Delhi High Court

101,749 judgments

Year:

Heena Aleem v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

30 Mar 2026 · Amit Bansal, J. · 2026:DHC:2712
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the requirement of Fire NOC for coaching centers and dismissed writ petitions challenging MCD's levy of conversion and penalty charges after due process and hearing.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Fire No Objection Certificate Coaching centers Conversion charges Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Communication Components Antenna Inc v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG

30 Mar 2026 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2026:DHC:2665

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity and infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 relating to asymmetrical split-sector antennas, granting permanent injunction and damages against Rosenberger Group defendants.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Patent Infringement Indian Patent No. 240893 Asymmetrical Beams Split-sector Antenna

GORAYA STRAW BOARD MILLS PVT. LTD. v. SHRI GANESH PAPER TRADING CO.

30 Mar 2026 · Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2026:DHC:2673

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Trial Court's order closing the defendant's evidence after granting sufficient opportunities, holding that repeated adjournments justified closure of evidence.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India closure of evidence adjournments trial delay

Putzmeister Concrete Pumps GmbH and Anr v. Union of India and Ors

30 Mar 2026 · The Chief Justice; Tushar Rao Gedela; Devendra Kumar Upadhya... · 2026:DHC:2653-DB
Cites 7 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that ex-post facto approval for foreign investment under Press Note-1 (2005 Series) is a policy decision with limited judicial interference and found no violation of natural justice in the approval process, allowing the intra-Court appeal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant ex-post facto approval Press Note-1 (2005 Series) foreign direct investment principles of natural justice

Paramjeet Singh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr

30 Mar 2026 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2026:DHC:2686
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's dismissal of a contract laborer's claim, holding that the petitioner was not an employee of the principal employer and failed to prove continuous service required for protection against termination.

labor petition_dismissed Significant employer-employee relationship contract labor control and supervision continuous service

The New India Assurance Company Ltd v. M/S Kapoor Diesels Garage Pvt Ltd

30 Mar 2026 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2026:DHC:2672
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the decree directing the insurer to pay the claim, holding that a booklet driving licence valid on the accident date cannot be deemed fake merely for not being converted to a smart card before the deadline.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant insurance claim driving licence validity booklet driving licence smart card driving licence

Jaina Marketing and Associates v. Union of India and Ors.

30 Mar 2026 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2026:DHC:2656-DB
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that interest on refund of excess customs duty is payable only if refund is delayed beyond three months from the refund application date, dismissing claims for interest where refunds were granted within statutory timelines.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Customs Act, 1962 refund of customs duty interest on refund Countervailing Duty (CVD)

INTERTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA

30 Mar 2026 · Sachin Datta · 2026:DHC:2661
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside BHEL's debarment and GeM's suspension orders against Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. for lack of reasoned consideration and violation of natural justice, emphasizing the need for speaking orders and proportionality in public procurement penalties.

administrative petition_allowed Significant debarment blacklisting natural justice speaking order

Angrej Chaudhary @ Pujari Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

30 Mar 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:2659

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused in a murder case due to weak and unsubstantiated prosecution evidence, emphasizing the right to liberty pending trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 302 IPC murder telephonic evidence

Rahul Pandey v. Badarpur Service Station

30 Mar 2026 · Sachin Datta · 2026:DHC:2660

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the petitioner voluntarily abandoned service by prolonged absence without satisfactory explanation, dismissing his claim of illegal termination and reinstatement.

labor petition_dismissed Significant voluntary abandonment prolonged absence illegal termination reinstatement

Suresh Kumar v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

30 Mar 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:2679

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC on compromise and reconciliation between the parties.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC compromise matrimonial dispute

Division Railway Manager & Ors. v. Rishi Hitkari

30 Mar 2026 · Sachin Datta · 2026:DHC:2658

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to adjudicate and award unpaid salary and interest based on pre-existing service conditions despite employer's denial.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Section 33C(2) Industrial Disputes Act Labour Court jurisdiction pre-existing right unpaid salary

Sanjay Mehra v. Sharad Mehra & Ors.

30 Mar 2026 · Sachin Datta · 2026:DHC:2662
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

Delhi High Court held that exclusive trademark rights under a family settlement prohibit use of the mark SUPERON in India by one party except for limited export purposes, requiring geo-blocking of websites and prohibiting interlinking of trademarks, and found both parties in wilful contempt for violations.

civil other Significant Terms of Settlement Trademark use SUPERON Geo-blocking

K.S. OILS LIMITED v. SHIVANG EDIBLES OILS LIMITED

30 Mar 2026 · V. KAMESWAR RAO; MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA · 2026:DHC:2671-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte injunction restraining use of the trademark 'KALASH', holding that the Trial Court erred in not considering the appellant's prior proprietary rights and statutory registrations before granting interim relief.

civil appeal_allowed Significant passing off trademark infringement ex-parte injunction proprietary rights

M/S TULLIO GIUSI SRL v. GLOSSY BUTTONS PVT. LTD.

30 Mar 2026 · Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2026:DHC:2676

The High Court allowed the petitioner an opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence despite procedural lapses, emphasizing the interest of justice over strict procedural compliance.

civil appeal_allowed rebuttal evidence Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC Section 151 CPC Article 227 Constitution

International Visa Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India

30 Mar 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:2669-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the disqualification of IVS Lanka from a tender, holding that it cannot claim contractual experience of IVS Global without formal assignment, affirming strict construction of eligibility criteria and limited judicial interference in tender matters.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Mandatory Eligibility Criteria Tender disqualification Contractual experience Operational arm

Sudha Devi v. Anil Kumar

30 Mar 2026 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2023:PHHC:152038

The Delhi High Court quashed the complaint and summoning order against a non-drawer petitioner under Section 138 NI Act, holding that only the drawer/signatory of the cheque can be prosecuted.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Drawer liability Summoning order

Sapna Thakur v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

30 Mar 2026 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2026:DHC:2618

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC against the petitioner's vague and unspecific allegations, holding that such allegations amount to abuse of the legal process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR

Feroz Khan and Ors. v. Anil Jain

30 Mar 2026 · Prathiba M. Singh; Madhu Jain · 2026:DHC:2631-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the decree for recovery of money based on invoices and input tax credit availed, applying the doctrine of approbate and reprobate and clarifying evidentiary standards in commercial supply disputes.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant commercial dispute recovery of money invoices input tax credit

JK Infrastructure v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

30 Mar 2026 · V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2026:DHC:2655-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the MCD's municipal waste management tender, holding that the petitioner lacked locus and that judicial interference in bona fide public tenders is limited.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant public tender municipal solid waste Fixed Compact Transfer Station corrigendum