Delhi High Court

36,666 judgments

Year:

M/S Mohan Brothers v. Mr. Mithilesh Pandey

13 Feb 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:886
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's award of compensation for illegal termination, holding that the petitioner failed to prove voluntary abandonment or valid full and final settlement, and reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Article 226 Labour Court Award Illegal termination Voluntary abandonment

EX-CT/WC Pardeshi Jitendra Singh v. Union of India & Anr

13 Feb 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:859-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal of a CRPF personnel for unauthorized absence, holding that the departmental inquiry and punishment were lawful and not subject to judicial interference.

administrative petition_dismissed departmental inquiry unauthorized absence dismissal from service principles of natural justice

Sh. Subhash Chand v. Smt. Maya & Ors.

13 Feb 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:899

The Delhi High Court upheld the husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C., modifying the maintenance amount based on minimum wages due to lack of concrete income proof.

family sentence_modified Significant Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance able-bodied husband minimum wages

Rahul v. State NCT of Delhi

13 Feb 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:898

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner who was found prima facie to have instigated and facilitated an armed attack causing grievous injury, necessitating custodial interrogation.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant anticipatory bail instigation armed attack Section 528 BNSS

Ved Prakash Thakur v. Delhi Development Authority

13 Feb 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ; Tushar Rao Gedela, J · 2025:DHC:925-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appellant's appeal to stay auction proceedings and recognized the extended payment period under the DDA brochure, directing deposit of the balance amount with interest pending final adjudication.

property appeal_allowed Significant Housing Scheme 2019 Delhi Development Authority allotment cancellation payment extension

Religare Finvest Limited v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited

13 Feb 2025 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:900
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the State Bank of India's application for impleadment as a necessary party defendant in a suit challenging unauthorized liquidation of hypothecated fixed deposits, emphasizing the court's discretion under Order I Rule 10 CPC to ensure effective adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant impleadment Order I Rule 10 CPC necessary party floating charge

Bir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

13 Feb 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:930

The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging violation of parking restrictions by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for administrative disposal, emphasizing procedural fairness and exhaustion of remedies.

administrative petition_dismissed contempt proceedings wilful disobedience court directions parking prohibition

M/S AIMS RETAIL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

13 Feb 2025 · PRATHIBA M. SINGH; DHARMESH SHARMA

Unlocking or activating mobile phones after manufacture constitutes 'taken into use' under customs law, disqualifying exporters from claiming duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962.

tax petition_dismissed Significant duty drawback Customs Act 1962 Section 75 taken into use

Union of India v. M/S APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED

13 Feb 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Dharmesh Sharma

The Delhi High Court disposed of petitions challenging CESTAT orders on Anti-Dumping Duty Office Memorandums as infructuous after domestic industries withdrew claims, leaving the jurisdictional issue open.

administrative petition_dismissed Anti-Dumping Duty Customs Tariff Act, 1975 Directorate General of Trade Remedies Office Memorandum

Shivam Pandey v. State

13 Feb 2025 · Jasmeet Singh, J · 2025:DHC:1117
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of rape charges, holding that mere breach of promise to marry without mala fide intention does not vitiate consent under Section 375 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant consent false promise of marriage Section 375 IPC Section 376 IPC

Fazrudeen and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

13 Feb 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2025:DHC:905-DB

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-initiation within the prescribed period, directing restoration of possession and rectification of records, emphasizing compliance with final Supreme Court orders despite pending curative petitions.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 possession restoration

FIITJEE Ltd. v. Madhulika Singh

12 Feb 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:937

The Delhi High Court held that judicial interference under Article 227 in arbitral orders is limited to exceptional cases of perversity and dismissed the petition challenging the Arbitrator's refusal to exclude certain witnesses.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India Arbitral Tribunal Judicial interference Perversity

Jyotish Kumar Misra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

12 Feb 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:868-DB

The Delhi High Court directed respondents to consider writ petitions as representations for grant of notional pay scale benefits within twelve weeks, without expressing opinion on merits.

administrative other Procedural Notional Monetary Benefits Replacement Pay Scale Representation Ajit Singh Judgment

Vikram Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

12 Feb 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:871-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Air Force service policy, holding that such service matters fall exclusively within the Armed Forces Tribunal's jurisdiction.

administrative petition_dismissed Armed Forces Tribunal service matter jurisdiction Air Force HR policy

Anwar Kamal v. Subhan Ahmed

12 Feb 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:1521
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order against the tenant, holding that the landlord proved bona fide need and better title, and the tenant failed to raise triable issues for leave to defend.

property petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) eviction petition bona fide requirement

Sachin Nagpal v. Gopal Krishan

12 Feb 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:1449

The Delhi High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition challenging the dismissal of leave to defend in an eviction case, affirming the landlord's bona fide need and limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e) bona fide need alternate accommodation

Amarchand v. Rakesh Kumar

12 Feb 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:1377

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant on the landlord's bona fide requirement, rejecting the tenant's claim of alternate accommodation and limiting the scope of revisionary jurisdiction.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bona fide requirement alternate accommodation eviction petition

Shri Anil Arvind Bhai Vaiwala v. State of NCT of Delhi

12 Feb 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:1010

The Delhi High Court held that the mandatory 20% deposit condition for suspension of sentence under Section 138 NI Act is not absolute and appellate courts must consider exceptions even if not specifically pleaded.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 NI Act Section 148 NI Act Section 389 CrPC suspension of sentence

Shri Anil Arvind Bhai Vaiwala v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

12 Feb 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:1009

The Delhi High Court held that the mandatory 20% deposit condition for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC in Section 138 NI Act appeals is not absolute and appellate courts must consider exceptions even if not specifically pleaded.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 NI Act Section 148 NI Act Section 389 CrPC suspension of sentence

Shri Anil Arvind Bhai Vaiwala v. State of NCT of Delhi

12 Feb 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:1008

The Delhi High Court held that the mandatory 20% deposit condition for suspension of sentence under Section 138 NI Act is not absolute and appellate courts must consider exceptions based on the appellant’s circumstances, setting aside orders that failed to do so.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 NI Act Section 148 NI Act Section 389 CrPC suspension of sentence