Delhi High Court

33,049 judgments

Year:

Jai Narayan v. State

06 Sep 2023 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2023:DHC:6491
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The High Court acquitted the appellant in a corruption case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7 PC Act Section 13(2) PC Act Section 20 PC Act

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd v. Sunita Rani & Ors.

06 Sep 2023 · Navin Chawla · 2023:DHC:6484
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident claim award attributing 40% contributory negligence to the deceased, dismissed the insurer's appeal, and enhanced the loss of consortium compensation for the claimants.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant motor accident claim contributory negligence preponderance of probability loss of consortium

Policybazaar Insurance Web Aggregator & Anr. v. Coverfox Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

06 Sep 2023 · Navin Chawla
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that use of registered trademarks as keywords in Google AdWords constitutes 'use' under the Trade Marks Act but without actual confusion or deception, such use does not amount to infringement, dismissing plaintiffs' interim relief applications.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Keyword advertising Google AdWords Use of trademark

M K Hamied & Anr. v. State through Abhijit Ghosh

06 Sep 2023 · Amit Sharma · 2023:DHC:6438
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed prosecution against Cipla Ltd. executives for non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, emphasizing the necessity of supplying samples and reports to manufacturers and judicial scrutiny before summoning.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 23 compliance Section 25 government analyst report Section 18A disclosure

M K Hameid & Anr. v. State through K T Raghu Kumar Drugs Inspector

06 Sep 2023 · Amit Sharma · 2023:DHC:6441
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed prosecution against Cipla Ltd. executives for non-compliance with mandatory sample and report procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and failure to establish a prima facie case.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 23 sample procedure Section 25 government analyst report Section 18A disclosure

M K Hamied & Anr. v. State through Sundeep B J Drugs Inspector

06 Sep 2023 · Amit Sharma · 2023:DHC:6440
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed prosecution against Cipla directors for non-compliance with mandatory drug sampling and reporting procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, emphasizing procedural safeguards and the necessity of judicial inquiry before summoning.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 18A Section 23 Section 25

M K Hameid & Anr. v. State through Abhijit Singh

06 Sep 2023 · Amit Sharma · 2023:DHC:6443
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed prosecution against Cipla Ltd. executives for non-compliance with mandatory sample and report supply provisions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and failure of the Magistrate to apply judicial mind before summoning.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 23 compliance Section 25 government analyst report Section 18A disclosure

The Trustees of Princeton University v. The Vagdevi Educational Society & Ors.

06 Sep 2023 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:6420
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the defendants' prior continuous use of the mark "PRINCETON" since 1991 entitles them to protection under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for injunction despite trademark infringement.

intellectual_property petition_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 34 Trademark infringement Passing off

Ratan Kumar and Anr v. Santosh Jalutharia and Ors

06 Sep 2023 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2023:DHC:6545

The Delhi High Court held that a landlord holding a perpetual lease from DDA qualifies as 'owner' under the Delhi Rent Control Act and is entitled to evict a tenant on bona fide requirement grounds, dismissing the tenant's challenge to ownership.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) leasehold property ownership

Kanav Arora v. The State Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

06 Sep 2023 · Rajnish Bhatnagar · 2023:DHC:6424
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 376 IPC under its inherent powers, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process given the parties' amicable settlement and factual circumstances.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 376 IPC rape

Firoz and Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

06 Sep 2023 · Rajnish Bhatnagar · 2023:DHC:6422
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 363 IPC where the victim voluntarily married the accused and lived with him, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR kidnapping consent

Shakib Ali @ Sahil v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

06 Sep 2023 · Rajnish Bhatnagar · 2023:DHC:6425
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC based on a settlement between parties and exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that such power must be exercised sparingly and with regard to the nature of the offence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 376 IPC consent

Neeta Mitroo & Others v. Deepak Sant Ram & Deepak Gupta & Others

06 Sep 2023 · Rekha Palli, J · 2023:DHC:6415
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a suit for cancellation of registered documents is not barred by limitation if the plaintiff acquires knowledge of the documents and alleged fraud belatedly, and dismissed the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant limitation Order VII Rule 11 CPC cancellation of registered instrument Article 59 Limitation Act

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited

06 Sep 2023 · Rajiv Shakdher; Girish Kathpalia · 2023:DHC:6480-DB

The Delhi High Court held that undisclosed income taxed in one group company cannot be taxed again in other group companies when routed as share capital, dismissing the revenue's appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act Section 68 Settlement Commission Double Taxation

Gopal Corporates LLP v. Commissioner Delhi-East, GST-Central Tax

06 Sep 2023 · Yashwant Varma; Dharmesh Sharma · 2023:DHC:6348-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld Rule 8 of the CTUT Rules 2010, ruling that excise duty on chewing tobacco packing machines must be calculated based on the maximum number of machines installed during a month, not on a proportionate basis of actual days operated.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 3A CTUT Rules 2010 packing machines

Sheetal Sharma & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi

06 Sep 2023 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2023:DHC:6940

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR alleging cheating and forgery, holding that investigation must continue as the allegations disclose cognizable offences and no exceptional grounds for quashing exist.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC cognizable offence cheating

Anjali v. State (GNCT Delhi)

06 Sep 2023 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2023:DHC:7079
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

Delhi High Court granted bail to petitioner in possession of intermediate quantity of ganja under NDPS Act, holding that rigour of section 37 does not apply and bail is permissible with conditions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail NDPS Act intermediate quantity section 37 NDPS Act

Razia Begum v. Commissioner Employees Compensation & Ors.

06 Sep 2023 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2023:DHC:6583

The Delhi High Court allowed compensation to the mother of a missing employee under the Employees’ Compensation Act based on CBI investigation concluding the employee's death, setting aside the prior rejection for lack of seven years’ lapse.

labor petition_allowed Significant Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 Section 22 missing employee presumption of death

Ishrail Ali v. The State Govt NCT of Delhi

06 Sep 2023 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2023:DHC:6476
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of an accused involved in a robbery case, holding that use of a toy pistol to induce fear attracts Section 397 IPC and recovery of stolen money justifies denial of bail.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail Section 439 Cr.P.C. robbery Section 392 IPC

Adavya Arya v. Directorate of Education & Anr.

06 Sep 2023 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:3650
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a school must admit a DG category student once shortlisted by the Directorate of Education unless it timely objects to the seat matrix, confirming the petitioner's admission permanently.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Disadvantaged Group EWS category school admission Directorate of Education