Delhi High Court
28,840 judgments
CLN ENERGY PVT. LTD. v. E ASHWA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to resolve disputes arising from a contract containing a valid arbitration clause after the respondent failed to cooperate.
TOMMORROWLAND LIMITED v. SHAKTI AND CO.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an execution petition under Order XXI CPC based on the judgment debtors' counsel's undertaking to pay the remaining decretal amount within two weeks.
Rathesh Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
The High Court correctly refused to quash summons under Section 138 NI Act at the pre-trial stage, emphasizing the limited scope of quashing and the applicability of legal presumptions requiring trial to determine the existence of debt.
Rathesh Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act cannot be quashed at the pre-trial stage on mere factual disputes about debt existence, affirming the need for trial to adjudicate such issues.
Angela Rani Bhasin @ Angela Sharma v. The State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from matrimonial disputes under Section 482 CrPC following an amicable settlement between the parties safeguarding minor children's rights.
Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd v. Dr. Ashish Jain and Ors.
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that limitation and other preliminary objections must be decided by the arbitral tribunal, thereby preserving arbitral autonomy.
SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. DREAMZ11 AND ANR.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction against defendants for trademark infringement and passing off of the registered mark "Dream11" and restrained use of the confusingly similar mark "dreamz11" and domain name.
Simmi Arora & Anr. v. The State & Ors.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 468, 471, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement between parties, directing costs to be paid by the petitioners.
Narender Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under sections 354A/509/34 IPC based on a voluntary settlement between parties and the complainant's no-objection, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ritu Johari v. Vineet Taneja & Ors.
The Delhi High Court suspended visitation rights pending final custody adjudication, emphasizing the child's emotional wellbeing and allowing confidential use of counsellors' reports in legal proceedings.
Vikash Saini & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under sections 498A/406/34 IPC in a matrimonial dispute following an amicable settlement and divorce decree, emphasizing courts' duty to encourage such settlements.
Jasvinder Singh v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR alleging forgery and fraud in a property dispute, holding that title issues are for civil courts and criminal proceedings should continue.
Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and related criminal proceedings under Sections 380, 427, and 442 IPC following an amicable settlement and considering the petitioner’s medical condition and bleak prospects of conviction.
MS Oxygun Health Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Pneumo Care Health Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Delhi High Court dismisses appeal against decree for trademark and design infringement, upholding injunction, damages, and evidentiary principles under amended CPC and Trade Marks Act.
Neelam Agnihotri v. State
The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and proceedings against a petitioner accused of employing a minor domestic help, holding that the victim was not a minor and no prima facie offence was made out under Section 75 JJ Act.
Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt Ltd v. Rudrapur Precision Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Precitech's Section 9 petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Rent Agreement confers jurisdiction solely on courts at Rudrapur, despite consent to Delhi as arbitration venue.
7d431e07f16782e39486f86f36658bbb5f2ea178753808e74a92ffd2cc2925e9
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's quashing of unilateral valuation and recovery orders passed without jurisdiction and proper procedure under the UP VAT Act, affirming principles of natural justice and territorial jurisdiction.
Priya alias Pooja v. Hari Chand and Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside a first appellate court's order for erroneously exercising second appellate jurisdiction and failing to re-appreciate evidence, condoned delay in filing the second appeal, and remitted the matter for de novo consideration.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v. Jigs Chemical Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit against both defendants, upheld a court-mediated settlement with Defendant 2, dismissed Defendant 1's application to set aside ex parte order, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Ltd v. United Trading Company
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate a loan repayment dispute governed by a valid arbitration agreement.