Home / Current Affairs
Recent Judgments
Important Judgments of Delhi High Court 2024
« »01-Jan-2025
There were several important judgements passed by the Delhi High Court. Some of them are below:
Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. Case
- The Delhi High Court in the matter of Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., has held that under the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (C0I), an accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the passwords or any other similar details of the digital devices during investigation.
- Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the concerned Investigating Agency cannot expect anyone who is an accused, like the applicant herein, to sing in a tune which is music to their ears, more so, whence such an accused, like the applicant herein is well and truly protected under Article 20(3) of the COI
Neetu Grover v. Union of India & Ors.
- The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the HMA which states that no marriage can be solemnized between parties who are related to each other as sapindas, unless it is sanctioned by usage or custom governing them.
Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited.
- Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that if a party does not mention prayer in the application presented under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), it turns the application invalid.
- Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence
- The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P B Varale observed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply in the case of delay in filing appeal from acquittal.
- “Under Section 378 of the new CrPC read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 though a limitation is prescribed, yet Section 29(2) of 1963 Act, does not exclude the application of Section 5”.
Read more
Ranjana Bhasin v. Surender Singh Sethi & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has held once a party has filed the written statement, it forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act)
- Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that a party forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the A& C Act once it has filed the written statement in a civil suit.
- The Court held that if a party neglects to submit an application under Section 8 of the A & C Act, within the timeframe allotted for filing the initial statement addressing the substance of the dispute, which typically includes a written statement in the context of a lawsuit, that party would relinquish its entitlement to apply under Section 8 the said Act.
- It was further held that the Court found no deficiency in the decision of the Commercial Court in rejecting the Appellant’s application.
Kirti v. Renu Anand & Ors. Case
- The Delhi High Court has held that the orders passed by the tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
- A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the orders passed by tribunals are, however, separately also amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the COI. As against the order of a tribunal such as the Maintenance Tribunal, the aggrieved party, therefore, has the option to either invoke Article 226 or Article 227 of the COI depending upon the nature of relief sought in the petition.
v. Y
- The Delhi High Court has held that a wife’s request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.
- A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna observed that vindictiveness, vexation and intolerance are the foes of coherent comprehension. Though the aggrieved person is entitled and well within their rights to avail the remedy under laws, but, crossing the point of “no return” becomes inevitable once the spouses get engulfed in this rabbit hole of criminal litigations. The bullets of unjustified accusations and complaints cause such fatal wounds, leading to unendurable mental and physical acrimony, making it impossible for the spouses to live together.
SS v. SR Case
- The Delhi High Court has held that father questioning the paternity of children and making unsubstantiated allegations of extra-marital affair against wife is an act of mental cruelty against the wife.
- Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna levelling of disgusting allegations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship, constitute grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as mental health of the spouse. Such scandalous, unsubstantiated aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the spouse and not even sparing the children, would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by disentitle the appellant from seeking divorce.
Delhi State Legal Services Authority v. Annwesha Deb
- Delhi High Court has held that an advocate empanelled with a legal services authority is not an employee and, therefore, is not entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
- A Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Saurabh Banerjee observed that an advocate empanelled with a legal services authority is not an ‘employee’ and, therefore, is not entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
- It was further held there cannot be a comparison between an advocate who continues to act as such and an employee who is appointed as per the recruitment rules and the learned Single Judge has erred in extending the benefits of the Act to the respondent, more particularly, given the nature of her appointment.
Gulshan Kumar & Anr. v. Nidhi Kashyap
- High Court has held tha Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman, irrespective of religious affiliation or social background.
- Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that DV Act is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman irrespective of religious affiliation or social background. The same was enacted to safeguard the rights of the victims of domestic violence in domestic relationships.
Veerpal @ Titu v. State.
- Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta acquitted the accused of case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (POCSO) and held that “In absence of foundational fact not being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the reliance placed upon presumption under Section 29 & 30 of POCSO Act by learned Trial Court to base conviction, appears to be misplaced.
Soukin v. The NCT State New Delhi
- Delhi High Court has held that sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace.
- Justice Amit Mahajan observed that sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace. It involves the exploitation of obtained intimate images and videos to extort money or favors from victims, often leading to severe psychological trauma.
Sonu Sonkar v. The Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has held that the convict is not entitled to grant of parole, on grounds of procreation or maintaining conjugal relationships with his live-in partner, when he already has a legally wedded wife and children born out of that wedlock.
- It was also observed that granting parole on the grounds to have a child or to maintain conjugal relationships with a live-in partner, where the convict already has a legally wedded wife and children born out of that wedlock, would set a harmful precedent.
M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd v. M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd
- The case adjudged by the bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh relates to Sections 29A (4) & (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
- The court considered various judgments from other High Courts on whether the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal can be extended under Section 29A (5) even after its expiry.
- The court held that it is empowered to extend the mandate even after its expiry, given the expression “prior to or after expiry of the period so specified” used in Section 29A (4).
M/S Krish Overseas v. Commissioner Central Tax-Delhi West & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has held that the life of an order of provisional attachment is only one year.
- The bench comprising of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja observed that in view Section 83 (2) of the CGST Act, the life of an order of provisional attachment is only one year
- The Court further clarified that this order would be without prejudice to any other order of provisional attachment issued by either the respondents or any other authority communicated to the HDFC Bank.
Union of India v. Ram Gopal Dixit
- The Delhi High Court held that the jurisdiction of the Central Information Commission (CIC) over the utilization of funds under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) has garnered attention.
- Justice Subramonium Prasad observation that the Central Information Commission (CIC) lacks jurisdiction to remark on the utilization of funds by Members of Parliament under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).
Independent News Service Private Limited & Anr v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors
- The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of senior journalist Rajat Sharma, protecting his personality rights against unauthorized use of the “Baap Ki Adalat” trademark and India TV logo.
- The Court restrained Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, who was using the name “Jhandiya TV,” from utilizing Sharma’s photograph, video, or name in any manner that could violate his personality rights.
Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited & Ors
- The Delhi High Court recently indicated that a single judge may have made a prima facie error by declining to provide interim relief to Forest Essentials, an Ayurvedic cosmetics company, in a trademark conflict with Baby Forest, a company specializing in Ayurvedic baby care products
- The Division Bench, comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju, addressed the Prima facie, finding that the learned Single Judge has erred in its interpretation of the doctrine of ‘initial interest confusion’to entail persistence of confusion till a stage that the transaction is consummated.
CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Supreme Court of India Through Secretary General
- The Delhi High Court held that the reason of rejection by the Supreme Court Collegium of the recommendation of High Court collegium for the elevation of Judges to High Court will not be in the good interest of the judges whose names have been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr.
- The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS).
- Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ruled that despite the husband’s petition being filed after July 1, 2023, under the BNSS, it would be treated under CrPC provisions due to ongoing proceedings.
- The decision followed a settlement between the parties, mediated through family court, leading to the dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and transfer of property as per settlement terms, thereby rendering the FIR unnecessary and quashed.
Dell International India Private Limited v. Adeel Feroze and Ors.
- A bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the Whatsapp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being a proper certificate as mandated under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
Court on Its Own Motion v. State of NCT of Delhi
- A bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain observed that “In such cases of sexual assault, wherever, the court is called upon to determine the age of victim based on “bone age ossification report”, the upper age given in “reference range‟ be considered as age of the victim”
M/S KTC India Pvt. Ltd v. Randhir Brar & Ors
- A bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the subsequent shareholders here cannot be treated as a consortium or partnership.
Trans Engineers Private Limited v.Otsuka Chemicals (India) Private Limited
- A bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that High Court can intervene if an award is based on fundamental misinterpretation of evidence or contractual terms.
NCT Of Delhi v. Puran Singh
- The Delhi High Court has held that an FIR to be registered against the Police whenever an allegedly fake encounter is reported.
Sundari Gautam v. State of NCT of Delhi
- the Delhi High Court has held that the offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO) are not restricted to male offenders only.
A v. B
- The Delhi High Court has held that a major son shall be entitled for maintenance till the time he completes his education and becomes financially independent.
Maruti Traders v. Itron India Pvt Ltd
- The Delhi High Court has held that terms of the contract will supersede the principle of equity and fairness in commercial matters.
Hosana Consumer Limited v. RSM General Trading LLC
- A bench of Justice C. Hari Prasad held that the court does possess the power to grant an anti-enforcement injunction where the foreign proceedings are violative of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract.
Lambodar Prasad Padhy v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others
- The Delhi High Court has held that no case can be registered against an unknown official without a previous sanction of the competent authority as per Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (PC).
X and Ors. v The State and Anr
- The Delhi High Court has held that maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV) is not linked with the ability or inability of the wife to maintain herself unlike Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr.
- A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently ruled that a criminal conviction is necessary to establish “moral turpitude” for the forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This decision upheld a Single Judge’s ruling regarding an employee of Punjab National Bank, states a case that without such a conviction, the Bank’s forfeiture of gratuity was unjustified.
M/S Chauhan Construction Co. versus Commissioner of DGST and Anr.
- The Delhi High Court recently quashed a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the subsequent cancellation of a taxpayer’s GST registration due to the SCN lacking specific details. The court ruled that the SCN was too vague and did not provide intelligible reasons for the cancellation, thus violating procedural fairness requirements. This decision emphasizes the need for clear and specific reasons in legal notices for GST registration issues.
Director General, Project Varsha Ministry of Defence (Navy), Union of India, New Delhi v. M/S Navayuga-van Oord Jv
- The Delhi High Court ruled that documents classified as “Top Secret” and “Protected” under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, cannot be produced by an Arbitral Tribunal. This decision followed a plea from the Director General of Project Varsha, who opposed the submission of sensitive documents during arbitration with M/S Navayuga-Van Oord JV over a construction contract, citing national security concerns.
Anand Gupta & Anr. v. M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr
- The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree under Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This decision clarifies that such orders can be executed like decrees, ensuring they hold the same legal weight for enforcement purposes.
Abhinav Jindal HUF v. ITO.
- Other Laws Act, 2020 (TOLA) authorization allows the competent authority to act within an extended time frame but does not change the approval process stated in Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under Section 151, notices under Section 148 cannot be issued after four years without the Commissioner’s approval.
- The court found that if a notice is issued beyond this period, it does not comply with the necessary approval requirements.
Union of India & Ors v. Jagdish Singh & Ors.
- A Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain laid down that an Official memorandum cannot supersede the Recruitment Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
Pauline Nalwoga v. Customs.
- A Single bench of Justice Anish Dayal held that “Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1950, requires options to be given to the person being searched; in fact an affirmative option is to be exercised for the search being conducted before the nearest gazetted Officer/Magistrate. Having provided a pre-typed proforma, with the less desirable option and getting it endorsed by the signatures of the person being searched, that too in the heat of the moment of the raid/ seizure, is a practice which is to be deprecated.”
Rakesh Khanna v. Naveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has held that the Consumer Commission has the power to issue arrest warrant against the director of the company to hold the company accountable for its non-compliance.
X v. Y
- The Delhi High Court has held that the orders passed under Section 12 of the Guardianship & Wards Act, 1890 (G & W Act) would be appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (FC Act).
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Mirador Commercial Pvt Ltd.
- A bench of Justice C Hari Prasad dismissed the petition seeking termination of mandate of arbitrator under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act).
Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others
- The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Subramonium Prasad states the critical principle of judicial noninterference in both domestic and international arbitration. The petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
ABC v. State & Anr
- A bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held that right to be forgotten is a part of right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
Court on its Own Motion v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- The Delhi High Court has issued directions that have been issued in pursuance of ensuring proper environmental standards and public health safety in the NCT of Delhi.
Arunchalam P. v. Director General CISF
- The Delhi High Court has held that the Doctrine of Equality shall be applied to the punishments across different forces under the Ministry of Home Affairs.