Delhi High Court

29,725 judgments

Year:

Manju Vats & Ors. v. Meena Pandey

01 Jun 2023 · Navin Chawla · 2023:DHC:4066
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiffs' challenge to a sale deed executed to obtain a loan is not barred by the doctrine of pari delicto or limitation, allowing the suit to proceed to trial.

civil other Significant doctrine of pari delicto limitation Order XII Rule 6 CPC sale deed

Rishabh Rawat v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

01 Jun 2023 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2023:DHC:3969

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail in a rape case involving allegations of breach of promise to marry, holding that such issues require trial and applying the 'bail not jail' principle.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Section 376 IPC promise to marry consent

DLF Commercial Projects Corporation v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

01 Jun 2023 · Rajiv Shakdher; Girish Kathpalia · 2023:DHC:4259-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an income tax assessment order passed without granting a requested personal hearing, directing a fresh hearing and speaking order in compliance with natural justice.

tax appeal_allowed Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 Section 144B Section 156

INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. BR RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.

01 Jun 2023 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:4083

The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit in terms of a lawful settlement wherein the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's trademark ownership and agreed to cease use of infringing marks.

civil appeal_allowed trademark infringement settlement Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Trademarks Act 1999

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Windlas Biotech Ltd & Anr.

01 Jun 2023 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:4085

The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of a lawful settlement between Sun Pharma and Windlas Biotech regarding the trademark 'PANTRACID', ending the dispute amicably under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Settlement Decree in terms of settlement Trademark dispute

Jagdish Prasad v. Govt. of Delhi & Ors.

01 Jun 2023 · Siddharth Mridul; Mini Pushkarna · 2023:DHC:4026-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the MCD to permit the petitioner to vend within the specified zone strictly in accordance with his Certificate of Vending under the Street Vendors Act, 2014.

administrative petition_allowed Street Vendors Act 2014 Certificate of Vending Writ of Mandamus Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Rajib Saha v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1) & Anr.

01 Jun 2023 · Rajiv Shakdher; Girish Kathpalia · 2023:DHC:4324-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Income Tax Officer to provide a personal hearing and stay enforcement of a recovery notice against a director pending adjudication of a long-pending appeal.

tax petition_allowed Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 179 Recovery notice Director liability

Shri Pankaj Asthana v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

31 May 2023 · Mini Pushkarna · 2023:DHC:4117

The Delhi High Court directed the authorities to adjudicate the petitioner's pending representation regarding forged sale deeds and unauthorized construction within six months.

administrative petition_allowed writ petition representation unauthorized construction forgery

IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT & HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. v. S & D HOSPITALITY

31 May 2023 · Mukta Gupta · 2023:DHC:3919

The Delhi High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act as the plaintiff did not plead Delhi as its principal place of business and the cause of action did not arise there, dismissing the review petition.

civil petition_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Section 134 Trade Marks Act Order VII Rule 10 CPC principal place of business

Mohd. Kashif Khan and Ors. v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

31 May 2023 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2023:DHC:5446

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC in a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement and dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited v. E! Entertainment Television LLC

31 May 2023 · Mukta Gupta · 2023:DHC:3921

The Delhi High Court upheld its jurisdiction and interim injunction restraining the defendant from using marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'NOW' family of trademarks, recognizing cause of action arising in Delhi and maintaining the suit as a quia timet action.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 134 jurisdiction cease and desist notice interim injunction

Gauri Shankar Jaiswal v. Narcotics Control Bureau

31 May 2023 · Amit Sharma · 2023:DHC:3899
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail in an NDPS case holding that alleged procedural lapses in sampling contraband do not warrant bail without showing prejudice, emphasizing that such issues are to be examined during trial.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant NDPS Act sampling procedure Section 37 NDPS Act bail

Kanchan v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

31 May 2023 · Siddharth Mridul; Talwant Singh · 2023:DHC:4036-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Town Vending Committee to consider the petitioner’s representation expeditiously under the Street Vendors Act, 2014, protecting her right to livelihood pending formal certification.

administrative petition_partly_allowed Street Vendors Act 2014 Town Vending Committee writ petition livelihood protection

Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

31 May 2023 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Neena Bansal Krishna · 2023:DHC:3941-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the DG BSF to treat the petition as a representation and decide the petitioners' claims for pay benefits and arrears within eight weeks by a reasoned order.

administrative other writ of mandamus higher pay benefits conversion test MACP scheme

TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED v. VISTARA HOME APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

31 May 2023 · Manmohan; Saurabh Banerjee · 2023:DHC:3926-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court's order dismissing interim injunction, holding that the appellant's prior adoption and well-known trademark 'VISTARA' was infringed by respondents' mala fide use despite different class registrations.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off interim injunction well-known mark

Pradeep Kumar @ Sandeep Sharma v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

31 May 2023 · Rajnish Bhatnagar · 2023:DHC:3902

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of cheating and forgery after recovery of substantial amount and forged documents, considering his custodial period and clean antecedents.

criminal appeal_allowed bail Section 439 Cr.P.C. cheating forgery

Swadesh Pal Gupta v. Late Smt. Shakuntala Harit through LR Amrit Prakash Harit

31 May 2023 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2023:DHC:4176

The Delhi High Court fixed interim use and occupation charges at Rs. 25,000 per month and stayed eviction pending revision petition, balancing tenant's rights and landlord's entitlement based on market rent and premises condition.

civil appeal_allowed Significant use and occupation charges eviction petition interim relief commercial tenancy

Bishamber Singh and Anr v. Sanjay Bhardwaj

31 May 2023 · Tushar Rao Gedela · 2023:DHC:4064

The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to expeditiously dispose of a civil suit pending since 2010, due to delays caused by the respondent's frivolous applications.

civil appeal_allowed expeditious disposal prolonged pendency frivolous applications civil suit

Securities & Exchange Board of India v. Arihant Jain & Anr

31 May 2023 · Subramonium Prasad · 2023:DHC:3975

The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of summons against a director in a SEBI securities violation case, holding that mere directorship without specific allegations of control or responsibility does not attract liability under Section 27 of the SEBI Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant SEBI Act Section 27 SEBI Act Director liability Summoning order

Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police & Ors.

31 May 2023 · V. Kameswar Rao; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2023:DHC:3852-DB

The Delhi High Court held that mere pendency of a criminal case and placement in Column 12 of the charge-sheet without summons cannot justify indefinite withholding of police appointment, directing immediate appointment of the petitioner.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant appointment deferred criminal case pendency Column 12 charge-sheet Section 319 CrPC