Delhi High Court

59,687 judgments

Year:

M/S Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

12 Oct 2022 · Satish Chandra Sharma; Subramonium Prasad · 2022:DHC:4217-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking enforcement of a tender agreement, holding that conditional acceptance does not create a binding contract and courts must exercise restraint in reviewing administrative tender decisions involving policy and technical matters.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant tender process conditional acceptance contract formation judicial review

M/S Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

12 Oct 2022 · Satish Chandra Sharma; Subramonium Prasad · 2022:DHC:4216-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking enforcement of a tender agreement, holding that conditional acceptance with additional terms does not form a valid contract and courts must exercise restraint in reviewing administrative tender decisions.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant tender process contract formation conditional acceptance Letter of Acceptance

Dinesh Kumar @ Khali v. State

12 Oct 2022 · Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal · 2022:DHC:4209-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions of three appellants for murder based on a reliable dying declaration and common intention under Section 34 IPC, dismissing challenges to witness credibility and ballistic evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 34 IPC common intention

Allergan Inc and Anr. v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks and Anr.

12 Oct 2022 · Navin Chawla · 2022:DHC:4203

The Delhi High Court held that Section 36E(5) of the Trade Marks Act does not permit deeming of protection for international registrations where timely opposition has been filed, setting aside Registrar orders abating oppositions due to communication failures.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 36E(5) Madrid Protocol International trademark registration

Dhani Loans and Services Limited & Anr. v. WWW.DHANIFINANCE.COM & Ors.

12 Oct 2022 · Navin Chawla · 2022:DHC:4201

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages against a defendant for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off involving deceptively similar marks and domain name, awarding summary judgment due to defendant's non-appearance.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off copyright infringement domain name dispute

Rajesh Kathpal v. M/S Shubh Steel

12 Oct 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3089
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the written statement filed within the Supreme Court's COVID-19 extension of limitation period is timely and refused to strike it off, dismissing the petition under Article 227.

civil petition_dismissed Significant written statement service of summons extension of limitation COVID-19 pandemic

Salim v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

12 Oct 2022 · Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal · 2022:DHC:4220-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for armed robbery and murder, holding that use of deadly weapons by each offender attracts Section 397 IPC individually and firing causing death during escape amounts to murder under Section 302 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant armed robbery Section 394 IPC Section 397 IPC Section 302 IPC

Sunil Kumar Saini v. The District and Sessions Judge

12 Oct 2022 · Vibhu Bahkru; Amit Mahajan · 2022:DHC:4197-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld dismissal of court staff for forging judicial orders, affirming that departmental inquiries require proof on preponderance of probabilities and that absence of handwriting expert opinion does not vitiate disciplinary findings.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings forgery departmental inquiry Motor Vehicles Act

Coronation Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd

12 Oct 2022 · Neena Bansal Krishna J · 2022:DHC:4189

The Delhi High Court held that the unilateral appointment of a Sole Arbitrator violating Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 results in de jure disqualification, mandating termination of his mandate and appointment of a substitute Arbitrator.

other appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) Section 14 de jure disqualification

Coronation Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd

12 Oct 2022 · Neena Bansal Krishna J · 2022:DHC:4187

The Delhi High Court held that a Sole Arbitrator unilaterally appointed in violation of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is de jure disqualified, mandating termination of his mandate and appointment of a substitute Arbitrator under Section 14.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) Section 14 unilateral appointment

Saiyid Sirajul Hasan v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan

12 Oct 2022 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2022:DHC:4186

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's belated amendment application to enhance suit valuation and alter shares, holding it was not necessary for real controversy determination and motivated to retain jurisdiction, and ordered transfer of the suit to the competent District Court.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint suit valuation pecuniary jurisdiction

VAG Educational Services v. Aakash Educational Services Ltd

12 Oct 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:4253

The Delhi High Court held that once arbitral proceedings are terminated on claimant's withdrawal, the arbitrator's mandate ends and he cannot recall the termination order or revive the proceedings.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 32 termination functus officio arbitral mandate

Manish Gupta v. Ameeka Gupta

12 Oct 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:4207-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld IRDA regulations restricting premature release of insurance proceeds, allowed deposit of disputed amounts with the Court, and directed supervised virtual interaction between the appellant and children residing abroad.

family appeal_allowed Insurance policy proceeds IRDA regulations Deposit of disputed amount Parental access

Allergan Inc and Anr. v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks and Anr.

12 Oct 2022 · Navin Chawla · 2022:DHC:4205

The Delhi High Court held that the deeming provision under Section 36E(5) of the Trade Marks Act applies only where no opposition is filed, and the Registrar's failure to communicate opposition to WIPO cannot abate opposition or grant protection to an international registration.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 36E(5) Madrid Protocol International Registration

Ashish Windwani v. State (NCT of Delhi)

12 Oct 2022 · Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2022:DHC:4194

The Delhi High Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to the appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, holding that patent infirmities in conviction justified bail pending appeal without re-assessing evidence.

criminal sentence_modified Significant Section 376(2)(n) IPC suspension of sentence bail during appeal false promise of marriage

Prem Kumar Shrivastava v. Meenu Verma

12 Oct 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:4250

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of a licensee challenging ownership and possession rights of the registered owner under the Benami Transactions Act, upholding the decree for mandatory injunction and recovery of license fee arrears.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 Section 4(1) Benami Act Tehbazari property mandatory injunction

Nanoo v. Vikas Sharma & Ors.

12 Oct 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:4249

The High Court held that Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act does not bar impleadment of legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, and dismissed the petition challenging such impleadment.

civil appeal_dismissed impleadment legal representatives Section 214 Indian Succession Act Order XXII Rule 3 CPC

Sandeep Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

12 Oct 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:4268-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider and grant pro-rata pension with arrears and interest to an ex-IAF personnel discharged on obtaining a civil post, in line with established legal precedents.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pro-rata pension Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Office Memorandum 2005 discharge on civil post

Rajbir Singh v. Union of India

12 Oct 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:4267-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondents to provide the de novo inquiry record and outcome, emphasizing procedural completeness before challenging disciplinary actions.

administrative other writ petition annual increment de novo inquiry disciplinary action

Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India

12 Oct 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:4266-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider and grant pro-rata pension to the petitioner for his past service in the Indian Air Force in line with applicable rules and judicial precedents.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pro-rata pension Indian Air Force Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Office Memorandum 26.07.2005