Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Kaushal Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

15 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:188-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld medical disqualification of a candidate with Coronal Hypospadias for appointment through LDCE to CAPF, affirming that medical fitness criteria must be independently satisfied regardless of prior appointments.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Medical fitness Coronal Hypospadias Limited Departmental Competitive Examination CAPF recruitment

7 Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited v. Nipun Gupta & Anr

15 Jan 2025 · Amit Bansal

The Delhi High Court allowed rectification petitions to cancel the respondents' identical 'RAPIDO' trademark registrations due to prior adoption and use by the petitioner, finding a likelihood of confusion and dishonest registration.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 11 Section 47 Section 57

Mandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

15 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:211-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 a disability injury, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

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

Amit Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

15 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:187-DB

The Delhi High Court remanded a fitness determination back to the medical board for fresh expert examination where medical reports were inconclusive on disqualification under recruitment medical guidelines.

administrative other Procedural pilonidal sinus medical examination recruitment disqualification medical guidelines

Sumit Sangwan v. Union of India and Ors

15 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:165-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the lawful dismissal of a BSF officer under Section 10 of the BSF Act and Rule 20 of the BSF Rules after the Confirming Authority refused to confirm Security Force Court findings, rendering further trial impracticable.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Border Security Force Act, 1968 Rule 20 BSF Rules, 1969 Security Force Court Confirming Authority

Raju Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.

15 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:197-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to provide reasons for applying the sealed cover procedure in the petitioner's promotion case, emphasizing adherence to the Supreme Court precedent in K. V. Janakiraman.

administrative other Significant sealed cover procedure Departmental Promotion Committee charge-sheet disciplinary proceedings

Arbind Yadav v. Union of India

15 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:195-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging termination from SSB service on the ground that it was not the appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

administrative petition_dismissed forum non conveniens territorial jurisdiction writ petition service termination

Rajendera Prasad Verma v. Union of India and Ors.

15 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:198-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to provide reasons for applying the sealed cover procedure in the petitioner's promotion case, emphasizing compliance with the Supreme Court precedent in K. V. Janakiraman.

administrative other Significant sealed cover procedure Departmental Promotion Committee disciplinary proceedings charge-sheet

Tapan Chetry v. Union of India

15 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:196-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to provide reasons for using the sealed cover procedure in the petitioner's promotion case, emphasizing adherence to Supreme Court guidelines and allowing the petitioner to challenge such reasons.

administrative other Significant sealed cover procedure Departmental Promotion Committee disciplinary proceedings charge-sheet

Delhi Administration v. Hari Chand

14 Jan 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:161
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal in a food adulteration case, holding that discrepancies in scientific reports and the double presumption of innocence warranted upholding the respondent's acquittal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 food adulteration sample representativeness double presumption of innocence

Mithlesh Kumar & Ors. v. State

14 Jan 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:162

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for causing grievous injuries under Section 308 IPC but modified their sentence to the period already served considering mitigating factors.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 308 IPC culpable homicide intention and knowledge eyewitness testimony

Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India

14 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:205-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging medical unfitness in CRPF recruitment for lack of territorial jurisdiction, upholding the binding nature of jurisdiction clauses in recruitment advertisements.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction recruitment advertisement court jurisdiction clause writ petition

Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)

14 Jan 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:173
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court denied interim bail to a riot-accused petitioner to contest elections but granted custody parole with strict conditions to enable filing nomination papers.

criminal other Significant interim bail Delhi Riots 2020 election candidacy custody parole

Mohd. Sirajudeen v. State (EOW South-East) Govt. of NCT of Delhi

14 Jan 2025 · Sanjeev Narula · 2025:DHC:163

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a forgery and cheating case after investigation completion, emphasizing that pre-trial detention must not be punitive and bail is the rule, not the exception.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail pre-trial detention forgery cheating

Ex Const Crew Pramod Yadav v. Union of India

14 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:229-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the BSF dismissal order for lack of territorial jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in Assam.

administrative petition_dismissed territorial jurisdiction cause of action forum non conveniens writ petition

Anand Kumar v. Union of India

14 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:206-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging CISF dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens, directing the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court in Tamil Nadu.

administrative petition_dismissed forum non conveniens cause of action territorial jurisdiction Article 226

Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

14 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:147-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF Pay Clerk for financial misconduct and denied compassionate allowance, emphasizing limited judicial interference in departmental inquiries conducted per natural justice.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant departmental inquiry dismissal from service misappropriation of government funds compassionate allowance

Rahul Jain v. M/S Yes Bank Limited

14 Jan 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:1054

The Delhi High Court reduced the surety bond amount in a cheque dishonour case, emphasizing that bail conditions must be reasonable, individualized, and not excessive to ensure meaningful access to bail.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail surety bond Section 440 Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ramesh Chandra v. State of NCT of Delhi

14 Jan 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:346

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act against a petitioner for mere unconscious possession of a single live cartridge, reaffirming that conscious possession is essential for criminal liability under the Arms Act.

criminal petition_allowed Significant conscious possession Arms Act, 1959 live ammunition quashing of FIR

Rajan Handa v. State

14 Jan 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:305

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC in a family dispute involving alleged forgery and breach of trust, holding that the matter was essentially civil and police investigation was not warranted at this stage.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 156(3) CrPC Section 200 CrPC Section 482 CrPC forgery