Delhi High Court

102,337 judgments

Year:

Through: Mr. Akshay Ringe, Ms. Megha Mukerjee, Mr. Suyash Darade, Mr. Ravi Sharma Advocates v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV · 2026:DHC:1419

The Delhi High Court directed the Judo Federation of India to conduct elections and amend its constitution in compliance with the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, ensuring orderly transition to a democratically elected governing body.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant National Sports Governance Act 2025 Judo Federation of India sports federation governance elections

Through: Mr. Atul Kumar, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar & Mr. Aatrayi Das, Advs v. JASWINDER SINGH & ORS

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY; HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REN... · 2026:DHC:1350-DB

The Delhi High Court permitted a lessee to surrender leased premises and be discharged from further rent liability due to the Managing Partner's severe medical incapacity, subject to conditions including peaceful possession and clearance of dues.

civil petition_allowed Significant lease surrender Section 151 CPC unforeseen medical emergency discharge from rent liability

Mob: 9810149006 Email: sehgalbhuvanesh@gmail.com v. LATE SH RAMESH CHAND SHARMA AND ORS. .....Judgement Debtors

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL) · 2026:DHC:1406

The Delhi High Court clarified that a valid relinquishment deed by a co-owner effectively transfers their share, modifying the distribution of sale proceeds in execution of a final property decree.

property petition_allowed Significant Relinquishment Deed Preliminary Decree Property Share Execution of Decree

Through: v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV; J U D G E M E... · 2026:DHC:1402

The court held that third parties dispossessed in execution of Rent Controller decrees have a statutory remedy under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC to challenge such dispossession before the Executing Court.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Order XXI Rule 99 CPC execution proceedings third party dispossession

Through: Ms. Ritika Mitra, Adv v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM... · 2026:DHC:1307-DB

The Delhi High Court held that summons served via email and WhatsApp constitute valid service, and dismissed the appellant's delayed appeal against an ex parte decree in a commercial suit for want of condonation of delay.

civil petition_dismissed Significant service of summons email service WhatsApp service Order IX Rule 13 CPC

Through: Mr. Vikas Sethi, Mr. Chitresh Mittal and Ms. Vaishali Chaudhary, Advocates v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR · 2026:DHC:1251
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking appointment of arbitrator due to an inordinate delay of over two years in re-filing without credible justification, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines and the necessity of bona fide explanations for condonation of delay.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay re-filing petition Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act Delhi High Court Original Side Rules

Through: Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Shruti Manchanda, Mr. Vibhor Sethi and Mr. Mankaran Singh, Advs v. CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM... · 2026:DHC:1296-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and granted interim injunction restraining respondent from using the mark "CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE," holding that the dominant feature "CHACHA" in both marks creates a prima facie case of trademark infringement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Trademark infringement Interim injunction Anti-dissection rule

Through: Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Adv v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMI... · 2026:DHC:1215-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a constable and refusal of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS Rules, emphasizing that such allowance is discretionary and cannot be granted absent special consideration.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant compassionate allowance Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 dismissal from service forfeiture of pension

M/S RCC INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS v. M/S. DMI FINANCE PVT. LTD. & ORS

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR; HARISH VAID... · 2026:DHC:1200
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a substitute arbitrator can be appointed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act after recusal, rejected contempt proceedings against the petitioners, and imposed costs for conduct causing delay.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 15 petition Substitute arbitrator Recusal of arbitrator

Through: Mr. K.S. Rana with Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Mr. S.S. Rawat, Advocates with v. STATE GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN · 2026:DHC:1290

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial discord following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC matrimonial dispute mutual consent divorce

Agrawal and Mr. Abhisek Singhvi, Advs v. ACIT CIRCLE 60(1) NEW DELHI

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD... · 2026:DHC:1271-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the denial of deduction for duty drawback under Section 80-IC but remanded the matter to allow deduction of excise and customs duties paid on raw materials from duty drawback, ensuring consistent tax treatment.

tax appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 80-IC duty drawback industrial undertaking excise duty

Through: Mr. Hariom, Ms. Preeti, Mr. Ashu Gupta, Ms. Ruby, Advs v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (THROUGH SHO)

12 Feb 2026 · HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA · 2026:DHC:1273

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of the accused involved in a cheating and impersonation case, holding that prima facie evidence and the serious nature of the offence precluded bail at the initial trial stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail cheating impersonation call spoofing

Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon and Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar, Advs v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS

12 Feb 2026 · JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Sin... · 2026:DHC:1252-DB

The Delhi High Court directed completion of the street vendor survey within three months, allowed the petitioner to vend as a mobile vendor pending issuance of Certificate of Vending, and held that demolition was not established to have been done by MCD.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Certificate of Vending Street Vendors Demolition Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek JSC & Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv v. JINDAL SAW LTD

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD... · 2026:DHC:1254-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that excise duty subsidy received under a government incentive scheme is a capital receipt not taxable under the Income Tax Act and need not be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant excise duty subsidy capital receipt revenue receipt Income Tax Act, 1961

Through: Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Mr. Nitish Kant Sharma, Ms. Mehak Khurana and Mr. Shashank Mishra, Advocates v. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR · 2026:DHC:1237

The Delhi High Court held that interim relief petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act concerning disputes already pending arbitration must be treated as Section 17 applications and referred to the learned Sole Arbitrator for adjudication.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 petition Section 17 application interim relief

Sharma, Ms. Mehak Khurana, Mr. Shashank Mishra and Ms. Radhika, Advocates v. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR · 2026:DHC:1238

The Delhi High Court directed that interim relief petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act relating to disputes pending arbitration be treated as Section 17 applications and referred to the same arbitrator for adjudication.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 Section 17 interim relief

Through: Mr. L.K. Passi & Ms. Ruby, Advs v. RAM DHARI SINGH

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN · 2026:DHC:1187
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a Labour Court cannot modify a penalty of removal for habitual unauthorized absence solely based on length of service without finding the punishment shockingly disproportionate under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Section 11-A Industrial Disputes Act domestic enquiry unauthorized absence punishment modification

PARK, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017 v. JUDGMENT

12 Feb 2026 · HON’BLE MR. · 2026:DHC:1223-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a GST demand order against a corporate debtor on the ground that proceedings post moratorium under the IBC must be stayed and the authority failed to consider this statutory protection.

tax appeal_allowed Significant moratorium Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 CGST Act, 2017 input tax credit

Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman, Adv v. B SRINIVASA RAO & ORS

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMI... · 2026:DHC:1224-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's interim order restraining postings, holding that transfer and posting decisions are administrative matters not ordinarily subject to judicial interference at interlocutory stages absent mala fide or illegality.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant transfer and posting administrative discretion interim order judicial review

Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum and Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocates v. MIRZA AZIZ BEG (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL

12 Feb 2026 · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA; ORDER (Oral); Rajn... · 2026:DHC:1214

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to recall its order and reopen evidence, dismissing the petition for delay caused despite sufficient opportunities to lead evidence.

civil petition_dismissed Article 227 Constitution of India recall of order leading evidence closure of evidence