accident
Posted inNews

“Merely because an accident has occurred, rashness or negligence cannot be presumed”: Delhi High Court dismisses State’s appeal against acquittal in triple-motorcycle collision case, holds injured eyewitness could not explain manner of accident after losing consciousness, rejects reliance on FIR drafted by IO, finds site plan inconclusive, and reiterates that benefit of doubt must go to accused in absence of cogent proof under Sections 279 and 304A IPC

HEADNOTE State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay @ Anit @ Nita Singh Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Justice Neena Bansal KrishnaDate of Judgment: 15 December 2025Citation: CRL.A. 1544/2025 (CRL.L.P. 720/2017)Laws…
January 24, 2026
main proceedings
Posted inNews

“No vested right can flow from continuation in service granted only under an interim order once the main proceedings fail”: Delhi High Court dismisses DTC employee’s plea seeking superannuation at 60 years instead of 55, holds that service rendered under interim CAT protection cannot alter retirement age, applies Supreme Court law on merger of interim orders, and upholds Tribunal’s decision deeming retirement from 31 March 2014

HEADNOTE Ramesh Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu JainDate of Judgment: 12 December 2025Citation: W.P.(C) 1798/2024Laws / Sections Involved: Articles…
January 24, 2026
settlement letter
Posted inNews

“Once the alleged handwritten amendments and the subsequent settlement letter remain unproved, no court exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 can reappreciate evidence to reach a different conclusion”: Delhi High Court dismisses arbitration appeal by distributor, upholds arbitral award rejecting plea of full and final settlement based on disputed letters dated 06.05.2013 and 17.05.2013, reiterates narrow scope of interference and affirms counterclaims in commercial distribution dispute

HEADNOTE Ramakrishna Teletronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Top Victory Investments Ltd. Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod KumarDate of Judgment: 12 December 2025Citation: FAO(OS) (COMM)…
January 24, 2026
397
Posted inNews

“Having held that Section 397 IPC is not attracted, the Trial Court could not have proceeded to frame a charge invoking the same provision”: Delhi High Court sets aside contradictory order on charge in robbery case, condones 398-day delay owing to peculiar procedural history, holds framing of conspiracy charge with Section 397 legally inconsistent where accused did not use weapon, and remands matter for fresh consideration after FSL report and Arms Act sanction

HEADNOTE Rahul v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Swarana Kanta SharmaDate of Judgment: 10 December 2025Citation: CRL.REV.P. 1161/2024Laws / Sections Involved: Sections 392, 397,…
January 24, 2026
breach of policy
Posted inNews

“Even in a case of breach of policy condition, the insurance company can be held liable, subject to right to recover”: Delhi High Court dismisses insurer’s appeal seeking complete exoneration, holds pay-and-recover principle binding despite absence of permit and improper driving licence, upholds ₹4.11 lakh MACT award to injured bus conductor and reiterates insurer’s statutory duty towards third-party victims

HEADNOTE National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jawahar Prasad Keshri @ Jawahar Shah & Ors. Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Justice Prateek JalanDate of Judgment: 12 December 2025Citation: MAC.APP. 328/2013Laws /…
January 23, 2026
matrimonial
Posted inNews

“Cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement”: Delhi High Court quashes FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC after divorce and full payment of ₹5.20 lakh settlement, holds continuation of criminal proceedings would be abuse of process, and reiterates inherent powers to secure ends of justice

HEADNOTE Neelesh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Justice Ravinder DudejaDate of Judgment: 12 December 2025Citation: CRL.M.C. 8116/2025Laws…
January 23, 2026
vires
Posted inNews

“Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain from giving our opinion with respect to the vires”: Delhi High Court declines to adjudicate validity of GST limitation-extension notifications under Section 168A pending Supreme Court consideration, permits taxpayer to pursue statutory appeal against ex parte adjudication order, safeguards limitation and directs appellate authority to decide matter on merits within fixed timeline

HEADNOTE Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mrs. Asha Devi v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors. Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail…
January 23, 2026
impugned order
Posted inNews

“Since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard, the impugned order deserves to be set aside”: Delhi High Court quashes ex parte GST adjudication raising ₹9.53 lakh demand, lifts provisional attachment subject to safeguards, remands matter for fresh adjudication while keeping validity of Section 168A limitation-extension notifications open pending Supreme Court verdict

HEADNOTE Neelmani Electricals v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax & Ors. Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail JainDate of Judgment: 12 December…
January 23, 2026
police ward
Posted inNews

“A candidate cannot be allowed to approach the Court stating that they realised their mistake only when he or she failed to qualify”: Delhi High Court refuses post-submission correction of police ward declaration in Delhi Police Constable recruitment, holds height relaxation cannot be claimed after filling ‘No’ in application, upholds CAT order and reiterates strict adherence to recruitment rules

HEADNOTE Nisha Khan v. Delhi Police & Anr. Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu JainDate of Judgment: 12 December 2025Citation: W.P.(C) 12698/2023Laws / Sections Involved:…
January 23, 2026
dispute
Posted inNews

“No useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court”: Delhi High Court quashes FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act after full ₹6.10 lakh settlement and mutual divorce, reiterates that matrimonial disputes with predominant civil flavour deserve quietus once parties amicably resolve their differences

HEADNOTE Nisha (Respondent No.2) v. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr. (arising from FIR No.115/2016) Court: High Court of DelhiBench: Justice Amit MahajanDate of Judgment: 11 December 2025Citation: CRL.M.C. 8880/2025Laws…
January 23, 2026