Delhi High Court

59,941 judgments

Year:

Sunil Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi

31 Oct 2022 · Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal · 2022:DHC:4504-DB

SUPREME KNITTING & GENERAL MILLS v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI)

31 Oct 2022 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2022:DHC:4668
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition upholding the dismissal of the protest petition against the police closure report in a trademark dispute, affirming that criminal proceedings cannot substitute civil remedies where the trademark is registered and protected by injunction.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Copyright Act Trade Mark Act Police closure report

Mahendra Rana v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr

31 Oct 2022 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2022:DHC:4593

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking directions for acquisition or passage over landlocked property, holding that easementary rights require civil adjudication and the petitioner’s representation was duly considered and rejected.

property petition_dismissed land acquisition right of way easementary rights Indian Easements Act 1882

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Sunita Devi & Ors.

31 Oct 2022 · Gaurang Kanth · 2022:DHC:4626

Delhi High Court modified motor accident compensation by upholding 10% contributory negligence, recognizing dependency of deceased’s father, and applying Supreme Court principles from Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim contributory negligence dependency future prospects

Vineet@Kala v. The State of Delhi

31 Oct 2022 · Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal · 2022:DHC:4506-DB

Vijay Saini @ Ram Singh v. State

31 Oct 2022 · Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal · 2022:DHC:4503-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including admissible disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 27 Indian Evidence Act circumstantial evidence doctrine of confirmation

Col. A. K Arora v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

31 Oct 2022 · Sachin Datta, J. · 2022:DHC:4534

The Delhi High Court set aside DDA's arbitrary cancellation of allotment and directed restoration of the plot allotment, emphasizing the authority's duty to inform and act fairly when possession is impeded by court orders.

administrative petition_allowed Significant e-auction Delhi Development Authority status quo order possession

KMA Caterers v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation

31 Oct 2022 · Mini Pushkarna
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

Delhi High Court held that the seat of arbitration is New Delhi, has jurisdiction to appoint an independent arbitrator, and struck down the respondent's unilateral appointment procedure as impermissible under the Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedents.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration seat arbitration venue territorial jurisdiction unilateral appointment

Brij Mohan Sehgal v. Pankaj Sanghi

31 Oct 2022 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2022:DHC:4539

The Delhi High Court held that administrative transfers of Public Prosecutors and procurement of biometric attendance machines without financial irregularity do not constitute criminal offences under IPC, dismissing the petition challenging such acts.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Public Prosecutors Transfer and Posting Section 166 IPC Section 405 IPC

Pardeep v. State

31 Oct 2022 · Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal

Delhi High Court upheld convictions of appellants for murder and robbery based on reliable eyewitness testimony and corroborative evidence, modifying sentences under Section 397 IPC and acquitting one appellant for lack of direct involvement.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant eyewitness testimony common intention Section 302 IPC Section 397 IPC

Sanjeev Kumar v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

31 Oct 2022 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2022:DHC:4527

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail to the accused in a serious offence involving outraging the modesty of a woman, emphasizing that absence of custodial interrogation alone does not justify bail.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C. outraging modesty prima facie case

DELHI TELEPHONES CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

31 Oct 2022 · Siddharth Mridul; Amit Sharma · 2022:DHC:4592-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the winding up of a co-operative society for prolonged non-functionality and non-compliance with statutory requirements under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act.

administrative appeal_dismissed Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 Section 96 winding up non-functional society

Kumar Satrughana v. R.S. Grewal & Ors.

31 Oct 2022 · Gaurang Kanth · 2022:DHC:4624

Delhi High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 7.84 lakhs to Rs. 32.4 lakhs for a motor accident victim with 50% permanent disability, applying multiplier method and awarding actual medical and future expenses.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation permanent disability loss of future earnings

M/S. M.M. TRADERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.

31 Oct 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:4672-DB

The Delhi High Court held that import of insecticides for non-insecticidal use requires a valid import permit under the DGFT notification and directed issuance of such permit upon furnishing requisite information.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Insecticides Act, 1968 import permit non-insecticidal use ethephon

M/S RISE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

28 Oct 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:4540-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside the reassessment notice and order under the Income Tax Act for AY 2016-17, holding that reassessment cannot be based on mere change of opinion without fresh material and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 reassessment Section 148 notice Section 148A(d) order

Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

28 Oct 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:4566

The Delhi High Court lawfully consolidated multiple suits relating to Kalkaji Mandir under Section 24(1)(b) CPC and appointed an Independent Administrator to ensure effective management, with Supreme Court dismissing challenges to these orders.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 24(1)(b) CPC Kalkaji Mandir Independent Administrator Consolidation of suits

KRBL LIMITED v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI AND ORS

28 Oct 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · W.P.(C) 14964/2022

The Delhi High Court directed the revenue to pass appeal effect orders and refund Rs.16.45 crore with interest to the petitioner following the ITAT order in their favor.

tax petition_allowed Income Tax Appellate Tribunal appeal effect order refund interest

Bharat Foundry and Engineering Works & Ors. v. Intec Capital Limited & Anr.

28 Oct 2022 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2022:DHC:4553
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld ex-parte arbitral awards and held that mere non-disclosure of multiple appointments by an arbitrator does not vitiate awards absent proof of bias, affirming the arbitrator’s eligibility and the binding nature of ex-parte awards.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12 disclosure Schedule V and Schedule VII Arbitrator impartiality

Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan v. Rajesh Ahuja

28 Oct 2022 · SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA; SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD · 2022:DHC:4512-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt petition against GNCTD for alleged non-compliance of NFSA implementation orders, holding no wilful disobedience was proved and affirming the legal standard for contempt requires deliberate breach beyond mere delay.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Contempt of Court Wilful Disobedience National Food Security Act, 2013 Aadhaar Authentication

FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD.

28 Oct 2022 · Jyoti Singh · CS(COMM) 54/2022

The Delhi High Court vacated the interim injunction against Tata SIA Airlines, holding that the use of 'FLY HIGHER' is descriptive and not trademark infringement of Frankfinn's 'FLY HIGH' mark, given the distinct services and lack of likelihood of confusion.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Descriptive mark Likelihood of confusion