The Delhi High Court held that repeatedly filing defective petitions to circumvent limitation periods amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court observed that an initial filing lacking essential requirements such as affidavits, signatures, vakalatnama, or court fees cannot be treated as a valid filing to save limitation.

It emphasised that merely re-filing such defective petitions multiple times does not cure the fundamental defects or extend statutory timelines.

The Court reiterated that limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is strict and inflexible, and dismissed the petition, stressing that procedural misuse cannot defeat statutory mandates.

[Ms. Stalagmite Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Ashray Homes Build Well Pvt. Ltd.]

The Delhi Police have revealed that Shrinivas Luis, a 47-year-old arrested from Mysuru, sent seven hoax bomb threat emails to the Supreme Court and over 50 to the Delhi High Court.

An analysis of 1,500 emails sent by Luis over the past year showed he targeted High Courts across India, including Mumbai, Karnataka, and Gujarat, and even institutions abroad.

Investigators found that Luis, a former law student, harbored deep resentment against the judiciary and used VPNs to mask his identity, though he was eventually tracked through non-encrypted emails.

Police have seized laptops and mobile phones, noting that the accused was reportedly suffering from depression.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that opening a car door without checking for oncoming traffic constitutes "sheer negligence."

Court affirmed a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's decision, holding a car driver liable for a collision with a 21-year-old motorcyclist. The victim suffered 90% functional disability, resulting in traumatic paraplegia.

The Court rejected the insurer’s plea of contributory negligence, stating that safety distance regulations do not excuse a driver’s failure to monitor their surroundings before opening a door.

The Court upheld the compensation award, emphasizing the life-altering impact on the claimant’s earning capacity and lifelong need for an attendant.

[IndusInd General Insurance v. Roshan Kumar Sahu]

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal has filed an application in the Delhi High Court seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI’s challenge to his discharge in the liquor policy case.

Kejriwal, who intends to argue the application in person, expressed a "reasonable apprehension" that the hearing may lack impartiality.

This follows a February 27 trial court order discharging all 23 accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, while criticizing the CBI’s investigation.

Justice Sharma had previously observed on March 9 that the trial court’s findings appeared "prima facie erroneous," prompting Kejriwal to earlier seek a transfer of the case through the High Court Registry and the Supreme Court.

[CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court held that mere filing of an earlier arbitration-related plea does not confer jurisdiction for subsequent applications under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when the earlier plea was withdrawn without adjudication.

The Court emphasised that jurisdiction must be real and legally sustainable, not created artificially through procedural filings.

Rejecting a plea for extension of an arbitrator’s mandate, it held that the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ranchi courts, and prior proceedings in Delhi could not override this.

It also cautioned against attempts at forum shopping through strategic filings.

[SP Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court clarified that the right to education under Article 21A and the Right to Education Act, 2009 guarantees free and compulsory education only up to the age of 14, and does not include the right to study in a particular school of one’s choice.

The Court observed that the State’s obligation is limited to ensuring access to education, not fulfilling individual preferences regarding institutions.

It further noted that admission rights arise only through prescribed procedures such as applications and selection processes, and cannot be claimed as an absolute entitlement to a specific school.

[Pooja as guardian of Baby Devanshi Jaiswar v. Aadharshila Vidyapeeth & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court held that bail conditions cannot extend to invading the privacy of an accused’s family members, setting aside directions that required police surveillance of the accused’s wife.

The trial court had ordered monitoring measures such as deployment of a police officer, collection of call records, and assessment of her living conditions.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani termed these as “wholly unacceptable intrusions” since the wife was not an accused.

The Court clarified that bail conditions can only be imposed on the accused, not third parties, and must remain reasonable and lawful, while upholding the accused’s interim bail.

[Sandeep @ Kala @ Kale @ Sonu @ Sinothia v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi]

The Delhi High Court has reopened scrutiny of Arvind Kejriwal’s acquittal in cases related to alleged non-compliance with Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons in the excise policy probe.

Acting on the ED’s plea, the Court issued notice and sought Kejriwal’s response, signalling fresh judicial examination of whether his conduct amounted to “wilful disobedience.”

The trial court had earlier acquitted him, holding that mere non-appearance did not establish intentional defiance. Challenging this, the ED argued that repeated absence was deliberate.

The High Court will now assess whether the legal threshold for non-compliance under enforcement proceedings was correctly applied.

The Delhi High Court reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case involving actor Rajpal Yadav after he failed to settle outstanding dues with M/s Murli Projects Private Limited.

The Court expressed frustration over contradictory submissions made by Yadav and his counsel regarding the payment of approximately ₹7.75 crore.

Although Yadav sought an additional 30 days to pay ₹6 crore for a one-time settlement, the Court denied the extension, stating that repeated assurances had not been met.

Previously, Yadav served jail time after failing to comply with earlier settlement orders before receiving an interim suspension of his sentence.

[M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajpal Yadav]

The Delhi High Court awarded over ₹152 crore in damages to Communication Components Antenna (CCA) after finding the Rosenberger Group guilty of infringing a patent related to asymmetrical beam antenna technology.

Justice Prathiba M Singh issued a permanent injunction against the German-based group, restraining them from selling or promoting infringing antennas used in 4G LTE networks.

The Court found that Rosenberger’s products, marketed to providers like Reliance Jio, near-identically matched CCA’s proprietary beam patterns designed to increase network capacity.

Additionally, the Court upheld the validity of Indian Patent No. 240893, directing the registry to issue a formal certificate of validity.

[Communication Components Antenna v. Rosenberger]

The Delhi High Court has ordered a blanket ban on the song "Volume 1" by Yo Yo Honey Singh and Badshah, directing the Central government and social media intermediaries to ensure its immediate removal.

The Court stated that the song’s "deeply vulgar" and "dehumanising" lyrics shocked the "conscience of the court to its absolute core."

The Court ruled that the track lacks artistic value and normalizes the treatment of women as objects for sexual gratification.

The mandate extends to remixes and snippets. This order grants liberty to the petitioners to flag any surfacing URLs for rapid government takedown.

[Hindu Shakti Dal & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court recently issued a stern warning to the Union Ministry of Railways and the Delhi Government, observing that the national capital has become a "mandi" (market) for child trafficking.

The Bench noted that despite existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), the menace remains unabated due to ineffective implementation.

The Court highlighted rampant trafficking at major railway stations and sought detailed data from the NCPCR.

The Court also raised concerns over "re-trafficking," where rescued children are allegedly returned to exploitative conditions instead of being placed in child welfare custody.

[Just Rights for Children Alliance v. UOI & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court directed a re-examination of Harvard University’s patent application concerning lab-engineered insulin-producing cells, setting aside the earlier rejection by the Patent Controller.

The Court noted that the Controller failed to adequately consider the amended claims submitted during proceedings, instead relying largely on the original claims.

Observing that these revised claims could materially affect the assessment of patentability, the Court held that such oversight warranted fresh scrutiny.

It thus remanded the matter for reconsideration in accordance with law, highlighting the importance of properly evaluating all claim amendments in patent adjudication.

[President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Controller of Patent]

The Delhi High Court issued notice to the CBI, CAG and the Central government on a plea filed by a Lieutenant Colonel alleging corruption within the Indian Army.

The officer sought a court-monitored CBI investigation, claiming he uncovered financial irregularities in procurement under the Annual Contingent Grant. He alleged misuse of public funds through manipulated procedures, falsified records and diversion of assets.

The petitioner also claimed inaction on his complaints, possible evidence suppression, and retaliation including adverse reports and transfer.

The Court has sought responses from authorities and listed the matter for further hearing.

[Lt Col Sumit Sheoran v. CBI & Ors.]