Delhi High Court

38,124 judgments

Year:

TEK TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED v. GURSAHIB SINGH SETHI & ORS.

10 Jan 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:96

The Delhi High Court recalled an ex parte order against defendants due to their counsel's negligence, allowing them to be heard but without reviving their closed right to file a written statement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant ex parte order Order IX Rule 7 CPC good cause negligence of counsel

Vijay Enterprises & Anr. v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

10 Jan 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:265-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed a 15-year-old Customs Show Cause Notice and consequential order due to inordinate delay violating statutory limitation and principles of natural justice.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 28(9) Show Cause Notice Limitation

Tilak Raj Jain and Anr. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit and Ors.

10 Jan 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:238-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a 2008 Show Cause Notice under the Customs Act due to inordinate delay exceeding statutory limitation, holding that repeated call book placements do not justify non-adjudication.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 28(9) Show Cause Notice limitation

Polyglass Acrylic Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors.

10 Jan 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:266-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a nine-year-old Customs Show Cause Notice due to unjustified delay in adjudication beyond the statutory period under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 28(9) Show Cause Notice Adjudication delay

Shri Inderjeet Singh Bindra v. Smt Ramesh Kumari and Others

10 Jan 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:272
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's review petition seeking cancellation of a Power of Attorney on limitation grounds, holding that the amendment was barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act and that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Article 59 Article 65 Power of Attorney

M/S NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 1 & ANR

10 Jan 2025 · Vibhu BakhrU, ACJ; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:95-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a non-existent amalgamated company is validly construed as a Section 148A(b) notice and does not vitiate reassessment proceedings continued under a subsequent valid Section 148 notice.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act Section 148A(b) Income Tax Act Amalgamation Notice validity

Satya Sharma v. New Delhi Municipal Council

10 Jan 2025 · Jyoti Singh · 2025:DHC:199

The Delhi High Court quashed an illegal demand notice by NDMC and directed re-computation of license fee from 2002 excluding arrears cleared by prior sub-lettees, enforcing its earlier judgment.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant license fee subletting charges New Delhi Municipal Council Palika Bazar

Ajay Singh Kushwaha v. Union of India & Ors.

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:129-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to decide the petitioner's pending representation within eight weeks, without expressing any opinion on merits or limitation.

administrative petition_allowed representation public authority reasonable time judicial direction

Brij Kishor and Ors v. Union of India & Ors

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:134-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' claims for retrospective pay scale benefits within twelve weeks, referencing a recent precedent, without expressing opinion on merits.

administrative other Significant Notional Monetary Benefits Replacement Pay Scale Retrospective Benefits Representation

Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:151-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a CISF dismissal order on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

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

Sayresh Dhavj Dhangda v. Staff Selection Commission and Anr

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:149-DB

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

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction recruitment advertisement Physical Standard Test Computer Based Examination

Urmila v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

10 Jan 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:101

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of conspiracy to murder, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence and prolonged pre-trial detention.

criminal appeal_allowed bail Section 439 Cr.P.C. circumstantial evidence prolonged detention

Ex CPO Jitendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:127-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's refusal to expedite hearing of a service termination challenge, holding no legal infirmity in the tribunal's scheduling discretion.

administrative petition_dismissed Armed Forces Tribunal expedited hearing Article 226 writ petition

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:128-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a BSF dismissal order on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

administrative petition_dismissed forum non conveniens territorial jurisdiction writ petition service dismissal

Kiran Sehgal v. Veena Aggarwal

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:153-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining appellants from using deceptively similar trademarks 'POWERMEN DLX' and 'POWERMEN MAXX' against the respondent's registered mark 'POWERMAN', affirming that registration does not bar passing off claims.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement passing off deceptive similarity interim injunction

Habib Ahmad v. The Commissioner MCD and Ors.

10 Jan 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:150

The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of its order on unauthorized construction, holding that ongoing appeals preclude contempt until final adjudication, but granted liberty to revive the petition if non-compliance persists.

administrative petition_dismissed contempt proceedings unauthorized construction interim protection appeal

Sonansh Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

10 Jan 2025 · Vibhu BakhrU; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:77-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside the reopening of the petitioner’s income tax assessment for AY 2015-16 due to lack of credible material exceeding the ₹50 lakh threshold and non-compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A Section 149(1)(b)

Satish Builders v. Union of India

10 Jan 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:135

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award, upholding the arbitrator's reasoned findings on delay attribution, escalation claims, and contract interpretation under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Arbitral Award Delay Attribution

S HARCHARAN SINGH v. NARESH KUMAR BHARDWAJ

10 Jan 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:131

The Delhi High Court granted the tenant additional time to vacate premises by staying the eviction order subject to payment of user charges and filing an undertaking, while allowing the site plan to be taken on record.

property appeal_allowed eviction interim relief user charges site plan

Utkarsha Lal v. Union of India & Ors.

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:103-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed a petitioner injured before the Physical Endurance Test a one-time extension to appear, holding that non-competitive qualifying tests warrant reasonable accommodation for medical incapacity.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Physical Endurance Test Physical Standard Test extension of time medical incapacity