Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 199 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 222NOMINAL INDEXSH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 199 Dinesh & Anr. v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research through its Director General & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 200 SANCHIT SETH v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 199 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 222
NOMINAL INDEX
SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 199
Dinesh & Anr. v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research through its Director General & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 200
SANCHIT SETH v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 201
Mrs. Priya S. Kapur v. Mandhira Kapur Smith & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Moideen Kutty K @ M. K. Faizy v. ED 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 203
Sunita Rani v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 204
MAHESH CHAND v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 205
M/S Dhanvine Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. DJB 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 206
UoI v. B Srinivasa Rao & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 207
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 208
Palika Bazar Shopkeepers Welfare Association v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 209
MS A v. STATE & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 210
Vikas Garg & Anr. v. State through CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 211
Gaurav Verma & Ors. v. AAI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 212
Shivmani Yadav v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 213
Anand Legal Aid Trust v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 214
DEEPA SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & Other Connected Matter 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 215
KAJOL VISHAL DEVGAN v. KASH COLLECTIVE 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 216
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 217
ARUN SURI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 218
RACHIT GUPTA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 219
NARENDER KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 220
OM PRAKSH MALHOTRA & ANR v. SACHIN MALHOTRA 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 221
RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 222
Cheque Bounce Cases: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Suspension Of Sentence To Actor Rajpal Yadav
Title: SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court suspended for the interim, the sentence imposed on Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav in relation to his conviction in cheque dishonour cases.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted interim suspension of sentence till March 18.
Case Name : Dinesh & Anr. v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research through its Director General & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 200
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that recruitment authorities can prescribe minimum qualifying marks after the recruitment process begins but before the relevant stage of examination, if such discretion is reserved in the advertisement.
NEET-PG 2025: Delhi High Court Upholds Cut-Off Reduction, Says No Arbitrariness In Policy Decision
Title: SANCHIT SETH v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the decision of the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) reducing the qualifying cut-off percentile for NEET-PG 2025 examination after commencement of the admission process.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that the decision to reduce the eligibility criteria was taken after due deliberations and the eligibility criteria was recalibrated to ensure the optimal utilisation of the vacant seats.
Title: Mrs. Priya S. Kapur v. Mandhira Kapur Smith & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court restrained late industrialist Sunjay Kapur's wife Priya Kapur and her sister in law Mandhira Kapur Smith from making defamatory statements against each other.
Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the Kapurs should conduct themselves with dignity and must not defame each other publicly.
Leadership Role In PFI Before It Was Banned Doesn't By Itself Attract PMLA: Delhi High Court
Case title: Moideen Kutty K @ M. K. Faizy v. ED
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court has held that merely holding a leadership position in the Popular Front of India (PFI) at a time when the organisation was lawful does not, by itself, constitute an offence of money laundering under PMLA.
Case title: Sunita Rani v. GNCTD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Delhi High Court has held that a candidate who was over-age on the cut-off date cannot claim appointment to a regular post merely because she had rendered long years of service as a part-time librarian.
Justice Sanjeev Narula thus dismissed the challenge to a selection process for the post of Librarian in a Delhi Government-aided school.
Title: MAHESH CHAND v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to operate and run a bar or pub must be balanced with the citizens' and children's right to a noise-free, peaceful, and orderly environment.
“The age old proverb given to ordinary citizens is “don't take the law into your own hand”, the rationale obviously being that is for the authorities to wield the proverbial stick of the law, and enforce the same,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.
Case title: M/S Dhanvine Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. DJB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Delhi Jal Board's tender condition disqualifying bidders if they are facing FIRs, charge sheets or criminal proceedings relating to corruption, fraud or economic offences, even in the absence of a conviction.
Case title: UoI v. B Srinivasa Rao & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has held that transfer and posting are matters of administrative discretion, and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) cannot interdict such decisions through ad-interim orders, especially at a preliminary stage of proceedings.
Case title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 208
The Delhi High Court is examining whether the requirement of mandatory vegetarian/ non-vegetarian labelling through red, brown or green dots on toothpaste and other toiletry packaging can be enforced under existing law, amid conflicting positions taken by regulatory authorities.
Accordingly, the Court has directed that a joint meeting shall be held between the Director, Drug Controller General of India as also the Director, Legal Metrology and a comprehensive joint decision shall be arrived at as to the implementation of incorporation of the Red, Brown and Green dot on packaging of various products.
Case title: Palika Bazar Shopkeepers Welfare Association v. GNCTD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 209
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to hear representatives of shopkeepers and street vendors before taking a final decision on the Town Vending Plan proposed for Connaught Place and Palika Bazar, which were designated as no-vending zones by the Supreme Court in Sudhir Madan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors (2007).
Title: MS A v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Delhi High Court has ruled that consent given by a woman cannot be retrospectively withdrawn so as to convert a consensual relationship into a criminal offence merely because the relationship has broken down.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that while law must remain vigilant in protecting women from genuine sexual exploitation, coercion, and abuse, it must equally guard against the misuse of its process.
Case title: Vikas Garg & Anr. v. State through CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 211
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the criminal charges framed against a due diligence firm and its authorised signatory in a ₹600 lakh bank loan fraud case, holding that the material on record discloses grave suspicion warranting a full-fledged trial.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, “in view of the positive Report submitted by the Petitioners despite the glaring irregularities and contradictions, there arises grave suspicion regarding involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged offence and which can be only tested in trial.”
Case title: Gaurav Verma & Ors. v. AAI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court has held that ex-servicemen who avail age relaxation in recruitment cannot claim consideration against unreserved (UR) posts, even if they secure higher marks than candidates shortlisted in the unreserved category.
Justice Sanjeev Narula thus dismissed a writ petition filed by ex-servicemen candidates against the Airport Authority of India (AAI), for recruitment to Non-Executive Cadres under the UR category.
Title: Shivmani Yadav v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court directed the Union Government on Wednesday to take a decision on issuing a notification for appointment of a presiding officer to head the Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the Government of India to take a decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks.
Title: Anand Legal Aid Trust v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 214
The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation seeking “omnibus” prayers over the recent issue of persons being missing from the national capital.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rapped the petitioner- Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust, noting that the PIL did not contain specific instances or details on the issue.
Delhi High Court Urges More Judicial Appointments For MCOCA Cases, Calls For Administrative Action
Title: DEEPA SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 215
The Delhi High Court has called for more judicial appointments to deal with cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha said that a sessions judge or an additional sessions judge would be qualified to be appointed as a judge of the Special Court under Section 5(3) of the MCOCA.
Title: KAJOL VISHAL DEVGAN v. KASH COLLECTIVE
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood actress Kajol Devgan.
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained various defendant entities from using the actress' image and likeness while selling commercial merchandise as well as ordered takedown of obscene material.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 217
The Delhi High Court has observed that a homemaker does not sit idle and the law must recognise the economic value of her contribution to the domestic relationship.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the assumption that a non-earning spouse is “idle” reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contribution, as describing non-employment as idleness is easy but to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult.
Ancestral Or Inherited Properties Can Be Attached Under PMLA: Delhi High Court
Title: ARUN SURI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 218
The Delhi High Court has held that ancestral or inherited properties can be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
“The statute does not carve out an exception for ancestral or inherited properties, and thus, they are not immune from attachment,” a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said.
Presence Of Public Urinal, Open Garbage Bin Next To Residence Violates Article 21: Delhi High Court
Title: RACHIT GUPTA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 219
The Delhi High Court has held that presence of a public urinal and an open garbage bin right next to an individual's residence violates the right to live with dignity in a clean and healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Amit Bansal underscored that one of the integral aspects of a healthy life is hygienic environment, absence of which will affect an individual's right to live with dignity.
Title: NARENDER KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 220
The Delhi High Court ordered non disclosure of the identity of the 17 year old minor accused in relation to the recent SUV accident in Dwarka which claimed the life of a 23 year old.
“The respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 (Union of India, Press Council of India and Press Trust of India) and those under them are restrained from disclosing the record of the child for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise of the juvenile accused in relation to the FIR till the next date of hearing,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed.
Delhi High Court Fines Lawyer For Failing To Inform Opposite Side's Counsel While Seeking Adjournmen
Title: OM PRAKSH MALHOTRA & ANR v. SACHIN MALHOTRA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 221
The Delhi High Court has fined a lawyer for failing to inform the opposite side's counsel while seeking an adjournment.
Justice Anish Dayal imposed costs of Rs. 15,000 on the lawyer appearing for the respondent side in a plea filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Title: RAJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 222
The Delhi High Court closed a plea seeking to stop the continued streaming of the film Lady Chatterley's Lover in India on OTT platform Netflix on the grounds of containing “excessively graphic sexual scenes and frontal nudity.”
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted liberty to the litigant, Raj Kumar, to approach Digital Publisher Content Grievances Council which is a tier-two body under Information Technology Rules 2021 to resolve viewer complaints.