Latest Delhi Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
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.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the high and low voltage panels Larsen and Toubro bought through Areva for the Delhi Metro moved under a contract built around DMRC specifications, so the sales were inter-State and in the course of import, and no Delhi VAT was ever payable.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found that ACNE + SCAR on the HEXILAK pack was used as a product name rather than a description, that a house mark is no answer to infringement, and that the two marks are near identical in sound. The defendants have two months to recall stock but may keep selling the serum under another name.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar upheld a 2023 award rejecting the Mumbai airport operator claim to the lessor interest in a 30,047 square metre Sahara lease, holding that reproducing an award is not proof of non-application of mind, even as it flagged gaps in the reasoning below.
Justice Sachin Datta held that the simultaneous recusal of a tribunal headed by a former Supreme Court judge was a withdrawal from office under Section 15, not a termination under Section 32, rejected the reliance placed by the IRB companies on Harshbir Singh Pannu, and appointed Justice Rajesh Bindal as presiding arbitrator.
Justice Subramonium Prasad held that at the show-cause stage a writ court asks only whether the Executive Magistrate had any material and applied his mind to it, and that a police kalandara backed by three general diary entries and six FIRs was not nil material. He directed the State to hand over everything it relies on and told the magistrate not to demand
Justice Amit Mahajan held that the Corporate Affairs Ministry order of 17 August 2018 merely reproduced Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, and that the Oversight Committee minutes offered to prop it up rested on a news article, a letter from an MP and inspection reports that had found no fraud. The 2022 prosecution complaint falls with it.
Justice Jasmeet Singh excluded a senior citizen's one-third undivided share from the e-auction, holding that if the property sells as a whole she would be left chasing an auction purchaser or a money claim.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a challenge to a majority award on a highway maintenance contract, holding the Tribunal's reading of the security deposit clauses was a plausible view.
Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja condoned the delay and then refused leave, holding no prima facie case was made out against men acquitted of murder in 2021.
Justice Sanjeev Narula restored a Vice-Principal's appeal against her 2017 termination, directed it be decided within four months, and ordered the school to pay her suspension-period dues in eight weeks.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a second appeal, holding the declaration of surrender was made to defeat the defendant's right of maintenance and could not defeat her right of residence under Section 39.
Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside the Medical Assessment and Rating Board's speaking order, revived the 2025-26 application for 2026-27, and let the Institute into the stray round if a fresh inspection is satisfactory.
Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja set aside a 2003 life sentence, holding the declarations did not present a consistent account and that a neighbour's unchallenged evidence placed the appellant outside the house.
Justice Ajay Digpaul held the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act cannot be divorced from proper addressing, and refused to disturb the trial court's finding under Article 227.
Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected the CPWD's objections to the arbitrator's impartiality, to the merits of three claims, and to the scope of the reference.
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed an appeal under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, setting out when a child witness can be the sole basis of a conviction.
