Delhi High Court

33,441 judgments

Year:

Suresh Kumari v. Registrar of Companies & Ors.

30 May 2025 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:4669
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition clarifying that the IRP report in corporate insolvency proceedings is not useless but its findings fall within the NCLT's jurisdiction for independent examination.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Review petition IRP report National Company Law Tribunal Corporate insolvency

Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India Through Principal Secretary & Ors.

30 May 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:4884

The Delhi High Court directed CARA to issue a No Objection Certificate for a valid HAMA adoption predating Adoption Regulations amendments, rejecting objections on jurisdiction and Power of Attorney validity.

family petition_allowed Significant Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 Central Adoption Resource Authority No Objection Certificate inter-country adoption

Zubeda v. Commissioner MCD

30 May 2025 · Anish Dayal

The Delhi High Court upheld that Basti Sevikas engaged on a voluntary honorarium basis under a World Bank project are not 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and their dispute is not industrial, affirming the Labour Court's dismissal of their claim under the Act.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Basti Sevika Industrial Disputes Act workman definition honorarium vs salary

Harish Chadha v. State

30 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:4893

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for wilful evasion of income tax under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, rejecting his defence of financial inability and disputed advances to third parties.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant wilful evasion Section 276C(2) Income Tax Act income tax default advance to third party

Himanshu Mehta & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

29 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:4633

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a genuine amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.

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

Minor S (Through Mother) v. State & Anr.

29 May 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:4803

Delhi High Court directs immediate medical termination of pregnancy for minor rape victim beyond 24 weeks, emphasizing procedural clarity and rejecting rigid identity proof requirements to prevent undue delay.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 minor rape victim gestational age identity proof

Mohd. Shahzad v. Commissioner of Customs

29 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4844-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that detention of used gold jewellery without issuance of Show Cause Notice within the prescribed period is unlawful and ordered its release as personal effects exempt under the Baggage Rules.

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

Shubham Mishra v. High Court of Delhi

29 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2997

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the correctness of an answer key in the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, reaffirming limited judicial interference in academic evaluation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Judicial Service Examination answer key challenge Section 221 Contract Act 1872 judicial interference

Sumer Singh v. Commissioner of Customs

29 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4836-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld Customs' order releasing a gold kada as personal effect but confiscating an undeclared iPhone with option for redemption on payment of duties and fines, dismissing the petition.

administrative petition_dismissed Customs Act, 1962 Baggage Rules personal effects free allowance

Richa Sureka v. Akhil Kumar Sureka

29 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4771

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 with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 115 CPC revision petition interlocutory order final disposal

M/S CHELSEA MILLS v. SHRI TARKESWAR SINGH AND ANR

29 May 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:4780

The Delhi High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award holding that unilateral transfer of workmen without consent and adequate compensation is an unfair labour practice warranting lump sum compensation.

labor petition_dismissed Significant unfair labour practice industrial dispute transfer of workmen compensation

Shellz India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Chawla Printers

29 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:4626-DB

The Delhi High Court held that objections to enforcement of an arbitral award under Section 47 CPC are independent of Section 34 challenges and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral Award Enforcement Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure

Sh. Pushpender v. Smt. Sonia Choudhary

29 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · MAT.APP.(F.C.) 212/2025

The Delhi High Court set aside a Family Court's interim custody order for a son, directing fresh consideration of the child's welfare and wishes before deciding custody.

family remanded Significant Family Courts Act, 1984 interim custody welfare of the child child's wishes

Digvijay Mishra v. Union of India & Anr.

29 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:4726-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an Original Application challenging suspension does not become infructuous due to subsequent compulsory retirement and restored the petition for adjudication.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compulsory retirement suspension Fundamental Rule 56(j) cause of action

Kamal Gupta & Anr. v. M/S Surge Industries Ltd. & Ors.

29 May 2025 · Jyoti Singh · 2025:DHC:4792

The Delhi High Court held that failure to furnish security within the stipulated time under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) CPC mandates immediate judgment for the plaintiff in a summary suit, with no discretion for extension.

civil appeal_allowed Significant summary suit Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) CPC conditional leave to defend security for leave to defend

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. DEEPTI AGGARWAL

29 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:4625-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing appointment of the respondent as TGT (Natural Science), holding that her educational qualifications met the original advertisement's criteria despite subsequent amendments to Recruitment Rules.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Recruitment Rules TGT Natural Science Educational Qualifications Retrospective Effect

Trilok Kumar Gambhir v. Preeti Gambhir

29 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4815

The Delhi High Court condoned delay in filing a petition challenging an interim order under Order VII Rule 11 and held that such interim findings shall not prejudice the parties at final trial.

civil petition_allowed condonation of delay Order VII Rule 11 interim order final adjudication

Aayasa v. The Commissioner of Customs

29 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4774-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 ordered release of detained gold bangles due to non-issuance of mandatory Show Cause Notice by Customs.

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

Mahesh Kumar Saini v. The Commissioner of Customs

29 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4776-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that detention of used gold jewellery without issuance of a Show Cause Notice under the Customs Act is unlawful and ordered its release as exempt personal effects under the Baggage Rules, 2016.

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

Mohd Abid v. Commissioner of Customs

29 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4772-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that confiscation and penalty orders under the Customs Act without issuance of show cause notice and personal hearing, relying on pre-printed waivers, violate natural justice and are unsustainable.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act 1962 Section 124 show cause notice personal hearing