Delhi High Court

48,408 judgments

Year:

Usha Devi v. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi

15 Jul 2024 · Anish Dayal · 2024:DHC:5229
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case, holding that disclosure statements under Section 67 NDPS Act and mere CDR analysis are insufficient for conviction and emphasizing the right to bail and speedy trial under Article 21.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act Section 67 NDPS Act disclosure statement CDR analysis

Shri Ashok Kumar Jain v. Mr. Gurpreet Singh

15 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5236

The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to expedite the eviction trial based on bonafide requirement and dispose of the matter within six months, emphasizing the need to avoid undue delay.

civil other eviction bonafide requirement Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 speedy trial

MS PREETI SAINI v. MR ANKIT CHOPRA

15 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5237

The High Court allowed the petitioner to participate and defend in the annulment proceedings despite initial procedural default, as the respondent did not object and the written statement was on record.

family appeal_allowed Article 227 Constitution of India Hindu Marriage Act 1955 Section 12 Hindu Marriage Act Order IX Rule 7 CPC

M/S G. F. ELECTRONICS v. ASHISH AGGARWAL

15 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5238

The Delhi High Court set aside the ex parte order against the defendant in a commercial suit, allowing the petition to proceed on merits subject to payment of costs and caution against future delays.

civil appeal_allowed ex parte order Order IX Rule 7 CPC setting aside ex parte commercial suit

Umar Sebandeke v. Customs

15 Jul 2024 · Amit Mahajan · 2024:DHC:5184

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail for an accused in a commercial quantity heroin trafficking case under the NDPS Act, holding that procedural lapses do not justify bail and the statutory embargo under Section 37 applies unless twin conditions are met.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS Act bail commercial quantity

Aastha Mishra @ Muskaan v. Mr. Pradeep Tiwari

15 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5240

The Delhi High Court directed that intimate photographs placed on record in a divorce petition be kept in a sealed cover to protect privacy, with their relevance and obscenity to be decided during trial.

family petition_allowed divorce petition photographs sealed cover privacy

Rajiv Bansal v. National Insurance Company Limited

15 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5241

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition directing the Trial Court to grant the plaintiff an effective opportunity to cross-examine the defendant's witness, emphasizing the necessity of fair trial procedures before closing evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant right to cross-examination closure of evidence adjournment fair trial

Neha Bhati v. The State of NCT of Delhi

15 Jul 2024 · Prathiba M. Singh; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:5228-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition recognizing the minor child's choice to live with the father, directing school re-admission and visitation rights for the mother, emphasizing the child's welfare and preference.

family petition_allowed Significant habeas corpus child custody minor's welfare child's preference

Ajay Kumar Rastogi and Anr v. Sonam Jain

15 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5248
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte order, holding that the defendants had knowledge of the civil suit and failed to show sufficient cause for non-appearance.

civil petition_dismissed Order IX Rule 7 CPC ex parte order setting aside ex parte service of summons

Rajeev Mittal v. The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation

15 Jul 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:5249

The Delhi High Court held that it has the power under Section 24 CPC to transfer a commercial suit to the Commercial Court for trial, overruling the order sending back the suit and clarifying the scope of transfer and objections post-transfer.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 24 CPC Commercial Courts Act 2015 transfer of suit Commercial Court jurisdiction

Ritah Kyolaba v. Customs

15 Jul 2024 · Amit Mahajan · 2024:DHC:5179

Bail was denied to the applicant in a commercial quantity heroin case under the NDPS Act as statutory conditions under Section 37 were not met and procedural irregularities were held to be trial issues.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS Act commercial quantity

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED v. MR. DINESH KUMAR KAUSHAL

15 Jul 2024 · C. Hari Shankar

The Delhi High Court allowed the parties to proceed with arbitration before a sole arbitrator under DIAC rules, treating pending interlocutory applications as Section 17 applications to be decided by the arbitrator.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 Section 11 Section 17

GAE Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. GE T&D India Ltd.

15 Jul 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna
Cites 1 · Cited by 9

The Delhi High Court set aside the arbitrator's order terminating arbitration, holding that the settlement agreement did not finally resolve all disputes and that allegations of coercion required adjudication by the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Settlement Agreement Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Section 16(2)

Shri Vishal and Company Consy Contractor v. The Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence

15 Jul 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:5258
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court decreed partial recovery of outstanding conservancy service payments with interest, rejecting unproven damages claims for mental agony and loss of business.

civil appeal_allowed conservancy services contract payment dispute interest on delayed payment damages for mental agony

Dr. Priya Vrata v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

15 Jul 2024 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1509-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that interest on delayed retiral benefits must be calculated from the date of retirement, not from the Tribunal’s order, and modified the Tribunal’s order accordingly.

administrative petition_allowed Significant retiral benefits interest on delayed payment Central Administrative Tribunal Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Devraj Singh Dagur v. Union of India

15 Jul 2024 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1888-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending appeal within four weeks, emphasizing timely disposal of appeals to prevent injustice.

administrative other writ petition appeal pending direction to decide appeal delay in disposal

S.S. Saini v. Air Force Naval Housing Board

14 Jul 2024 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6859

The Delhi High Court extended the mandate of the arbitrator by one year under Sections 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 upon joint petition and no objection from the respondent.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 29A(4) Section 29A(5) extension of arbitrator mandate

Dr Sudarshan Kumar Arya & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

12 Jul 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:5156

The Delhi High Court held that recognition of CPS Mumbai Diploma qualifications does not confer equivalence, upholding their ineligibility to appear in the DNB-PDCET Examination 2024 under Clause 4.8.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Recognition vs Equivalence Diploma qualifications College of Physicians and Surgeons Mumbai DNB-PDCET Examination

Mahipal Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

12 Jul 2024 · Jyoti Singh · 2024:DHC:5362

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the answer key of a recruitment exam question, holding that courts must defer to expert opinions in academic matters unless a patent error is demonstrated.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant judicial restraint competitive examination answer key expert opinion

Shivani v. Ashish Kumar

12 Jul 2024 · Amit Mahajan · 2024:DHC:5979

The High Court upheld the discharge of the accused in a kidnapping and sexual offence case due to lack of prima facie evidence and dismissed the State's delayed appeal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant charge framing prima facie case kidnapping abduction