Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Bhupinder Singh Jolly v. Suraj Prakash Chopra

12 Mar 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:1688

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding the provision directory and the petitioner’s defense insufficient to deny compensation.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 143A Negotiable Instruments Act interim compensation Section 138 NI Act discretionary power

Naval Kishore Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency

12 Mar 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:1604-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's bail plea under Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act, holding that prima facie evidence of conspiracy to channel terror funds exists and the trial is underway without undue delay.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act bail terror funding prima facie case

Baljeet Singh v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Mar 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:2398

The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, holding that minor inconsistencies in a child victim's testimony do not negate the presumption of guilt once foundational facts are proved.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act Section 6 POCSO aggravated penetrative sexual assault presumption of guilt

Lajjawati Sharma & Anr. v. Ram Chander Jain Thr Legal Heirs

12 Mar 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:2192

The Delhi High Court allowed the landlord's revision petition setting aside the dismissal of eviction on ownership grounds, holding that a landlord need only prove better title than tenant and remanded for consideration of bona fide need and alternate accommodation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant eviction petition Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 landlord-tenant relationship ownership proof

Kapil Sachdev v. Pinaki Prasad

12 Mar 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:2187

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order dismissing the tenant's leave to defend, affirming that a tenant cannot challenge the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act and that the landlord proved bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) Section 116 Evidence Act leave to defend

M/S SKECHERS SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

12 Mar 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1819-DB

The Delhi High Court, following the Supreme Court's review in Canon-II, held that DRI officers are proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and directed continuation of proceedings against Skechers South Asia Pvt Ltd.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence proper officer Section 28 Customs Act show cause notice

M/S SUMINOE TEIJIN TECHNO KRISHNA INDIA PVT LTD & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

12 Mar 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1818-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court’s review judgment affirms that DRI officers are proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, empowering them to issue show cause notices, thereby overruling earlier jurisdictional objections.

administrative other Significant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Customs Act 1962 Section 28 proper officer

M/S C-NET COMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

12 Mar 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1816-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court clarified that DRI officers are proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, empowering them to issue show cause notices, leading to dismissal of writ petitions challenging their jurisdiction.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Section 28 Customs Act Proper officer Show cause notice

Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

12 Mar 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1815-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court, following the Supreme Court's review judgment, held that DRI officers are proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 with jurisdiction to issue show cause notices, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence proper officer Section 28 Customs Act jurisdiction

Seetu Kohli Concepts Pvt Ltd v. Union of India

12 Mar 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1812-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court, following the Supreme Court's review judgment, held that DRI officers are proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 with jurisdiction to issue show cause notices, and restored the adjudication of the petitioners' refund proceedings.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Section 28 Customs Act Proper officer Jurisdiction

Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

12 Mar 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1817-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the U.P. Police's arrest of the petitioner without following prescribed interstate arrest procedures and without prior Supreme Court permission was illegal, ordered his release, and directed a high-level inquiry and preservation of evidence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant interstate arrest habeas corpus prior permission Supreme Court illegal arrest

Om Saran Gupta v. Nishi @ Nishi Jaidka

12 Mar 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1801

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking prosecution for alleged perjury and forgery in Section 138 NI Act proceedings, holding that Section 340 CrPC applies only to offences committed after documents are filed in court and that service of complaint suffices as legal notice.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 340 CrPC Section 195 CrPC Negotiable Instruments Act perjury

Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited & Anr. v. M/S Mannat Dhaba & Ors.

12 Mar 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:1783

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction against defendants for infringing the plaintiffs' registered 'MANNAT' trademarks and passing off in the hospitality sector, decreeing the suit ex-parte due to defendants' non-appearance.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off permanent injunction consumer confusion

Maj Paneet Gill v. Union of India

12 Mar 2025 · Navin Chawla; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:1682-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's order denying interim protection to Short Service Commissioned Officers challenging denial of Permanent Commission, directing expedited adjudication of their Original Applications.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant Permanent Commission Short Service Commissioned Officers Selection Board Interim Protection

Arun Nagar v. Union of India

12 Mar 2025 · Navin Chawla; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:1683-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Medical Board's decision declaring the petitioner unfit for Armed Forces recruitment due to right eye corneal opacity, dismissing challenges based on contrary medical reports.

administrative petition_dismissed Medical Board Armed Forces recruitment Medical fitness Corneal opacity

Lt Col Jaspreet Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.

12 Mar 2025 · Navin Chawla; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:1627-DB

The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to a Short Service Commissioned officer against release pending the Armed Forces Tribunal's judgment, following the Supreme Court's precedent.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Armed Forces Tribunal interim protection release from service Short Service Commission

ST ENGINEERING AEROSPACE ENGINES PTE LTD v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

12 Mar 2025 · DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA; TUSHAR RAO GEDELA · 2025:DHC:1726-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

Delhi High Court quashed reassessment notices issued without valid service to a Singapore-based assessee and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the requirement of proper notice and opportunity under the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A Reassessment proceedings

Bale Ram Kashyap v. Union of India & Ors.

12 Mar 2025 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2025:DHC:1750

The High Court dismissed the second appeal for lack of any substantial question of law, upholding the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding the appellant's claims.

civil appeal_dismissed Section 100 CPC Regular Second Appeal substantial question of law concurrent findings of fact

Ram Kumar v. CBI

12 Mar 2025 · Amit Sharma · 2025:DHC:1619

The Delhi High Court acquitted police officers convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to unreliable video evidence and failure to prove demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act demand and acceptance of bribe video evidence admissibility Section 65B Indian Evidence Act

Sushil Kumar Alias Raju v. State

12 Mar 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:1612-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to unreliable dying declaration, incomplete circumstantial evidence, and insufficient proof that burn injuries caused death.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC circumstantial evidence septicaemia