Delhi High Court

29,724 judgments

Year:

Kanika Kandhari v. Rishi Kandhari

27 Nov 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:10564-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside Family Court orders dismissing restitution petition without evidence and non-quantified maintenance, directing fresh adjudication with proper procedure and quantification.

family appeal_allowed Significant Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 9 HMA Section 24 HMA restitution of conjugal rights

Jitesh @ Jitu v. State NCT of Delhi

27 Nov 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail applications of accused involved in heroin trafficking, holding that recoveries from co-accused can be clubbed to attract the statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act given the commercial quantity and incriminating material.

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

Nikita Jain alias Nikki Jain & Anr. v. Ram Phal alias Ram Pal and Anr.

27 Nov 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:10527
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The High Court held that under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, only the court may recall witnesses for clarifications and parties cannot summon new witnesses after evidence closure, dismissing the petitioners' application to summon an attesting witness to prove a Will.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC recall of witnesses additional evidence Code of Civil Procedure

The President Indian Association of Private Psychiatry and Ors v. Dr Goutam Saha and Ors

27 Nov 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:10543

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging an ex-parte injunction as not maintainable but directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of all pending interlocutory applications by pre-poning the scheduled date.

civil appeal_dismissed Procedural ad-interim ex-parte injunction Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC

Sunil Nigam @ Sushil Nigam v. Sanjeet Kumar

27 Nov 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:10511

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to file the respondent’s income tax returns as additional documents despite earlier rejection, subject to costs and the respondent’s right to challenge proof.

civil appeal_allowed additional documents income tax returns mode of proof cross-examination

United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd v. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd

27 Nov 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:10512

The High Court upheld the trial court’s order permitting examination of a substituted witness with the petitioner’s consent and dismissed the petition challenging refusal to cross-examine the substituted witness.

civil petition_dismissed substitution of witness cross-examination trial court discretion adjournment with cost

Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

27 Nov 2025 · Dinesh Mehta; Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:10507-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging termination from ITBP service on medical grounds, holding that absence of a Medical Review Board request and finality of statutory appeal upheld the termination order.

administrative petition_dismissed Medical Board Invalidation from service Medical Review Board Alcohol Dependence Syndrome

Sushil Kumar Jain v. Kiran Chadha

26 Nov 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:10411
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a tenant for non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement by the landlady, holding that the landlord's better title sufficed and the tenant failed to raise a triable issue.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction petition landlord-tenant relationship better title

Ravi Popli v. Chakr Innovation Private Limited

26 Nov 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:10814
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the Court’s role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator accordingly.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act appointment of arbitrator prima facie examination arbitration agreement

Vakila v. Commissioner of Customs

26 Nov 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:10601-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that failure to issue a Show Cause Notice within the statutory period under Section 110 of the Customs Act mandates release of seized goods, directing the Customs Department to release the petitioner's gold chain.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 110 Show Cause Notice Seizure of goods

Sukhbir Singh v. The Commissioner of Custom

26 Nov 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:10618-DB

The Delhi High Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to file an appeal against the customs confiscation order despite procedural lapses, emphasizing the requirement of natural justice in customs proceedings.

administrative other Significant Customs Act, 1962 confiscation Show Cause Notice personal hearing

Sandeep Yadav v. The Commissioner of Customs

26 Nov 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:10588-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court ordered release of a seized gold chain as no Show Cause Notice was issued within the statutory period under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act 1962 Show Cause Notice Section 110 Seizure of goods

M/S PUNEET CHEMICALS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

26 Nov 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Renu Bhatnagar
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court set aside ex-parte GST demand orders due to denial of proper notice and hearing, while leaving the validity of extension notifications under Section 168A GST Act pending before the Supreme Court.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice Section 168A GST Act Natural Justice Additional Notices Tab

Brij Kishore Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

26 Nov 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:10482-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an employee entitled to retrospective promotion with no delay in approaching the Tribunal must receive actual arrears of pay and benefits, not merely notional fixation.

administrative petition_allowed Significant promotion Selection Grade notional pay fixation actual arrears

Kshitiz Solanki v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

26 Nov 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:10504

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused in a sexual exploitation and extortion case, emphasizing that prior criminal record alone cannot deny bail and indefinite custody due to pending forensic reports is unjustified once investigation is complete.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail sexual exploitation extortion false promise of marriage

Robin Gautam v. Union of India and Ors.

26 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:10538-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed disciplinary proceedings and reinstated an RPF constable due to lack of conclusive proof linking him to an objectionable social media post and non-application of mind by disciplinary authorities.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Railway Protection Force Rules disciplinary proceedings social media misconduct natural justice

Bakshi Speedways v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

26 Nov 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:10462
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award upholding the lawful termination of a petroleum dealership agreement, affirming limited grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and rejecting restoration of dealership as a relief.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Dealership Agreement Termination Patent Illegality

National Highways Authority of India v. CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt Ltd & Anr.

26 Nov 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:10444

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking substitution of the petitioner in arbitration proceedings, holding that judicial interference under Article 227 is limited and substitution is not permissible without claimant's consent.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Article 227 Constitution of India Order XXII Rule 10 CPC Substitution of parties

Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd

26 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla

The Delhi High Court held that the marks OPAL and SHEOPAL’S are not deceptively similar, denied interim injunction to the registered proprietor of OPAL, and clarified the limited applicability of the anti-dissection rule and dominant part test in trademark infringement cases.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Deceptive similarity Anti-dissection rule Dominant part test

Ravinder Pal Singh Chauhan v. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd and Ors

26 Nov 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:10431

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction against horse racing restrictions imposed under the 'family unit' concept, emphasizing the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy under the governing Rules.

civil petition_dismissed Significant family unit horse racing interim injunction alternate remedy