Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [March 30-April 5, 2026]

1. [Shabir Ahmed Shah] A Delhi Court has granted bail to Shabir Ahmad Shah in a money laundering case linked to alleged terror funding, marking a significant development after his recent release order in a connected case by the Supreme Court of India. Special Judge (NIA) Prashant Sharma at the Patiala House Court allowed Shah’s bail plea in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), subject to furnishing a bail bond of ₹1 lakh and one surety of the like amount. Shah, who has been in custody since 2019, had approached the court seeking bail on the ground that the predicate offence investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had already resulted in grant of bail by the apex court. His counsel, Advocate M S Khan, argued that the ED’s case is based on the same set of allegations and that continued incarceration was unjustified. The trial court accepted the submissions and granted relief, paving the way for Shah’s release from Tihar Jail upon completion of bail formalities. Also Read - Only Parents Can Appeal Under Senior Citizens Act: Orissa HC Quashes Son’s Challenge Earlier, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court had granted bail to Shah in the terror funding case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Bench: Special Judge (NIA) Prashant Sharma

Click here to read more

2. [AI drafted plea] A Delhi court has imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on a complainant after finding that her petition, seeking registration of an FIR, was riddled with grammatical errors, incoherent sentences, and “meaningless words,” suggesting excessive reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) tools without human oversight. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of the Rouse Avenue Court passed the order on March 30 while dismissing an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which empowers a magistrate to direct police to register an FIR. The complainant, Punam Pandey, had approached the court seeking action against one Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, alleging that he had issued death threats to her and her family. She further claimed that despite reaching out to the police in 2018 and contacting the emergency helpline, no effective action was taken. The complaint also accused police officials of failing to investigate the matter properly, alleging that they had accepted a bribe of ₹50 lakh from the accused. However, the court found the application fundamentally flawed; both in substance and form. In a strongly worded order, the magistrate remarked that the petition appeared to be an example of “technical intervention” with minimal application of the human mind. Highlighting the poor drafting, the court reproduced portions of the complaint to underscore its incoherence: “that is why the me could not take legal action against the OCT accused because the me is Lady… The mean Lebaut was in depression… The complaint EO SHO PS Mehrauli… BHE BE Action was taken till me.”

Case Title: Punam Pandey v. Former SHO, PS: Mehrauli & Ors

Bench: ACJM Neha Mittal

Click here to read more

3. [Nirmala Sitharaman] A Delhi court has dismissed a criminal defamation complaint filed by Lipika Mitra against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, holding that the allegations were “worthless” and rooted in political antagonism rather than actionable defamation. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal, sitting at the Rouse Avenue Courts, declined to take cognisance of the complaint, famously invoking the word “floccinaucinihilipilification” to describe the case. “The word is ‘floccinaucinihilipilification’, which implies something valueless or worthless. The present complaint is nothing but the word stated above, wherein a valueless or worthless material has been stretched too long,” the Court observed. The complaint had been filed under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that Sitharaman made defamatory, false and malicious statements during a press conference on May 17, 2024, which was broadcast across television and digital platforms during the Lok Sabha election campaign. Mitra contended that the statements were intended to tarnish the reputation of her husband, Somnath Bharti, and weaken his electoral prospects as a candidate of the INDIA alliance. Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the statements made by Sitharaman were part of political discourse and did not meet the threshold of criminal defamation. “A political opponent cannot be called to have defamed the other when they are presenting certain scenarios against an opposite candidate,” the Court noted, adding that the press conference, when read in its entirety, amounted to “political opposition and antagonism” directed at the Aam Aadmi Party and the INDIA alliance. Also Read - Acquittal Not Enough: Patna HC Denies Reinstatement Citing Delay and Dereliction of Duty Findings The Court further found that no specific defamatory statement had been attributed to Mitra in the complaint. It noted that Sitharaman had not made any direct imputation against the complainant and that the remarks were aimed at political figures and parties.

Case Title: Lipika Mitra v. Nirmala Sitharaman

Bench: ACJM Paras Dalal

Click here and here to read more

4. [Rajpal Yadav] The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case filed by M/s Murli Projects Private Limited against Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, after sharp exchanges over his shifting stand on repayment of dues. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while hearing the matter, expressed strong displeasure at inconsistencies between Yadav’s statements and submissions made by his counsel regarding willingness to settle the dispute. “Never think the judge is weak if the judge is nice to you,” the Court remarked during the hearing, underscoring its frustration over repeated delays and unfulfilled assurances. The case arises from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by the complainant company after alleged non-payment of substantial dues. The dispute has seen prolonged litigation, multiple adjournments, and failed settlement attempts. During the hearing, the Court pointed out contradictions in Yadav’s position. “You are saying you are willing to pay, but your lawyers are saying that since you have already gone to jail, you will not pay. If you are willing to pay, then why am I hearing the matter? Make the payment,” Justice Sharma observed.

Case Title: Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr. v. M/S Murali Projects Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

5. [Railway Compensation] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a compensation claim filed by a railway passenger who suffered amputation of both hands after an alleged fall from a train, holding that material inconsistencies in the record cast serious doubt on the credibility of the claim. The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, in an order dated March 25, upheld the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had earlier rejected the passenger’s plea for injury compensation in 2018. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s conclusion that the case did not fall within the scope of an “untoward incident” under the law. According to the appellant, he had boarded the Malwa Express from Sonipat Railway Station in March 2015 with a valid second-class ticket and was travelling to Jhansi. He claimed that due to overcrowding in the train, he accidentally fell between Sonipat and New Delhi Railway Stations, sustaining severe injuries that ultimately led to the amputation of both hands below the elbow. However, upon examining the record, the High Court noted significant discrepancies between the appellant’s version and the documentary evidence. While the appellant stated that the incident occurred near Sadar Bazar, medical records from Lok Nayak Hospital indicated that the place of occurrence was platform number 10 of Old Delhi Railway Station. The Court observed that this version was implausible, particularly since the train in question did not pass through that station.

Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Click here to read more

6. [EoW FIR Case] The Delhi High Court has declined to grant interim relief to Experion Developers Pvt Ltd and its co-petitioner in their plea seeking quashing of FIR number 64 of 2026 registered by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police for alleged offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating under the Indian Penal Code. Justice Girish Kathpalia, who heard the matter, made it clear that the Court was not inclined to stay the investigation at this preliminary stage. Observing that the case was still in its early phase, the Court held that it would be inappropriate to interfere without first hearing all parties in detail. It accordingly directed that a status report be filed within four weeks. The Court also refused to grant any protection against coercive action, effectively denying the petitioners relief akin to anticipatory bail. While doing so, it clarified that the pendency of the present petition would not preclude the petitioners from pursuing appropriate remedies in accordance with law. This observation, however, did not confer any substantive protection from arrest or further investigative steps. The FIR stems from allegations surrounding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Dignity Buildcon Pvt Ltd, which owns approximately 9.32 acres of land in Gurugram’s Sector 62 on Golf Course Extension Road. The property has reportedly been valued at over Rs 630 crore, making it a significant asset at the centre of the dispute.

Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Click here to read more

7. [Misuse of Perjury pleas] The Delhi High Court has cautioned against the increasing misuse of perjury proceedings, observing that applications under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are often being filed as a tactic to “arm-twist” opponents and delay trial proceedings rather than to address genuine cases of false evidence. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an application seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against a defendant in a family property dispute. The case arose out of a suit for partition and rendition of accounts among siblings following the death of their father. During the proceedings, the plaintiffs had moved an application under Section 340 CrPC (corresponding to Section 379 of the BNSS) alleging that the defendant made false statements on oath and filed forged documents through affidavits concerning disclosure of inherited assets. The allegations were based on inconsistencies between the affidavits and other material placed on record. However, the Court found that such contradictions, by themselves, do not meet the legal threshold required to initiate perjury proceedings. It emphasized that Section 340 CrPC is attracted only when the ingredients of offences specified under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC (Section 215 of the BNSS) are clearly made out. “The Plaintiff No.1 has only pointed out at certain contradictions between the affidavits and the material on record. In the opinion of this Court, the allegations per se cannot attract the ingredients under Section 340 of the CrPC which prescribes for initiation of an inquiry into an offence under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC. Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC deals with prosecution of offences relating to documents given in evidence, i.e., the offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 228, 463, 471, 475, 476 of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 248, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341 and 342 of the BNS). In the opinion of this Court, these offences are not made out at this juncture,” the Court held.

Case Title: Nisha Chandola & Anr. v. Manoj Sharma and Anr.

Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad

Click here to read more

8. [MV Act] The Delhi High Court has clarified that following the enactment of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, a driving licence does not remain valid beyond its date of expiry, and any subsequent renewal takes effect only from the date of renewal, not retrospectively. The ruling came in a writ petition filed by the Delhi Police challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed that a candidate be allowed to join the post of Constable Driver despite not possessing a valid driving licence on the prescribed cutoff date. A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain examined the statutory framework under Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended in 2019. The Court held that the legislative intent behind the amendment was clear in removing the earlier legal position that allowed a 30-day grace period after expiry of a driving licence. “A plain reading of the amended provisions makes it abundantly clear that the Legislature has consciously deleted the earlier statutory grace period of thirty days. Under the unamended regime, the license continued to remain effective for thirty days post expiry and renewal within that period related back to the date of expiry. However, after the Amendment Act was enforced, this legal position no longer survives. The proviso to Section 14 of the pre amendment Act, granting an automatic extension to the license for a period of thirty days, also stands omitted by the Amendment Act,” the Court observed. The case arose from a recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for the post of Constable Driver Male, which required candidates to possess a valid Heavy Motor Vehicle driving licence as on July 29, 2022, the closing date for submission of applications.

Case Title: Delhi Police & Anr. v. Sudheer Kumar

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain

Click here to read more

9. [Rented premise occupied by family member] The Delhi High Court has held that a tenant cannot evade legal responsibility by merely claiming that he is not personally residing in the rented premises, clarifying that occupation by family members continues to amount to juridical possession of the tenant. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing an appeal filed by a tenant, reiterated that when a property is rented for residential purposes, the presence of family members in the premises legally constitutes possession of the tenant himself. The Court observed, “When a tenant takes premises on rent for residence along with his family members, the possession of the premises by any member of his family continues to remain juridical possession of the tenant himself. The Appellant/ Lessee cannot evade liability merely by asserting that he personally is not residing in the premises.” The ruling came in a case where the tenant had challenged an eviction decree passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows courts to decide matters based on admissions made by parties. The landlord had approached the court seeking possession of the property, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits, and an injunction against the tenant. In the course of proceedings, the tenant admitted the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship as well as the agreed rent. However, he sought to avoid liability by contending that he had not been in possession of the premises since June 2022. According to him, his estranged wife had locked the property and retained exclusive control over it, thereby disentitling him from any legal responsibility.

Case Title: Rajat Verma v. HP Suman

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Click here to read more

10. [Janakpuri Excavation Death] The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a bail petition filed by contractor Himanshu Gupta in connection with the death of a 25-year-old motorcyclist who fell into an uncovered excavation pit in West Delhi’s Janakpuri area. Court sought a response from the police and directed that a status report be filed, while listing the matter for further hearing on March 30. The matter came up before a bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, which was hearing a challenge to the trial court’s order dated March 23 rejecting the contractor’s bail plea. Taking note of the submissions, court issued notice to the State and called for its response before proceeding further in the case.The incident in question occurred on the intervening night of February 5 and 6, when Kamal Dhyani, a resident of Palam village, met with a fatal accident after plunging into a deep excavation pit dug on a public road in Janakpuri. The excavation had been carried out as part of a sewer rehabilitation project undertaken by the Delhi Jal Board. According to the investigation, the site lacked essential safety measures that are mandatorily required for such public works. Authorities found that there were no barricades, warning signs, blinkers, or adequate lighting at the excavation site, raising serious concerns about compliance with safety protocols and contractual obligations. The victim was rescued by fire brigade personnel and rushed to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, where he was declared dead.

Case Title: Himanshu Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & Kavish Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more