Delhi High Court

36,666 judgments

Year:

M/S JAY COLOUR COMPANY v. M/S SURENDER KUMAR JAIN

22 Apr 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:2823

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to summon a GST Department official as a witness despite delay, since the respondent had no objection, emphasizing one effective opportunity to avoid trial delay.

civil appeal_allowed summoning witness GST Department commercial suit trial court order

Railtel Corporation of India Limited v. Primatel Fibcom Limited

22 Apr 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:2831
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that where arbitral proceedings have commenced and disputes are known, a separate Section 21 notice is not mandatory for counter claims, allowing appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the Petitioner’s claims.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of arbitrator Section 21 notice requirement counter claim dismissal

Mr. Ashwani Sharma v. Lalit Mohan & Ors

22 Apr 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory for prosecuting public servants acting within or in reasonable nexus to their official duties, and non-response to sanction applications does not amount to deemed sanction.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 197 Cr.P.C. prior sanction public servant official duty

Sammaan Finserv Limited v. Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited

21 Apr 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1889-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of two commercial appeals following amicable settlement between the parties and disposed of the matters accordingly.

commercial appeal_allowed appeal withdrawal amicable settlement commercial dispute High Court of Delhi

Mohd. Rashid & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

21 Apr 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:2763

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a voluntary settlement between the parties, emphasizing the Court's power to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS 2023 Section 498A IPC domestic violence

Rajesh Ranjan v. Union of India and Ors.

21 Apr 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:3001-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any substantial legal ground to invalidate the statute.

constitutional petition_dismissed Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 20 constitutional validity Article 14

Vinod Garg v. Kamlesh Mehta

21 Apr 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:2909-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the rejection of the plaintiff's application for restoration of a commercial suit dismissed for non-prosecution due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause.

civil appeal_dismissed Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Order IX Rule 9 CPC restoration of suit non-prosecution

Arun Kumar v. Priya Upadhyay Alias Khushi

21 Apr 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s maintenance award of Rs. 30,000 per month to the wife and child, rejecting allegations of income concealment and refusing to modify the maintenance amount.

family appeal_dismissed pendent-lite maintenance Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 income concealment maintenance enhancement

Anil Kumar v. Anju

21 Apr 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:3067-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's order directing legal heirs to pay alimony with interest from the deceased husband's estate, dismissing the appeal challenging interest liability beyond death.

family appeal_dismissed alimony interest on alimony legal heirs liability succession certificate

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central -1 v. Amol Awasthi

21 Apr 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:2858-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that reopening assessments under Section 153C must be within the block period reckoned from the AY relevant to the satisfaction note, invalidating reopening for AY 2011-12.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 153C Income Tax Act block period calculation assessment year reopening satisfaction note

Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF) v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

21 Apr 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:3151

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal holding that filing a photocopy of evidence affidavit within time followed by the original shortly after satisfies Rule 45 requirements, setting aside the Registry's order deeming the opposition abandoned.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Trade Marks Rules, 2017 Rule 45(2) evidence affidavit in support of opposition

Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF) v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr

21 Apr 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:3152

The Delhi High Court held that filing a photocopy of evidence within time followed by original upon request complies with Trade Marks Rules, setting aside the Registry’s order dismissing opposition as abandoned.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Trade Marks Rules, 2017 Rule 45(2) evidence affidavit in support of opposition

Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF) v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

21 Apr 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:3153

The Delhi High Court held that filing a photocopy of evidence within the prescribed time followed by prompt filing of the original prevents opposition from being deemed abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Trade Marks Rules, 2017 Rule 45(2) evidence affidavit in support of opposition

Aar Pee Refrigeration and Airconditioning v. Central Public Works Department

21 Apr 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole Arbitrator under the arbitration clause of the contract to adjudicate disputes arising from a public works contract, allowing the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Dispute Redressal Committee General Conditions of Contract

Geetanjali Kalra & Ors. v. Gaurav Gulati

21 Apr 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:3250

The High Court allowed the petitioners' application to set aside an ex-parte order under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, holding that sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance and permitting them to contest the suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order IX Rule 7 CPC ex-parte order setting aside ex-parte good cause

Vikas Sidhu v. State (NCT of Delhi)

21 Apr 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:3380

The Delhi High Court quashed the prison authorities' refusal and directed transfer of a life-convict prisoner to a Semi Open Jail, emphasizing compliance with judicial orders and consideration of good conduct.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Semi Open Prison Prison transfer Good conduct Judicial compliance

Manish @ Mahesh v. State NCT of Delhi

21 Apr 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:3506

The Delhi High Court upheld framing of charges under Sections 363/34 IPC against the petitioner for kidnapping a minor, holding that sufficient prima facie material existed at the charge framing stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant framing of charge kidnapping Section 363 IPC Section 361 IPC

Manish @ Mahesh v. State NCT of Delhi

21 Apr 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:3506

The Delhi High Court upheld the framing of charges under Sections 363/34 IPC against the petitioner for kidnapping a minor, holding that sufficient prima facie material existed to proceed with trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant framing of charge kidnapping from lawful guardianship Section 363 IPC Section 361 IPC

Vida Engg Co v. NBCC (India) Limited & Anr

21 Apr 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:3680
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition directing NBCC to release the security deposit without requiring a No Objection Certificate and to consider the petitioner's claim for accrued interest, affirming judicial review over arbitrary State action in contractual disputes.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Performance Bank Guarantee Security Deposit Writ Jurisdiction Article 14

Shellz India Private Limited v. Starco Metaplast Pvt Ltd

21 Apr 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:3821-DB

The High Court granted conditional leave to defend in a commercial suit for recovery, holding that a triable issue regarding defective goods raised by the buyer warrants trial despite prior acceptance under the Sale of Goods Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant leave to defend Order XXXVII CPC Section 42 Sale of Goods Act triable issue