Delhi High Court

36,666 judgments

Year:

Peter A Fernandes v. O P Manchanda & Anr.

06 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:3402

The High Court held that applications under Order VII Rule 10/11 CPC at the stage of final arguments are generally unnecessary and that personal appearance directions must be reasoned, disposing of the petition as not pressed.

civil petition_dismissed Order VII Rule 10 CPC Order VII Rule 11 CPC personal appearance final arguments

Som Dutt Sharma v. Munni Lal

06 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:3401

The Delhi High Court allowed tenants a final opportunity to complete cross-examination of their witness despite a five-year delay, imposing costs to deter further delay.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Rent Control Act examination of witness cross-examination delay in proceedings

Manjeet Plastic Industries & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

06 May 2025 · The Chief Justice; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:3333-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the technical disqualification of bidders in a government procurement process for failing to meet eligibility criteria, while directing refund of forfeited Bank Guarantee pending lawful proceedings.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant public procurement technical bid disqualification retail sales private/institutional sales

Attal Plastics v. Union of India & Ors.

06 May 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:3330-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging technical disqualification from a government tender, holding that fresh documents post disqualification cannot be entertained and tender eligibility criteria must be strictly followed.

administrative appeal_dismissed technical disqualification retail sales private/institutional sales tender eligibility criteria

M/S NF INFRATECH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION & ORS.

06 May 2025 · DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA; TUSHAR RAO GEDELA · 2025:DHC:3324-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the technical and financial evaluation of bids in a government procurement tender, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to the qualification and ranking of successful bidders based on financial, technical, and Make in India compliance criteria.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Request for Proposal Technical Bid Evaluation Financial Eligibility Criteria Net Worth Erosion

Sujeet v. State Govt NCT of Delhi

06 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3365

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused in a murder and conspiracy case due to lack of prima facie evidence connecting him to the crime, emphasizing the need for verified evidence at the bail stage.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail murder conspiracy prima facie evidence

Shashank Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

06 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3351

Interim bail on medical grounds was denied as the accused's medical condition was stable and adequate treatment was available in jail despite the seriousness of the charges.

criminal appeal_dismissed interim bail medical grounds jail medical treatment serious offences

Delhi Development Authority v. M/S Naraindas R Israni

06 May 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:3369
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, upholding the arbitrator's reasonable contract interpretations and factual findings on claims related to delay, damages, and interest.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Contract interpretation Loss of profit

Trodat GmbH & Anr. v. Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Anr.

06 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:4270-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of permission to manufacture a self-inking stamp design, holding it did not infringe the registered designs of the appellants under the Designs Act, applying the informed user test and limiting appellate interference in interlocutory orders.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Design infringement Design piracy Informed user test Designs Act 2000

Idresh Ali v. Union of India & Ors.

06 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5393-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the deemed acceptance provision of the CCS Pension Rules does not apply to CRPF personnel, directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s voluntary retirement application within a fixed time while upholding the transfer order.

service_law appeal_dismissed Significant voluntary retirement CRPF Rules 1955 CCS Pension Rules 1972 deemed acceptance

Mankind Pharma Limited v. Brinton Pharmaceuticals Limited

06 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:8795-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and granted injunction against the respondent's use of the deceptively similar mark ACNESCAR, holding it infringed the appellant's registered pharmaceutical trademark ACNESTAR.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Pharmaceutical trademarks Deceptive similarity Interlocutory injunction

Sunil Yadav & Anr. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

05 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3464

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement between estranged spouses resolving all matrimonial disputes including maintenance and custody.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC mediation matrimonial dispute

Kartar Singh v. State (NCT) Delhi

05 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3371

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a theft case, observing that his identity was not conclusively established and material witnesses had been examined, subject to stringent conditions.

criminal appeal_allowed regular bail theft CCTV footage identity under cloud

Narender v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

05 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3294

The Delhi High Court granted interim bail on medical grounds to a petitioner suffering from serious spinal injuries, emphasizing the need for specialized treatment outside custody under strict conditions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant interim bail medical grounds prolapsed disc Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023

Arjun Sarkar v. State of NCT of Delhi

05 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur, J. · 2025:DHC:3272

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner in an NDPS case, holding that contraband quantities recovered from co-accused can be aggregated under Section 29 to invoke the statutory bail bar under Section 37 for conspiracy involving commercial quantity.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 29 NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS Act commercial quantity

Pradip Barman v. State of NCT of Delhi

05 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur, J. · 2025:DHC:3271

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail, holding that quantities of narcotics recovered from co-accused can be combined under conspiracy to attract the bail prohibition for commercial quantity offences under the NDPS Act.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 29 NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS Act commercial quantity

People Educational Society v. Union of India and Anr

05 May 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:4593
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging non-release of grant-in-aid by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs for lack of territorial jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of forum conveniens.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant forum conveniens territorial jurisdiction writ petition grant-in-aid

Ved Kumari @ Vaijanti Mala v. Bharat Bhushan and Ors.

05 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4496

The High Court held that a suit for partition and rendition of accounts relating to different properties is not barred by a prior settlement concerning other properties and set aside the dismissal of the suit without notice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC Settlement Agreement Partition suit Withdrawal of suit

Sandeep Kumar Srivastava and Anr. v. Union of India

05 May 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:4408

The Delhi High Court held that empanelment of advocates as government counsel is discretionary and no legal right exists to claim inclusion, dismissing the petition challenging omission from the empanelled counsel list.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant empanelment government counsel discretionary appointment Article 14

Barun Kumar v. M S Groupe Seb India Pvt. Ltd

05 May 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:3970-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court's rejection of leave to defend in a cheque bounce recovery suit, emphasizing that leave to defend is the rule and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the defendant's jurisdictional and other objections.

civil appeal_allowed Significant leave to defend Order XXXVII CPC territorial jurisdiction dishonoured cheque