Delhi High Court

103,150 judgments

Year:

SAUSS HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

07 Feb 2026 · C. HARI SHANKAR; OM PRAKASH SHUKLA · 2026:DHC:1507-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellant from using a deceptively similar Flying Bird device mark, rejecting the appellant’s claim of prior user based on fabricated evidence and affirming territorial jurisdiction and principles of passing off.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement passing off copyright infringement interlocutory injunction

Abishek Kumar v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited

07 Feb 2026 · Amit Bansal · 2026:DHC:1243

The Delhi High Court held that while IRCTC could terminate the contract and forfeit deposits for delayed payment, the one-year debarment penalty was disproportionate and quashed it, emphasizing fairness and proportionality in administrative penalties.

administrative petition_allowed Significant administrative penalty debarment proportionality doctrine natural justice

Manu Chaudhary v. Controller of Patents and Design

07 Feb 2026 · Jyoti Singh · 2026:DHC:1095

The Delhi High Court held that a patent application cannot be refused solely for non-submission of NBA approval if the applicant has applied for it and intimated the Controller, directing re-examination with opportunity to the applicant.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Patents Act 1970 National Biodiversity Authority approval Section 15 Patents Act Section 3(p) patentability

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. Union of India

07 Feb 2026 · Prathiba M. Singh; Madhu Jain · 2026:DHC:1045-DB

The Delhi High Court directed joint consultation between the Legal Metrology Department and the Drug Controller General of India to resolve conflicting mandates on mandatory vegetarian/non-vegetarian labeling of packaged cosmetics and toiletries before deciding on the validity of the impugned notification.

administrative other Significant Legal Metrology Rules vegetarian non-vegetarian labeling jurisdiction Drug Controller General of India

Sarita Batra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

07 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:1082

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and summoning order under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, following amicable settlement between the parties and no objection from the complainant.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(2)(va) wrongful confinement

Sanjeev Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

07 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:1081

The High Court held that a trial court must adjudicate condonation of delay applications before summoning the accused under Section 138 NI Act and set aside summoning and condonation orders passed otherwise, directing a fresh hearing.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 NI Act condonation of delay summoning order

Rajesh and Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

07 Feb 2026 · Manoj Jain · 2026:DHC:1080

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking recall of the prosecutrix for further cross-examination in a child sexual assault case, emphasizing judicial restraint and protection of the child victim from repeated trauma.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 348 BNSS Section 311 Cr.P.C. POCSO Act child sexual assault

Omvir Singh v. Union of India

07 Feb 2026 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3921
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that non-production of a journey ticket does not bar a bona fide passenger from statutory compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 for injuries sustained in an untoward incident, affirming strict liability of the Railways.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Railways Act 1989 Section 124-A bona fide passenger statutory compensation

Rohit Lamba & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

07 Feb 2026 · Girish Kathpalia · 2026:DHC:1023

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition to quash FIR alleging fraudulently obtained marriage and divorce, holding that false pleadings and misrepresentation constitute fraud on the court warranting legal action and exemplary costs.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant fraud on court void marriage false pleadings Section 498A IPC

Operation Mercy India Foundation v. Kumar Kaurav

07 Feb 2026 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2026:DHC:1022
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a defamation suit instituted against unknown defendants can validly be filed where the wrong was done, and the plaint cannot be returned later on jurisdictional grounds merely because defendants’ identities are revealed.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 19 CPC Order VII Rule 10 CPC territorial jurisdiction defamation

AMAN PRATAP SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

07 Feb 2026 · ANIL KSHETARPAL; AMIT MAHAJAN · 2026:DHC:994-DB
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the termination of a probationary judicial officer based on overall unsuitability and adverse service record, holding it to be a lawful administrative order not attracting Article 311(2) safeguards.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant probationer termination Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970 Article 311(2) Constitution termination simpliciter

Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr

07 Feb 2026 · Anil Ksheterpal; Amit Mahajan · 2026:DHC:997-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the petitioner’s stipend constituted income exceeding the EWS income ceiling, invalidating his EWS certificate and directing termination of his appointment.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Economically Weaker Section EWS certificate stipend vs salary reservation eligibility

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. M/S Ess Ess Technofabs Private Limited

07 Feb 2026 · Jasmeet Singh · 2026:DHC:1031
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the statutory arbitration mechanism under the MSMED Act overrides contractual arbitration agreements in MSME disputes and dismissed the Section 11 petitions challenging the Facilitation Council's jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant MSMED Act, 2006 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 petition Section 16 application

AFFLE 3I LIMITED v. TALENT UNLIMITED ONLINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

06 Feb 2026 · Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2026:DHC:1000
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that delays caused by parties do not preclude extension and that substitution of arbitrator requires compelling grounds raised timely.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 29A Arbitration and Conciliation Act extension of arbitrator mandate substitution of arbitrator delay in arbitral proceedings

Rakesh Mahajan & Anr. v. Iftikhar Ahmed & Ors.

06 Feb 2026 · Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2026:DHC:1008
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Appointment of arbitrator Scope of judicial scrutiny

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED v. ITI LIMITED

06 Feb 2026 · Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2026:DHC:993
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted interim protection restraining ITI Limited from proceeding with a fresh EOI to replace the petitioner under an AMC, while refusing to stay the termination of the AMC, emphasizing the limited protective scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act pending arbitration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 9 Arbitration Act Interim relief Annual Maintenance Contract Termination of contract

M/S DYNAMIC PROJECTS v. UNION OF INDIA

06 Feb 2026 · Subramonium Prasad · 2026:DHC:1071
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator, holding that the referral court's role under Section 11(6) is limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement and that arbitration can be invoked once the contract work is completed despite conditions relating to defect liability period.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Arbitration agreement Competence-competence doctrine