_property petition_dismissed Significant Patent expiry Interim injunction Patent infringement Patent validity

Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors.

01 Jul 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:5053-DB

The Delhi High Court directed defendants to deposit 25% of claimed patent infringement damages as bank guarantee under its inherent powers to secure plaintiff’s claim amid limited Indian assets and lack of reciprocal enforcement abroad.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 151 CPC Bank Guarantee Patent Infringement Interim Relief

Sawhney Rubber Industries v. Workmen

01 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5065-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming that a collective industrial dispute raised by a substantial group of workmen was validly espoused and that representative evidence sufficed to grant them claimed designations.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant industrial dispute designation valid espousal representative evidence

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Udai Singh

01 Jul 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:5064-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a police constable for prolonged unauthorized absence without prior leave sanction, emphasizing strict discipline in police service and rejecting the Tribunal's order of reinstatement.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant unauthorized absence disciplinary enquiry dismissal from service CCS Leave Rules 1972