Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Akhileshwar Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi

04 Feb 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:722
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of conspiracy and robbery, holding that a prima facie case exists warranting custodial interrogation.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant anticipatory bail robbery custodial interrogation prima facie case

Yasin @ Gilli v. The State of NCT Delhi

04 Feb 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:721
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

Bail was denied to the accused in a murder case at the trial stage due to the grave nature of the offence, his criminal history, risk of witness tampering, and absence of undue trial delay.

criminal bail_denied Significant bail murder serious offence trial stage

Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd and Ors v. Union of India & Ors

04 Feb 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:699-DB

The Delhi High Court condoned a 19-minute delay in submission of questionnaire response in an anti-dumping investigation, allowing the petitioners to participate fully in the proceedings.

administrative petition_allowed Significant anti-dumping investigation questionnaire response delay condonation trade remedies

Shakti Rani Sharma & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

04 Feb 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:694-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful hospitalization of Mr. P.S. for treatment of Paranoid Schizophrenia and dismissed the habeas corpus petition seeking his production.

constitutional petition_dismissed habeas corpus mental illness Paranoid Schizophrenia hospitalization

Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner of Customs

04 Feb 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:698-DB

The Delhi High Court held that denial of cross-examination under Section 138B of the Customs Act of a witness whose statement is relied upon violates natural justice, directing fresh adjudication after granting such opportunity.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act 1962 Section 108 Section 138B cross-examination

Dr. Rashmi Saluja v. Religare Enterprises Limited

04 Feb 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:701
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application restraining the defendant company from proceeding with a resolution subjecting her to retirement by rotation, holding that she failed to establish the essential conditions for injunction and had acquiesced to the rotation process.

corporate petition_dismissed Significant interim injunction Executive Chairperson Companies Act 2013 Section 196

Deepak Gupta v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta

04 Feb 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:674
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the summary decree against the appellant for failure to seek leave to defend within the prescribed time under Order XXXVII CPC despite valid service of summons.

civil appeal_dismissed Order XXXVII CPC summary suit leave to defend bounced cheque

Ramesh Kumar Khatri v. Durgesh Pathak

04 Feb 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:664
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed an election petition for failure to disclose a cause of action, holding that mere non-maintenance of correct election expenditure accounts without exceeding prescribed limits does not constitute corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant Representation of the People Act, 1951 Election Petition Corrupt Practice Section 77 expenditure

Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors.

04 Feb 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:662

Delhi High Court holds that offering goods bearing an impugned trademark for sale through websites accessible in Delhi constitutes use within its jurisdiction, dismissing defendant's plea to reject plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Order VII Rule 11 CPC trademark infringement passing off

Mohinder Singh v. Durgesh Kumar and Ors.

04 Feb 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:663

The Delhi High Court dismissed an election petition for failure to disclose material facts constituting a cause of action, holding that mere vague allegations and non-substantial defects in nomination affidavits do not invalidate an election.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant Election Petition Cause of Action Nomination Affidavit Representation of People’s Act, 1951

Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle

04 Feb 2025 · Yashwant Varma; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:656-DB

The Delhi High Court held that jurisdictional Assessing Officers retain concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under Section 148 despite the faceless assessment scheme, validating reassessment notices issued by them.

tax petition_dismissed Significant faceless assessment Section 148 Income Tax Act jurisdictional Assessing Officer concurrent jurisdiction

Marfing Tamang @ Maaina Tamang v. State (NCT of Delhi)

04 Feb 2025 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2025:DHC:672

The Delhi High Court held that under section 50 Cr.P.C., grounds of arrest must be communicated immediately and simultaneously with arrest, and failure to do so renders the arrest and remand illegal.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant grounds of arrest section 50 Cr.P.C. forthwith illegal arrest

Sunil Kumar Uppal v. The Commissioner, MCD

04 Feb 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:918-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that financial difficulties cannot justify denial of interest on delayed retiral benefits and directed payment of interest at the GPF rate, setting aside the Tribunal’s order denying interest.

administrative petition_allowed Significant retiral benefits interest on delayed payment financial stringency Central Administrative Tribunal

Bimlesh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

04 Feb 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:890-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal's order awarding interest at GPF rates on delayed retiral benefits and remanded the matter for reconsideration to ensure consistency in interest rates awarded.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant retiral benefits interest rate Central Administrative Tribunal GPF rate

Jagbir Singh v. Union of India

03 Feb 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:758-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for pay parity and pension re-fixation by passing a speaking order within twelve weeks, granting relief if merited with arrears limited to three years.

administrative other pay parity basic pay upgrade pension re-fixation representation

Anish Muralidhar v. EK NK Bhupal Singh

03 Feb 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:679-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order due to an unexplained delay of nearly five years, applying the doctrine of delay and laches.

administrative petition_dismissed delay and laches writ petition judicial review Armed Forces Tribunal

Rajnish v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Feb 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:660-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Medical Board's decision declaring the petitioner medically unfit due to convergent squint, emphasizing limited judicial interference in medical fitness assessments for disciplined forces.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Review Medical Examination Convergent Squint Medical Board Judicial Review

Amit Sharma v. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Ors

03 Feb 2025 · Jyoti Singh, J. · 2025:DHC:626

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful termination of a probationary employee without confirmation, rejecting claims of mala fide or punitive dismissal in absence of specific confirmation order or constitutional violation.

labor petition_dismissed Significant probation deemed confirmation termination simpliciter mala fide termination

State Through RPF v. Farooq and Ors

03 Feb 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:628
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a railway property theft case due to lack of independent witnesses and procedural irregularities affecting the reliability of confessional statements made to RPF officials.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant confessional statement Railway Protection Force Section 100 CrPC extra-judicial confession

Creative Travels Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Feb 2025 · Yashwant Varma; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:645-DB

The Delhi High Court held that extended limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked without clear proof of wilful suppression of facts when the same facts were already disclosed in earlier proceedings, quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice against Creative Travels Pvt Ltd.

tax petition_allowed Significant Finance Act 1994 Section 73(1) extended period of limitation service tax