Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Mohd. Ubaid v. New Delhi Municipal Council
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ seeking regularization of a shop license, holding that eviction of the predecessor-in-interest had attained finality, barring any transfer of rights, and that repeated litigation constituted abuse of process barred by res judicata.
Mohit Goel & Ors. v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between matrimonial parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Inderjeet & Ors. v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC based on a voluntary amicable settlement in a matrimonial dispute, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Fardeen Ali & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under non-compoundable offences based on a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
Harikant Tripathi v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under multiple IPC sections based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justice.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sterlite Power Transmission Ltd.
The Delhi High Court condoned a 22-day delay in filing an insurance appeal, emphasizing adjudication on merits over technical delay, subject to cost.
May and Baker Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Runos Health Cares & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, the court’s role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, leaving merits to the arbitral tribunal.
XXXX v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the discharge of accused doctors from SC/ST Act and IPC charges due to lack of prima facie material, emphasizing the necessity of caste-based intent and public view for offences under the Act.
Neha Arora v. Guru Nanak Public School & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that a school suspension order lapses after 15 days without Director of Education approval, entitling the suspended employee to full salary during the interim period.
Swaraj Basu v. Indira Gandhi National Open University
Pension and gratuity cannot be withheld merely on the basis of ongoing investigation; formal departmental or judicial proceedings instituting charges and finding guilt are necessary under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021.
Mohd Shamim v. Smt Bala and Ors.
The High Court held that FIR registration alone cannot justify deleting an insurance company from a motor accident claim before trial and set aside the impugned order accordingly.
Deepak v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a school sweeper for sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl, affirming that reliable child testimony alone can sustain conviction under the POCSO Act despite absence of hymenal injury.
Sachin @ Model v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for robbery and possession of stolen property but released him on the period already served, maintaining the fine and default sentence.
Digvijay Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the suspension of the petitioner from the Boxing Federation of India, holding that reinstatement was not possible after the term expired and fresh elections were held, especially since the petitioner participated and lost in the new elections.
Mir Fasil Khurseed v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court directed compliance with the appellate order partially allowing the Customs Department's appeal by releasing seized gold bars on payment of fine and remanding the adjudication of a seized watch for re-assessment with a hearing.
Mr. Jai Ahuja, Mr. Sanidhya Sharma, Mr. Akshay Saxena and Ms. Shivali Saxena v. Surendra Singh Mehta
The Delhi High Court allowed Customs appeals, holding that DRI officers are proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, restoring appeals to CESTAT for adjudication on merits in line with Supreme Court rulings.
Subodh Kumar Agarwal v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 61 Zone 5 Delhi & Ors.
Delhi High Court allowed petitioner to file appeal against GST demand orders beyond limitation period pending Supreme Court’s decision on validity of extension notifications under GST Act.
MS Shree Saravana Trading Corp v. Sales Tax Officer Class II VATO Ward 39 State Goods and Service Tax & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to file a belated appeal against a GST demand order pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the validity of the underlying notification, without deciding the notification’s validity at the writ stage.
M/S PRINCE VINNY ENTERPRISES v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST tax demand order passed without hearing, granting the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and be heard, while leaving the validity of related notifications to the Supreme Court.
Mohinder Pahuja v. Daya Nand Tokas
The Delhi High Court held that the time for filing a written statement in a civil suit is directory, allowing a belated written statement on record subject to costs for delay.