Delhi High Court

35,362 judgments

Year:

Lalit Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

16 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Navin Chawla; C. Hari Shankar · 2025:DHC:3936-FB

The Delhi High Court upheld its order requiring candidates to deposit Rs. 65,000 each to cover Shahdara Bar Association election expenses, disqualifying those who fail to comply.

administrative petition_dismissed Bar Association elections Election expenses Candidate deposit Shahdara Bar Association

Munish Jain v. Shikha Jain

16 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:3935-DB

The Delhi High Court modified its earlier order to direct conditional execution and custody of a gift deed in a matrimonial dispute, linking property transfer to the allowance of a second motion petition and cessation of maintenance liability.

family appeal_allowed gift deed property transfer matrimonial dispute family court

K S Bhandari v. M/S International Security Printers Pvt Ltd

16 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Anish Dayal · 2025:DHC:3852-DB

The Delhi Rent Control Act's Section 14(1)(e) applies to all landlords including companies and trusts, who may choose to invoke it or Section 22 for eviction, with the bona fide requirement being the key criterion.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) Section 22 Section 25B

Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)

16 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3927

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition granting furlough to a prisoner despite previous belated surrender, emphasizing reformatory principles and imposing strict conditions.

criminal petition_allowed Significant furlough prisoner surrender reformatory philosophy personal bond

Abhinav Bajpai v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

16 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3921

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a theft case after noting completion of investigation, absence of risk to the complainant, and prior bail status.

criminal bail_granted bail theft chargesheet influence on complainant

Khushi Sharma v. Union of India and Others

16 May 2025 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2025:DHC:3834

The Delhi and U.P. Police were directed to promptly register an FIR and investigate the suspicious death of the petitioner’s brother, affirming the mandatory duty to register FIRs irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and independent of inquest proceedings.

criminal petition_allowed Significant FIR registration cognizable offence section 173 BNSS inquest proceedings

State v. Prakash

15 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:5327

The High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape case due to material contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence, emphasizing that conviction requires testimony of sterling quality.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape prosecutrix testimony contradictions corroboration

Seema Yadav & Anr. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

15 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:4069

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR and transfer of investigation, holding that premature interference is unwarranted absent exceptional circumstances indicating mala fide or bias.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC transfer of investigation police misconduct

Anand Kumar Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

15 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3827

The Delhi High Court quashed a road accident FIR under Sections 281 and 125(A) BNS based on a genuine, voluntary settlement between the parties, reaffirming the Court's power to end criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Article 226 Section 528 BNS

Dilip Dixit @ Dalip Kumar & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

15 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3826

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a genuine and voluntary settlement between the parties, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS 2023 Section 498A IPC settlement in criminal cases

Okeke Gloria Adaobi v. DRI

15 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:4000

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of a foreign national accused of possessing commercial quantity cocaine, holding that stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met and the petitioner was prima facie complicit in drug smuggling.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail NDPS Act commercial quantity Section 37 NDPS Act

Akhlesh v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

15 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3911

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a rape and criminal intimidation case, emphasizing the prosecutrix's vulnerability and ongoing threats as grounds to deny bail at the trial stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail Section 439 CrPC sexual assault rape

Mohd Tabrez v. State (NCT of Delhi)

15 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur, J · 2025:DHC:3910

Bail was denied to the petitioner accused of attempted murder with grievous injuries, as the trial was underway and material witnesses were yet to testify, posing risk of evidence tampering.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail Section 307 IPC dangerous injuries regular bail

Maninder Sidhu v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

15 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3825

Delhi High Court granted interim bail on medical grounds to a petitioner accused of murder, subject to strict conditions, recognizing the necessity of treatment unavailable in custody.

criminal appeal_allowed interim bail medical grounds Section 302 IPC Varicose Veins

Faizal Khan v. Mohd Nadeem & Anr.

15 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4983

The Delhi High Court held that a tenant cannot challenge a decree in execution proceedings or withhold possession on grounds of non-refund of security deposit, affirming that execution courts cannot entertain collateral attacks on valid decrees.

civil petition_dismissed Significant execution proceedings Order XXI Rule 36 CPC tenant possession security deposit

Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S Karan Singh & Anr.

15 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4809

The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of an appeal for delay, holding that sufficient cause was shown for condonation of a 20-day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and remanded the matter for merits hearing.

civil appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay Section 5 Limitation Act sufficient cause appeal limitation

Chahna Gupta v. Priyanka Arukiya & Ors.

15 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4596
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal directing eviction of the respondent from a self-acquired property, holding that the DV Act does not bar eviction of a licensee from a non-shared household and that judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is appropriate where ownership is admitted.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shared household matrimonial home

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia & Ors.

15 May 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:4587

The Delhi High Court declared the 'LV' mark as a well-known trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, affirming the plaintiff's exclusive rights and entitlement to protection against infringement.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant well-known trade mark LV mark trademark infringement Trade Marks Act 1999

Mr. Prem Arora v. Sonia Kanwar & Ors.

15 May 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:4491

The Delhi High Court rejected the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession of property due to suppression of prior litigation, non-disclosure of material facts, and invalidity of title based on unregistered documents, holding the suit barred and the plaintiff not a bona fide purchaser.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC suppression of material facts unregistered documents title in immovable property

G4S Facility Services India Pvt Ltd v. Chet Ram

15 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4452

The Delhi High Court held that only the Controlling Authority appointed by the Central Government has jurisdiction over gratuity claims for establishments with branches in multiple states, setting aside the State Government's order passed without jurisdiction.

labor petition_allowed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Controlling Authority jurisdiction Central Government State Government