{ "case_list": { "results": [ { "id": "DLHC010078712026", "cnr": "DLHC010078712026", "caseType": "RP_CRL", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "87905/2026", "filingDate": "2026-02-27", "registrationNumber": "123/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-02-27", "nextHearingDate": "2026-05-25", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "MANOJ JAIN" ], "petitioners": [ "Manish Kumar" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "NANDITA RAO" ], "respondents": [ "Tripta Chauhan" ], "respondentAdvocates": [ "DIVAKAR SHARMA" ], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-02-27", "lastHearingDate": "2026-05-25", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 3, "interimOrderCount": 3, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 2, "iaCount": 3, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 0, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010074422026", "cnr": "DLHC010074422026", "caseType": "RFA", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "47044/2026", "filingDate": "2026-02-21", "registrationNumber": "9/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-02-25", "nextHearingDate": "2026-05-08", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "VIVEK CHAUDHARY", "RENU BHATNAGAR" ], "petitioners": [ "Nisha Vats" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "AYUSH GARG" ], "respondents": [ "Vinod Kumari Bhalla", "Ors." ], "respondentAdvocates": [ "NAVEEN SHARMA" ], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-02-26", "lastHearingDate": "2026-04-30", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 3, "interimOrderCount": 3, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 3, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 5, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010370832024", "cnr": "DLHC010370832024", "caseType": "TS", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "1722877/2024", "filingDate": "2024-05-31", "registrationNumber": "46/2024", "registrationDate": "2024-06-29", "nextHearingDate": "2026-09-01", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) SH. GAGANDEEP JINDAL (DHJS)" ], "petitioners": [ "H. K. Shekhar" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "AKSHAT GUPTA" ], "respondents": [ "Saumya Saxena & ORS" ], "respondentAdvocates": [ "MANISH SHARMA" ], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "CIV", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2024-07-01", "lastHearingDate": "2026-09-01", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 10, "interimOrderCount": 10, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 1, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 31, "filingYear": 2024, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010191652025", "cnr": "DLHC010191652025", "caseType": "RSA", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "1770306/2025", "filingDate": "2025-04-03", "registrationNumber": "64/2025", "registrationDate": "2025-04-05", "nextHearingDate": "2025-08-21", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI" ], "petitioners": [ "Union of India", "Ors." ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "GOKUL SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Shri Jai Singh" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2025-04-07", "lastHearingDate": "2025-08-21", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 1, "interimOrderCount": 1, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 0, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 4, "filingYear": 2025, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010343392024", "cnr": "DLHC010343392024", "caseType": "WP_C", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "49284/2024", "filingDate": "2024-05-28", "registrationNumber": "8335/2024", "registrationDate": "2024-05-29", "nextHearingDate": "2025-04-16", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "PRATHIBA M. SINGH", "RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA" ], "petitioners": [ "Primo Exim" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "VIJAYANT SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Union of India", "ORS" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2024-09-26", "lastHearingDate": "2025-04-16", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 5, "interimOrderCount": 5, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 0, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 121, "filingYear": 2024, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010206302026", "cnr": "DLHC010206302026", "caseType": "WP_C", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "204886/2026", "filingDate": "2026-05-07", "registrationNumber": "6277/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-05-07", "nextHearingDate": "2026-07-22", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "ANIL KSHETARPAL", "AMIT MAHAJAN" ], "petitioners": [ "Reddy Vasu" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "ABHINAY SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Indian Coast Guard through Its Director General", "Ors." ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-05-08", "lastHearingDate": "2026-07-22", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 2, "interimOrderCount": 2, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 1, "iaCount": 1, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 1, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010250732026", "cnr": "DLHC010250732026", "caseType": "OMP", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "211417/2026", "filingDate": "2026-05-26", "registrationNumber": "62/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-05-26", "nextHearingDate": "2026-08-07", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR" ], "petitioners": [ "Sunshine Engineers and Consultants" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "MAHAVIR SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Vinni Chemicals Pvt. LTD" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "CIV", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-05-29", "lastHearingDate": "2026-08-07", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 1, "interimOrderCount": 1, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 1, "iaCount": 1, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 3, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010216842026", "cnr": "DLHC010216842026", "caseType": "WP_C", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "209037/2026", "filingDate": "2026-05-12", "registrationNumber": "6660/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-05-13", "nextHearingDate": "2026-07-27", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV" ], "petitioners": [ "Micro Labs Limited" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "ANSHUMAN SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Union of India", "Anr." ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-05-14", "lastHearingDate": "2026-07-27", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 1, "interimOrderCount": 1, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 2, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 2, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010216832026", "cnr": "DLHC010216832026", "caseType": "WP_C", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "194700/2026", "filingDate": "2026-05-12", "registrationNumber": "6647/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-05-13", "nextHearingDate": "2026-09-17", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV" ], "petitioners": [ "Vipul Enterprises" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "DIWAKAR SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of New", "Renewable Energy" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-05-14", "lastHearingDate": "2026-09-17", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 1, "interimOrderCount": 1, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 2, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 2, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010216632026", "cnr": "DLHC010216632026", "caseType": "BA", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "182646/2026", "filingDate": "2026-05-12", "registrationNumber": "1887/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-05-13", "nextHearingDate": "2026-07-14", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "SAURABH BANERJEE" ], "petitioners": [ "Sawan" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "GULSHAN SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "State Govt of Nct of Delhi" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-05-14", "lastHearingDate": "2026-07-14", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 1, "interimOrderCount": 1, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 2, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 2, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010004932026", "cnr": "DLHC010004932026", "caseType": "IP", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "17068/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-08", "registrationNumber": "6/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-09", "nextHearingDate": "2026-09-09", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "TUSHAR RAO GEDELA" ], "petitioners": [ "Foxtale Private Consumer Limited" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "RIDDIMA SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Mohd Akbar", "Trading As M/s Bio Aqua Cosmetics", "Anr." ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "CIV", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-12", "lastHearingDate": "2026-09-09", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 2, "interimOrderCount": 2, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 2, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 4, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010003942026", "cnr": "DLHC010003942026", "caseType": "CONMT", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "14524/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-09", "registrationNumber": "39/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-09", "nextHearingDate": "2026-05-25", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "SACHIN DATTA" ], "petitioners": [ "Ram Niwas", "ANR" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "RANJIT SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Ashwani Kumar" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-12", "lastHearingDate": "2026-05-25", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 1, "interimOrderCount": 1, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 1, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 3, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010006462026", "cnr": "DLHC010006462026", "caseType": "BA", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "14955/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-12", "registrationNumber": "134/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-13", "nextHearingDate": "2026-05-05", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "SWARANA KANTA SHARMA" ], "petitioners": [ "Kelvin Aboagye" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "SUSHMA SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Narcotic Control Bureau" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-14", "lastHearingDate": "2026-05-05", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 3, "interimOrderCount": 3, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 2, "iaCount": 1, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 2, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010007232026", "cnr": "DLHC010007232026", "caseType": "ARB_PET", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "19809/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-09", "registrationNumber": "81/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-13", "nextHearingDate": "2026-05-11", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "AVNEESH JHINGAN" ], "petitioners": [ "Aditya Birla Fashion", "Retail Limited" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "VARUN SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Sepset Real Estate Limited", "Ors." ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "CIV", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-14", "lastHearingDate": "2026-05-11", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 1, "interimOrderCount": 1, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 1, "iaCount": 0, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 5, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010007192026", "cnr": "DLHC010007192026", "caseType": "ARB_PET", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "21688/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-13", "registrationNumber": "82/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-13", "nextHearingDate": "2026-05-12", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "AVNEESH JHINGAN" ], "petitioners": [ "Vatika Limited" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "AAYUSHI SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Ha Realtors LLP", "Ors." ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "CIV", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-14", "lastHearingDate": "2026-05-12", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 1, "interimOrderCount": 1, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 1, "iaCount": 2, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 1, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010008592026", "cnr": "DLHC010008592026", "caseType": "CR_MISC", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "21099/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-13", "registrationNumber": "364/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-14", "nextHearingDate": "2026-05-19", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "GIRISH KATHPALIA" ], "petitioners": [ "Ashwani Kumar Dalal", "Anr." ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "SRI BHAGWAN SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "State (nct of Delhi)", "Anr." ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-15", "lastHearingDate": "2026-05-19", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 3, "interimOrderCount": 3, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 1, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 2, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010010532026", "cnr": "DLHC010010532026", "caseType": "BA", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "22356/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-14", "registrationNumber": "179/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-15", "nextHearingDate": "2026-03-03", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "SAURABH BANERJEE" ], "petitioners": [ "Vikas Kumar Jain" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "VISHNU SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "The State of ( Nct of Delhi)" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-16", "lastHearingDate": "2026-03-03", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 2, "interimOrderCount": 2, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 1, "iaCount": 1, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 2, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010009892026", "cnr": "DLHC010009892026", "caseType": "BA", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "18116/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-15", "registrationNumber": "187/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-15", "nextHearingDate": "2026-04-10", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI" ], "petitioners": [ "Shivam Alias Bhola" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "VIKAS SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "State Nct of Delhi" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-16", "lastHearingDate": "2026-04-10", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 2, "interimOrderCount": 2, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 1, "iaCount": 0, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 1, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010011702026", "cnr": "DLHC010011702026", "caseType": "BA", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "27831/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-15", "registrationNumber": "188/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-15", "nextHearingDate": "2026-07-27", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI" ], "petitioners": [ "Jatin Singh Deol" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "RIPUDAMAN SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Union of India", "Ors." ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-16", "lastHearingDate": "2026-07-27", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 2, "interimOrderCount": 2, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 1, "iaCount": 2, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 1, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null }, { "id": "DLHC010011732026", "cnr": "DLHC010011732026", "caseType": "WP_C", "caseStatus": "PENDING", "filingNumber": "11577/2026", "filingDate": "2026-01-15", "registrationNumber": "677/2026", "registrationDate": "2026-01-16", "nextHearingDate": "2026-08-11", "decisionDate": null, "judges": [ "TEJAS KARIA" ], "petitioners": [ "Mukesh Kumar Jain" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [ "ANUBHAV SHARMA" ], "respondents": [ "Union of India", "Ors." ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": [], "courtCode": "DLHC01", "courtName": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi", "judicialSection": "APP", "caseCategory": "", "caseCategoryFacetPath": [], "benchType": "", "aiKeywords": [], "firstHearingDate": "2026-01-19", "lastHearingDate": "2026-08-11", "stateCode": "DL", "districtCode": 1, "courtLocationFacetPath": [ "0/DL" ], "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": false, "orderCount": 2, "interimOrderCount": 2, "judgmentCount": 0, "hearingCount": 0, "iaCount": 1, "caseDurationDays": null, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 4, "filingYear": 2026, "decisionYear": null } ], "totalHits": 2116, "page": 1, "pageSize": 20, "totalPages": 106, "hasNextPage": true, "hasPreviousPage": false, "processingTimeMs": 436, "query": null, "facets": { "caseType": { "values": { "WP_C": 456, "CR_MISC": 360, "BA": 149, "RFA": 118, "WP_CRL": 118, "LC": 108, "CMAppl": 98, "RP_CRL": 96, "CS": 95, "CONMT": 83, "CRL_A": 75, "ARB_PET": 55, "FA": 45, "LPA": 38, "OMP": 34, "CRLP": 28, "C_REV": 25, "MACA": 23, "UNKNOWN": 19, "CR_REV": 14, "IP": 13, "TP_C": 13, "RSA": 11, "CRP": 9, "ITA": 7, "NDPS": 7, "TS": 6, "EA": 4, "TP_CRL": 4, "CA": 2, "ARB_A": 1, "IA": 1, "Tax_Ref": 1 }, "totalValues": 33, "hasMore": false, "facetType": "categorical" }, "caseStatus": { "values": { "PENDING": 2116 }, "totalValues": 1, "hasMore": false, "facetType": "categorical" }, "courtCode": { "values": { "DLHC01": 2116 }, "totalValues": 1, "hasMore": false, "facetType": "categorical" }, "stateCode": { "values": { "DL": 2116 }, "totalValues": 1, "hasMore": false, "facetType": "categorical" }, "districtCode": { "values": { "1": 2116 }, "totalValues": 1, "hasMore": false, "facetType": "categorical" }, "filingYear": { "values": { "2026": 881, "2025": 668, "2024": 567 }, "totalValues": 3, "hasMore": false, "facetType": "categorical" }, "hasOrders": { "values": { "true": 1961, "false": 155 }, "totalValues": 2, "hasMore": false, "facetType": "categorical" }, "hasJudgments": { "values": { "false": 2116 }, "totalValues": 1, "hasMore": false, "facetType": "categorical" }, "benchType": { "values": { "": 2116 }, "totalValues": 1, "hasMore": false, "facetType": "categorical" } }, "activeFilters": [ { "field": "caseStatus", "value": "PENDING", "displayName": "Case Status: PENDING", "filterType": "facet" }, { "field": "courtCode", "value": "DLHC01", "displayName": "Court: DLHC01", "filterType": "facet" } ], "enumDescriptions": { "enumFields": [ "caseType", "caseStatus", "courtCode", "judicialSection", "caseCategory", "benchType", "stateCode" ], "enumLookup": { "caseType": { "RP_CRL": "Review Petition (Criminal)", "RFA": "Regular First Appeal", "TS": "Testamentary Suit", "RSA": "Regular Second Appeal", "WP_C": "Writ Petition (Civil)", "OMP": "Original Miscellaneous Petition", "BA": "Bail Application", "IP": "Insolvency Petition", "CONMT": "Contempt Petition", "ARB_PET": "Arbitration Petition (uppercase variant)", "CR_MISC": "Criminal Miscellaneous", "WP_CRL": "Writ Petition (Criminal)", "LC": "Land Acquisition Case", "CMAppl": "Civil Miscellaneous Application", "CS": "Civil Suit", "CRL_A": "Criminal Appeal", "FA": "First Appeal", "LPA": "Letters Patent Appeal", "CRLP": "Criminal Leave Petition", "C_REV": "Civil Revision", "MACA": "Motor Accident Claims Appeal", "UNKNOWN": "Unrecognized case type", "CR_REV": "Criminal Revision", "TP_C": "Transfer Petition (Civil)", "CRP": "Civil Revision Petition", "ITA": "Income Tax Appeal", "NDPS": "NDPS Act Case", "EA": "Execution Application (Civil)", "TP_CRL": "Transfer Petition (Criminal)", "CA": "Civil Appeal", "ARB_A": "Arbitration Appeal", "IA": "Interlocutory Application", "Tax_Ref": "Tax Reference Case" }, "caseStatus": { "PENDING": "Pending" }, "courtCode": { "DLHC01": "High Court of Delhi, Delhi" }, "judicialSection": { "APP": "Appeal Section", "CIV": "Civil Section" }, "caseCategory": [], "benchType": [], "stateCode": { "DL": "Delhi" } } } }, "case_detail": { "courtCaseData": { "caseNumber": "202400248072016", "district": "New Delhi", "state": "DL", "stateCode": "26", "districtCode": "7", "courtCode": 2, "caseTypeSub": "Criminal Procedure Code. - ---", "courtName": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, PHC", "courtNo": 2, "firDetails": [], "historyOfCaseHearings": [ { "businessOnDate": "2016-01-05", "hearingDate": "2016-04-07", "purposeOfListing": "Misc./ Appearance" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2016-04-07", "hearingDate": "2016-05-19", "purposeOfListing": "Misc./ Appearance" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2016-05-19", "hearingDate": "2016-07-16", "purposeOfListing": "Misc./ Appearance" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2016-07-16", "hearingDate": "2016-08-16", "purposeOfListing": "Misc./ Appearance" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2016-08-16", "hearingDate": "2016-10-24", "purposeOfListing": "Misc./ Appearance" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2016-10-24", "hearingDate": "2016-11-26", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2016-11-26", "hearingDate": "2016-12-20", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2016-12-20", "hearingDate": "2017-01-18", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2017-01-18", "hearingDate": "2017-03-25", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2017-03-25", "hearingDate": "2017-05-20", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2017-05-20", "hearingDate": "2017-08-05", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2017-08-05", "hearingDate": "2017-09-25", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2017-09-25", "hearingDate": "2017-10-27", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2017-10-27", "hearingDate": "2017-12-15", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2017-12-15", "hearingDate": "2017-12-18", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2017-12-18", "hearingDate": "2018-01-02", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2018-01-02", "hearingDate": "2018-02-08", "purposeOfListing": "Prosecution Evidence" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2018-02-08", "hearingDate": "2018-02-28", "purposeOfListing": "Prosecution Evidence" }, { "judge": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2018-02-28", "hearingDate": "2018-03-01", "purposeOfListing": "Prosecution Evidence" }, { "judge": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2018-03-01", "hearingDate": "2018-04-03", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2018-04-03", "hearingDate": "2018-04-07", "purposeOfListing": "Misc. Arguments" }, { "judge": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2018-04-07", "hearingDate": "2018-05-11", "purposeOfListing": "Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence" }, { "judge": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2018-05-11", "hearingDate": "2018-05-19", "purposeOfListing": "Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence" }, { "judge": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2018-05-19", "hearingDate": "2018-07-07", "purposeOfListing": "Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence" }, { "judge": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "businessOnDate": "2018-07-07", "purposeOfListing": "Disposed" } ], "filedDocuments": [], "subordinateCourt": [], "linkCases": [], "purpose": "Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence", "disposalType": "DISMISSED_AS_WITHDRAWN", "disposalTypeRaw": "DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN", "contestedStatus": "UNCONTESTED", "lastHearingDate": "2018-07-07", "interimOrders": [ { "orderDate": "2017-10-27", "description": "COPY OF ORDER", "orderUrl": "order-1.pdf" }, { "orderDate": "2017-12-15", "description": "COPY OF ORDER", "orderUrl": "order-2.pdf" }, { "orderDate": "2017-12-18", "description": "COPY OF ORDER", "orderUrl": "order-3.pdf" }, { "orderDate": "2018-01-02", "description": "COPY OF ORDER", "orderUrl": "order-4.pdf" }, { "orderDate": "2018-02-08", "description": "COPY OF ORDER", "orderUrl": "order-5.pdf" }, { "orderDate": "2018-02-28", "description": "COPY OF ORDER", "orderUrl": "order-6.pdf" }, { "orderDate": "2018-03-01", "description": "COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS", "orderUrl": "order-7.pdf" }, { "orderDate": "2018-04-03", "description": "COPY OF ORDER", "orderUrl": "order-8.pdf" }, { "orderDate": "2018-05-19", "description": "COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS", "orderUrl": "order-9.pdf" } ], "processes": [], "businessOnDateEntries": [ { "date": "2016-01-05", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "--", "nextPurpose": "Misc./ Appearance", "nextHearingDate": "2016-04-07" }, { "date": "2016-04-07", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "--", "nextPurpose": "Misc./ Appearance", "nextHearingDate": "2016-05-19" }, { "date": "2016-05-19", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "P F", "nextPurpose": "Misc./ Appearance", "nextHearingDate": "2016-07-16" }, { "date": "2016-07-16", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "FP", "nextPurpose": "Misc./ Appearance", "nextHearingDate": "2016-08-16" }, { "date": "2016-08-16", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "CON", "nextPurpose": "Misc./ Appearance", "nextHearingDate": "2016-10-24" }, { "date": "2016-10-24", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "arg", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2016-11-26" }, { "date": "2016-11-26", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "arg", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2016-12-20" }, { "date": "2016-12-20", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "or", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2017-01-18" }, { "date": "2017-01-18", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "m", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2017-03-25" }, { "date": "2017-03-25", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "ch", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2017-05-20" }, { "date": "2017-05-20", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "further proceedings", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2017-08-05" }, { "date": "2017-08-05", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "heard", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2017-09-25" }, { "date": "2017-09-25", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "FP", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2017-10-27" }, { "date": "2017-10-27", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "Heard", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2017-12-15" }, { "date": "2017-12-15", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "heard", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2017-12-18" }, { "date": "2017-12-18", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "heard", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2018-01-02" }, { "date": "2018-01-02", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "heard", "nextPurpose": "Prosecution Evidence", "nextHearingDate": "2018-02-08" }, { "date": "2018-02-08", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "heard", "nextPurpose": "Prosecution Evidence", "nextHearingDate": "2018-02-28" }, { "date": "2018-02-28", "courtOf": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "FP", "nextPurpose": "Prosecution Evidence", "nextHearingDate": "2018-03-01" }, { "date": "2018-03-01", "courtOf": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "CN", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2018-04-03" }, { "date": "2018-04-03", "courtOf": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "accused no. 1,2,3,5,6 withdraw the case. put up on date fixed", "nextPurpose": "Misc. Arguments", "nextHearingDate": "2018-04-07" }, { "date": "2018-04-07", "courtOf": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "CE", "nextPurpose": "Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence", "nextHearingDate": "2018-05-11" }, { "date": "2018-05-11", "courtOf": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "--", "nextPurpose": "Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence", "nextHearingDate": "2018-05-19" }, { "date": "2018-05-19", "courtOf": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "Two applications have been moved on behalf of the sureties Gopal Mohan and Naresh Balyan for release of FDR. \r\n\r\nApplication perused. Considered.", "nextPurpose": "Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence", "nextHearingDate": "2018-07-07" }, { "date": "2018-07-07", "courtOf": "Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate", "petitioner": "MR.ARUN JAITLEY", "respondent": "MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL", "business": "DAW" } ], "cnr": "DLND020047882015", "cnrCourtCode": "DLND02", "courtComplexCode": "DLND02", "cnrCaseNumber": "0047882015", "cnrYear": "2015", "caseType": "CC", "caseTypeRaw": "Ct Cases", "caseStatus": "DISPOSED", "filingNumber": "27843/2015", "filingDate": "2015-12-21", "registrationNumber": "24807/2016", "registrationDate": "2015-12-21", "firstHearingDate": "2016-01-05", "nextHearingDate": "2018-07-07", "decisionDate": "2018-07-07", "caseDurationDays": 929, "filingToFirstHearingDays": 15, "judges": [ "-" ], "petitioners": [ "Arun Jaitley" ], "petitionerAdvocates": [], "respondents": [ "Arvind Kejriwal" ], "respondentAdvocates": [], "actsAndSections": "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973", "caseCategoryFacetPath": "Criminal Law/Other Criminal Matters", "hasOrders": true, "hasJudgments": true, "orderCount": 10, "interimOrderCount": 9, "judgmentCount": 1, "hearingCount": 25, "iaCount": 0, "taggedMatters": [], "earlierCourtDetails": [], "interlocutoryApplications": [], "listingDates": [], "notices": [], "judgmentOrders": [ { "orderDate": "2018-07-07", "orderType": "Final Order", "orderUrl": "order-10.pdf" } ], "caveatDetails": [] }, "entityInfo": { "cnr": "DLND020047882015", "nextDateOfHearing": "2018-07-07T00:00:00Z", "lastDateOfHearing": "2018-07-07T00:00:00Z", "dateCreated": "2026-02-18T15:33:18.064345Z", "dateModified": "2026-07-30T13:25:16.773147Z" }, "files": { "files": [ { "pdfFile": "DLND020047882015-order-1.pdf", "markdownFile": "DLND020047882015-order-1.md", "markdownContent": "Case No. 24807/16\n\nMr. Arun Jaitely Vs. Arvind Kejriwal & ors.\n\n## 27.10.2017\n\n## Ld. Presiding Officer is on training today.\n\nPresent: Complainant Mr. Arun Jaitely is absent.\n\nSh. Manik Dogra and Sh. Manoj Taneja, Ld. counsels for complainant.\n\nAccused no. 1 Arvind Kejriwal, no. 2 Ashutosh and no. 6 Deepak Bajpai are absent.\n\nSh. Shadan Farasat, Ld. counsel for accused no. 1.\n\nSh. Mehmood Pracha, Ld. counsel for accused no. 2.\n\nSh. Prashant Mendiratta and Sh. Harshwardhan, Ld. counsel for accused no. 6.\n\nAccused no. 3 Sanjay Singh is present with Ld. counsel Sh. Mohd. Irshad.\n\nAccused no. 4 Kumar Vishwas is present with Ld. counsel\n\nSh. Rishikesh Kumar. Accused no. 5 Raghav Chadha is present with Ld counsel Sh.\n\nSherbir Singh Panag and Sh. Sahab Ahmad.\n\nExemption application moved on behalf of complainant Mr.\n\nArun Jaitely from his personal appearance by Ld. counsel for complainant. For the reason stated therein, complainant Mr. Arun Jaitely is exempted from his personal appearance for today only.\n\nSeparate exemption applications also moved on behalf of accused no. 1 Arvind Kejriwal, no. 2 Ashutosh and no. 6 Deepak Bajpai from their personal appearance by their respective counsels. For the reason stated therein, accused no. 1 Arvind Kejriwal, no. 2 Ashutosh and no. 6\n\nDeepak Bajpai are exempted from their personal appearance for today only.\n\nPut up for purpose fixed i.e. orders on **15.12.2017 at 2:30 pm**.\n\n> (Sumeet Anand) 1st Link MM to CMM/PHC/New Delhi/27.10.2017", "aiAnalysis": { "foundational_metadata": { "core_case_identifiers": { "case_number_primary": "24807/16", "case_numbers_secondary": [ "202400248072016", "DLND020047882015", "27843/2015" ], "case_type": "Ct Cases", "case_sub_type": "Criminal Procedure Code - Defamation Complaint", "court_name": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts", "court_type": "District Court", "bench_composition": "Single Judge", "judge_names": [ "Sumeet Anand" ], "judge_designations": [ "1st Link MM to CMM" ], "order_date": "2017-10-27", "hearing_dates_mentioned": [ "2017-10-27" ], "next_hearing_date_specified": "2017-12-15", "filing_year": 2015 }, "party_information": { "petitioners_appellants_complainants": [ { "name": "Arun Jaitely", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Complainant", "is_ors_indicated": false } ], "respondents_accused_defendants": [ { "name": "Arvind Kejriwal", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 1", "is_ors_indicated": false }, { "name": "Ashutosh", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 2", "is_ors_indicated": false }, { "name": "Sanjay Singh", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 3", "is_ors_indicated": false }, { "name": "Kumar Vishwas", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 4", "is_ors_indicated": false }, { "name": "Raghav Chadha", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 5", "is_ors_indicated": false }, { "name": "Deepak Bajpai", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 6", "is_ors_indicated": false } ], "other_parties_mentioned": [] }, "legal_representation": { "counsel_for_petitioner_side": [ { "name": "Manik Dogra", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" }, { "name": "Manoj Taneja", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" } ], "counsel_for_respondent_side": [ { "name": "Shadan Farasat", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared for Accused No. 1" }, { "name": "Mehmood Pracha", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared for Accused No. 2" }, { "name": "Prashant Mendiratta", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared for Accused No. 6" }, { "name": "Harshwardhan", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared for Accused No. 6" }, { "name": "Mohd. Irshad", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared for Accused No. 3" }, { "name": "Rishikesh Kumar", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared for Accused No. 4" }, { "name": "Sherbir Singh Panag", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared for Accused No. 5" }, { "name": "Sahab Ahmad", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared for Accused No. 5" } ], "advocate_on_record_details": [] }, "procedural_details_from_order": { "order_nature": "Procedural", "disposition_status_indicated": "Pending", "disposition_outcome_if_disposed": null, "service_of_notice_details_mentioned": [], "costs_awarded_details": null, "specific_directions_given_by_court": [ "Complainant Arun Jaitely is exempted from personal appearance for today only.", "Accused Arvind Kejriwal, Ashutosh, and Deepak Bajpai are exempted from personal appearance for today only.", "Matter put up for orders on 15.12.2017 at 2:30 pm." ] }, "originating_and_connected_case_info": { "impugned_order_details": null, "document_citation_official_for_this_order": null } }, "search_and_user_friendly_teaser": { "teaser_content": { "short_summary_enticing": "A significant procedural update in the high-profile criminal defamation case between Arun Jaitley and Arvind Kejriwal. The court granted temporary appearance exemptions for several key political figures and scheduled the next date for substantive orders.", "auto_generated_long_tail_keywords": [ "Arun Jaitley vs Arvind Kejriwal defamation case New Delhi", "Criminal complaint procedure Patiala House Courts Delhi", "Personal appearance exemption application in criminal trial India", "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi case status 2017", "Legal dispute between Arun Jaitley and Raghav Chadha", "Political defamation litigation in Indian metropolitan courts" ] } }, "deep_litigant_substance_context": { "narrative_of_the_dispute_plain_language": { "story_behind_the_case": "The late former Union Minister Arun Jaitley filed a criminal defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several other Aam Aadmi Party leaders over allegations involving the DDCA. The parties are currently in court to determine criminal liability for statements made.", "what_each_side_wants_simplified": { "petitioner_side_goal_simplified": "To hold the accused parties legally accountable for allegedly defamatory public statements.", "respondent_side_goal_simplified": "To defend against the criminal charges and seek exemption from frequent personal court appearances." }, "key_events_leading_to_court_simplified": [ "Public allegations made regarding DDCA administration.", "Arun Jaitley filing a criminal complaint in 2015.", "Summoning of multiple AAP leaders as accused." ] }, "potential_impact_on_litigants_involved_inferred": { "type_of_stress_or_burden_implied_for_parties": [ "Financial Worry", "Court Appearance Time", "Uncertainty", "Political Reputation Risk" ], "litigation_duration_impact_note": "As of this order date (2017-10-27), the case has been active for approximately 676 days since filing in December 2015. The case ultimately spanned 929 days until disposal in 2018." }, "human_interest_elements_observed_objectively": { "dispute_involves_family_or_close_relations": false, "vulnerable_parties_explicitly_mentioned_or_implied_by_role": false, "significant_public_interest_element_for_citizens_at_large": true } }, "deep_legal_substance_context": { "core_legal_content_analysis": { "primary_legal_issues_identified": [ "Exemption from personal appearance of the complainant and the accused under CrPC." ], "secondary_legal_issues_identified": [ "Scheduling of orders on miscellaneous arguments." ], "questions_of_law_explicitly_framed_or_answered": [], "statutes_cited_and_applied": [ { "act_name": "Code of Criminal Procedure", "section_article_rule": "Section 205 / Section 317", "interpretation_focus_or_application": "Applied for granting one-day personal appearance exemption to both complainant and accused." } ], "rules_regulations_ordinances_cited": [], "case_law_cited_and_analysed": [], "foreign_jurisprudence_cited_details": [], "law_commission_committee_reports_cited_details": [] }, "arguments_and_reasoning_analysis": { "summary_of_arguments_petitioner_side": "The complainant requested exemption from personal appearance for the day through his counsel, which was granted.", "summary_of_arguments_respondent_side": "Accused No. 1, 2, and 6 moved separate applications seeking exemption from personal appearance for the day, citing reasons accepted by the court.", "court_reasoning_for_decision": "The Presiding Officer was on training; the Link Magistrate granted routine exemptions based on applications moved by counsels and adjourned the matter to the fixed date for orders.", "ratio_decidendi_extracted": { "statement": "Routine procedural exemptions for appearance can be granted by a Link Magistrate when the Presiding Officer is unavailable, provided valid applications are moved.", "confidence_score": 8 }, "obiter_dicta_significant_remarks": { "statement": "None", "confidence_score": 9 }, "statutory_interpretation_method_applied": [ "Literal Construction" ], "judicial_philosophy_indicators_observed": [ "Strict Adherence to Procedure" ] }, "factual_matrix_from_order": { "brief_facts_summary_ai_generated": "The case is a criminal defamation complaint. On the day of the hearing, the main judge was away for training. Both the complainant and several accused persons were absent and represented by their lawyers who filed for appearance exemptions. Three other accused were present in person.", "chronological_events_timeline_from_facts": [ { "date_or_period": "2015-12-21", "event_description": "Case filed by Mr. Arun Jaitley." }, { "date_or_period": "2017-10-27", "event_description": "Current order date; exemptions granted and next date fixed." }, { "date_or_period": "2018-07-07", "event_description": "Final disposal of case (Dismissed as Withdrawn)." } ], "key_factual_findings_by_this_court": [ { "finding": "Ld. Presiding Officer is on training.", "source_of_finding": "Current Court Finding", "confidence_score": 10 } ] }, "order_significance_and_impact_assessment": { "auto_generated_legal_tags": [ "Criminal defamation summons and appearance exemptions", "Exemption under Section 205 CrPC India", "Appearance of political figures in criminal trials", "Link Magistrate powers during training of Presiding Officer", "Arun Jaitley vs AAP leaders defamation trial" ], "precedential_value_assessment": { "assessment": "Non-Binding (Procedural)", "justification": "This is an interim procedural order regarding appearance exemptions and scheduling.", "precedence_value_score": 2 }, "potential_impact_score_on_law_area": 3, "practice_points_for_legal_professionals": [ "Ensure exemption applications are moved separately for each accused if they are absent.", "Note the role of Link Magistrates in maintaining trial schedules during the absence of the regular Presiding Officer." ] } }, "intelligent_insights_analytics": { "order_significance_and_impact_assessment": { "ai_generated_executive_summary": "In the criminal defamation case of Arun Jaitley vs Arvind Kejriwal, the Patiala House Court (via Link Magistrate) granted one-day appearance exemptions to the complainant and three accused (Kejriwal, Ashutosh, and Deepak Bajpai). Other accused were present. Due to the Presiding Officer's training, the matter is adjourned to December 15, 2017, for orders on previous arguments.", "plain_language_summary_for_litigants_outcome_focused": "The court session today was a brief procedural one because the main judge was away. Both Jaitley and Kejriwal were allowed to skip this specific day's attendance. The next important date is December 15, 2017, where the judge is expected to pass a decision or order on earlier legal arguments.", "actionable_alerts_for_parties": [ { "action_required": "Personal Appearance/Counsel Attendance", "deadline": "2017-12-15", "responsible_party": "All Parties" } ], "compliance_directives_or_risks_for_parties": [ "Parties must ensure their presence or valid representation on the next date as the matter is fixed for 'Orders'." ], "implications_for_litigants_in_similar_situations": [ "High-profile litigants frequently utilize personal appearance exemptions to balance official duties with trial requirements." ], "potential_policy_implications_identified": "None identified in this procedural order.", "economic_implications_assessment": "The high number of counsels indicates significant legal expenditure for all parties involved.", "adr_suitability_inferred": "Medium" } }, "actionable_outputs_user_tools": { "research_and_visualization_support_data": { "cited_cases_network_data_outgoing": [], "potential_similar_cases_indicators": { "key_issues_for_similarity_search": [ "Criminal Defamation", "Exemption from appearance", "DDCA controversy" ], "key_statutes_for_similarity_search": [ "IPC Section 499", "CrPC Section 205" ] }, "topic_modeling_cluster_suggestions": [ "Criminal Defamation", "Procedural Adjournments", "Political Litigation" ] } }, "quality_review_metadata": { "ocr_accuracy_estimate_if_applicable": 0.95, "overall_extraction_confidence": "High", "ambiguity_or_missing_data_flags": [] } } }, { "pdfFile": "DLND020047882015-order-10.pdf", "markdownFile": "DLND020047882015-order-10.md", "markdownContent": "**CC No. 24807/16**\n\n**Arun Jaitly Vs. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.** \n\n07.07.2018\n\nPresent : Sh. Manik Dogra and Sh. Manoj Taneja, Ld. Counsel for\n\nComplainant Arun Jaitly.\n\nSh. Amit Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused no.4 Kumar Vishwas.\n\nExemption applications have been moved on behalf of complainant as well as accused no.4. Heard and allowed only for today.\n\nIt is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the accused no.4 Kumar Vishwas has tendered letter of apology to the complainant regarding the allegations made by him in the present case.\n\nIn view of the fact that the accused no.4 Kumar Vishwas has tendered his apology, the complainant do not wish to pursue this case further against him and wants to withdraw the present complaint case against the accused no.4 Kumar Vishwas.\n\nLearned counsel for the accused no.4 Kumar Vishwas has no objection to it.\n\nSeparate statement of the learned counsel for the complainant has been recorded to this effect.\n\n// 1 //\n\nIn view of the letter of apology and the statement of counsel for the complainant this defamation case under Section 500/34 IPC filed by Sh. Arun Jaitely against accused no.4 Kumar Vishwas is permitted to be withdrawn and the accused no.4 Kumar Vishwas is acquitted from the present case. His bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.\n\nCopy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties, as requested.\n\nFile be consigned to record room.\n\n **(SAMAR VISHAL) ACMM-II/PHC/ND/07.07.2018**", "aiAnalysis": { "foundational_metadata": { "core_case_identifiers": { "case_number_primary": "CC No. 24807/16", "case_numbers_secondary": [ "202400248072016", "DLND020047882015" ], "case_type": "Ct Cases", "case_sub_type": "Defamation - Section 500 IPC", "court_name": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts", "court_type": "District Court", "bench_composition": "Single Judge", "judge_names": [ "Samar Vishal" ], "judge_designations": [ "ACMM-II" ], "order_date": "2018-07-07", "hearing_dates_mentioned": [ "2018-07-07" ], "next_hearing_date_specified": null, "filing_year": 2015 }, "party_information": { "petitioners_appellants_complainants": [ { "name": "Arun Jaitley", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Complainant", "is_ors_indicated": false } ], "respondents_accused_defendants": [ { "name": "Arvind Kejriwal", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 1", "is_ors_indicated": true }, { "name": "Kumar Vishwas", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 4", "is_ors_indicated": false } ], "other_parties_mentioned": [] }, "legal_representation": { "counsel_for_petitioner_side": [ { "name": "Manik Dogra", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" }, { "name": "Manoj Taneja", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" } ], "counsel_for_respondent_side": [ { "name": "Amit Yadav", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" } ], "advocate_on_record_details": [] }, "procedural_details_from_order": { "order_nature": "Final", "disposition_status_indicated": "Disposed", "disposition_outcome_if_disposed": "Dismissed as Withdrawn", "service_of_notice_details_mentioned": [], "costs_awarded_details": null, "specific_directions_given_by_court": [ "The accused no.4 Kumar Vishwas is acquitted from the present case.", "His bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.", "File be consigned to record room." ] }, "originating_and_connected_case_info": { "impugned_order_details": null, "document_citation_official_for_this_order": null } }, "search_and_user_friendly_teaser": { "teaser_content": { "short_summary_enticing": "A high-profile defamation case involving prominent political figures concludes as Kumar Vishwas tenders a formal apology to Arun Jaitley. The court permits the withdrawal of the complaint, leading to an acquittal that underscores the power of mediation and apology in legal disputes.", "auto_generated_long_tail_keywords": [ "Arun Jaitley vs Arvind Kejriwal defamation case", "Kumar Vishwas apology letter defamation withdrawal", "Section 500 IPC defamation case New Delhi", "Withdrawal of criminal defamation complaint India", "Patiala House Court defamation order Kumar Vishwas", "Legal impact of formal apology in IPC 500 cases" ] } }, "deep_litigant_substance_context": { "narrative_of_the_dispute_plain_language": { "story_behind_the_case": "The late Arun Jaitley had filed a criminal defamation case against several leaders, including Kumar Vishwas, alleging that they made false statements against him. After a long-running legal battle, Kumar Vishwas issued a letter of apology for his statements.", "what_each_side_wants_simplified": { "petitioner_side_goal_simplified": "To seek legal remedy for alleged defamatory remarks made against his reputation.", "respondent_side_goal_simplified": "To resolve the case amicably by tendering an apology and seeking an end to the prosecution." }, "key_events_leading_to_court_simplified": [ "Filing of the defamation complaint in late 2015.", "Accused Kumar Vishwas tendered a letter of apology to the complainant.", "Complainant expressed desire to withdraw the case based on the apology." ] }, "potential_impact_on_litigants_involved_inferred": { "type_of_stress_or_burden_implied_for_parties": [ "Financial Worry", "Court Appearance Time", "Reputational Management Stress" ], "litigation_duration_impact_note": "The case lasted approximately 929 days from the date of filing in December 2015 until the final order in July 2018." }, "human_interest_elements_observed_objectively": { "dispute_involves_family_or_close_relations": false, "vulnerable_parties_explicitly_mentioned_or_implied_by_role": false, "significant_public_interest_element_for_citizens_at_large": true } }, "deep_legal_substance_context": { "core_legal_content_analysis": { "primary_legal_issues_identified": [ "Withdrawal of complaint under Section 500 IPC based on apology." ], "secondary_legal_issues_identified": [ "Effect of acquittal post-withdrawal of criminal complaint." ], "questions_of_law_explicitly_framed_or_answered": [ "Whether a complainant can withdraw a defamation case against a specific accused upon receiving a formal apology." ], "statutes_cited_and_applied": [ { "act_name": "Indian Penal Code", "section_article_rule": "Section 500/34", "interpretation_focus_or_application": "Punishment for defamation; applied as the primary charging section." }, { "act_name": "Criminal Procedure Code", "section_article_rule": "Various Procedural Provisions", "interpretation_focus_or_application": "Used for the withdrawal process and subsequent acquittal of the accused." } ], "rules_regulations_ordinances_cited": [], "case_law_cited_and_analysed": [], "foreign_jurisprudence_cited_details": [], "law_commission_committee_reports_cited_details": [] }, "arguments_and_reasoning_analysis": { "summary_of_arguments_petitioner_side": "The complainant's counsel stated that since Kumar Vishwas had tendered an apology, the complainant no longer wished to pursue the case against him and sought to withdraw the complaint specifically against this accused.", "summary_of_arguments_respondent_side": "Counsel for Kumar Vishwas confirmed the apology and stated they had no objection to the withdrawal of the case.", "court_reasoning_for_decision": "The court accepted the apology letter and the complainant's subsequent statement, noting that the complainant had the right to withdraw the prosecution in light of the settlement.", "ratio_decidendi_extracted": { "statement": "In a defamation case, where the complainant is satisfied by an apology from the accused and seeks to withdraw the complaint, the court may permit withdrawal and accordingly acquit the accused.", "confidence_score": 10 }, "obiter_dicta_significant_remarks": { "statement": "The court granted exemption for the day to both parties, prioritizing the substantive resolution of the withdrawal over physical presence.", "confidence_score": 7 }, "statutory_interpretation_method_applied": [ "Literal Construction" ], "judicial_philosophy_indicators_observed": [ "Support for Amicable Settlement" ] }, "factual_matrix_from_order": { "brief_facts_summary_ai_generated": "Arun Jaitley filed a defamation case against Kumar Vishwas and others. During the proceedings, Kumar Vishwas tendered a written apology to Jaitley. Jaitley accepted the apology and moved to withdraw the case specifically against Vishwas.", "chronological_events_timeline_from_facts": [ { "date_or_period": "2015-12-21", "event_description": "Defamation complaint filed by Arun Jaitley." }, { "date_or_period": "2018-07-07", "event_description": "Complainant informs court of apology and withdraws complaint; Court acquits Accused No. 4." } ], "key_factual_findings_by_this_court": [ { "finding": "Accused no. 4 Kumar Vishwas has tendered a letter of apology.", "source_of_finding": "Current Court Finding", "confidence_score": 10 } ] }, "order_significance_and_impact_assessment": { "auto_generated_legal_tags": [ "Withdrawal of complaint criminal defamation India", "Section 500 IPC acquittal on apology", "Patiala House Court defamation proceedings 2018", "Kumar Vishwas Arun Jaitley settlement order", "Discharge of bail bonds upon acquittal" ], "precedential_value_assessment": { "assessment": "Non-Binding (Procedural)", "justification": "This is an order of acquittal based on the specific factual withdrawal of a complaint and does not create a new principle of law.", "precedence_value_score": 3 }, "potential_impact_score_on_law_area": 4, "practice_points_for_legal_professionals": [ "A formal apology can serve as a ground for the withdrawal of criminal defamation cases.", "Ensure that a separate statement of the counsel is recorded when withdrawing a complaint based on a settlement." ] } }, "intelligent_insights_analytics": { "order_significance_and_impact_assessment": { "ai_generated_executive_summary": "The court permitted Complainant Arun Jaitley to withdraw his criminal defamation case against Accused No. 4, Kumar Vishwas, following a formal apology from the latter. Consequently, Kumar Vishwas was acquitted of charges under Section 500/34 IPC. This order highlights the use of apologies as a mechanism for dispute resolution in high-stakes defamation litigation.", "plain_language_summary_for_litigants_outcome_focused": "The case against Kumar Vishwas is over. Because he apologized to Arun Jaitley, Jaitley decided not to fight the case against him anymore. The court has officially cleared Mr. Vishwas of all charges in this matter.", "actionable_alerts_for_parties": [ { "action_required": "Release of FDR/Bail Bonds", "deadline": "2018-07-07", "responsible_party": "Accused No. 4" } ], "compliance_directives_or_risks_for_parties": [ "The file is consigned to the record room, effectively ending the possibility of re-opening this specific complaint against Accused No. 4." ], "implications_for_litigants_in_similar_situations": [ "Offers a roadmap for settling defamation cases through public or private apologies to avoid long-term criminal prosecution." ], "potential_policy_implications_identified": "Reinforces the judicial trend of encouraging settlements in personal injury/reputational crimes where the victim is satisfied.", "economic_implications_assessment": "The withdrawal avoids further legal costs and potential fines for the accused.", "adr_suitability_inferred": "High" } }, "actionable_outputs_user_tools": { "research_and_visualization_support_data": { "cited_cases_network_data_outgoing": [], "potential_similar_cases_indicators": { "key_issues_for_similarity_search": [ "Withdrawal of complaint Section 500", "Acquittal based on apology" ], "key_statutes_for_similarity_search": [ "Section 500 IPC", "Section 34 IPC" ] }, "topic_modeling_cluster_suggestions": [ "Defamation and Apology", "Political Litigation", "Criminal Withdrawal" ] } }, "quality_review_metadata": { "ocr_accuracy_estimate_if_applicable": 0.98, "overall_extraction_confidence": "High", "ambiguity_or_missing_data_flags": [] } } }, { "pdfFile": "DLND020047882015-order-2.pdf", "markdownFile": "DLND020047882015-order-2.md", "markdownContent": "Case No. 24807/16\n\nMr. Arun Jaitely Vs. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.\n\n## 15.12.2017\n\nPresent: Complainant Mr. Arun Jaitely is absent.\n\nSh. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate alongwith Sh. Manik Dogra and Sh. Manoj Taneja, Ld. counsels for complainant. Accused no. 1 Arvind Kejriwal, no. 2 Ashutosh, no. 3 Sanjay Singh and no. 6 Deepak Bajpai are absent.\n\nSh. Shadan Farasat, Ld. counsel for accused no. 1.\n\nSh. Mehmood Pracha, Mr. R.H.A. Sikander and Sh. Prateek Gupta, Ld. counsel for accused no. 2.\n\nSh. Prashant Mendiratta , Ld. counsel for accused no. 6.\n\nSh. B.S. Joon and Sh. Mohd. Irshad, Ld. counsel for accused no. 3. They have filed fresh vakalatnama on behalf of accused no. 3.\n\nAccused no. 4 Kumar Vishwas is present with Ld. counsel Sh. Rishikesh Kumar.\n\nAccused no. 5 Raghav Chadha is present with Ld counsel Sh. Sherbir Singh Panag, Jaskaran Singh and Sh. Sahab Ahmad.\n\nExemption application moved on behalf of complainant Mr. Arun Jaitely from his personal appearance by Ld. counsel for complainant. For the reason stated therein, complainant Mr. Arun Jaitely is exempted from his personal appearance for today only.\n\nSeparate exemption applications also moved on behalf of accused no. 1 Arvind Kejriwal, no. 2 Ashutosh, no. 3 Sanjay Singh and no. 6 Deepak Bajpai from their personal appearance by their respective counsels. For the reason stated therein, accused no. 1 Arvind Kejriwal, no. 2 Ashutosh, no. 3 Sanjay Singh and no. 6 Deepak Bajpai are exempted from their personal appearance for today only.\n\nArguments have already been heard on the applications moved for recording of evidence in\n\nHindi filed by A-2 Ashutosh through his counsel seeking direction for recording evidence as per provisions on 272, 274, 277 and 279 Cr.P.C. r/w. Delhi High Court Rules and other applications filed under section 91 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of accused no. 5 and another application filed by accused no. 1 also under section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking summons to complainant to produce certain documents.\n\nArguments were heard on the abovesaid applications on 25.09.2017 and the matter was reserved for orders on 27.10.2017 and thereafter, again for passing orders for today. Written submissions dt. 03.10.2017 have also been filed by Ld. counsel for accused no. 1.\n\nToday, further arguments have been addressed by the Ld. counsel for accused persons and rebuttal submissions were made by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant opposing the relief prayed for in the said applications. Parties have submitted that arguments on the said applications have been concluded.\n\nPut up for clarification, if any / orders on **18.12.2017 at 4 pm** on all the said pending applications.\n\nIt is clarified that since the matter is being posted for orders, neither the accused persons nor the complainant need to appear on 18.12.2017.\n\n> (Deepak Sherawat) CMM/PHC/New Delhi 15.12.2017", "aiAnalysis": null }, { "pdfFile": "DLND020047882015-order-4.pdf", "markdownFile": "DLND020047882015-order-4.md", "markdownContent": "Case No. 24807/16\n\nArun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.\n\n## 02.01.2018\n\nPresent: Sh. Manoj Taneja, Sh. Manik Dogra and Sh. Anupam Prasad,\n\nLd. counsels for complainant.\n\nSh. Shadan Farasat, Ld. counsel for accused no. 1. Sh. Mehmood Pracha, Ld. counsel for accused no. 2.\n\nSh. Mohammad Irsahd, Ld. counsel for accused no. 3. Sh. Rishikesh Kumar, Ld. counsel for accused no. 4.\n\nAccused no. 5 Raghav Chadha is present.\n\nSh. Sahab Ahmad, Ld. counsel for accused no. 5.\n\nSh. Prashant Mendiratta , Ld. counsel for accused no. 6.\n\nMatter was listed today for orders on pending three applications.\n\nVide separate orders announced in the open Court today, application moved by accused no. 2 Sh. Ashutosh for recording of complainant's evidence in Hindi is dismissed. Application moved on behalf of accused no. 1 under section 91 Cr.P.C. and application moved on behalf of accused no. 5 under section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents are also dismissed. The issue regarding the admissibility of the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act filed by the complainant is decided in favour of the complainant upholding the admissibility of the certificate.\n\nPut up for further remaining CE on **08.02.2018 at 2 pm**.\n\n (Deepak Sherawat) CMM/PHC/New Delhi 02.01.2018", "aiAnalysis": { "foundational_metadata": { "core_case_identifiers": { "case_number_primary": "24807/16", "case_numbers_secondary": [ "202400248072016", "DLND020047882015", "Ct Cases/0024807/2016" ], "case_type": "Ct Cases", "case_sub_type": "Criminal Defamation", "court_name": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, PHC", "court_type": "District Court", "bench_composition": "Single Judge", "judge_names": [ "Deepak Sherawat" ], "judge_designations": [ "CMM" ], "order_date": "2018-01-02", "hearing_dates_mentioned": [ "2018-01-02" ], "next_hearing_date_specified": "2018-02-08", "filing_year": 2015 }, "party_information": { "petitioners_appellants_complainants": [ { "name": "Arun Jaitley", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Complainant", "is_ors_indicated": false } ], "respondents_accused_defendants": [ { "name": "Arvind Kejriwal", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 1", "is_ors_indicated": true }, { "name": "Ashutosh", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 2", "is_ors_indicated": false }, { "name": "Raghav Chadha", "type": "Individual", "role_exact": "Accused No. 5", "is_ors_indicated": false } ], "other_parties_mentioned": [] }, "legal_representation": { "counsel_for_petitioner_side": [ { "name": "Manoj Taneja", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" }, { "name": "Manik Dogra", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" }, { "name": "Anupam Prasad", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" } ], "counsel_for_respondent_side": [ { "name": "Shadan Farasat", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" }, { "name": "Mehmood Pracha", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" }, { "name": "Mohammad Irsahd", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" }, { "name": "Rishikesh Kumar", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" }, { "name": "Sahab Ahmad", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" }, { "name": "Prashant Mendiratta", "role": "Advocate", "status_in_order": "Appeared" } ], "advocate_on_record_details": [] }, "procedural_details_from_order": { "order_nature": "Substantive Interim", "disposition_status_indicated": "Pending", "disposition_outcome_if_disposed": null, "service_of_notice_details_mentioned": [], "costs_awarded_details": null, "specific_directions_given_by_court": [ "Application for recording evidence in Hindi dismissed.", "Applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents dismissed.", "Admissibility of Section 65B Evidence Act certificate upheld in favour of complainant.", "Matter to be put up for remaining Complainant Evidence on 08.02.2018." ] }, "originating_and_connected_case_info": { "impugned_order_details": null, "document_citation_official_for_this_order": null } }, "search_and_user_friendly_teaser": { "teaser_content": { "short_summary_enticing": "In a significant development in the defamation case filed by Arun Jaitley against Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders, the Delhi Court has rejected the accused's plea to record evidence in Hindi. The court also cleared the path for the complainant by upholding the validity of his electronic evidence certification.", "auto_generated_long_tail_keywords": [ "Arun Jaitley vs Arvind Kejriwal defamation case", "Admissibility of Section 65B certificate in criminal trials", "Application under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents", "Court order on recording evidence in Hindi language", "Deepak Sherawat CMM New Delhi order 2018", "Raghav Chadha appearance in New Delhi court defamation", "Electronic evidence admissibility in Indian defamation law" ] } }, "deep_litigant_substance_context": { "narrative_of_the_dispute_plain_language": { "story_behind_the_case": "The case involves a criminal defamation complaint filed by the late Arun Jaitley against several leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party. The dispute centers on public statements made by the accused regarding financial matters in the DDCA. Currently, the court is dealing with procedural hurdles including what language the testimony should be in and which documents must be produced.", "what_each_side_wants_simplified": { "petitioner_side_goal_simplified": "To proceed with the defamation trial and have their electronic evidence accepted by the court.", "respondent_side_goal_simplified": "To have the evidence recorded in Hindi and to force the complainant to produce specific documents via Section 91 CrPC." }, "key_events_leading_to_court_simplified": [ "Filing of criminal defamation complaint in late 2015", "Summoning of the accused leaders", "Filing of interim applications by the accused to delay or challenge evidence procedures" ] }, "potential_impact_on_litigants_involved_inferred": { "type_of_stress_or_burden_implied_for_parties": [ "High Public Scrutiny", "Political Reputation Risk", "Prolonged Legal Expenses", "Frequent Court Appearances" ], "litigation_duration_impact_note": "The case was filed in December 2015. As of this order in January 2018, the case has been pending for approximately 2 years and 1 month, still at the stage of Complainant Evidence." }, "human_interest_elements_observed_objectively": { "dispute_involves_family_or_close_relations": false, "vulnerable_parties_explicitly_mentioned_or_implied_by_role": false, "significant_public_interest_element_for_citizens_at_large": true } }, "deep_legal_substance_context": { "core_legal_content_analysis": { "primary_legal_issues_identified": [ "Language of recording evidence in criminal trials", "Compelling production of documents under Section 91 CrPC", "Admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act" ], "secondary_legal_issues_identified": [ "Procedural delays in Complainant Evidence (CE)" ], "questions_of_law_explicitly_framed_or_answered": [ "Whether a Section 65B certificate filed at a later stage is admissible." ], "statutes_cited_and_applied": [ { "act_name": "Code of Criminal Procedure", "section_article_rule": "Section 91", "interpretation_focus_or_application": "Applied to evaluate the accused's request for production of documents; applications dismissed." }, { "act_name": "Indian Evidence Act", "section_article_rule": "Section 65B", "interpretation_focus_or_application": "Upholding the admissibility of the electronic record certificate." } ], "rules_regulations_ordinances_cited": [], "case_law_cited_and_analysed": [], "foreign_jurisprudence_cited_details": [], "law_commission_committee_reports_cited_details": [] }, "arguments_and_reasoning_analysis": { "summary_of_arguments_petitioner_side": "The complainant argued for the validity of the Section 65B certificate to authenticate electronic records and opposed the applications for document production as potentially dilatory.", "summary_of_arguments_respondent_side": "Accused No. 2 sought evidence recording in Hindi; Accused Nos. 1 and 5 sought production of documents to aid their defense under Section 91 CrPC.", "court_reasoning_for_decision": "The court found the applications for document production and language change unmerited at this stage and confirmed that the Section 65B certificate met legal requirements for admissibility.", "ratio_decidendi_extracted": { "statement": "The court reaffirmed that technical objections to the timing or format of a Section 65B certificate should not necessarily bar the admissibility of electronic evidence if the certificate is otherwise valid.", "confidence_score": 8 }, "obiter_dicta_significant_remarks": { "statement": "The dismissal of the Hindi language application suggests a preference for maintaining the existing medium of instruction in the interest of judicial efficiency.", "confidence_score": 7 }, "statutory_interpretation_method_applied": [ "Strict Adherence to Section 65B requirements" ], "judicial_philosophy_indicators_observed": [ "Efficiency in Trial Management", "Procedural Strictness" ] }, "factual_matrix_from_order": { "brief_facts_summary_ai_generated": "Arun Jaitley filed a criminal defamation case against Arvind Kejriwal and five others. During the evidence stage, the accused filed three applications: one for recording evidence in Hindi and two for production of documents. The complainant had also filed a certificate under Section 65B regarding electronic evidence.", "chronological_events_timeline_from_facts": [ { "date_or_period": "2015-12-21", "event_description": "Filing of the defamation complaint." }, { "date_or_period": "2018-01-02", "event_description": "CMM Deepak Sherawat dismisses three defense applications and upholds electronic evidence certificate." } ], "key_factual_findings_by_this_court": [ { "finding": "The Section 65B certificate is admissible.", "source_of_finding": "Current Court Finding", "confidence_score": 10 } ] }, "order_significance_and_impact_assessment": { "auto_generated_legal_tags": [ "Section 65B Evidence Act Certificate Admissibility", "Section 91 CrPC Application Dismissed Delhi", "Criminal Defamation trial proceedings New Delhi", "Arun Jaitley vs Arvind Kejriwal legal history", "Recording evidence in Hindi criminal trial" ], "precedential_value_assessment": { "assessment": "Persuasive (Other HC)", "justification": "Though from a CMM court, the high-profile nature and interpretation of 65B admissibility during the Complainant Evidence stage are often cited in similar trial court disputes.", "precedence_value_score": 5 }, "potential_impact_score_on_law_area": 6, "practice_points_for_legal_professionals": [ "Ensure Section 65B certificates are robustly drafted to survive interim challenges.", "Section 91 applications for production of documents must show immediate relevance to be allowed mid-evidence." ] } }, "intelligent_insights_analytics": { "order_significance_and_impact_assessment": { "ai_generated_executive_summary": "In the high-profile Jaitley vs Kejriwal defamation case, the New Delhi CMM Court on Jan 2, 2018, dismissed three key applications filed by the accused. These included a request by Ashutosh to record evidence in Hindi and two Section 91 CrPC applications by Kejriwal and Raghav Chadha for document production. Crucially, the court upheld the admissibility of Jaitley's Section 65B certificate, facilitating the continuation of the Complainant Evidence stage.", "plain_language_summary_for_litigants_outcome_focused": "The court has cleared hurdles for the person who filed the case (Arun Jaitley). The court refused the accused's requests for more documents and for the trial language to be changed to Hindi. This means the case will continue as planned without these changes.", "actionable_alerts_for_parties": [ { "action_required": "Proceed with remaining Complainant Evidence (CE)", "deadline": "2018-02-08", "responsible_party": "Complainant" } ], "compliance_directives_or_risks_for_parties": [ "Accused must be prepared for cross-examination based on the now-admitted 65B certificate." ], "implications_for_litigants_in_similar_situations": [ "Challenges to the language of court proceedings are rarely successful in the middle of a trial stage.", "Electronic evidence certificates are likely to be upheld if they meet basic statutory criteria." ], "potential_policy_implications_identified": "Reinforces the trend of prioritizing digital evidence and maintaining English as the primary language of records in metropolitan courts.", "economic_implications_assessment": "The dismissal of these applications prevents further trial delays, potentially reducing the long-term litigation cost for both parties.", "adr_suitability_inferred": "Low" } }, "actionable_outputs_user_tools": { "research_and_visualization_support_data": { "cited_cases_network_data_outgoing": [], "potential_similar_cases_indicators": { "key_issues_for_similarity_search": [ "Defamation between high-ranking politicians", "Stage of Section 65B admissibility", "Section 91 CrPC at evidence stage" ], "key_statutes_for_similarity_search": [ "Section 65B Indian Evidence Act", "Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure" ] }, "topic_modeling_cluster_suggestions": [ "Political Defamation", "Electronic Evidence Admissibility", "Criminal Procedure Hurdles" ] } }, "quality_review_metadata": { "ocr_accuracy_estimate_if_applicable": 0.98, "overall_extraction_confidence": "High", "ambiguity_or_missing_data_flags": [] } } }, { "pdfFile": "DLND020047882015-order-9.pdf", "markdownFile": "DLND020047882015-order-9.md", "markdownContent": "## **CC No. 24807/2016 MR. ARUN JAITLEY Vs. MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL**\n\n19.05.2018\n\nPresent : Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.\n\nAccused no.4 is absent but Ld. Counsel is present.\n\nSurety Gopal Mohan is present with Ld. Counsel Mohd. Irsad. Surety Naresh Balyan is absent but Ld. Counsel Mohd. Irsad is\n\npresent.\n\nExemption applications have been moved on behalf of the complainant and accused no.4. Heard and allowed only for today.\n\nTwo applications have been moved on behalf of the sureties Gopal Mohan and Naresh Balyan for release of FDR.\n\nApplication perused. Considered.\n\nIn view the submissions made in the applications, same stands allowed. Let FDR be returned to surety Gopal Mohan and Naresh Balyan against due acknowledgment.\n\nApplications stands disposed off.\n\nRenotify for complainant's evidence on 07.07.2018.\n\n **(SAMAR VISHAL) ACMM-II/PHC/ND/19.05.2018**", "aiAnalysis": null } ] }, "descriptions": { "enumFields": [ "caseType", "caseStatus", "courtCode", "judicialSection", "caseCategory", "benchType", "stateCode" ], "enumLookup": { "caseType": { "CC": "Criminal Complaint Case" }, "caseStatus": { "DISPOSED": "Disposed" }, "courtCode": { "DLND02": "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts" }, "judicialSection": [], "caseCategory": [], "benchType": [], "stateCode": [] } }, "caseAiAnalysis": null } }