Delhi High Court

33,441 judgments

Year:

Baljeet Singh & Anr v. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited

27 May 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:4889

The Delhi High Court held that Lok Adalat awards pursuant to valid settlements are final and binding, and refused to modify the mode of compensation disbursement absent exceptional grounds.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Lok Adalat award finality of settlement Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 Section 21(1)

Morni Merchants Ltd. & Ors. v. White House Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

27 May 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:4484

The Delhi High Court upheld the Plaintiffs' lawful possession and title over the suit property, dismissed the Defendant's application to reject the plaint, and granted mandatory injunctions protecting Plaintiffs' possession pending final adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC mandatory injunction Section 53-A Transfer of Property Act lawful possession

Payal Kapoor & Anr v. Pankaj Jain & Ors.

27 May 2025 · Navin Chawla · 2025:DHC:4418

The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit for partition and intestacy claims after granting probate of a valid Will, rendering the suit infructuous.

civil appeal_dismissed probate Will intestate partition

Meenu Thukral; Rajiv Gupta; Gagan Marwah v. State; Sanjay Chiripal

27 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:4486

Delhi High Court quashed charges against cooperative society office bearers for forgery and cheating due to lack of specific evidence and upheld that mere suspicion is insufficient for criminal prosecution.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant charge framing forgery cheating office bearers liability

Raman Kumar Jha v. State of NCT of Delhi & Mohd. Ishaq Ansari

27 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:4487

The Delhi High Court set aside the order directing FIR registration against police officials without prior sanction, allowing the complainant to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 197 Cr.P.C. Section 140 Delhi Police Act FIR registration Police misconduct

Rakesh Kumar Mittal v. The Registrar of Trade Marks

27 May 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:4432

The Delhi High Court held that removal of a trademark without sending the mandatory renewal notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act is illegal and ordered restoration and renewal of the petitioner's trademark.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 25(3) Form O-3 Notice Trademark renewal

Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. The Controller of Patents

27 May 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2022 SCC OnLine Del 940

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of a patent application for a chemical intermediate compound, holding it obvious and lacking enhanced efficacy under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant inventive step Section 2(1)(ja) Section 3(d) patentability

Sanjay Kalra v. State

27 May 2025 · Navin Chawla · 2025:DHC:4419

The Delhi High Court granted probate of a 2004 Will, holding it genuine and valid despite objections alleging forgery and undue influence, emphasizing the burden on the propounder to prove due execution under the Indian Succession Act.

civil petition_allowed Significant Indian Succession Act, 1925 Probate of Will Section 63 ISA Section 68 Evidence Act

Simran & Ors. v. Prabhjot Singh

27 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4522

Revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against interlocutory orders that do not finally dispose of the suit or proceeding.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 115 CPC revision petition interlocutory order final order

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex Sgt Vijay Kumar

27 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:4575-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s grant of disability pension for Diabetes Mellitus Type-II, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising during service are attributable to military service unless rebutted by the employer.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Diabetes Mellitus Type-II Armed Forces Tribunal Release Medical Board

Brij Mohan Gupta v. Union of India

26 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:1190

The Delhi High Court directed the RBI Ombudsman to dispose of the petitioner's complaint within six weeks, modifying its earlier order to ensure timely adjudication.

administrative other RBI Ombudsman time-bound direction writ petition modification of order

Atul Greentech Private Ltd & Anr. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation & Anr.

26 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:3831-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal with procedural directions for filing replies and hearing an interim injunction application, without expressing any opinion on merits.

civil appeal_dismissed Procedural Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC interim injunction procedural directions reply and rejoinder

Effects Management Services Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 61 & Ors.

26 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4617-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a non-speaking GST adjudication order passed without proper notice and hearing, remanding the matter for fresh consideration while leaving the validity of extension notifications to the Supreme Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice Non-speaking order Natural justice Section 168A GST Act

Rashi Thakur v. Poonam & Ors.

26 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4817

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging dismissal of a suit for non-prosecution due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with repeated directions for service of summons.

civil petition_dismissed non-prosecution dismissal of suit service of summons Section 115 CPC

M/S BORA EXIM PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

26 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4673-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

Delhi High Court held that unlocking mobile phones before export is mere configuration and does not amount to 'taking into use,' allowing exporters to claim duty drawback benefits and quashing CBIC clarifications and Show Cause Notices denying such benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant duty drawback unlocking mobile phones taking into use Customs Act, 1962

R. C. Garg v. Union of India & Ors.

26 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:4393-DB

The Delhi High Court directed strict compliance with a Tribunal order revising the petitioner's pension, holding that subsequent executive instructions cannot override judicial directions.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Pension revision Central Administrative Tribunal Office Memorandum Qualifying service

Sanjay Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr.

26 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:4392-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a transfer order but directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's health-related representation afresh.

administrative petition_dismissed transfer order administrative tribunal medical facilities health grounds

Nitto v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

26 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4512-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a street vendor with a genuine Certificate of Vending is entitled to vend peacefully at the designated site subject to compliance with the certificate’s terms and conditions.

administrative petition_allowed Certificate of Vending Street Vendor Article 226 Delhi Street Vendors Scheme 2019

Abhilash Mullentevida v. Commissioner of Customs

26 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4508-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that used gold jewellery worn by a passenger is exempt personal effects under the Baggage Rules and that detention without timely Show Cause Notice under Section 110 of the Customs Act is illegal, ordering release of the detained goods.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act 1962 Section 110 Baggage Rules 2016 personal effects

Standard Cartons Pvt Ltd v. Office of the Commissioner Central Tax Delhi West and Ors

26 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4426-DB

The Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily available to challenge penalty orders for fraudulent ITC claims under the CGST Act, directing the petitioner to pursue statutory appellate remedies instead.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Input Tax Credit CGST Act, 2017 fraudulent ITC penalty under Section 122