Delhi High Court
58,104 judgments
Manju Ganguli & Anr v. Sanjay Gupta
The High Court allowed parties to place a certified copy of a summoning order on record at the final arguments stage without summoning witnesses, directing the Trial Court to consider it and dispose of the suit without delay.
Ms. Lata Walia and Ms. Reena Khunger v. Dinesh Mittal
The Delhi High Court held that a subsequent suit for possession filed after termination of tenancy is not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC even if possession was not claimed in the earlier suit for arrears of rent.
Vinod Kumar Arora v. Surender Kumar Arora
The High Court directed the Trial Court to stay further partition proceedings for two months to allow parties to file appeals against the preliminary decree.
Sarika Sharma v. Ashok Sharma
The High Court allowed the petitioner to file evidence affidavits in a partition suit despite the trial court’s closure of evidence rights, subject to payment of outstanding costs and conditions to prevent delay.
Kripal Ruhani Satsang Society (Retd.) v. Shri Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the refusal to strike off an additional issue, affirming that the Trial Court must decide all framed issues before disposing of the suit.
Delhi Development Authority v. Gagan Marwah
The Delhi High Court allowed condonation of a 212-day delay in filing a written statement by the Delhi Development Authority subject to payment of costs, emphasizing no special favor for government delays but balancing justice with procedural discipline.
Nishit Badola v. Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to update the status of a company undergoing CIRP on its website and empowered the Interim Resolution Professional to protect the corporate debtor’s assets, balancing Supreme Court’s status quo order with stakeholder interests.
M/S STROYPROEKT LLC-OIA JV v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
The Delhi High Court held that pre-arbitral conciliation clauses are directory, not mandatory, and appointed a Sole Arbitrator despite non-exhaustion of conciliation.
Saurabh Bahety v. Income Tax Officer Ward 63(1), Delhi
The Delhi High Court set aside the penalty immunity rejection order under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act for lack of hearing and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Pulin Comtrade Limited v. The Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes remanded by a prior order setting aside part of an arbitral award.
M S SIS LIMITED v. M S LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after parties failed to mutually agree, directing arbitration under DIAC rules.
Luminous Power Technologies Private Limited v. SIS Limited
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after parties failed to mutually agree, directing arbitration under DIAC rules.
CARS 24 FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SANJAY MATHEWS PROPRIETOR OF M/S BENKUS MOTORS AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing arbitration of disputes arising from a Credit Facility Agreement due to respondents' default and non-response.
Dr Shama Mohamed v. Smt Sanju Verma and Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from broadcasting and sharing defamatory statements against a political spokesperson, balancing freedom of speech with the right to reputation.
Rohit Singh v. Parimal Bhattacharjee
The Delhi High Court held that a decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits cannot be granted under Order XII Rule 6 CPC beyond the relief of possession prayed for, setting aside such reliefs while upholding the possession decree.
Rajhans Realtors Pvt Ltd v. Rajinder Kumar Goyal & Another
The Delhi High Court allowed the landlord’s eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that bona fide requirement for possession is to be assessed from the landlord’s perspective and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord’s business needs.
Smt. Anu Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54(1) Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on credible information suggestive of escaped income through off-market share transactions and accommodation entries.
Yogesh Kumar Goel & Anr. v. Saurabh Bhardwaj
The Delhi High Court allowed the revision petition, holding that the suit was filed within the extended limitation period granted due to COVID-19, setting aside orders dismissing the suit on limitation grounds.
Commissioner CGST Delhi South v. Air India Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked without specific allegations of deliberate suppression of facts or fraud in the Show Cause Notice.
STIC Travels Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a 14-year delay in adjudicating a service tax Show Cause Notice renders the proceedings barred by limitation and quashed the re-initiation notice issued in 2023.