Latest Delhi Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
Justice Sachin Datta vacated the protection from arrest a postgraduate surgery student had held since August in a rape case, holding that joining the investigation does not earn anticipatory bail, that Section 69 BNS is only a residual provision where force is alleged, and that a missing handset and deleted Instagram chats call for custodial interrogation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside a district judge finding that the LTU Lufttransport suit, presented two days before limitation expired, was non est because of vakalatnama, court-fee and duplicate-set objections, held that curable registry defects relate back to the original presentation, and decreed Rs 68,24,653.71 with 6 per cent interest from July 2
Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed a Section 34 challenge by a Sirsa dealer to a Rs 1.3 crore award, holding that the 2015 bar on unilateral appointments does not reach back to a retired judge named by the manufacturer under the contract, that no separate Section 21 notice was needed, and that dues from the letter-of-intent years were arbitrable.
A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj dismissed the NIA appeal against the May 2023 bail of Mateen Ahmed Bhat, accused no. 10 in a Jammu and Kashmir terror conspiracy case, holding that an appeal against grant of bail tests only whether the order was illegal, perverse or arbitrary, and that the special court had done the prima fa
A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside the 2004 murder conviction of casual worker Shashi Kumar Nair, finding that the lone eyewitness account of a stabbing at a wedding function attended by up to 200 guests did not inspire confidence, that the extra-judicial confession and dying declaration rested on one unsupported w
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed Rajkumar appeal against his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for taking Rs 500 from a provident fund claimant in a January 2003 CBI trap, holding that demand and conscious acceptance were proved by the complainant, the shadow witness, the recovery and pink hand washes, and that an objec
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that documents lying in a plaintiff own godown throughout are not subsequently discovered documents under Sudhir Kumar, that a company cannot step outside Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC by deferring a search of its own records, and that the Diwali cleaning story was untrue and illogical when the first page of the same sales acc
A division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain partly allowed MMTC Ltd appeal against an ICA majority award in favour of Australian exporter Aust Grain, severing 9 per cent interest on a USD 271,950 performance guarantee that the contract itself said would carry no interest, while rejecting every other objection, including that the dissen
A Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain held that a go-ahead for mass production of stubs and templates was not a waiver of prototype inspection for transmission towers, that the award contradicted itself on when the 10 per cent advance fell due, and that the scrap-sale finding ignored the supplier having called the same goods stan
Applying the Supreme Court test in Home Care Retail for an unsuccessful party seeking post-award relief under Section 9, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held prima facie that the arbitrator branded a Rs 5.20 crore NBFC loan sanction letter a sham without a single question on its genuineness being put to the witness from the lender, and that the amended Specific Re
Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the six-month limitation in Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act does not reach a pure contract claim, that DDA could not sit on a 20-page final bill by calling it an abstract, and that every delay-related claim fell to the undertaking the contractor himself gave in his extension application that he would not claim any ext
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed all five appeals, holding that the beat constable who knew the accused placed them at the front of an armed mob shouting maaro maaro, and that Section 149 does not require proof of who struck the fatal blow.
Justice Sanjeev Narula found no perversity in the concurrent findings that three Rs 10 lakh cheques were issued under a 2016 settlement, rejected the Section 87 alteration plea on the third cheque, and reduced the sentence in view of Rs 21 lakh already deposited.
Justice Sanjeev Narula set aside the May 2015 Director of Education order that found Bindu Khanna a TGT from 1994 and a PGT from 2006, sent her arrears claim back on a narrower footing, closed the contempt case, and refused to order restitution of the half deposit released to her in 2017.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar held that the arbitral tribunal answered the wrong question on consignment CJ-27 and made collection of returned jewellery a condition of recovery on CJ-1, severed those two rejections as patently illegal, and left the other three claims and a no-money result intact.
Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the Tribunal finding that Mool Chand Hospital abolished an Assistant Housekeeper post during a pending industrial dispute without a Section 9A notice, but held that the 2026 termination during the writ petition is a fresh cause of action outside Section 33.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Bharat Parashar held that consumption, not generation, is the taxable event under Section 113(2)(d) of the DMC Act, that Bye-Law 3(3) only names the person liable, and that a demand raised in 2021 for the years 2006 to 2018 was not barred by delay.
Justice Ajay Digpaul refused to interfere with a Rent Controller order that declined to take on record withdrawn eviction petitions and disputed shop-for-rent banner photos, holding that other shops in the same premises are not the same property under the 2010 disclosure direction and that the material did not eclipse the landlords bona fide need.
Justice Sanjeev Narula held that a magistrate cannot infer abscondence from an unexecuted warrant when the CBI had the accused Australian address and never tried it, and that cheating and forgery are not Section 82(4) offences. The arrest warrants, the Red Notice and the extradition request stand.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the statutory ceiling in the MTP Act does not constrain a constitutional court, relied on the Medical Board finding that the minor was medically and psychologically fit, and ordered the State to pay for the procedure and preserve foetal tissue for the rape investigation.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora found that the shop a Patna jeweller says he was cheated out of was later bought by a company his son once promoted and his family had been funding, and ordered him to pay Rs 50,000 in costs to each of the six people he had dragged in.
Justice Prateek Jalan found that 71 swallowed capsules recovered in a hospital were never weighed or sampled on the spot, that the sealed containers changed hands 21 times before a formal seizure, and that the Section 37 bar must be read alongside Article 21.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the dismissal of a specific performance suit over a 300 square yard plot, but held the seller had no right to forfeit the payments because the agreement named no forfeiture sum and he proved no loss.
Justice Sachin Datta held that Order XIII-A exists only for suits in the Commercial Division, that the landlord Trust had itself pleaded this is not a commercial matter, that issues were framed years ago, and that a Rs 45 lakh sale-agreement defence raised by the tenants must go to trial.
