Latest Delhi Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
Having argued that consistency means repeatedly scoring eight penalties or fewer, one appellant could not then call that benchmark arbitrary when it cost him a place. Both appeals are dismissed.
Discharged in 2020, recharged on the CBI's revision in 2022, two directors of a steel company reach the High Court on a 1998 case. Twenty-eight years on, it separates what each of them is actually alleged to have done.
Nearly four years after a Special Judge released the former Mumbai Police Commissioner and the former head of the National Stock Exchange, the agency's challenge reaches judgment — and fails on the narrowness of its own case.
An arbitral award is not to be read like a judgment, the Court holds, rejecting a challenge built on notices of readiness and an allegation that voluminous evidence was ignored.
Upholding arrears, mesne profits and 9 per cent interest, the Court refuses to receive documents on appeal that the appellant never tried to file at trial.
An Indian court cannot take judicial notice of an EU regulation, the Delhi High Court holds, and a software vendor cannot rely on one it has not proved to walk away from an Indian contract.
A Division Bench dismisses SAIL's appeal over a coking coal shipping contract, holding a default clause aimed at supplier failure could not excuse a charterer's own shortfall.
A Division Bench restores a unanimous arbitral award on a hotel fire claim, holding that delay in rendition vitiates an award only when it is unexplained and has affected the findings.
A Division Bench holds that a signed Booking Note incorporating rider clauses 20 to 41 did not carry the arbitration clause at 43, and restrains the LMAA reference.
Justice Girish Kathpalia directed the concerned DCP to personally appear and brief the prosecutor in two pending NDPS bail applications, warning that failure would be taken as the State's consent to release both accused.
Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed a murder accused's regular bail application, finding that counsel had concealed prior rejections to secure a transfer away from the bench that had declined bail before.
Justice Madhu Jain held that an MLC recording the petitioner's own account of assault, without independent evidence linking named officers, cannot ground directions for departmental action or compensation.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted regular bail to a POCSO accused, applying real-life considerations from a prior Delhi HC ruling while acknowledging the prosecutrix's expressed approval cannot be consent-in-law.
Justice Madhu Jain exercised Article 226 jurisdiction to permit medical termination beyond the MTP Act's gestational ceiling, prioritising the orphaned minor's dignity and reproductive autonomy.
A Division Bench found the Tribunal disposed of seven appeals in an order lacking logic or reasoning, with two different pronouncement dates inexplicably merged into one document.
Justice Girish Kathpalia directed the DCP to probe threat calls received by a cab driver witness in a murder and conspiracy case, criticising the IO's failure to act.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that even grave charges cannot bar bail once Article 21's speedy trial guarantee is demonstrably infringed by prolonged, police-caused delay.
The Delhi High Court declined to disturb ad-interim maintenance granted to a wife living separately since 1985, holding that long separation and delay do not extinguish her statutory claim.
Delhi High Court prima facie finds MCC's new NRI quota condition—requiring proof that a sponsor actually raised the student—subjective and an unfair bar to NEET-UG 2026 counselling.
The Delhi High Court held that P.B. Agro LLP could not challenge an FDA Mumbai show cause notice before it, even though the company and FSSAI are based in Delhi.
Hearing clustered contempt petitions, Delhi HC directed the DGPs and Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh to explain compliance with Supreme Court directions on Section 41A arrest-notice procedure.
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed a writ petition by six Ukrainian nationals challenging a NIA court order that extended their detention up to 180 days under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA.
Justice Manoj Jain held that over thirteen years of pre-verdict incarceration, in a kidnapping and double murder case, violated the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected a second modification application targeting the same bail order, and flagged wasteful double assignment of legal aid advocates to a single accused.
