The Division Bench allowed GNCTD's appeal and set aside the 08.05.2026 Section 34 order and the 20.01.2025 award. The Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally by PWD, and there was no express written waiver after disputes arose. Other grounds were not examined. No costs.

The High Court dismissed both petitions seeking quashing of cross FIRs 508/2024 and 509/2024 of PS Aman Vihar. As the offences are compoundable before the trial court, it saw no occasion to use inherent powers. The parties may approach the trial court for compounding.

The Delhi High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. If arrested, the petitioner is to be released on a Rs. 50,000 bond with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions. The investigation may continue.

The court appointed Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator, with arbitration under DIAC rules and fees. All pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, are left open to be decided by the arbitrator. The petition was disposed of.

The court refused to terminate the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate under Section 14(1)(a) and gave it one final opportunity to conclude proceedings within 90 days. Any continuation beyond the extended mandate (till 05.08.2026) needs a Section 29A extension, which the petitioner may seek. Petition disposed of.

The court extended the Sole Arbitrator's mandate by three months from 30.10.2026 so a consent award can be passed under the Final Settlement Agreement dated 29.07.2026. The intervening period is regularised. The respondent did not object, and the petition was disposed of.

Recording the respondent's statement that the Department will take steps to appoint an Arbitrator within four weeks under the relevant arbitration clause, the court disposed of the petition. The petitioner may approach the Court again if its grievance is not redressed.

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal's order referring the dispute to arbitration. It directed the RCS to appoint an Arbitrator by 10 November 2026, and the Arbitrator to decide the matter, including any interim relief, by 31 January 2027.

The court allowed the Section 11 petition and appointed Ms. Neeru Vaid, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator under Clause 9.2 of the loan agreement. The arbitration will be conducted under DIAC rules. The respondents did not appear despite service. All pleas, including on arbitrability and jurisdiction, are left open.

The High Court allowed the bail application of the accused in an FIR under Section 307 IPC. He was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

The Delhi High Court dismissed Taresh Kumar Sharma's anticipatory bail application in an FIR for forgery and cheating over an electricity connection. It found the allegations serious and noted he had not joined the investigation and NBWs had been issued. Pending applications were disposed of.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and left undisturbed the 2006 conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and the sentence. The appellant must surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

The High Court held the Article 227 petition maintainable despite Section 37(3) of the Arbitration Act, but found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Appellate Court's order. It dismissed the petition and left the parties' merits contentions before the arbitrator open.

The court directed the Jail Superintendent to recompute the petitioner's sentence within two days, counting emergency parole from 15.06.2021 to 07.04.2023 as undergone. If the sentence is complete he is to be released at once; otherwise he is to be told the calculation and may challenge it.

The court directed the petitioners, legal heirs of old tehbazari licence holders, to appear with documents before the Joint Director, TVC on 10 November 2026. After verification, their names are to be added to the survey list and they may vend peacefully, subject to the final TVC-II certificate.

The High Court dismissed the regular bail application in a case involving 2.070 kg charas, a commercial quantity. It rejected the claims that the contraband was planted and that Section 52A(2) NDPS Act was violated, and held the Section 37 rigours apply.

The High Court set aside the appellant's convictions under Section 411 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, along with the Section 411 sentence. Convictions under Sections 392 and 397 IPC and Section 25(1B)(b) Arms Act were upheld. He must surrender within two weeks.

The Court directed NDMC to include site 134-M, L-Block, Connaught Place in its survey list with the names of the Petitioner and Mr. Vijay Singh. After the survey, a vending certificate is to be granted jointly, subject to TVC-II's decision. The Petitioner is not to be disturbed meanwhile.

The court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Sentence Review Board to decide the premature release application afresh at its next meeting, applying the principles in the earlier judgment. The Jail Superintendent must forward the case to the Board.

The court appointed Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 for disputes under the 2024 running contract, with proceedings under DIAC rules. Parties may raise all pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator. The petition was disposed of.

The High Court allowed the bail application in FIR No. 482/2025 (PS Jamia Nagar) and directed release on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Section 34 petition and upheld the 09.01.2006 arbitral award. It rejected challenges based on unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, absence of a Section 21 notice, and arbitrability of dues for 1999-2001. No order as to costs.

The court set aside the Commissioner's order of 24.11.2023 as violating natural justice, since the petitioner's email seeking more time was not even noted. The matter is remanded to be decided afresh from the stage of 15.11.2023, with the petitioner to appear on 02.12.2026.

Petitioner pressed only prayer (b). The court disposed of the petition, directing the Directorate of Enforcement to decide his representations within four weeks and convey the decision to him within one week after that. All contentions were kept open.

The High Court dismissed the third anticipatory bail application, finding it not a fit case for relief. It noted the applicant again concealed earlier bail orders and that the filed affidavit appeared forged. Accompanying applications were also dismissed.

The court quashed ECIR No. DLZO-II/9/2024 and all consequential proceedings, since the predicate FIR had already been quashed on 25 August 2026. ED may revive the ECIR proceedings if the FIR proceedings are revived by any party in future.

The court allowed the decree holder's counsel to withdraw the enforcement petition against GNCTD, granting liberty to file it again as and when the situation arises. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Division Bench allowed Flowmore's appeal and set aside the award. It held the arbitrator's finding that proto inspection of towers was waived had no basis, was contradictory, and that accepting the scrap sale of goods ignored vital evidence, amounting to patent illegality.

The High Court set aside the 24.07.2026 order rejecting the petitioner's parole application and directed his release on parole for four weeks, on a Rs. 10,000 personal bond with one surety and other conditions, including no contact with the victim.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 126/2021 of PS Vikas Puri (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC) and all proceedings arising from it. The complainant said she had compromised all disputes, and the State did not object.

The court declined the reliefs sought, holding the petitioner violated his Certificate of Vending by placing chairs and tables on the footpath. He may approach MCD for release of his cart and goods after paying the requisite fine, and must vend strictly per his CoV.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 146/2023 of PS Punjabi Bagh under Section 498A/34 IPC and all proceedings arising from it. The complainant had compromised, and the State had no objection. The pending application was disposed of.

The High Court set aside the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal's order of 6 November 2025 and remanded the claim petition to the Sole Arbitrator for decision on merits. Petitioners may seek amendment of their prayers in accordance with law. All rights and objections are left open.

The Division Bench dismissed the Section 37 appeal and upheld the Single Judge's refusal to set aside the arbitral award. It held the arbitrator's view was plausible, with no factual or legal error or perversity, and that issues not pressed under Section 34 cannot be raised in appeal.

The petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the arbitration petition with liberty to file it again before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court granted leave and liberty and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

On the petitioner's request, the court allowed Axis Finance Ltd to withdraw the petition and granted liberty to take appropriate action as permissible under law. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No ruling was made on the merits.

The court disposed of the petition, directing the MCD Assistant Commissioner to hear the petitioner on 2 November 2026 and decide his 24 September 2026 representation within 2 months. Meanwhile his site is to be inspected, and he is not to be disturbed if he can continue vending there.

The Court dismissed the review petition against its 17.09.2026 judgment, finding no error apparent on the record. It clarified that the legality of the later invocation and encashment was not decided and may be raised before the appropriate forum. The respondent may raise all pleas before the Sole Arbitrator.