Delhi High Court
29,724 judgments
Pramod Tanwar v. State Election Commission and Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of a municipal election nomination, holding that such disputes are exclusively triable by election petition under Article 243ZG and relevant statutes, barring interim judicial interference.
Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. Dainichi Consultant Inc.
The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the court’s role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator accordingly, leaving validity and arbitrability issues to the arbitral tribunal.
Rajesh Pundhir @ Umesh Pundhir v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court dismissed bail for a petitioner accused of sexual assault under the POCSO Act, emphasizing victim protection and risk of witness tampering over liberty claims despite procedural delays and evidentiary discrepancies.
Irfan v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a minor victim's rapist, affirming that credible child witness testimony alone can sustain conviction without corroboration despite minor inconsistencies and delayed reporting.
Sushant Narang v. M/S Genome Diagnostics Pvt Ltd
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 an arbitrator to adjudicate the lease dispute.
Sushant Narang v. M/S Professional Biotech Private Limited
The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court's role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the lease dispute.
Sushant Narang v. Sequence Referral Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after prima facie finding an arbitration agreement in a lease dispute, emphasizing limited judicial scrutiny at this stage.
Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Annu
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing a re-medical examination, emphasizing that medical boards must consider whether a candidate's condition affects duty performance before declaring unfitness.
Manish Gupta v. M/S Oriental Quarries and Mines Private Limited
The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the Court's role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a lease agreement.
M/S BLUSPRING ENTERPRISES LTD v. LOTUS BOULEVARD APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION
The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, only a prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement is to be examined and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Service Agreement.
Sarla Taneja v. Delhi Development Authority
The Delhi High Court held that DDA must issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter after judicial restraint is lifted to grant time for payment, quashing cancellation and forfeiture of earnest money as arbitrary.
Tanmay Mishra; Yash Maheshwari; Krishna; Bethsy v. Dainichi Consultant Inc
The Delhi High Court held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the court's role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.
Manbharan Singh Yadav v. Dainichi Consultant Inc.
The Court held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, judicial scrutiny is limited to a prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator accordingly, leaving substantive issues to arbitration.
TATA CAPITAL LIMITED v. PR SALES AGENCY & ANR
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 upon parties' mutual consent to adjudicate their disputes.
Union of India v. Rupesh Kumar Maan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioners' challenge to Tribunal orders condemning their destruction of examination question papers during litigation and upheld the continuation of contempt proceedings for non-disclosure and non-compliance.
Aman Khan & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi Through SHO & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354 IPC and POCSO based on a genuine family settlement, applying inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, while imposing costs to serve justice.
Mukesh & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi Through SHO & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and proceedings under IPC and POCSO offences arising from a family dispute on compromise and victim's disowning of allegations, exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS with costs.
Umesh Chandra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application to recall its order denying interim relief against NTPC's performance appraisal, holding that such relief amounts to final relief and emphasizing the employer's prerogative in duty assignment while imposing costs for frivolous litigation.
M/S Manoj Dry Cleaners Proprietorship of Mr. Fekan Rajak v. Punjab National Bank
The Delhi High Court dismissed a commercial appeal filed with a 729-day delay, holding that negligence of legal aid counsel does not justify condonation of delay and strict limitation must be enforced.
ASM Traxim Private Limited & Ors. v. Punjab National Bank
The Delhi High Court held that personal hearing and full disclosure of relevant forensic audit reports are mandatory before classifying a borrower's account as 'fraud' under RBI Master Directions, quashing the impugned fraud classification order for violation of natural justice.