Delhi High Court

28,224 judgments

Year:

Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover

02 Jul 2018 · Sachin Datta · 2023:DHC:9040
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that the transfer of shares was valid and effective despite alleged non-payment of consideration, dismissing the plaintiff's claim to rescind the agreement and granting no interim injunction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Sale of Goods Act, 1930 transfer of shares Form SH-4 Companies Act, 2013

Shivani Vig Kapoor and Rushi Tiwari Makker v. Registrar of Trademarks

21 Jun 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:9277

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the rejection of the trademark "WONDERFUL WORLD", holding it to be suggestive and registrable, and emphasized the need for reasoned refusal orders.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 9(1)(a) Section 9(1)(b) distinctiveness

R K Associates and Hoteliers Pvt Ltd v. BW Businessworld Media Pvt Ltd

18 Jun 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6644
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed reference of disputes to arbitration and appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rejecting the respondent's contention regarding a subsequent agreement.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 21 notice arbitration clause

Yashoda Hospital and Research Center Limited v. Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital and Anr

12 Jun 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · MANU/IC/0050/2013
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex parte IPAB order removing a trademark for failure to effect due service and violation of natural justice, ordering a fresh hearing.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Intellectual Property Appellate Board rectification petition natural justice

PVR INOX LTD. v. SHEETAL ANSAL & ANR.

07 Jun 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5638

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes between the petitioner and Respondent 1, leaving inclusion of Respondent 2 to the arbitrator's discretion.

civil appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12(2) Arbitration clause

Cadbury U K Limited v. Manoj Agarwal & Ors.

29 May 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:9073

The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark and copyright infringement suit by consent based on a settlement agreement containing undertakings to cease infringing use and withdraw conflicting registrations, and ordered refund of court fees to the plaintiff.

civil settled settlement agreement trademark infringement copyright infringement 5 STAR trademark

M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. v. VIKRAM SURI TRADING AS M/S ARMEX AUTO INDUSTRIES

24 May 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:7588
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that service of a counter statement by email without an email ID provided by the opponent does not constitute valid service under Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and set aside the order deeming the opposition abandoned.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 143 service of documents email service

Karam Bir v. All India Council for Technical Education

12 May 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:3519

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging AICTE's remedial examination modalities, holding that adequate public notice was given, registration deadlines must be respected, and no legal basis existed to relax pass criteria or round off marks.

administrative petition_dismissed AICTE distance learning degree remedial examination public notification

PVR INOX LTD. v. SHEETAL ANSAL & ORS.

11 May 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5637

The Delhi High Court referred disputes between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 3 to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leaving the inclusion of respondent 2 to the arbitrator's determination.

civil appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 21 Section 12(2)

Neeraj Kumar Uttam v. Union of India & Ors.

08 May 2018 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2743-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court directed the CRPF to decide the petitioner's application for withdrawal of resignation under Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, emphasizing that tentative file notings do not constitute binding acceptance.

administrative other Significant resignation acceptance file notings withdrawal of resignation Rule 26(4) CCS Pension Rules 1972

M/S AXALTA COATING SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. M/S PANDIT AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.

20 Apr 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6675

The Delhi High Court directed reference of disputes under a Supply Agreement to arbitration and appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with the respondent's consent.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(5) Section 21 Section 12(2)

GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. v. SURENDRA SINGH

13 Apr 2018 · C. HARI SHANKAR; SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN · 303 (2023) DLT 232 DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing payment of interest on delayed retiral benefits and interest on that interest, ruling that the Interest Act's prohibition on interest on interest does not apply to such administrative tribunal orders.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant interest on interest Interest Act 1978 Central Administrative Tribunal retiral benefits

Ajay Deep Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

11 Apr 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5113

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act due to failure to nominate an arbitrator, directing arbitration to proceed under SAROD rules.

arbitration appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Appointment of arbitrator EPC contract

Ajay Deep Construction Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.

11 Apr 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5112
Cites 0 · Cited by 12

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act after the respondent failed to nominate one, directing arbitration to proceed under SAROD rules.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) appointment of arbitrator EPC contract dispute

Akhilesh Rawat & Anr. v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.

05 Mar 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:1712

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging JNU's policy on Ph.D. supervision by permitting the co-supervisor to take over after the original supervisor's retirement without ruling on the policy's validity.

other other Procedural Ph.D. supervision superannuation university circular writ petition

Akhilesh Rawat & Anr. v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.

05 Mar 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:4001

The Delhi High Court dismissed Prof. Rajeev Kumar's application to recall the disposal order and re-enter a writ petition after he was deleted as a party and did not challenge that deletion, holding he lacked locus standi as the final order did not affect his rights.

administrative petition_dismissed writ petition deletion from array of parties PhD supervision university circular

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v. Ananya Enterprises

28 Feb 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:7180
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court appointed an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, rejecting a one-sided arbitration clause and referring disputes under a loan agreement to arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12(2) appointment of arbitrator

Dr. Prabal Pal v. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors.

07 Feb 2018 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8054-DB

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the writ petition by quashing the second Article of Charge for lack of actionable misconduct while permitting the disciplinary inquiry to continue on the first charge.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary proceedings chargesheet wilful insubordination conduct unbecoming

MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. TIRUPATI TRADING COMPANY

01 Feb 2018 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5878
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to refer disputes under a loan agreement to arbitration, holding that unilateral appointment clauses are unenforceable and arbitration must proceed under institutional rules.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12(5) unilateral appointment of arbitrator

PURI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

23 Dec 2017 · Yashwant Varma; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

The Delhi High Court held that payments of External Development Charges to Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran attract TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, making the petitioners liable for tax deduction and penalty proceedings.

tax appeal_allowed Significant External Development Charges Section 194C Tax Deduction at Source Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran