Delhi High Court

27,673 judgments

Year:

Rameshwar Singh Tanwar v. Union of India

30 Jan 2026 · Nitin Wasudeo Sambre; Anish Dayal · 2026:DHC:742-DB

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation was deposited in court and tendered to the landowner, dismissing the petition seeking declaration of lapse due to non-payment and non-possession.

property petition_dismissed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 compensation deposit possession

Mohd. Ubaid v. Union of India

30 Jan 2026 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2026:DHC:780
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that mere suspicion of intoxication without contemporaneous medical evidence cannot deny compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, allowing the appellant's claim for injuries sustained in a railway accident.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 untoward incident strict liability intoxication

Satish Kumar v. Mayawati

30 Jan 2026 · Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2026:DHC:764

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's closure of the petitioner's evidence, holding that ample opportunities had been granted and no illegality was shown.

civil appeal_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India closure of evidence trial court discretion condonation of delay

M/S OM NANOTECH PVT LTD v. M/S VENUS COMPUTER SERVICES

30 Jan 2026 · Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2026:DHC:765

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to place additional relevant documents on record after framing of issues but before evidence recording, subject to costs, setting aside the trial court's dismissal order.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 14 CPC Article 227 Constitution of India late filing of documents negligence of counsel

Sumit Kumar & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr

30 Jan 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:800

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 406, 498A, 34, and 506(2) IPC on compromise and the complainant's withdrawal of prosecution, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

Love Verma & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

30 Jan 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:801

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the basis of a compromise and mutual consent divorce, exercising inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC

Kaushal Kumar Yadav & Anr. v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

30 Jan 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:802

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under BNS 2023 for attempt to commit culpable homicide based on a genuine compromise between parties in a private dispute involving minor injuries.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR compromise in criminal case Section 528 BNSS private dispute

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. UNISON HOTELS PVT. LTD.

30 Jan 2026 · Avneesh Jhingan · 2026:DHC:723

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award due to inordinate delay in pronouncement that adversely affected the tribunal's jurisdictional findings, emphasizing that delay alone is insufficient unless it impacts the award's validity.

civil petition_allowed Significant arbitral award delay Section 34 Arbitration Act jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal inordinate delay

Sameer Ahmad v. The State Govt of NCT Delhi

30 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:749

Anticipatory bail granted to accused in Arms Act case due to lack of direct incriminating evidence beyond co-accused's statement and material circumstances.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Arms Act confessional statement co-accused

Harsh Bhati & Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

30 Jan 2026 · Manoj Jain

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all criminal proceedings based on an amicable settlement and the complainant's withdrawal of grievance under its inherent powers.

criminal appeal_allowed quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 482 CrPC Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Indian Group) v. Registrar General

30 Jan 2026 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2026:DHC:812-DB

The Delhi High Court held that its Registry cannot refuse to accept Execution Petitions below ₹2 crores based on pecuniary jurisdiction limits, and such jurisdictional objections must be decided judicially after filing.

civil petition_allowed Significant Execution Petition Pecuniary Jurisdiction Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 Registry powers

State Bank of India v. V. C. Jain

30 Jan 2026 · The Chief Justice; Tejas Karia; Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya · 2026:DHC:722-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that an employee acquitted on benefit of doubt after dismissal for criminal conviction is not entitled to count suspension period as service or receive back wages, affirming employer's discretion in such matters.

labor appeal_allowed Significant suspension period pensionary benefits reinstatement conditions benefit of doubt acquittal

AMIT@POINT v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

30 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:748

Bail was denied to the accused in a serious POCSO case involving kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor, given the credible evidence and severity of the offence.

criminal bail_denied bail POCSO Act sexual assault minor victim

Rahul Rawal & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr

30 Jan 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:751
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC on the ground of compromise between the parties and in the interest of justice.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC compromise criminal proceedings

United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Sunita Rani & Ors.

29 Jan 2026 · Anish Dayal · 2026:DHC:871
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal, holding the truck driver's negligence sole cause of the accident and affirming the application of Delhi's minimum wages for compensation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim contributory negligence stationary vehicle negligence minimum wages

WG CDR Soumya Deep Das v. Union of India and Ors

29 Jan 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:726-DB

The High Court held that judicial interference in ongoing military disciplinary proceedings is premature and the petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before challenging denial of access to seized data.

administrative petition_dismissed Armed Forces Tribunal Court of Inquiry Section 14 Armed Forces Tribunal Act prematurity

Sudama v. State of NCT of Delhi

29 Jan 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:792

The Delhi High Court held that parole can be granted to a convict under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, notwithstanding general parole restrictions, subject to conditions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant parole Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 Rule 1208

Sh. Madan Pal Singh and Anr v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr

29 Jan 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:791

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 308, 341, 323, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement between the parties in a private dispute.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR amicable settlement inherent powers Section 482 CrPC

Mohammad Samim v. State & Anr.

29 Jan 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:790

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 376/384 IPC and POCSO Act on the basis of the prosecutrix's denial and settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC non-compoundable offences rape

Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

29 Jan 2026 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2026:DHC:701
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation suit for lack of jurisdiction, applying the Merger Rule under Section 19 CPC and the binding Tejpal precedent, holding that the suit must be filed where the defendant resides and the wrong is done.

civil petition_dismissed Significant jurisdiction Section 19 CPC online defamation Merger Rule