Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Ashok Jindal v. Union of India through the Chairman Railway Board & Ors

27 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:578-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to constitute an Integrated Medical Board within four weeks to assess the petitioner's medical fitness following his permanent disability from a railway injury.

administrative petition_allowed Medical Board Disability Certificate Railway Protection Force Medical fitness assessment

Mohd Sadat Ashraf & Ors. v. Delhi Waqf Board Through & Ors.

27 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:434-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's refusal to expedite hearing, holding that preferential treatment cannot be granted and such petitions constitute abuse of process.

administrative petition_dismissed Central Administrative Tribunal Article 226 expedited hearing preferential treatment

Haseeb Ahmad v. Delhi Waqf Board

27 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:437-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking expedited hearing and reinstatement, holding it cannot interfere with the Tribunal’s scheduling and that preferential treatment is not permissible.

administrative petition_dismissed Central Administrative Tribunal Article 226 preferential treatment interim relief

X v. State & Ors.

27 Jan 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:441

The Delhi High Court upheld the discharge of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for lack of prima facie evidence, affirming the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the charge framing stage under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant framing of charge discharge prima facie case Section 376 IPC

Aseem Mowar v. State

27 Jan 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:439

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioner in a neighbourly dispute, holding that the allegations were inconsistent, trivial, and did not prima facie constitute offences warranting trial.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR framing of charges Section 164 CrPC statement

M/S OKARA ROADLINES v. M/S PUNJAB FREIGHT CARRIERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

27 Jan 2025 · Sanjeev Narula

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of respondents in Section 138 NI Act cases, holding that the statutory presumption of liability was successfully rebutted by establishing a probable defence of no debt and loss or theft of cheques.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 NI Act Section 118 NI Act Section 139 NI Act

Deepak Jain & Ors. v. Basketball Federation of India & Ors.

27 Jan 2025 · Sachin Datta

The Delhi High Court set aside the Basketball Federation of India's restrictive birth certificate rule and directed adherence to the National Code Against Age Fraud in Sports mandating medical age verification to ensure fair participation.

sports_administrative petition_allowed Significant age verification birth certificate National Code Against Age Fraud in Sports Basketball Federation of India

Ocean Plastics and Fibers P Limited v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr

27 Jan 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:700-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the denial of lease restoration benefits to a leaseholder whose lease was determined and possession taken over by the DDA following eviction proceedings, holding that the policy does not apply in such cases.

property appeal_dismissed Significant restoration of lease determined lease possession taken over Delhi Development Authority

SI Sahil v. Om Prakash

27 Jan 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:720

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal of respondents under Sections 506 and 384 IPC, dismissing the State's appeal for lack of proof of criminal intimidation and extortion.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant criminal intimidation extortion Section 506 IPC Section 384 IPC

Prabhu Dayal v. State, NCT of Delhi

27 Jan 2025 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2025:DHC:676

Delhi High Court set aside the charge of gang rape under Section 376D IPC against the petitioner due to lack of material implicating him in the offence at the charge framing stage.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant framing of charges Section 376D IPC gang rape prima facie case

Bharat Mohan Kohli v. State & Ors

27 Jan 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:766

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to condone a 636-day delay in challenging an order rejecting impleadment of a claimant alleging marriage to the deceased, emphasizing the duty of litigants to be vigilant and provide satisfactory explanations for delay.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay Letters of Administration Will challenge legal heir

Vikash Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi

27 Jan 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:870
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that it can recall its quashing order passed per incuriam due to overruling of relied Supreme Court precedent, as the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. does not apply to such recall under inherent powers.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant recall of order Section 482 CrPC Section 362 CrPC per incuriam

Tanisha Rani Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi

27 Jan 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1059

The High Court held that summoning a person not named in the charge-sheet under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires strong evidence adduced before the court and set aside the summoning order against the petitioner for lack of such evidence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning of accused charge-sheet evidence

Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Ranjan v. Union of India and Ors.

27 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:426-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 21

The Delhi High Court held that a juvenile in conflict with law is not required to disclose juvenile offences in service verification forms, and termination on such grounds is unsustainable, directing reinstatement of the petitioner.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant juvenile justice furnishing false information termination of service attestation form

Makhdum Ali Haidar v. Union of India and Ors

27 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:425-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the adverse APAR grading of a BSF officer for lack of justifiable reasons and procedural fairness, holding that regularized Over Stay Leave cannot justify adverse remarks and no second representation lies after the first is decided.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Annual Performance Assessment Report APAR Over Stay Leave Representation against APAR

Ashok Kumar v. Sitara & Ors.

24 Jan 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja, J. · 2025:DHC:367

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of a belated amendment application in an eviction suit, emphasizing the requirement of due diligence under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as amended in 2022.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amendment of pleadings due diligence CPC Amendment 2022

Kishan Lal Bhandula v. Sushil Bhandula

24 Jan 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:882
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging possession recovery as barred by limitation, holding that a 1327-day delay was not sufficiently explained to condone under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

civil petition_dismissed Significant condonation of delay Limitation Act 1963 sufficient cause finality of litigation

Porter Buildcon Private Ltd & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

24 Jan 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:431-DB

The Delhi High Court held that aggrieved parties must exhaust statutory appeals under the Benami Act against adjudication orders, condoned delay in filing appeals due to pending writ petition, and declined interim relief against confiscation proceedings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 Section 24(1) Section 26(3) Section 46 appeal

Usha International Limited v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate (Vasant Vihar) and Ors

24 Jan 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:446

The Delhi High Court directed the revenue authorities to update the mutation entry in the revenue records in favor of the petitioner upon filing of the application and compliance with statutory requirements.

property petition_allowed mutation revenue records stamp duty compliance certificate

SI Kriti Singh v. Saiyama @ Saiba

24 Jan 2025 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2025:DHC:637
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's discharge of the accused from charges of trafficking and conspiracy, holding that mere passive knowledge without overt acts is insufficient to frame charges at the prima facie stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant framing of charges prima facie case criminal conspiracy Section 164 CrPC statement