Delhi High Court

36,666 judgments

Year:

Satish Kumar Pawa v. State of NCT of Delhi

28 Feb 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1511

The Delhi High Court held that compounding of a Section 138 NI Act offence by one partner discharges the entire liability of the unregistered partnership firm and all partners, quashing the complaint against the other partner.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Partnership Firm liability Compounding offence Joint and several liability

Ashutosh Goel v. State Bank of India and Ors.

28 Feb 2025 · Jyoti Singh · 2025:DHC:1317
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed the disciplinary inquiry and penalty imposed on a bank officer due to procedural violations including absence of witness list and failure to grant opportunity to respond to disagreement by the disciplinary authority.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental inquiry charge sheet list of witnesses documentary evidence

Neeru Mahendru v. Inder Mohan through LRs Ajay Mahendru

28 Feb 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1491

The Delhi High Court held that a registered Sale Deed not challenged within limitation bars benami claims, entitling the plaintiff to possession and rejecting the suit challenging the Gift Deed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Section 4 Benami Act Section 27 Limitation Act Order XII Rule 6 CPC

Cellectis v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

28 Feb 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:1466

The Delhi High Court held that amendments to patent specifications and claims are permissible at the appellate stage under Section 59 of the Patents Act, allowing the appellant to amend the patent application to address objections under Section 3(i).

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Patents Act, 1970 Section 59 Section 3(i) amendment of patent application

Dhanraj and Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

28 Feb 2025 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2025:DHC:1291

The Delhi High Court upheld the framing of charges under Section 376D IPC against the petitioners, holding that a prima facie case existed based on the complainant's statements and medical evidence, and refused to interfere in the absence of gross illegality.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 376D IPC framing of charges prima facie case Section 164 CrPC statement

Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr.

28 Feb 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1443-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the petitioner to approach the CESTAT with a conditional pre-deposit to adjudicate the factual issue of service tax liability on Value Added Services availed through prepaid packages, rejecting the writ petition challenging the tax demand.

tax appeal_allowed Significant service tax double taxation prepaid vouchers Value Added Services

Unising Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI & Anr.

28 Feb 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:1441-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a 15-year-old service tax show cause notice and related order due to inordinate delay in adjudication despite no stay being granted.

tax petition_allowed Significant show cause notice delay in adjudication service tax Finance Act 2005

Saurabh Gupta v. Chandresh Gautam

28 Feb 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1435

The Delhi High Court allowed the revision petition and dismissed the suit for failing to disclose a cause of action and being barred by res judicata, holding that the petitioner’s registered sale certificate and possession under SARFAESI Act prevailed over the plaintiff’s inchoate title claims.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action res judicata SARFAESI Act

Salahuddin Ayubi v. Bhushan Kumar

28 Feb 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1434

The High Court set aside the decree of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on limitation grounds, holding that the suit was barred as it was re-filed beyond six months without proper exclusion of time.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 6 Specific Relief Act possession illegal dispossession limitation

Union of India v. Bhavesh Gupta

28 Feb 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1368-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of a writ petition challenging an interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal after the Tribunal disposed of the underlying Original Application, holding the petition infructuous.

administrative petition_allowed Central Administrative Tribunal interim order Original Application writ petition

Ashok Kumar Gupta Proprietor of Jai Durga Plaster Industries & Anr. v. Arif Khan

28 Feb 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:1414
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to plaintiffs against defendant for trademark infringement and passing off of the mark 'SAKARNI' by the deceptively similar mark 'SIKARNI' in an ex parte suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark Infringement Passing Off Permanent Injunction Trade Marks Act, 1999

M/s Kavita Enterprises v. Airport Authority of India

28 Feb 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:1406-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that a writ petition filed after an unexplained delay of over two decades seeking return of FDRs is barred by limitation and not maintainable under Article 226.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant limitation delay and laches writ petition Article 226

National Technical Research Organisation & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar

28 Feb 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1384-DB

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing provisional appointments subject to enquiry outcomes and procedural safeguards, dismissing the writ petition filed by NTRO.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant provisional offer of appointment enquiry show cause notice Staff Selection Commission

Gagan v. State (NCT of Delhi)

28 Feb 2025 · Vikas Mahajan, J · 2025:DHC:1402

The Delhi High Court held that failure to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest and granted regular bail to the petitioner in a Section 306 IPC case.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant grounds of arrest Article 22(1) Constitution of India Section 50 CrPC abatement of suicide

Haider Ali v. Hasan Ahmed & Ors.

28 Feb 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1390

The Delhi High Court allowed the revision petition and dismissed the suit for non-disclosure of cause of action where the plaintiff claimed title through a trespasser without valid ownership.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action compromise decree title and possession

Nirmal Kumar Mishra v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

28 Feb 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail for the petitioner accused of masterminding a large-scale cyber fraud, emphasizing the prima facie case and necessity of custodial interrogation.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant anticipatory bail cyber fraud Section 420 IPC Section 482 BNSS

Ajay @ Rehtal v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

28 Feb 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:1360
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a robbery and assault case due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and prolonged pre-trial detention, imposing conditions to safeguard the trial process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 439 CrPC robbery hostile witnesses

Virender Singh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

28 Feb 2025 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2025:DHC:1319

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case due to unreliable sole eyewitness testimony and lack of independent evidence, setting aside the trial court's order and discharging the accused.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 258 CrPC sole eyewitness testimony prima facie case rash and negligent driving

Payal Banquets Private Limited v. State Bank of India

28 Feb 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:1357

The court held that ownership of adjacent property with an integral super-structure does not grant a right of pre-emption over the other half repossessed and auctioned by the bank, dismissing the petition as premature and directing participation in the sale process.

property petition_dismissed right of pre-emption auction repossession integral super-structure

Anand Kumar Rakesh v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors.

28 Feb 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1308-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the finality of a voluntary separation application submitted under the Golden Gate Scheme, dismissing the appellant's attempt to withdraw it on grounds of duress and procedural irregularity.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant voluntary separation Golden Gate Scheme promotion refusal administrative finality