Delhi High Court

36,666 judgments

Year:

Manoj Thakur v. Ravinder Nath Singh & Anr.

07 Mar 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:1503
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court upheld dismissal of a suit under Section 7 of the Specific Relief Act as barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC for seeking reliefs already claimed in a prior suit on the same cause of action without leave of the court.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order II Rule 2 CPC cause of action multiplicity of suits Specific Relief Act, 1963

Santosh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)

07 Mar 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:1502
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a shopkeeper for aggravated sexual assault of a five-year-old girl under the POCSO Act, affirming that reliable child victim testimony alone can sustain conviction without corroboration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act Section 10 POCSO Section 29 POCSO presumption child sexual assault

Samir Sharma v. Sterre Sharma & Anr.

07 Mar 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:1499

The Delhi High Court held that a partition suit is maintainable despite pending probate proceedings and granted interim injunction restraining alienation of estate properties to preserve the plaintiff's rights as a legal heir.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition suit probate petition validity of Will interim injunction

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram

07 Mar 2025 · Yashwant Varma; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:1479-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the illegality of a workman's termination and granted full back wages and benefits despite delay and refusal to accept a prior re-employment offer, dismissing the employer's appeal.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant illegal termination Section 33 Industrial Disputes Act back wages reinstatement

M/S ISMARTU INDIA PVT. LTD. v. Union of India

07 Mar 2025 · Yashwant Varma; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:1478-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a second Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act as impermissible change of opinion and lacking required particulars of suppression or collusion.

tax petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 28(1) Section 28(4) Show Cause Notice

Ishart Jahan v. Syed Shah Badar Hussan Sabri

07 Mar 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:1576

The High Court held it lacks jurisdiction under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act to entertain revision against interlocutory orders rejecting applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC in eviction proceedings.

property petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 25-B eviction petition Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

NTPC Limited v. Starcon Infra Projects India Pvt Ltd

07 Mar 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:1572

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting amendment or withdrawal of claims under Section 23(3) is a procedural order, not an interim award, and thus not challengeable under Section 34 before the final award.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 23(3) Section 34 interim award

Sh. Dalip Puri v. Ritu Malhotra

07 Mar 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:1573

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a registered Will excluding the plaintiff from inheritance, dismissing his suit for partition due to lack of proof of forgery or mental incapacity.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Will validity Testamentary capacity Indian Succession Act Section 63 Indian Evidence Act Section 114

SSC and Anr. v. Garima

07 Mar 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1530-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the SSC’s writ petition and upheld the Tribunal’s order directing a fresh medical examination for a candidate temporarily disqualified due to a fractured ankle.

administrative appeal_dismissed medical examination recruitment temporary unfitness fractured ankle

Balvantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan Anguri Devi Shersingh Memorial Academy v. Undeda Nickat

07 Mar 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1529-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's withdrawn appeal and granted a strict two-week extension to comply with the Single Judge's judgment.

civil appeal_dismissed Procedural appeal withdrawal extension of time compliance with judgment Letters Patent Appeal

Saraswati Devi v. State Bank of India

07 Mar 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:1563

The Delhi High Court directed SBI to decide the petitioner’s representation for compensation arising from her police officer husband’s death within two weeks, granting liberty to approach the court again if aggrieved.

civil other Procedural writ petition State Bank of India police official death policy claim

K W/O P v. State of NCT Delhi and Anr

07 Mar 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:1550
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that interim compensation for sexual offence victims must consider medical and socio-economic factors and directed the DLSA to reconsider the petitioner's application after acknowledging the charge-sheet filed.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant interim compensation victim compensation sexual offences Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2018

Ashok Kumar v. Harish Kumar

07 Mar 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:1540

The Delhi High Court granted the petitioner an extension to vacate tenanted premises until 30.09.2025 on condition of payment of monthly user charges and compliance with an undertaking, staying eviction execution till that date.

property petition_allowed eviction order extension of possession user and occupation charges undertaking

Narender Kumar v. Saroj Garg

07 Mar 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:1539

The Delhi High Court granted the tenant an extension to vacate premises until 31.12.2025 on condition of paying monthly user charges and filing an undertaking, staying the eviction order subject to compliance.

property appeal_allowed eviction order extension of time user and occupation charges vacant possession

Airport Authority of India v. Mumbai International Airport Limited & Anr

07 Mar 2025 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2025:DHC:1522
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award excusing MIAL from Annual Fee payments during COVID-19 Force Majeure period and extending the OMDA term, rejecting AAI's challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

commercial_arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Force Majeure Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Annual Fee

Airports Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Limited & Anr

07 Mar 2025 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2025:DHC:1523
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award excusing DIAL from Annual Fee payments under the OMDA during COVID-19 Force Majeure, rejecting AAI's challenge for patent illegality and contract misinterpretation.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Force Majeure Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Operation Management and Development Agreement Annual Fee

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. v. Prakash Singh & Ors.

07 Mar 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1519

The Delhi High Court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act despite prior Workmen Compensation payment, affirming negligence and insurance liability notwithstanding a fake driving license.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 Section 167 M.V. Act compensation

Cholamandalam MS Gen Ins Co. Ltd. v. Praveen Kumar Singh; Tulsi Bisht v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.

07 Mar 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1518

Delhi High Court upheld sole negligence of offending truck driver in a fatal motor accident, reduced future prospects to 40%, and enhanced compensation to legal heirs from Rs.31.57 lakh to Rs.42.46 lakh with 8% interest.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant motor accident claim negligence future prospects loss of consortium

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI v. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

07 Mar 2025 · Yashwant Varma; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that AMP expenditure cannot be treated as an international transaction for transfer pricing adjustments absent tangible evidence of an agreement or arrangement obliging such expenditure for the foreign associated enterprise.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Advertising Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenditure International transaction Transfer pricing Bright line test

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. MALLA RAJIV

07 Mar 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:2153
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

Delhi High Court granted summary judgment in favor of Tata Sons for trademark infringement and passing off against defendant selling deceptively similar packaged water under 'JK COPPER+ WATER', awarding injunction, damages, and costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off summary judgment Order XIII-A CPC