Delhi High Court

36,666 judgments

Year:

Devendri v. Ajay Pawar & Ors.

15 Apr 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:2639

The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the stay of a partition suit under Section 10 CPC after comparing issues with a pending Bulandshahr suit and hearing both parties.

civil other Section 10 CPC stay of suit multiplicity of litigation partition suit

Froot Trip Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. The NCT of State & Anr.

09 Apr 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:2491

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the principle that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Article 226 Article 227

Gaurav Gaur & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

09 Apr 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:2488

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a genuine and voluntary settlement between estranged spouses, emphasizing the Court's power to end proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

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

Shailendra Jain v. Union of India

09 Apr 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:2406

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the NCDRC order, holding that the Railway is not liable for theft of un-booked luggage absent proven negligence or misconduct by its officials.

consumer_protection petition_dismissed Significant Railway liability theft of luggage deficiency of service consumer protection

Manmohan Singh @ Manmohan Singh Sethi v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

09 Apr 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:2492

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, applying Supreme Court precedents on quashing criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes.

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

Sh. Chetan Khanna and Ors. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

09 Apr 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:2486

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, emphasizing peace and harmony between parties.

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

Seema T Telgote v. Union of India & Anr.

09 Apr 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:2468-DB

The Delhi High Court held that death due to a dog bite causing rabies is an accidental death under the Group Insurance Scheme, entitling the petitioner to the Double Accident Benefit despite absence of FIR and post-mortem.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Double Accident Benefit Group Insurance Scheme dog bite rabies

Sunil Singh Dev v. Union of India and Ors

09 Apr 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:2467-DB

The Delhi High Court held that delay in appointment caused by the employer cannot deprive a senior employee of promotion and pay parity vis-à-vis juniors, directing notional promotion from the juniors' promotion date.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant promotion seniority notional promotion delayed appointment

Nayeem Ahmad Khan v. National Investigation Agency

09 Apr 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:2472-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's bail plea in a terrorism conspiracy case under the UA(P) Act, holding that the prima facie evidence and framed charges justify continued detention under Section 43D(5) despite prolonged incarceration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act Section 43D(5) terrorism

Raj Kumar Tiwari HUF v. Satya Prakash Kansal

09 Apr 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:3513

The Delhi High Court held that a suit for recovery of money lent is barred by limitation if filed beyond three years from the loan date, and a mere assurance to repay does not extend limitation absent written acknowledgment, allowing the appeal and rejecting the plaint.

civil appeal_allowed Significant limitation period recovery of money Article 19 Limitation Act Article 113 Limitation Act

Sukhdev Tiwari v. Satya Prakash Kansal

09 Apr 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:3512

The Delhi High Court held that a suit for recovery of money lent filed beyond three years from the loan date is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in absence of written acknowledgment extending limitation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant limitation Order VII Rule 11 CPC money lent Limitation Act 1963

Union of India v. M/S GLOBAL ENTERPRISES

09 Apr 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:3123-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upholding the arbitral award and affirming the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitration appeals.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 petition Section 37 appeal Arbitral award

SI Mahesh Kumar P.S. Kalkaji v. Deepak Kumar Paswan

09 Apr 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:3313

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rape and criminal intimidation case, holding that consent was voluntary and not vitiated by a false promise of marriage.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant consent false promise of marriage Section 376 IPC Section 506 IPC

Amar Singh Kushwaha v. Union of India

09 Apr 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2659-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Amar Singh Kushwaha as withdrawn upon the petitioner's request.

constitutional petition_dismissed Procedural writ petition withdrawal dismissal Union of India

Maj. Varun Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

09 Apr 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2636-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a routine adjournment order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, reaffirming the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant certiorari jurisdiction Armed Forces Tribunal Article 226 writ petition

Maj. Mitender Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

09 Apr 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2633-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a routine adjournment order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, reaffirming the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226.

administrative petition_dismissed writ jurisdiction certiorari Armed Forces Tribunal adjournment order

M/S. SINGH FINLEASE PVT. LTD. v. M/S. CHAND CLOTH HOUSE & ORS.

09 Apr 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:2728

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate loan repayment disputes arising from a valid arbitration clause, proceeding ex-parte due to respondents' non-appearance.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Sole Arbitrator appointment Loan Agreement

Visage Beauty and Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

09 Apr 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:2733

The Delhi High Court held that the time to file a counter statement in trademark opposition begins only upon actual receipt of the notice of opposition, setting aside the abandonment of the appellant's trademark application due to non-filing within the prescribed period.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 21(2) Trade Marks Rules, 2017 Rule 18

Kiran v. Pramod Kumar

09 Apr 2025 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2025:DHC:2779

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging a partial decree for possession based on the appellant's admitted tenancy and upheld the trial court's reliance on her statement under Order X CPC and execution without notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Order XII Rule 6 CPC Order X CPC statement admissions of fact partial decree

Madhuri Pandey; Jaijaimini Pandey v. Sohan Lal Pandey

09 Apr 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:2643

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's maintenance award based on minimum wages due to lack of evidence of Respondent's higher income and dismissed the petition seeking enhancement.

family appeal_dismissed maintenance Section 125 Cr.P.C. income assessment minimum wages