Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Jagdeep @ Sonu v. State of NCT of Delhi

28 Nov 2025 · Sanjeev Narula · 2025:DHC:10656

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail under MCOCA for an accused with serious criminal antecedents and prolonged abscondence, holding that the stringent statutory conditions for bail were not met.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant MCOCA bail under special statute continuing unlawful activity organised crime syndicate

Ishwar @ Pandit v. State of NCT of Delhi

28 Nov 2025 · Sanjeev Narula · 2025:DHC:10655
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted bail to a MCOCA-accused after over nine years of pre-trial detention, emphasizing the constitutional right to a speedy trial over stringent statutory bail conditions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant MCOCA bail speedy trial Article 21

Bakliwal Holdings Private Limited v. Union of India

28 Nov 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 as barred by the six-year limitation period under the old regime, relying on the proviso to Section 149(1)(b).

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A(b) Section 148A(d)

Dineet v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

28 Nov 2025 · Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:10597

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s bail application in a murder case, holding that credibility of witnesses and contradictions in evidence cannot be examined at the bail stage, especially in serious offences under Section 302 IPC.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant bail Section 302 IPC hostile witness prima facie case

Govt. of NCTD v. Devender Singh

28 Nov 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:10553-DB

The Delhi High Court held that termination of a probationary police constable under Rule 5(1) CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, on grounds of unsuitability without departmental inquiry is a termination simpliciter and not punitive, thus not attracting Article 311(2) protections.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant termination simpliciter probationer termination Rule 5(1) CCS Temporary Service Rules 1965 Article 311(2) Constitution of India

Sandeep Kumar v. Kaptain Singh Rathi

28 Nov 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:10600

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court’s closure of defendant’s evidence after repeated adjournments and false settlement claims, emphasizing limited scope of interference under Article 227 and the need to maintain judicial decorum.

civil petition_dismissed Section 151 CPC Article 227 Constitution of India closure of evidence reopening evidence

Ex. Const/CISF Sushil Kumar v. UOI & Ors.

28 Nov 2025 · Subramonium Prasad; Vimal Kumar Yadav · 2025:DHC:10675-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging removal from CISF service, holding that disciplinary proceedings were fair, evidence-based, and judicial review does not permit reappreciation of evidence.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings CISF Rules 2001 Article 226 Constitution of India natural justice

Robin v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

28 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:10627

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings under BNS based on a voluntary amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in the interest of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement non-compoundable offences

Devender Kumar Sharma v. Ramesh Arora

28 Nov 2025 · Nitin Wasudeo Sambre; Anish Dayal · 2025:DHC:10581-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an ex parte decree for recovery of debt, holding that summons sent by registered post and refused by the defendant constitute valid service, and the defendant failed to show sufficient cause to set aside the decree.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant ex parte decree service of summons Order IX Rule 13 CPC presumption of service

OM SAI RAM CATERING v. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD

28 Nov 2025 · Mini Pushkarna

The Delhi High Court granted a final extension to railway catering contractors to complete base kitchens, restrained IRCTC from acting on termination notices, and emphasized limited judicial interference in contractual disputes.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant contract termination base kitchens Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Letters of Award

Sushma v. Rattan Deep

28 Nov 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:10580-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's declaration that a marriage was void due to failure to prove customary divorce of a prior spouse under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

family appeal_dismissed Significant customary divorce Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 void marriage Section 5(i) HMA

M/S AGGARWAL HOTELS PVT. LTD. v. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR

28 Nov 2025 · Chandrasekharan Sudha · 2025:DHC:10555

The Delhi High Court held that workmen facing pending disciplinary proceedings cannot be granted protected workmen status, and management may reject such nominations under Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

labor appeal_allowed Significant protected workmen Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Rule 61 disciplinary proceedings

Aman Gupta v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

28 Nov 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:10626
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash FIR under POCSO Act, holding that sexual offences against minors cannot be nullified by settlement or subsequent marriage.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant POCSO Act sexual offences against minors quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC

Rameshwar Dayal v. Krishan Singh Panwar

28 Nov 2025 · Chandrasekharan Sudha · 2025:DHC:10554
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court held that the respondent failed to prove interpolation in the dissolution deed, thereby entitling the appellant to partition of the partnership property as per the deed, and set aside the arbitral award dismissing the claim.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Dissolution deed Interpolation Burden of proof

Amit Sehgal v. Rajesh Sandhyana

28 Nov 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:10628

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking permission to file additional documents at the final arguments stage, holding that belated filing without sufficient cause after trial conclusion is impermissible.

civil petition_dismissed filing additional documents Order VII Rule 14 CPC Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC delay in filing documents

The Management of Sh. Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute v. Ms. Thresiamma George

28 Nov 2025 · Chandrasekharan Sudha · 2025:DHC:10559

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's award declaring dismissal without domestic enquiry illegal, holding that approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act does not operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent industrial dispute.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(2)(b) Section 10 res judicata

Pawan Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi)

28 Nov 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:10640

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant due to unreliable identification and inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, emphasizing the limited evidentiary value of dock identification without reliable TIP.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant judicial Test Identification Parade dock identification robbery Section 392 IPC

Motor & General Finance Limited v. Director General & Anr

28 Nov 2025 · Chandrasekharan Sudha · 2025:DHC:10556

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, affirming that the appellant company is liable for ESI contributions as it failed to prove exemption and no violation of natural justice occurred.

administrative appeal_dismissed Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 82(2) ESI Act Section 75 ESI Act Section 65B Indian Evidence Act

M/S Maharaja Agrasen Hospital v. Tulsi Joshi & Ors.

28 Nov 2025 · Chandrasekharan Sudha · 2025:DHC:10544

The Delhi High Court allowed the hospital's appeal, setting aside the compensation award due to claimants' failure to prove direct employment and improper shifting of burden of proof by the Commissioner.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 employer-employee relationship burden of proof Section 106 Indian Evidence Act

Virender Singh & Anr. v. Union of India

28 Nov 2025 · Chandrasekharan Sudha · 2025:DHC:10557

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to condone a 988-day delay in filing, holding that vague financial difficulties do not constitute sufficient cause under the Limitation Act to extend the statutory 90-day appeal period under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

civil appeal_dismissed condonation of delay limitation period Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 5 Limitation Act