Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Malini Israni v. Ved Prakash Israni
The Delhi High Court directed that evidence in the Family Court case be recorded by the Trial Court itself to ensure expeditious disposal, rejecting the petitioner's claim of improper open recording by a Local Commissioner.
Shri Sunil Pasricha & Anr. v. Shri Shivam Gupta
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's discretionary order allowing the plaintiff to place additional documents on record under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, holding that absence of stated reasonable cause at the plaint stage does not warrant interference under Article 227 if no prejudice or perversity is shown.
Vansh Taluja & Anr. v. Bhupinder Kumar Taluja & Ors.
The Delhi High Court passed a preliminary decree partitioning the estate of a deceased among natural heirs, excluding a property proven to be personal, and directed rent sharing and disclosure of movable assets.
Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Under Armour's appeal, holding that the respondents' use of 'AERO ARMOUR' marks is prima facie deceptively similar to 'UNDER ARMOUR', entitling the appellant to interim relief against trademark infringement.
Amrik Kaur v. Competent Authority New Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking urgent interim relief and directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal for restoration and interim relief in an appeal dismissed in default under SAFEMA.
M/S J RAMAN AND COMPANY & ORS. v. M/S RKG POLYMERS
The High Court allowed the petitioners liberty to move a fresh application for expert opinion on disputed signatures after the Trial Court dismissed their earlier application despite prior liberty to refile.
Sher Singh v. The Chairman NDMC
The Delhi High Court held that failure to file a written statement does not mandate judgment for the plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC; damages must be proved by evidence and the court has discretion to require proof and allow cross-examination.
Hands On Hands Ventures Private Limited v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order passed without proper notice and hearing, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of limitation-extension notifications open pending Supreme Court decision.
Puneet Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside a non-speaking GST demand order passed without considering the petitioner’s reply and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving open the question of validity of limitation-extension notifications pending Supreme Court decision.
Hands On Hands Ventures Private Limited v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order passed without proper notice and hearing due to procedural lapses in portal communication, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of related notifications to the Supreme Court.
Sujata Chandra v. Ram Prakash & Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that a suit must be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the subordinate office where the cause of action arose, not the court of the principal office, and disposed of the petition following respondents' concession on lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Mukesh Kumar Bhardwaj v. Gauri Shankar Through Lrs & Anr
Revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against interlocutory orders that do not finally dispose of the suit, as reiterated by the Delhi High Court in dismissing the petition challenging denial of permission to file documents.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. Third Generation Traders Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the deletion of protective additions under Section 68 against a conduit company where substantive additions were made in the hands of ultimate beneficiaries, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
Jagdeep Singh Sandhu v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that while it cannot direct amendment of the BSF Act to provide statutory appeal, it directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s statutory petition under Section 117(2) within six weeks and stayed termination proceedings pending that decision.
State of West Bengal v. Accused
The Supreme Court restored the conviction under POCSO and IPC, declined to sentence the accused to imprisonment considering the victim's welfare and systemic failures, and directed comprehensive rehabilitation and policy reforms.
Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court acquitted appellants of murder charges due to prosecution's failure to investigate affidavits exonerating them, upholding the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21.
Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
The Supreme Court upheld the State's power to demand 10% of the total bid amount for minor minerals under a valid policy framed pursuant to statutory provisions, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the Demand Notice.
K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court held that a woman government employee without custody of two children from a previous marriage is entitled to maternity leave for a child born from a subsequent marriage, affirming maternity leave as a facet of reproductive rights under Article 21.
Rajni v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
The Supreme Court corrected typographical errors in the case numbers mentioned in its earlier judgment dated 20th May 2025.
JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. v. ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.
The Supreme Court upheld that a government notification imposing charges constitutes a change in law event entitling compensation and carrying cost from the notification date under the PPA, dismissing the appeal.