Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 583 to 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 591

NOMINAL INDEX

D v. G 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 583

BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr v. GNCTD 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 584

Grew Energy Private Limited v. NTPC Renewable Energy Limited 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 585

AITA v. Somdev Kishore Devvarman & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 586

Minor R (Thr. Her Father R) v. State & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 587

G v. M 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 588

Maheshwar Narayan Sharma And Ors v. M V Babu Svaminath And Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 589

National Institute Of Electronics And Information Technology (NIELIT) & Ors. v. Sh. Raj Kumar Tripathi & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 590

Bisen Anshul Kumar v. Union of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 591

'Child Needs More Time To Acclimatise': Delhi High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order Granting Father Overnight Custody Of Minor

Case title: D v. G

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 583

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Family Court order granting a father overnight custody of his minor son, observing that the child needs more time to acclimatise before staying overnight with his father.

A Division Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain modified the Family Court's interim custody arrangement after finding that its operative direction granting overnight custody was inconsistent with its own reasoning that the child had never stayed overnight with the father and required more time to adjust.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Show Cause Notice Proposing CAG Audit Of BSES Discoms

Case title: BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr v. GNCTD

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 584

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a show cause notice issued by the Delhi government proposing CAG audit of power distribution companies BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) and BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL).

Justice Tejas Karia held that a writ petition challenging a show cause notice is ordinarily not maintainable.

Suspension From Business Dealings Cannot Be Ordered Without Hearing: Delhi High Court Sets Aside NTPC Action Against Solar Company

Case title: Grew Energy Private Limited v. NTPC Renewable Energy Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 585

The Delhi High Court has held that an order suspending a company from participating in future tenders, which is in the nature of debarment, cannot be passed without complying with the principles of natural justice.

A Division Bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain thus set aside a suspension order issued by NTPC Renewable Energy against solar module manufacturer Grew Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Elections To All India Tennis Association By September 30, Lays Down Timeline For Constitutional Amendments

Case title: AITA v. Somdev Kishore Devvarman & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 586

The Delhi High Court has directed the All India Tennis Association (AITA) to complete amendments to its Constitution and hold fresh elections by September 30, 2026.

A Division Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain modified an earlier Single Judge order which allowed the declaration of results for the election held in September 2024.

issued the interim directions while hearing cross-appeals filed by the AITA and former Indian tennis player Somdev Kishore Devvarman against the Single Judge's judgment concerning the governance of the federation.

Delhi High Court Allows Minor Rape Victim To Terminate 26-Week Pregnancy, AIIMS To Bear Expenses

Title: Minor R (Thr. Her Father R) v. State & Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 587

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday allowed a 15 year old rape victim to undergo medical termination of pregnancy with over 26 weeks of gestational period, noting that the medical board had given an opinion that the minor is fit to undergo the procedure.

Vacation judge Justice Mini Pushkarna directed All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to bear the cost of the procedure.

Delay In Deciding Custody Matters Causes Prejudice To Child: Delhi High Court

Case title: G v. M

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 588

The Delhi High Court has observed that delay in deciding child custody disputes itself causes prejudice to the child, while cautioning against a recurring pattern of approaching courts to stall handover of child to the spouse.

A Division Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a mother's appeal against a Family Court order granting the father interim custody of their minor daughter during the summer vacations.

Principle Of 'Forum Conveniens' Can't Override CAT Rules Giving Primacy To Applicant's Location To Decide Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case title: Maheshwar Narayan Sharma And Ors v. M V Babu Svaminath And Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 589

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) refusing to transfer a service dispute from its Ernakulam Bench to the Principal Bench in Delhi, holding that the principle of forum conveniens cannot override the statutory scheme under the CAT (Procedure) Rules, which accords primacy to the applicant's place of posting.

A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed that under Rule 6(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, an original application is ordinarily to be filed before the Bench within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted or where the cause of action arises.

'Such Petitions Burden Our Docket': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against CAT Adjournment Order

Case title: National Institute Of Electronics And Information Technology (NIELIT) & Ors. v. Sh. Raj Kumar Tripathi & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 590

The Delhi High Court recently declined to entertain a writ petition filed by the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that merely adjourned a service dispute while continuing interim protection, observing that such petitions unnecessarily burden the Court's docket.

A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla remarked:

"We fail to understand why, when the Tribunal has specifically listed the matter on 30 June 2026, with a further direction that the matter would not be adjourned on the said date and that the interim relief would only be continued till then, the petitioner has approached this Court."

Challenge To Correctness Of Model Answer Key Maintainable, Not Same As Seeking Re-Evaluation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bisen Anshul Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 591

The Delhi High Court has held that a challenge to the correctness of a public exam's official answer key cannot be equated with a plea for re-evaluation of answer sheets, observing that courts are empowered to interfere where the suggested answers in an answer key are patently incorrect.

A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla made the observation while setting aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had dismissed a UPSC Forest Service Examination aspirant's challenge to the official answer key without examining it on merits.