Delhi High Court

34,828 judgments

Year:

Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd and Anr v. UOI

16 May 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:4636
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that indefinite debarment pending prolonged criminal proceedings violates natural justice and proportionality, setting aside the impugned order of blacklisting petitioner No.1.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant debarment blacklisting principles of natural justice proportionality

M/SSINGH CATERERS AND VENDORS v. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED

16 May 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:4503

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitrator’s order imposing a Rs. 2.5 crore deposit as security, holding it arbitrary and unsupported by proper sales data or legal principles under CPC Order XXXVIII Rule 5.

commercial_arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 application Interim measures Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC

Shri Hari Om Prakash Gupta v. ACIT Central Circle-28, Delhi

16 May 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that reopening assessment under Section 153C beyond the six-year block period from the date of satisfaction is invalid, setting aside the notice and assessment for AY 2016-17.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act block period assessment year jurisdiction

Peeyush Jain v. Ghasi Ram Jain & Ors.

16 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4316

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Trial Court’s refusal to allow further cross-examination, holding that the Trial Court acted within its discretion to ensure expeditious disposal and that the High Court would not interfere under its supervisory jurisdiction absent manifest illegality.

civil petition_dismissed cross-examination supervisory jurisdiction Article 227 Section 115 CPC

Ashok Bulchand Mulchandani HUF v. M/S Moondrops Overseas Services LLP & Anr.

16 May 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:3928-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a decree against an LLP cannot be executed against its designated partner unless the decree is specifically against the partner, dismissing the appeal seeking attachment against the designated partner.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 Order XXI Rule 49(2) CPC execution of decree limited liability partnership

Ballarpur Industries Limited v. SG Enterprises & Ors.

16 May 2025 · Jyoti Singh · 2025:DHC:4232
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court terminated the mandate of a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator during insolvency moratorium, holding such appointment invalid under the Arbitration Act and IBC.

commercial_arbitration petition_allowed Significant unilateral appointment sole arbitrator Section 14(1)(a) Arbitration Act moratorium

J.K. Parashar v. Bhagat Singh & Ors.

16 May 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:3883

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that insufficient court fees and non-inclusion of declaration relief do not warrant rejection of the plaint without opportunity to amend.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint insufficient court fees declaration relief

Khaleeque Ahmed v. Superintendent CGST, Range -163, Ward- 94, Zone 8

16 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4044-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the GST Department to ensure proper communication and timely uploading of notices and orders, restraining coercive action pending compliance with procedural safeguards under GST law.

administrative other Significant Show Cause Notice GST Department procedural fairness limitation period

Devki Devi & Anr. v. Sagir & Ors.

16 May 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:3881

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the motor accident claim appeal, enhancing compensation by recognizing higher income, awarding medical expenses, loss of consortium to the son, increased future prospects, and higher interest rate.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation medical expenses loss of consortium

Mohd. Asif v. Ranbir Singh & Anr.

16 May 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:3882

Delhi High Court partly allowed motor accident claim appeal, directing enhanced compensation for 80% disability, updated income, future medical expenses, attendant charges, and non-pecuniary damages.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident compensation functional disability assessment loss of income future medical expenses

M/S ICON FIBRES FABRICS PVT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DELHI

16 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3996-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal restoring it for fresh adjudication on merits, holding that the appellant was not heard by CESTAT and affirming the Supreme Court's ruling that DRI officers are proper officers under the Customs Act.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 28 Section 114A Duty Free Import Authorization

G Veerabahu v. Union of India & Ors.

16 May 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:4082-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the vigilance clearance and retirement benefits granted to a former CVO, and that the administrative guidelines did not mandate mandatory vigilance clearance before release of retirement benefits.

administrative appeal_dismissed locus standi vigilance clearance retirement benefits DoPT OM 09.10.2024

Ravinder Kumar & Anr. v. Raj Singh & Ors.

16 May 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:4103

The Delhi High Court appointed the mutually agreed arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from the Agreement for Sale dated 20.02.2011.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 12 appointment of arbitrator

Union of India & Ors. v. Ex WO Mani Lal Prasad

16 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:4002-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Diabetes Mellitus Type-II and Primary Hypertension, affirming the presumption of service connection absent contrary proof and limiting writ interference to errors of law.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces Diabetes Mellitus Type-II Primary Hypertension

Rajeev Saxena & Ors. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.

16 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:4024-DB

The Delhi High Court regularized a self-conducted draw of lots by a cooperative housing society, directing the Registrar to complete formalities and protect members' property rights after long delay and inaction.

property petition_allowed Significant cooperative housing society self-draw of lots Registrar of Cooperative Societies regularization

Ashish Jaiswal v. National Highways Authority of India

16 May 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ; Tushar Rao Gedela, J · 2025:DHC:4042-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the forfeiture of bid security and debarment of a bidder who failed to withdraw his bid before the extended deadline, dismissing the writ petition challenging the tender process and related orders.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant bid withdrawal Letter of Award bid security forfeiture debarment

Sarabjeet Kaur v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

16 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3983-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the MCD to allot possession of relocated vending sites to petitioners as per relocation letters to protect their livelihood, subject to future regulatory schemes.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant tehbazari site relocation Municipal Corporation of Delhi vending rights

M/S MASCON v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ORS

16 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3989-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex parte GST adjudication order for lack of opportunity to be heard, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of the impugned notifications to the Supreme Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Section 168A Central GST Act Show Cause Notice Natural Justice Validity of GST Notifications

Principal Commissioner of Customs Import Air Cargo Complex New Delhi v. Toyota Material Handling India Private Limited

16 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3992-DB

The Delhi High Court restored Customs appeals to CESTAT for merits adjudication after the Supreme Court held that DRI officers are proper officers under the Customs Act, overruling earlier contrary precedent.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proper officer Customs Act 1962 Section 28

National Seeds Corporation Limited v. Pankaj Kumar Prasad

16 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:3915-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the setting aside of recovery of excess payments from a former employee where no inquiry was initiated against him and the recovery was sought beyond the limitation period.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant upgradation recovery of excess payment limitation period disciplinary enquiry