Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 68 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 81NOMINAL INDEXMCDONALDS INDIA LTD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 68 Court On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 69 BHUVAN BAM & ANR v. INKWYNK & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 70 Sandeep Sethi & Anr v. Rajinder Kumar Sethi Deceased Through Lrs 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 71 MCD v. M/S Ram...
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 68 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 81
NOMINAL INDEX
MCDONALDS INDIA LTD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 68
Court On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 69
BHUVAN BAM & ANR v. INKWYNK & ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 70
Sandeep Sethi & Anr v. Rajinder Kumar Sethi Deceased Through Lrs 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 71
MCD v. M/S Ram Niwas Goel 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 72
ABHIMANYU SINGH AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & other connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 73
Union Of India v. Shri Raj Priy Singh 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 74
Mr Gautam Mondal Through His Wife Mrs Ashima Mukherjee Mondal v. Union Of India Through Its Standing Counsel & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 75
First Generation Lawyers Association v. GNCTD & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 76
Court on its own motion v. State & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 77
P v. A 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 78
JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HON'BLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 79
HEMANT JAIN & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 80
Madhu Shudhan Dutto v. State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 81
Title: MCDONALDS INDIA LTD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 68
The Delhi High Court has held that a lawyer cannot be compelled to disclose the source of document given by the client as it falls within privileged communication, without there being any prima facie judicial finding of fraud.
Title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 69
The Delhi High Court has taken on record the Delhi Government's decision to enhance the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) income threshold for availing free treatment in government hospitals and private hospitals built on concessional land from Rs. 2.25 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh per annum.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed that wide publicity be given to the decision so that eligible persons can avail the benefit.
Title: BHUVAN BAM & ANR v. INKWYNK & ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 70
The Delhi High Court passed a john doe order directing take down or removal of images of YouTuber and actor Bhuvan Bam being used by various entities and individuals without his consent.
Justice Jyoti Singh however said that a prima facie finding cannot be given on personality rights on the first day.
Registered Title Of Property Prevails Over Claims Of Oral Family Settlement: Delhi High Court
Case title: Sandeep Sethi & Anr v. Rajinder Kumar Sethi Deceased Through Lrs
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 71
The Delhi High Court has held that a registered conveyance deed confers decisive title, and vague or unsubstantiated claims of an oral family settlement cannot be used to defeat such ownership.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus dismissed the appeals preferred by a man claiming joint ownership over a residential property on the basis of an alleged family arrangement, and upheld the decree in favour of his brother who held a registered conveyance deed in his name.
Case title: MCD v. M/S Ram Niwas Goel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 72
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against a decree of over ₹1.01 crore passed in favour of a contractor, holding that the civic body could not withhold payments when delays were caused by its own lapses.
Delhi High Court Upholds Bar On IFS Probationers Appearing In Civil Services Exam During Training
Title: ABHIMANYU SINGH AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 73
The Delhi High Court upheld bar on Indian Forest Service (IFS) probationers from appearing in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) during their training period.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a batch of petitions filed by various IFS probationers challenging a 2023 amendment prohibiting them from appearing in the CSE or any other open competitive exam during their probationary training.
IFS Cadre Allocation | Home State Must Be First Preference To Claim Insider Cadre: Delhi High Court
Case title: Union Of India v. Shri Raj Priy Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 74
The Delhi High Court has held that an officer seeking allocation to their home State cadre under the All India Services Cadre Allocation Policy must necessarily indicate the home State as their first preference, and that merely expressing willingness to serve in the home State or listing it as a lower preference does not create any enforceable right.
Case title: Mr Gautam Mondal Through His Wife Mrs Ashima Mukherjee Mondal v. Union Of India Through Its Standing Counsel & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 75
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging preventive detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS), holding that although it possessed territorial jurisdiction, it was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the dispute.
Title: First Generation Lawyers Association v. GNCTD & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 76
he Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking extension of benefits of the Chief Minister Advocates Welfare Scheme to the eligible lawyers' parents.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that a mandamus cannot be issued in the matter, while citing autonomy to contract between two parties, one of them being the Delhi Government.
Title: Court on its own motion v. State & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 77
The Delhi High Court said that the Delhi Government or its agencies cannot shirk away from their responsibility to provide shelter to patients, attendants and their family members forced to sleep outside city hospitals in the biting winter cold due to lack of shelter.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued urgent short term directions, after it recently took suo motu cognizance of the situation.
Case title: P v. A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 78
The Delhi High Court has held that a husband's legal obligation to pay maintenance to his wife and minor child living with her does not get diluted merely because another child from their marriage is residing with him.
Frame Rules To Ensure Execution Of Delhi School Tribunal Orders: High Court To Delhi Govt
Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL v. HON'BLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 79
The Delhi High Court asked the Delhi Government to take steps and frame appropriate Rules to ensure that the Delhi School Tribunal is vested with appropriate legal authority to get its orders executed.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Claiming Auto Festival Will Worsen Air Pollution
Title: HEMANT JAIN & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 80
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL against “Burnout City India” event scheduled to be organized at NSIC Exhibition Ground on January 17, claiming that it will aggravate the existing air pollution.
The event is an automotive and lifestyle festival, involving massive vehicles showcase, drift and stunt zones, and music events.
Case title: Madhu Shudhan Dutto v. State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 81
The Delhi High Court has held that rubbing of a male genital against a child's genital, in the absence of proof of penetration, does not constitute “penetrative sexual assault” under Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed
“The rubbing of the penis of the accused against the private part of PW1 does not apparently come within clauses (a) to (d) of Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the case of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 or aggravated penetrative sexual assault as contemplated under Section 5 of the PoCSO Act cannot be held to have been made out from the materials available on record.”