The Delhi High Court has declared August 27, Thursday, as a holiday for the High Court as well as the courts subordinate to it.

In lieu of the holiday, the High Court has declared September 19, as a Court sitting day for the High Court whereas September 12, will be a Court sitting day for the subordinate courts.

The notification, issued by the Registry today, further provides that cases fixed before the High Court on August 27 will be taken up on August 31, in addition to the cases already fixed for that date.

For the subordinate courts, cases fixed for August 27 will be taken up on August 29, along with the cases already fixed for that day.

For context, August 26 is a holiday for the Delhi High Court and subordinate courts on the occasion of Prophet Mohammad's birthday.

August 28 is also a holiday for all the courts on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan. 

Click here to read notification

Cockroach Janta Party's Saurav Das has filed a suit before the Delhi High Court against commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra, and certain web portals over allegations of revealing his residential address and personal information on social media.

The suit seeks mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants, which also include portals such Sunday Guardian, Jaipur Dialogues, Pamphlet and Lawbeat. The suit also names Google LLC and X Corp (formerly Twitter) as defendants.

The suit claims violation of Das' right to privacy, dignity and security. Das has also sought damages against the Defendants for intrusion into and publication of his private life.

Das has claimed that the defendants have unlawfully discovered, recorded, published and repeatedly disseminated his residential address and other deeply personal and sensitive information concerning his background, particulars of parents and his sexuality.

Relying on various videos posted on social media, Das claims that by reason of his journalistic work, disclosures made in the public interest and political engagement, he has been subjected to violent threats and targeted hostility even in the past.

He has said that repeated disclosure and amplification of his precise residential address creates a real and foreseeable risk of his being subjected to violence at and around his home.

As per him, such a disclosure also places other occupants of the premises at risk and has caused him a grave and continuing apprehension for their safety and security.

He has also alleged that the Pamphlet's representatives have trespassed the shared residential premises where he lives and that videos have been recorded of the portions of his house, including the interiors, and have been published on X. 

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of murdering his wife, chopping her body into pieces and dumping the remains in a septic tank. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 775]

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the “gruesome manner” in which the crime was committed cannot be ignored while considering bail.

The Court dismissed the bail application filed by one Ashu Pal in relation to an FIR registered at Police Station Prem Nagar for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Delhi Police alleged that on February 22, 2019, Pal went to the police station and stated that he had killed his wife, chopped her body into pieces and dumped the remains in a septic tank.

While he was being interrogated, a PCR call was received from the deceased's brother stating that she had been killed and that her body had been recovered from the septic tank.

The deceased's brother had alleged in his complaint that since she had given birth to three daughters, Pal and his family members used to torture her and demand dowry.

The prosecution further alleged that Pal called the deceased's mother and told her that he had murdered his wife. When the deceased's brother visited the accused's house, he allegedly found blood stains and the woman's body in the septic tank.

Seeking bail, Pal's counsel argued that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of the deceased's mother and brother. It was also argued that the accused had never visited the police station to confess to the crime and that the trial was proceeding at a slow pace.

On the other hand, the prosecution submitted that the trial was not at all slow in pace and the allegations against the accused disentitled him of bail.

It was also submitted that the blood-stained weapon allegedly used in chopping off the dead body of the deceased and her clothes and jewellery, etc. were recovered and were examined forensically.

Dismissing the bail plea, the Court said that while delay in trial is a ground for grant of bail but it is not the only ground.

Justice Kathpalia said that while considering grant or denial of bail, the court cannot shut its eyes to the gruesome manner in which a lady was killed followed by chopping off of her body and throwing her in the septic tank.

“Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed,” the Court said.

Title: ASHU PAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 775

Click Here To Read Order

The Delhi High Court has held that court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot direct formulation of a particular methodology to determine rateable value and assess property tax as such matters fall within the statutory and administrative domain of the competent authority. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 774]

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Shail Jain dismissed a plea filed by the Khan Market Welfare Association seeking directions to the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to formulate and implement a uniform methodology for fixing rateable values of properties.

The Court observed that a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is issued to enforce a legal right corresponding to a statutory or public duty, and cannot be used by the Court to assume the function of a statutory authority or prescribe the manner in which that authority should discharge its administrative functions.

The Association, comprising shopkeepers and property owners of Khan Market, had alleged disparities in the manner in which NDMC determines rateable values and assesses property tax for similarly situated properties.

It thus sought a direction to NDMC to adopt a uniform method for fixing rateable values until implementation of the Unit Area Method.

Dismissing the plea, the Court, at the outset, noted that what was sought was a direction to be issued as to the manner in which the statutory authority should formulate and administer the methodology for determination of rateable values.

The Court held that such a direction cannot ordinarily be issued in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It added that determination of the methodology to be adopted for assessment of rateable values, so long as the authority acts within the statutory framework, involves the exercise of statutory and administrative functions entrusted to the authority by the legislature.

“The Court cannot, under the guise of issuing a mandamus, substitute its own formulation for that of the competent statutory authority. The principle is not that the exercise of statutory power is immune from judicial review, rather, it is that judicial review is directed towards the legality of the exercise of power and not towards the Court itself undertaking the function entrusted to the statutory authority,” it added.

Further, it was observed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot ordinarily be invoked for creation of an institutional mechanism merely because the Petitioner Association alleges irregularities in the functioning of a statutory authority being the NDMC.

However, it said that writ jurisdiction can certainly be invoked where a taxing or revenue authority seeks to levy or collect a tax which is unconstitutional, ultra vires the statute, or which the authority has no jurisdiction to levy.

It said that the Court may, in an appropriate case, issue a mandamus restraining such unlawful levy or direct consequential relief where the law so warrants.

“This does not mean that the Respondents are free to act arbitrarily. The statutory discretion vested in them remains subject to the requirements of the NDMC Act and to the constitutional limitations governing State action,” the Court said.

“An assessment or levy which is shown, in an appropriate proceeding, to be contrary to the statute, without jurisdiction, discriminatory in a legally cognisable sense, or otherwise vitiated by an impermissible exercise of power, can certainly be subjected to judicial review. But that is materially different from asking the Court to prescribe a uniform assessment methodology for the Respondents or to establish an expert mechanism for overseeing their statutory functions,” it added.

Title: KHAN MARKET WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) v. UOI & ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 774

Click here to read order

The Delhi High Court has restrained the directors of test-prep coaching institute FIITJEE Limited from travelling outside the country without its permission in a case involving unpaid rent dues. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 773]

Justice Sachin Datta also ordered attachment of Rs. 66.31 lakh lying in the bank account of the company's sister concern towards alleged unpaid rent dues.

The Court also ordered the Directors to deposit their original passports within four weeks.

Justice Datta passed the order while dealing with two petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by landlords seeking urgent interim protection against FIITJEE.

The petitioners claimed that FIITJEE, which was a tenant in their premises, had left behind substantial arrears of rent.

It was submitted that although the petitioners had subsequently recovered possession of the premises after filing the petitions, the rent dues remained unpaid.

According to the petitioners, the arrears amounted to Rs. 33,15,957.50 in each of the two petitions, taking the total amount to Rs. 66,31,915.

During the hearing on August 20, the petitioners referred to an earlier order passed by a coordinate bench in August 2025 in a similar matter involving FIITJEE. It was pointed out that, in that case, payments were made from a bank account belonging to the company's sister concern namely FIITJEE ESchool Private Limited.

FIITJEE's counsel submitted that the company was unable to make any payment as its bank account was stated to have been attached by the police in connection with certain criminal proceedings. However, the counsel was unable to provide details of the alleged attachment.

On this, the Court noted that FIITJEE's counsel was unable to refute that, in the earlier proceedings involving the company in question, its liability had been discharged through the bank account of its sister concern.

Considering the circumstances, the Court directed:

“The amount lying in the aforesaid bank account in ICICI Bank bearing Account no. 629405047349 shall stand attached to the extent of Rs. 66,31,915 (aggregate amount payable in both the petitions). The same shall be subject to further orders in the present petitions.”

It further directed the directors of FIITJEE to remain personally present on January 27, 2017.

“The said Directors shall also deposit their original passports in this Court within four weeks and are restrained from travelling out of the country, without permission of this Court,” it ordered further.

Title: CDR. INDER JIT SINGH AND ANR v. FIITJEE LIMITED & other connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 773

Click here to read order

The Delhi High Court has appreciated a Delhi Police Investigating Officer (IO) for conducting an elaborate “scientific investigation” using information technology tools to trace alleged fraudsters involved in creating fake GST registrations by misusing PAN cards and other credentials of innocent persons. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 772]

Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observations while refusing to grant anticipatory bail to one Raj Kumar, accused of generating fake GST numbers using credentials of unsuspecting persons and supplying fake GST details to a co-accused for generating fake invoices and e-way bills.

The Court appreciated the detailed status report filed by the IO, noting that it described the technical investigation undertaken to “zero down on the alleged fraudsters.”

“It is indeed laudable that the Investigating Officer has filed an elaborate status report dated 25.05.2026 describing the technical investigation with the use of information technology tools in order to zero down on the alleged fraudsters. Such scientific investigation deserves to be appreciated,” the Court observed.

The FIR was registered at Police Station Cyber, Outer North, for offences under Sections 420, 419, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant discovered, after receiving an Income Tax Department notice, that two GST firms had been linked to her PAN card despite her never having applied for GST registration or having any knowledge of the businesses.

She alleged that her PAN and other credentials had been misused to obtain GST registrations and conduct illicit financial activities in her name.

During investigation, the IO visited the locations from where the firms were allegedly operating but found that no such firms were existing.

The investigation then proceeded through technical means, with the IO tracing the mobile number used for obtaining OTPs for filing GST returns, identifying linked email IDs and examining the bank account connected with one of the GST numbers.

The investigation connected one of the email IDs with a mobile number registered in Kumar's name. His email ID was also found linked with another email account as a recovery email ID.

The prosecution alleged that Kumar was involved in generating GST numbers of fake entities and providing those numbers, along with associated mobile numbers and email IDs, to co-accused Aman Bisht.

It was alleged that the fake GST numbers were thereafter used to generate invoices and e-way bills, while clients allegedly made payments directly to Kumar.

Kumar's counsel argued that the case rested primarily on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and that the incriminating mobile phones did not belong to him. It was also claimed that Kumar was innocent and was not a beneficiary of the alleged fraud.

The State, on the other hand, argued that there was strong technical evidence apart from the disclosure statements, including mobile numbers and email IDs allegedly used in filing fake GST returns and receiving OTPs being registered in Kumar's name.

It was also submitted that the accused had been evading the investigation and that proceedings to declare him a proclaimed offender were nearing culmination.

Dismissing the plea, the Court noted that the probe concerning Kumar was still underway to ascertain the extent of the alleged fraud.

“Filing of fake GST returns, that too by misusing the PAN Cards and other credentials of innocent public persons has extremely serious consequences not just on the persons whose particulars have been hacked by the accused persons from different fora, but also has tremendous ramifications on economy of the country,” the Court said.

Considering the pending technical investigation, Kumar's alleged non-cooperation and the requirement of custodial interrogation expressed by the IO, the Court held that it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

The Court also noted that Kumar was allegedly involved in three other FIRs concerning financial fraud, including one case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

“Grant of anticipatory bail in such cases would not just be contrary to the judicially sanctified parameters, but also send wrong signals to the society at large. Therefore, I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed,” the Court said.

Title: RAJ KUMAR v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 772

Click Here To Read Order

The Delhi High Court has held that protection granted to an accused in proceedings arising out of a predicate offence does not automatically extend to independent proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 771]

Justice Madhu Jain clarified that the proceedings under PMLA are distinct from those relating to the scheduled or predicate offences and, therefore, any protection granted in the latter cannot, by itself, mean that protection be also given to an accused in proceedings under under the anti-money laundering law.

“The protection granted in the predicate offence operates in the context of the said FIR and cannot, by itself, be construed as extending to the distinct and independent proceedings under the PMLA,” the Court said.

It made the observation while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by a man in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The accused argued that he had not been named in the predicate FIRs and that he had already secured protection in proceedings concerning the scheduled offence.

He also contended that the allegations against him were based primarily on statements of co-accused persons and that there was no material showing his conscious involvement in money laundering.

Dismissing the plea, the Court rejected the accused's argument that he was granted interim protection by the Supreme Court in the predicate offence and that in order to comply with the directions, he was required to seek anticipatory bail in the PMLA proceedings as well.

It observed that the accused cannot claim pre-arrest protection in the money laundering proceedings merely on the ground that such protection has been granted to him in the predicate offence.

The Court noted that the material placed on record traced proceeds of crime amounting to approximately Rs.26.18 crores to the accused.

It also took note of the accused's conduct after being summoned by the ED. The Court said that although summons under Section 50 of PMLA were issued to him on May 21, May 22 and May 26, he did not personally appear and instead submitted a written response through counsel.

The Court concluded: “In view of the aforesaid material, this Court finds that the condition required under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA is not satisfied and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him.”

It said that the material placed on record, including the accused's conduct, the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, financial trail and analysis of the bank accounts, disclosed sufficient material connecting him with the alleged proceeds of crime.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. It however clarified that its observations were confined to the consideration of the bail plea and would not affect the merits of the case.

Title: RAM SINGH v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 771

Click Here To Read Order