The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by P B Agro LLP, master licensee of the "VIMAL" brand, against a show cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration, Mumbai, to its brand ambassadors, holding that no substantial part of the cause of action arose in Delhi (paras 1, 42-44). Maharashtra's courts were also the more convenient forum; the merits were left open (paras 43-44).
The Delhi High Court refused wrestler Vinesh Phogat's interim plea to take part in the 14.09.2026 selection trials for the Senior World Wrestling Championships, holding that the Wrestling Federation of India's eligibility criteria apply uniformly and cannot be relaxed for her alone before the policy's validity is decided (paras 16, 18-21). Her maternity-related absence will be weighed at the final hearing of her writ petition (paras 15, 20).
In an interim order, the Delhi High Court directed authorities across the country, for the time being, not to allow any GST registration without biometric-based Aadhaar authentication. The petitions allege fraudulent GST registrations made in innocent persons' names using their PAN and Aadhaar details. The Bench gave the authorities liberty to object on practical difficulties and listed the matter again (paras 1, 8-10). The petition remains pending.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition by Dr Raj Shekhawat after his prayers concerning a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar on 6 September 2026 were conceded to be infructuous. His advocate stated that the refusal had cited the BRICS Summit and sought permission for 20 September instead. The Court directed a fresh application and asked the authorities to decide it as per law within a week (paras 7-11).
The Delhi High Court waived costs of ₹25,000 that a Tis Hazari trial court had imposed as a condition for restoring a defendant's opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. Justice Ajay Digpaul held that the advised bed rest of the defendant's counsel constituted sufficient cause for the absence, and that the litigant ought not to bear heavy costs, particularly when that cause had been duly demonstrated (paras 7-8).
The Delhi High Court set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal order directing release of a retired Tax Assistant's gratuity. Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 bars gratuity until departmental or judicial proceedings conclude, and his criminal appeal against conviction is still pending. Following the Supreme Court in Bikram Chand Rana, the Bench held that the bar lasts until the appeal is decided, when his claim revives (paras 16-21).
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by Sanmati Sabha (Regd.) seeking allotment of a Priyadarshini Vihar plot earmarked for a nursery school and regularisation of the temple built on it (paras 1, 18). Finding no infirmity in the DDA's policy of disposing of all Nazul lands by auction, it held that the temple, built without sanction, "is clearly an illegal structure", and directed the petitioner to remove the idols with respect and ceremonies within four weeks (paras 15-16, 19).
The Delhi High Court set aside a school Managing Committee's 2017 order refusing a reinstated teacher any back wages under Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, because it had treated an unadjudicated fake-certificate allegation as established (paras 31, 35). As he was not fully exonerated but had been kept out under a termination later set aside, the Court awarded 50% back wages for 16.10.2002 to 14.02.2017, with pay notionally progressed (paras 36-40, 42).
The Delhi High Court set aside anticipatory bail granted to a man alleged to be part of the Thailand-based supply chain for 39.706 kg of hydroponic marijuana seized in an international cartel case (paras 104-105). The Special Judge had treated it as an ordinary bail matter without the Section 37 NDPS Act analysis that commercial quantity demands, and had turned the hearing into a mini-trial by recording the investigating officer's statement on oath (paras 60, 65, 86).
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a woman accused under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, from whom 100 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity, was allegedly recovered (paras 1, 14, 25). Despite the State's reliance on the total recovered from all the accused, the Court held that heroin recovered separately cannot be collectively attributed to her (para 25). Custody since 26.04.2024, a filed charge-sheet and co-accused on bail weighed for bail (paras 24-26).
The Delhi High Court granted bail to an applicant accused under Section 18 of the NDPS Act of carrying 2.330 kg of opium, refusing prima facie to add a co-accused's 3.086 kg (paras 1-4, 20). No Section 29 conspiracy was alleged (para 19). The intermediate quantity kept Section 37 out, but bail still turned on the ordinary parameters: a pending FSL report, no charges framed and custody since 26.12.2022 (paras 21-25).
The Delhi High Court granted bail to two men from whom 12 kg of ganja each was allegedly recovered (paras 13, 28, 52). Applying Awadhesh Yadav, it held that invoking Section 29 on call-record material could not be faulted at the bail stage (paras 31-32). But unexplained Section 52A sampling gaps cast serious doubt on the prosecution case, and custody since 03.12.2020 with the trial at a nascent stage meant the Section 37 embargo did not bar bail (paras 38-42, 49-50).