Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Rinku @ Gajendra v. Shyambir Pathak

13 Jan 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:145

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation to an injured pillion rider by setting aside contributory negligence deduction and granting future prospects as per Supreme Court precedent.

civil appeal_allowed Significant contributory negligence pillion rider motor vehicle accident compensation enhancement

Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited

13 Jan 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:116
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction application in a trademark dispute, holding that the defendant's modified mark with a house mark is not deceptively similar and there is no likelihood of confusion given the plaintiff's lack of market presence.

civil petition_dismissed Significant trademark infringement interim injunction passing off likelihood of confusion

DCIT, CIRDE-25(1), New Delhi v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

13 Jan 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru, ACJ; Swarana Kanta Sharma, J · 2025:DHC:122-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to electricity generation and distribution companies for AY 2007-08, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 115JB Minimum Alternate Tax book profits electricity generation company

Sh. Tarif Singh & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority

13 Jan 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:237

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-reasoned DDA order and directed reconsideration with a reasoned and speaking order to enable effective statutory appeal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Development Act, 1957 reasoned order speaking order statutory appeal

Parikshit Grewal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

13 Jan 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:261-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the interim order making the recruitment process subject to the outcome of the Tribunal's Original Application, directing expeditious hearing without binding the Tribunal to its observations.

administrative appeal_dismissed recruitment process Original Application Central Administrative Tribunal impleadment

Raj Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

13 Jan 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:4784-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending representation under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules within six weeks, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.

administrative petition_allowed writ petition representation Rule 29 CRPF Rules reasonable time

Pitambar Bishwa Karma v. The State (Govt of NCT) Delhi

10 Jan 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Amit Sharma · 2025:DHC:82-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to unreliable eyewitness testimony, doubtful weapon recovery, and inconclusive DNA evidence, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Eyewitness testimony Recovery of weapon DNA evidence

Lachman Dass v. Delhi Development Authority

10 Jan 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:109

The Delhi High Court held that cancellation of allotment of an alternate plot to a riot-affected petitioner was unjustified without due process and credible evidence, directing restoration of allotment.

property appeal_allowed Significant rehabilitation policy 1984 riots allotment cancellation vested right

Bibekananda Das v. Union of India and Ors

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:152-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a CISF service dismissal order issued in Rajasthan, holding that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

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

Chander Kant v. Central Reserve Police Force & Anr.

10 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:130-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court directed a fresh medical examination when a new ground for rejection was introduced at the Review Medical Examination stage, ensuring fairness in appointment fitness assessment.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Review Medical Examination Lasik surgery Defective colour vision Fresh Medical Board

RTD. BRIG. S.C. KUTHIALA v. SH. RAJAN KUTHIALA & ORS.

10 Jan 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:91

The Delhi High Court held that a suit seeking only declaration and cancellation of a sale deed without claiming possession relief is not maintainable and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant declaration of title cancellation of sale deed proviso to Section 34 Specific Relief Act Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Gaurav v. State NCT of Delhi

10 Jan 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:763
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the order setting aside the discharge of the accused at the charge framing stage, holding that a prima facie case was made out and contradictions or FIR delay are matters for trial.

criminal petition_dismissed charge framing discharge order prima facie case Section 324 IPC

K S Bakshi & Ors. v. Surinder Nath HUF & Anr.

10 Jan 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:687

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order, holding that the landlord had better title, the agreed rent was Rs. 1,500 within jurisdictional limits, tenants attorned to the landlord, and bona fide need was established.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction petition jurisdiction attornment

Renu Garg; Naresh Garg v. The State

10 Jan 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:569

The Delhi High Court upheld the framing of charges against petitioners for illegal adoption and child trafficking under IPC and Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing compliance with prescribed adoption procedures.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant adoption juvenile justice act child trafficking kidnapping

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