Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 223 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 238NOMINAL INDEXHeritage Foods Limited v. Jagati Publications Limited & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 223 Asif @ Naeem v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 224 JAYANT VATS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 225 Save India Foundation v. MCD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 226 JUBIN NAUTIYAL v. JAMMABLE LIMITED & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 227 Mujeeb...
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 223 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 238
NOMINAL INDEX
Heritage Foods Limited v. Jagati Publications Limited & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 223
Asif @ Naeem v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 224
JAYANT VATS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 225
Save India Foundation v. MCD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 226
JUBIN NAUTIYAL v. JAMMABLE LIMITED & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 227
Mujeeb Khan For And On Behalf Of Aftab Khan Missing v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 228
NOOR MOHAMMAD v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 229
UJJWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 230
SWAMI RAMDEV v. JOHN DOE (S) AND ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 231
Sakshi Sharma v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 232
Neeraj Kumar v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 233
SURESH CHAND SHRIVASTVA v. AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BUREAU 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 234
Himanshu Gupta v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 235
R. Usha @ G. Usha v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 236
PRATAP CHANDRA v. MR. MANISH SISODIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 237
VIDYA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 238
Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 239
Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. UoI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 240
MTNL v. Shri Ram Ratan 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 241
Ms. X v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 242
RAMBIR SINGH.GOLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 243
Bachu Singh v. CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 244
Union of India v. Sameer Wankhede 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 245
UoI v. Brijendra Kumar Sharma & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 246
NS v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 247
Aviation Services LLC v. State 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 248
Case title: Heritage Foods Limited v. Jagati Publications Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 223
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to a Hyderabad-based dairy company in a defamation suit filed against a media house, television channel and digital platforms over reports allegedly linking it to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) ghee/laddus adulteration.
The suit has been instituted by Heritage Foods Limited alleging that a series of newspaper reports, television broadcasts and online publications falsely associated it with the supply of adulterated ghee to the Tirupati temple.
Case title: Asif @ Naeem v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 224
The Delhi High Court has ordered premature release of a Bangladeshi national, sentenced to life in a dacoity and murder case, holding that the gravity of the offence by itself cannot be the sole ground to deny premature release once the eligibility threshold under the applicable policy has been crossed.
Justice Sanjeev Narula thus set aside the decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) which had rejected his plea for premature release despite prolonged incarceration and satisfactory prison conduct.
Title: JAYANT VATS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 225
The Delhi High Court has observed that refusing marriage citing kundli mismatch after establishing physical relations and repeated assurances of marriage attracts Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 69 BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse achieved through deceitful means.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to grant regular bail to a man accused of establishing sexual relations with a woman on the false promise of marriage and later refusing to marry her on the ground of non-matching of kundalis.
Case title: Save India Foundation v. MCD
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 226
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging a 46 years old Wakf notification listing certain mosques in the city's Jahangirpuri area, holding that the plea was an “unnecessary attempt to rake up the past” by reopening settled issues after several decades.
Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Protecting Personality Rights Of Singer Jubin Nautiyal
Title: JUBIN NAUTIYAL v. JAMMABLE LIMITED & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 227
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of singer Jubin Nautiyal.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the singer restraining multiple AI platforms, websites and e-commerce intermediaries from unauthorized use and commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights.
Case title: Mujeeb Khan For And On Behalf Of Aftab Khan Missing v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 228
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central government to grant consular access and legal assistance to the family of an Indian worker who allegedly went missing after being swept away by strong sea currents while snorkelling in the Republic of Maldives.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the direction while disposing of a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the brother of the worker, Aftab Khan, who was employed as a Chef at a resort in Maldives.
Mere Breaking Up Of Relationship Not 'Instigation' For Abetment Of Suicide: Delhi High Court
Title: NOOR MOHAMMAD v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 229
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere breaking up of a relationship does not constitute “instigation” to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
“Though, broken relationship and heartbreaks have become common these days, mere breaking-up of relationship may not per se constitute instigation so as to make it to be a case of abetment under Section 108 BNS (corresponding Section 306 IPC),” Justice Manoj Jain said.
Title: UJJWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 230
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of abetting the suicide of his former partner, observing that mere refusal to marry or failure to respond to messages does not constitute instigation or abetment under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that a suicide note, by itself, is not sufficient to deny bail in the absence of any clear, proximate act of instigation.
Delhi High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Swami Ramdev, Orders Take Down Of Deepfake Content
Title: SWAMI RAMDEV v. JOHN DOE (S) AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of Yoga guru and Patanjali Ayurved founder Ramdev.
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained various individuals, including unknown entities, from misusing his name, image, voice and other personality attributes through AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised commercial listings.
Case title: Sakshi Sharma v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 232
The Delhi High Court has upheld the removal of an officer from the Bank of Baroda, holding that the maker–checker system is only a risk-control mechanism and does not confer immunity on an officer who initiates unauthorised or self-serving transactions.
Case title: Neeraj Kumar v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 233
The Delhi High Court has clarified that only the period during which an accused is in actual custody can be counted for the purpose of computing the maximum permissible period of police remand under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that time spent on interim bail cannot be treated as custody.
Title: SURESH CHAND SHRIVASTVA v. AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BUREAU
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 234
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking “reading down” of the preliminary investigation report on the Air India plane crash that took place in Ahmedabad on June 12 last year, claiming 270 lives.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that the prayer was “highly misconceived” as the doctrine of reading down is applied by superior courts while interpreting provisions of some statute.
Case title: Himanshu Gupta v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 235
The Delhi High Court has refused anticipatory bail to contractors accused in a case where a young man lost his life after falling into a 20-foot-deep pit dug on a public road without any caution boards, barricading, or safety measures, observing that “public roads can't be turned into death traps.”
Case title: R. Usha @ G. Usha v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 236
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a woman accused in a ₹2 crore fraud case, while criticising the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for its failure to apprehend her for nearly 13 years.
Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked,
“The fact that it took 13 years for a premier central investigating agency to even apprehend a Proclaimed Offender speaks volumes about their interest or lack thereof in arresting the accused/applicant.”
Title: PRATAP CHANDRA v. MR. MANISH SISODIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 237
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain an appeal challenging a single judge order rejecting the challenge to election of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia from Patparganj constituency in the 2020 Assembly polls.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court and has to be filed before the Supreme Court, under Section 116A of Representation of People Act.
Title: VIDYA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 238
The Delhi High Court has held that a woman whose marriage was solemnised during the subsistence of her husband's first marriage is not entitled to family pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, even if the first wife subsequently passes away.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora underscored that Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act clearly stipulates that marriage between a Hindu man and woman is void if the marriage took place during the subsistence of his first marriage.
Case title: Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 239
The Delhi High Court has held that wards of such armed forces personnel who suffered disability during military operations but were retained in service and completed their tenure are not entitled to Priority-II reservation under the Defence quota.
Case title: Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has held that wards of such armed forces personnel who suffered disability during military operations but were retained in service and completed their tenure are not entitled to Priority-II reservation under the Defence quota.
Case title: MTNL v. Shri Ram Ratan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 241
The Delhi High Court has held that once a Labour Court upholds the fairness and validity of a domestic enquiry, it cannot thereafter re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority to substitute the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Case title: Ms. X v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 242
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a 281-day delay in filing a criminal revision petition, holding that a litigant cannot claim the benefit of an earlier filing date after allowing a petition to remain under objections for months and later withdrawing it on technical grounds.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed against a trial court order setting aside the summoning of the accused in a forgery case.
Title: RAMBIR SINGH.GOLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 243
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a petition filed by a husband seeking Rs. 100 crore compensation, a judicial enquiry and fixation of accountability over the death of his wife, an Indian citizen, during violent civil unrest in Kathmandu, Nepal, in September 2025.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was informed by the husband's counsel that he was restricting the relief to seeking a declaration on the violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the Union Government must formulate a protocol for Indians travelling to sensitive nations.
Case title: Bachu Singh v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation under Section 469 CrPC begins from the date on which the police officer acquires knowledge of the commission of an offence, and not from a later date when the FIR is formally registered.
Title: Union of India v. Sameer Wankhede
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 245
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) quashing the disciplinary proceedings against IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in the 2021 Cordelia cruise drug bust case.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan allowed the plea filed by the Central Government challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on January 19.
Case title: UoI v. Brijendra Kumar Sharma & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 246
The Delhi High Court has refused to restore a writ petition filed by the Union of India, holding that government departments are not entitled to any preferential or lenient treatment in matters of delay and procedural defaults.
Justice Renu Bhatnagar also dismissed the Centre's application seeking condonation of a 395-days delay and restoration of a writ petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution on three separate occasions.
Case title: NS v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 247
The Delhi High Court has held that a wife cannot be permitted to continue criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC in India after having accepted a divorce decree and monetary settlement passed by a competent court in the United States.
Case title: Aviation Services LLC v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 248
The Delhi High Court has held that the subsequent denial of bail to co-accused persons cannot, by itself, be treated as a “supervening circumstance” warranting cancellation of bail already granted to an accused, in the absence of any allegation that the accused has misused the liberty granted by the court.