The High Court allowed the bail application and released the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No. 590/2025, on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and conditions. It held the recovery attributable to him fell in the intermediate category, so Section 37 NDPS Act did not apply.

The High Court dismissed the petition against the trial court's refusal to recall the complainant under Section 348 BNSS in a Section 138 NI Act case. It found no gross injustice, called the petition frivolous, and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner.

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case involving 32.230 kg of Charas. The State conceded that no grounds of arrest were given, so the arrest was vitiated. Bail was also granted on parity with a co-accused, on a Rs. 1,00,000 bond with one surety and conditions.

The court allowed the Section 11 petition and appointed Ms. Harshita Choubey, Advocate, as sole arbitrator. The arbitration will run under DIAC rules, with fees as per the DIAC schedule. All pleas, including on arbitrability and jurisdiction, remain open before the arbitrator.

The court allowed Tata Capital's Section 11 petition and appointed Ms. Riddhi Jad, Advocate, as sole arbitrator, with arbitration under DIAC rules and fees. The respondents, though served, did not appear or file a reply. All pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, are left open to the arbitrator.

The petition was disposed of, with the petitioner directed to conclude arbitrator appointment within 45 days. The interim arrangement continues for 45 days, and beyond that until the Arbitral Tribunal rules under Section 17 if arbitral proceedings begin in time. Otherwise it stands vacated automatically.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It found no ground to interfere with the arbitrator's rejection of Claim Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 against the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee. No order as to costs.

Proceeding ex-parte as the served respondents did not appear, the court found a valid arbitration clause (Clause 13) in the Loan Agreement and appointed Ms. Riddhi Jad as Sole Arbitrator under DIAC rules. The petition was disposed of.

The court allowed the Section 11 petition on the parties' consent and appointed Ms. Riddhi Jad, Advocate, as sole arbitrator. The arbitration will be held under Delhi International Arbitration Centre rules, and all pleas, including on arbitrability and jurisdiction, remain open before the arbitrator.

The court allowed the petitioner's counsel to withdraw the petition, as the matter had already been settled between the parties. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Trial Court's January 2015 acquittal of both respondents under Sections 392, 397 and 411 read with Section 34 IPC, finding no perversity, illegality or material misreading of evidence.

The Court held that territorial jurisdiction was not made out in any of the 17 commercial suits. It returned all the plaints under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for presentation before an appropriate court, and disposed of pending applications. Liberty was granted to seek directions under Order VII Rule 10A.

The High Court allowed the bail application and released the petitioner on regular bail in the NDPS case, on a Rs. 50,000 bond with one surety of like amount and conditions. It held the recovered substance lacked 'Diacetylmorphine' and Section 37 NDPS Act rigours did not apply.

The High Court allowed the bail application of the accused, who has been in custody since 2021. It directed release on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

The court held the Section 34 petitions maintainable and set aside the 28.02.2026 interim award. It held the 15.03.2014 loan agreements were executed in Delhi and must be stamped under the Indian Stamp Act as applicable in NCT of Delhi. Religare's four petitions were allowed and the Zee Group's four petitions dismissed.

The court appointed Ms. Sandhya Gupta, Advocate, as sole arbitrator under DIAC rules, finding Clause 30 prima facie shows an arbitration agreement. Objections on the underlying transaction, arbitrability and jurisdiction are left open for the arbitrator. The petition was disposed of.

The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the 18.09.2026 order refusing parole, and directed release on parole for two weeks on a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety. The court noted the petitioner's house needed repair.

The court granted the decree holder leave to withdraw the enforcement petition, with liberty to file it again if the situation arises, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The decretal amount had already been deposited in O.M.P. (COMM) 340/2022.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 875/2024 of PS North Rohini under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, with all proceedings arising from it. It relied on the compromise, the State's lack of objection, and the complainant's statement that she did not wish to pursue the case.

Under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, the court appointed Justice (Retd.) Kurian Joseph as substitute sole arbitrator, as the earlier arbitrator declined for personal reasons and the respondent had no objection. Arbitration is to be under DIAC rules. The petition was disposed of.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Special Court's 7 October 2026 order and directed release of the appellant on regular bail in FIR No. 186/2025 on a Rs 50,000 personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Suraj Gaur, son of prisoner Naresh Gaur, seeking disclosure of the prisoner's medical records. It held writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to obtain information about a third person, and the stated purpose was unclear.

The High Court disposed of the wife's petition and directed the execution court to decide her 30.06.2025 application for attachment of the respondent's assets within 15 days of the already fixed date, 21.11.2026. Notice to the respondent was held unnecessary.

On a Section 11(6) petition, the court noted both parties agreed to arbitration and directed DIAC to appoint a Sole Arbitrator within one week. The arbitration is to be conducted under DIAC rules, and all pleas on arbitrability and jurisdiction are left open for the arbitrator.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 50/2024 of Police Station Hauz Qazi and all proceedings arising from it. The complainant had compromised with the petitioners, and the State had no objection.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 250/2018 of PS Dwarka North (Sections 323/354/506/509/34 IPC) and all proceedings arising from it, since the complainant had compromised and the State did not object.

The High Court dismissed the regular bail application and accompanying applications, citing the gravity and expanse of the offence. It held that a compromise with the complainant cannot be a ground for bail, and noted that the applicant faces eight other similar FIRs.

Nobody appeared for the petitioner, Union of India, when the case was called in the revised list. The court dismissed O.M.P. (COMM) 8/2025 in default and for want of prosecution.

The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application in the FIR under Section 110/3(5) BNS. It noted that CCTV footage did not support the claim that the applicant was a bystander, and that he had not joined investigation despite three notices.

The High Court allowed the bail application of a Ugandan national facing trial for 1,088 grams of cocaine. It held the Section 37 NDPS conditions were met and ordered release on a Rs 50,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including passport surrender and FRRO registration.

The Division Bench allowed GNCTD's appeal and set aside the 08.05.2026 Section 34 order and the 20.01.2025 award. The Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally by PWD, and there was no express written waiver after disputes arose. Other grounds were not examined. No costs.

The High Court dismissed both petitions seeking quashing of cross FIRs 508/2024 and 509/2024 of PS Aman Vihar. As the offences are compoundable before the trial court, it saw no occasion to use inherent powers. The parties may approach the trial court for compounding.

The Delhi High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. If arrested, the petitioner is to be released on a Rs. 50,000 bond with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions. The investigation may continue.

The court appointed Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator, with arbitration under DIAC rules and fees. All pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, are left open to be decided by the arbitrator. The petition was disposed of.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 521/2016 of PS Gandhi Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and all proceedings arising from it, on the basis of the compromise between the parties. The State had no objection.

The court refused to terminate the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate under Section 14(1)(a) and gave it one final opportunity to conclude proceedings within 90 days. Any continuation beyond the extended mandate (till 05.08.2026) needs a Section 29A extension, which the petitioner may seek. Petition disposed of.

The court extended the Sole Arbitrator's mandate by three months from 30.10.2026 so a consent award can be passed under the Final Settlement Agreement dated 29.07.2026. The intervening period is regularised. The respondent did not object, and the petition was disposed of.