Delhi High Court judgments

The High Court upheld the Section 6 POCSO conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor but held the 30-year simple imprisonment sentence statutorily impermissible and disproportionate. It reduced the sentence to 15 years rigorous imprisonment, factoring in the appellant's youth at the time of offence, clean record, and over 11 years already incarcerated.

Delhi HC condones 67-day delay in chamber appeal, sets aside order closing mortgagee bank's right to lead evidence, directs Joint Registrar to grant fresh opportunity.

The Delhi High Court held that Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction survives the Section 37(3) bar on second appeals to review a Section 37(2)(b) appellate order, but dismissed the petition on merits. The court upheld the appellate court's modification of the arbitrator's Section 17 interim direction limiting document production to the pre-arbitration period, finding no perversity warranting interference.

The Delhi High Court upheld an adverse inference against a husband who failed to file his income affidavit despite six opportunities over 14 months, affirming Rs.20,000 monthly interim maintenance. It also refused to condone a 222-day delay in filing the revision, as the petitioner's ignorance claim was contradicted by his counsel's recorded presence at the hearing.

The Delhi High Court held that an unverified internal police database report, marked for investigative reference only, cannot prove criminal involvement. It directed the DCP to verify and correct the erroneous entry linking the petitioner to an FIR where he was unnamed within four weeks, and barred reliance on the report in court.

The Delhi High Court ruled that trademark infringement claims against an ex-licensee and its affiliates are arbitrable under the licence agreement as subordinate rights in personam, not rights in rem. Non-signatory affiliates are bound as persons claiming through the signatory, extending the arbitration clause to related entities.

The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹15 lakh pre-judgment security order, ruling that mere apprehension of asset disposal, a defendant's residence outside the jurisdiction, and evasive denials do not satisfy the stringent requirement under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC to prove a concrete intent to defeat decree execution. The decision raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking attachment before judgment in commercial suits.

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award granting 9% interest on a Performance Bank Guarantee from the date of invocation violated public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) where the contract expressly excluded interest under Clause 13(2). The court set aside this portion of the award while upholding the rejection of the delayed shipment claim. The ruling reinforces that arbitrators cannot rewrite contractual terms on interest, and such overreach renders an award contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law.

The court held that dock identification of a stranger witness without a test identification parade carries no evidentiary value, and co-accused disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act are inadmissible unless they lead to discovery of facts. The prosecution also failed to prove conspiracy and harbouring beyond reasonable doubt, securing acquittal in a 2004 robbery case.

The Delhi High Court held that forfeiture of earnest money under an Agreement to Sell is not automatic; the party retaining the deposit must prove actual legal injury and quantifiable loss under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. The court distinguished the K.R. Suresh precedent, ruling it inapplicable to simple recovery suits, thereby strengthening a vendee's right to recover earnest money absent proven damages.

The court quashed a 2014 proclaimed offender declaration after the CBI failed to serve summons at the accused's known Australian address. Section 82 CrPC demands proof of deliberate evasion, not mere non-service; the invalid proclamation does not affect arrest warrants, the INTERPOL Red Notice, or extradition.

Delhi HC held that a lender cannot get extra Section 9 relief if mortgage security exists and SARFAESI enforcement is pending, absent proof of immediate asset threat. The decision affects banks seeking arbitration interim relief alongside loan remedies.

The Delhi High Court permitted Natasha Narwal to travel to the UK for an academic conference despite pending UAPA charges, ruling that mere allegations cannot restrict her Article 21 right to travel abroad. The court imposed safeguards including a ₹1 lakh bond and undertakings to return, balancing personal liberty with investigative needs.

The Delhi High Court held that a buyer’s awareness of existing mortgage defeats a fraud claim for refund of sale consideration. The court applied caveat emptor, holding that knowledge of encumbrances negates fraud claims and bars vexatious suits.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a flawed Section 21 notice under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not strip an arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction when a valid arbitration agreement is in place. The court proceeded to appoint a sole arbitrator, clarifying that procedural defects in notice service cannot override the parties’ arbitration agreement.

The Delhi HC held that arbitrator recusal creates a vacancy to be filled under Section 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, not a termination attracting Section 32 remedies. This distinction allows parties to seek appointment of a substitute arbitrator rather than challenging a termination order, preserving the arbitration process.

The Delhi HC held a unilateral arbitrator appointment clause violates Section 18’s equal treatment principle, rendering it unenforceable. It underscores the need for equal treatment in arbitration clauses, affecting future unilateral appointment agreements.

The Delhi High Court held that a gift deed between family members is not a 'transfer' under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, barring eviction claims based on such deed. It also clarified that a review petition under Section 114 CPC lies only for errors apparent on the face of the record, affecting landlords and tenants in family-settlement disputes under rent control law.

The Delhi High Court held that a summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC cannot be entertained after issues are framed, requiring the suit to go to trial for evidence appreciation. This clarifies that Order XIII-A does not permit premature disposal once the suit reaches the issue-framing stage.

The Delhi High Court directed masking of identity markers in quashed criminal orders to shield the petitioner’s family from harassment, upholding a right to be forgotten under Article 21. This lets those with quashed criminal cases seek removal of personal details from public court records to prevent ongoing stigma.

Granting bail, the Court held that assets acquired before scheduled offence period cannot be treated as proceeds of crime under PMLA without a temporal nexus to alleged criminal activity. Court found no such link for the petitioner’s overseas assets.

The ruling upholds charges against female petitioners in December 2023 to July 2024 incidents, clarifying that liability for gang rape under BNS Section 70 extends to those sharing the common intention to commit rape, even without commission of the act.

The Delhi HC held that vague counsel negligence claims do not amount to 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte judgment, stressing that litigants must stay vigilant and act promptly or lose chance to challenge judgment.

The Delhi High Court allowed medical termination of pregnancy for a 16-year-old rape survivor at 31 weeks, ruling that her reproductive autonomy under Article 21 outweighs the 24-week ceiling in the MTP Act. The decision expands access to safe abortion for minor survivors of sexual violence facing grave mental injury.