Delhi High Court

36,666 judgments

Year:

Naresh Kumar v. Shashi Kiran Amar & Anr.

21 Mar 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:1910
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The High Court directed the trial court to clarify whether sufficient cause was found to set aside ex parte proceedings under Order IX Rule 7 CPC and whether the status quo ante was restored, while also referring the matter for mediation.

civil other Significant Order IX Rule 6 CPC Order IX Rule 7 CPC ex parte proceedings status quo ante

M/S JAIN DOMESTIC APPLIANCES v. M/S SUNRISE INDUSTRIES

21 Mar 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:1911

The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant’s petition to place additional documents on record during the evidence stage under Order XI Rule 1(7)(c) CPC with liberty to file an additional affidavit and for the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence.

civil petition_allowed Order XI Rule 1(7)(c) CPC additional documents defendant’s evidence affidavit of examination-in-chief

Shakti Kumar Pawar v. Shashi Gosain

21 Mar 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:1912

The Delhi High Court permitted the tenant to raise valuation objections in a suit for possession and directed the trial court to consider such applications and pending interim relief applications expeditiously.

civil other landlord and tenant suit for possession valuation objection Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC

K S Forge Metal Pvt Ltd v. Sh K K Aggarwal Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Smt. Deepika Aggarwal & Ors.

21 Mar 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:1923

The High Court allowed a late amendment to the plaint to include admitted possessors as defendants, emphasizing a liberal approach to amendments to ensure effective adjudication and avoid unenforceable decrees.

civil appeal_allowed Significant amendment of plaint Order VI Rule 17 CPC due diligence possession suit

Mansura Brush Works v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax

21 Mar 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1921-DB

Delhi High Court directed restoration of GST portal access and reconsideration of GST registration suspension where petitioner was denied opportunity to file reply to Show Cause Notice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant GST registration Show Cause Notice Rule 21A CGST Rules 2017 suspension of registration

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.

21 Mar 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1872-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that delay in filing an appeal under PMLA caused by bank merger-related restructuring can be condoned, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits despite a 700-day delay.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Section 26 PMLA condonation of delay bank merger

Darshan Dabas v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

20 Mar 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:2066

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of Darshan Dabas in a murder case, holding that the nature of allegations, evidence, and criminal antecedents did not justify bail at this stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail murder Section 302 IPC circumstantial evidence

M/S SAWAN TRADING CO. v. RADHA DEVI AGGARWAL & ANR

20 Mar 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:2395

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of the tenant on the landlord’s bona fide requirement, affirming that the landlord need not prove absolute ownership and that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction bona fide requirement landlord-tenant relationship

Naresh Kumar Jain v. State NCT of Delhi

20 Mar 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:1856

The Delhi High Court upheld framing of charges against bar owners for destruction of evidence, serving intoxicants to minors, and non-reporting of offences, emphasizing the prima facie standard at the charge stage and owners' nondelegable duties.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant framing of charges prima facie case destruction of evidence POCSO Act

Arvind Saraf v. State of NCT of Delhi

20 Mar 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:1859

The High Court upheld the Magistrate's order directing FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for alleged cheating and dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, emphasizing limited revisional interference post FIR registration and the need to allow investigation to proceed.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. FIR registration cognizable offence cheating

Nooren Ali @ Rahul Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

20 Mar 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:1860

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter, emphasizing the victim's independent right to justice and the gravity of the allegations.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail sexual assault minor victim POCSO Act

Nathu v. State

20 Mar 2025 · Amit Mahajan, J. · 2025:DHC:2160
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court acquitted the appellant of rape and criminal intimidation charges due to unexplained delay, inconsistencies in prosecutrix’s testimony, and failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape sexual assault delay in FIR prosecutrix testimony

Mr. Kamlesh Kumar v. Society for Affordable Redressal of Disputes & Ors.

20 Mar 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:2151-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a private arbitral society is not an instrumentality of the State nor discharges public functions to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant Article 12 Constitution of India Article 226 Constitution of India instrumentality of State public function

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/S ALMASS INDIA

20 Mar 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:1974-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed MCD's appeal, holding that an arbitral award rendered by an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by an ineligible person under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act is void and unenforceable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration ineligible arbitrator Section 12(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act unilateral appointment

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/S ALMASS INDIA

20 Mar 2025 · Vibhu BakhrU; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:1972-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award rendered by an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by an ineligible person under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is without jurisdiction and cannot be enforced.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration arbitral award Section 12(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act ineligible arbitrator

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/S ALMASS INDIA

20 Mar 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:1971-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitrator ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot validly appoint another arbitrator, rendering the arbitral award unenforceable and dismissing MCD's appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration ineligible arbitrator Section 12(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act unilateral appointment

Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

20 Mar 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:1895

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC following a full and final mediated settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties.

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

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/S ALMASS INDIA

20 Mar 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:1908-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by an ineligible person under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act cannot validly render an award, and such award is unenforceable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) Ineligible arbitrator Unilateral appointment

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/S ALMASS INDIA

20 Mar 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:1976-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's refusal to enforce an arbitral award rendered by an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by an ineligible person, holding such appointment void and the award unenforceable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) Ineligible arbitrator Unilateral appointment

MS. Tayal Agencies v. Kendriya Bhandar

20 Mar 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under the arbitration clause to adjudicate a payment dispute, holding that objections to contract validity and prior arbitration are to be decided by the arbitrator.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Appointment of arbitrator Arbitration clause