Latest Delhi Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court issued a structured timetable for amending AITA's Constitution and holding fresh elections, without disturbing the court-appointed Administrator.
The Delhi High Court held that NTPC Renewable invoked the wrong contractual clauses to terminate awards and issued a suspension order without any show cause notice or hearing.
Justice Tejas Karia held the GNCTD's show-cause notice proposing a CAG audit of BSES distribution companies was premature to challenge and materially distinguishable from the 2015 URJA Judgment.
Justice Tejas Karia directed the Union to issue IT Act notifications within 24 hours to remove content falsely depicting judges and ministers at a London badminton championship.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that a plaintiff's unregistered purchase documents established better possessory title over a J.J. Colony property when the defendant produced no competing documentary evidence at all.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking curtailment of the statutory 30-day waiting period under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, holding that personal hardship cannot override a mandatory legislative mandate.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed DTC's appeal, holding that failure to check a conductor's cash and multiple enquiry lapses meant misconduct was never proved.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court directed Meta, Google, X and LinkedIn to remove videos making corruption and criminality allegations against a sitting judge, and listed the contempt petition for July.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed the EOW's FIR and the Enforcement Directorate's ECIR against PPK Newsclick Studio, holding that the FDI transactions disclosed no criminal offence under IPC or PMLA.
The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court's bail refusal, holding that prolonged incarceration and slim trial prospects outweighed the Section 43D(5) UAPA bar for the Kashmiri human rights activist.
Advocate Bhavishya Shakya has addressed an open letter to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court urging suo motu cognizance of the Malviya Nagar fire, judicial oversight of the investigation, and a city-wide audit of lodging establishments.
A Division Bench upheld the HPESC's rejection of re-polling after admitted ballot tampering, directing counting to restart from the elimination stage with new camera, custody and staffing rules.
The Delhi High Court held that the ART Act's age restriction governs initiation of treatment, not continuation of an already-commenced process involving cryopreserved embryos created within the statutory age limit.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed anticipatory bail for a husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law accused of dowry-related cruelty, sharply criticising police inaction that kept an FIR pending for over eight months after a young woman's death.
A Delhi High Court Division Bench set aside a Family Court order that refused to waive the one-year waiting period under Section 29 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, finding the marriage purely notional and the hardship exceptional.
Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court has issued a comprehensive framework governing when individuals may seek de-indexing of judicial records from search engines, balancing informational privacy under Article 21 against the open justice principle.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted regular bail to Wahidur Rahman, accused No. 30 in a PFI money-laundering case, finding his alleged transactions of Rs 3.15 lakh far below the PMLA's Rs 1 crore threshold.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has issued interim directions requiring all Delhi jail superintendents to verify bail sureties by scanning the Secure QR Code on Aadhaar cards, after data showed delays of up to 56 days in releasing prisoners after bail orders.
The Division Bench held the Single Judge's order deferring Estate Officer proceedings was unsustainable for failing to record any finding on prima facie case, irreparable loss, or balance of convenience.
The Delhi High Court directed the NCDRC to re-examine a petitioner's claim that an order passed on 3 October 2024 was surreptitiously deleted and replaced with a different one.
