Delhi High Court

33,852 judgments

Year:

Rajiv Dawar v. The State NCT of Delhi

23 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:4306

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to set aside the administrative order transferring all complaints and investigation from EOW to SFIO, holding that the FIR was quashed only against one accused and investigations against others must continue with EOW.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR transfer of investigation Economic Offences Wing Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Sagar Gambhir v. The State Govt. of Not of Delhi and Anr.

23 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:4292
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A and 406 IPC based on a genuine amicable settlement between the parties, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.

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

Malini Israni v. Ved Prakash Israni

23 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:4332

The Delhi High Court directed that evidence in the Family Court case be recorded by the Trial Court itself to ensure expeditious disposal, rejecting the petitioner's claim of improper open recording by a Local Commissioner.

family petition_dismissed Family Court Local Commissioner Recording of evidence Trial Court

Shri Sunil Pasricha & Anr. v. Shri Shivam Gupta

23 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:4334
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's discretionary order allowing the plaintiff to place additional documents on record under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, holding that absence of stated reasonable cause at the plaint stage does not warrant interference under Article 227 if no prejudice or perversity is shown.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC reasonable cause non-disclosure of documents Article 227 Constitution of India

Vansh Taluja & Anr. v. Bhupinder Kumar Taluja & Ors.

23 May 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:4345

The Delhi High Court passed a preliminary decree partitioning the estate of a deceased among natural heirs, excluding a property proven to be personal, and directed rent sharing and disclosure of movable assets.

civil appeal_allowed partition suit natural heirs preliminary decree moveable and immoveable property

Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr.

23 May 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:4243-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed Under Armour's appeal, holding that the respondents' use of 'AERO ARMOUR' marks is prima facie deceptively similar to 'UNDER ARMOUR', entitling the appellant to interim relief against trademark infringement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Trade Marks Act 1999 Anti-dissection rule Global appreciation test

Amrik Kaur v. Competent Authority New Delhi

23 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:4358

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking urgent interim relief and directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal for restoration and interim relief in an appeal dismissed in default under SAFEMA.

administrative petition_dismissed SAFEMA appeal dismissed in default restoration of appeal condonation of delay

M/S J RAMAN AND COMPANY & ORS. v. M/S RKG POLYMERS

23 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:4361

The High Court allowed the petitioners liberty to move a fresh application for expert opinion on disputed signatures after the Trial Court dismissed their earlier application despite prior liberty to refile.

civil appeal_allowed commercial suit settlement agreement signature verification expert opinion

Sher Singh v. The Chairman NDMC

23 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:4347-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that failure to file a written statement does not mandate judgment for the plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC; damages must be proved by evidence and the court has discretion to require proof and allow cross-examination.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VIII Rule 10 CPC written statement discretionary judgment proof of damages

Hands On Hands Ventures Private Limited v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others

23 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4369-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order passed without proper notice and hearing, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of limitation-extension notifications open pending Supreme Court decision.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice Goods and Services Tax Section 168A GST Act Natural Justice

Puneet Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.

23 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4375-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a non-speaking GST demand order passed without considering the petitioner’s reply and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving open the question of validity of limitation-extension notifications pending Supreme Court decision.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant GST Act Section 168A extension of limitation show cause notice

Hands On Hands Ventures Private Limited v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others

23 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4376-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order passed without proper notice and hearing due to procedural lapses in portal communication, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of related notifications to the Supreme Court.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST portal Additional Notices Tab Section 168A CGST Act

Sujata Chandra v. Ram Prakash & Ors.

23 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4456
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that a suit must be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the subordinate office where the cause of action arose, not the court of the principal office, and disposed of the petition following respondents' concession on lack of territorial jurisdiction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction cause of action Order VII Rule 11 CPC principal office

Mukesh Kumar Bhardwaj v. Gauri Shankar Through Lrs & Anr

23 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4461

Revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against interlocutory orders that do not finally dispose of the suit, as reiterated by the Delhi High Court in dismissing the petition challenging denial of permission to file documents.

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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. Third Generation Traders Pvt. Ltd.

23 May 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia

The Delhi High Court upheld the deletion of protective additions under Section 68 against a conduit company where substantive additions were made in the hands of ultimate beneficiaries, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 68 Protective assessment Accommodation entries

Jagdeep Singh Sandhu v. Union of India & Anr.

23 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5356-DB

The Delhi High Court held that while it cannot direct amendment of the BSF Act to provide statutory appeal, it directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s statutory petition under Section 117(2) within six weeks and stayed termination proceedings pending that decision.

constitutional petition_allowed Article 226 Constitution of India Section 117(2) BSF Act statutory petition Security Force Court

Sh Deepak Arora & Ors. v. Smt Kavita Arora & Ors.

22 May 2025 · Jyoti Singh, J.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition and condonation application filed after an inordinate delay, holding that the Will not pleaded or proved during the suit cannot be set up belatedly, and undertakings to vacate the property bar claims under the Will.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay review petition Will probate

Vinod Kumari Bhalla v. Anil Prakash & Ors.

22 May 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:4420

The Delhi High Court held that legal heirs are entitled to equal shares under intestate succession, allowed abandonment of the Will, and directed partition by sale with mediation to resolve disputes.

property appeal_allowed Significant partition Hindu Succession Act, 1956 intestate succession Will abandonment

M/S R.S. OVERSEAS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD, TKD

22 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4348-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that delay in issuance of a Show Cause Notice under Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules does not invalidate proceedings absent prescribed limitation, and directed the petitioner to avail statutory appellate remedies rather than writ relief.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Show Cause Notice delay in adjudication limitation period Rule 16 Duty Drawback Rules

Mahabir Traders v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

22 May 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:4422

The Delhi High Court directed release of an impounded vehicle upon compliance with prescribed rules and payment of charges, restraining scrapping during proceedings.

administrative petition_allowed impounded vehicle release of vehicle Delhi Maintenance and Management of Parking Places Rules, 2019 End of Life Vehicles