Delhi High Court

60,196 judgments

Year:

Jaypee Healthcare Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

07 Sep 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:3570

The Delhi High Court reduced the pre-deposit amount from 40% to 20% under Section 7-O of the EPF Act, allowing the petitioner to deposit the reduced amount to admit the appeal before the CGIT.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pre-deposit Section 7-O Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Mohd Ershad Sole Proprietor EK Agencies v. Registrar of Copyrights & Ors

07 Sep 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:3557

The Delhi High Court held that cancellation of the mandatory no objection certificate under Section 45 of the Copyright Act invalidates subsequent copyright registration of an artistic work, ordering removal of a deceptively similar label's registration.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Copyright Act, 1957 Section 45 Section 50 No Objection Certificate

Gurjeet Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

07 Sep 2022 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2022:DHC:3553

The Delhi High Court dismissed bail to the accused in an NDPS case involving intermediate quantity of opium and large unaccounted cash, holding that procedural irregularities are trial issues and bail is not automatic.

criminal appeal_dismissed NDPS Act bail intermediate quantity opium

Phulgita Devi v. Krishan Kmar & Ors.

07 Sep 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:3569

The Delhi High Court set aside a trial court order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lack of reasoning and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC res judicata cause of action valuation of suit property

Prabhat Ranjan v. Union of India & Ors.

07 Sep 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:3514-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 before retirement, in line with established legal precedents.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pro-rata pension Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Notification no. 28/30/2004-P & PW (B) writ of mandamus

R Kartikeyan Iyer v. Union of India & Ors.

07 Sep 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:3513-DB

The Delhi High Court directed respondents to consider and grant pro-rata pension with arrears and interest to a discharged Air Force employee in line with earlier binding judgments.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pro-rata pension Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Notification no. 28/30/2004-P & PW (B) Indian Air Force pension

Aditi Bakht v. Abhishek Ahuja

07 Sep 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:3581
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's refusal to admit an additional affidavit without formal amendment, emphasizing limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and directing the Family Court to decide the guardianship petition on merits.

family petition_dismissed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India Guardians and Wards Act Section 12 Family Court Supervisory jurisdiction

M/S. BALAJI ENTERPRISES v. PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE & ORS

07 Sep 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:3765-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside the cancellation of GST registration due to vague show-cause notice and procedural lapses, emphasizing mandatory compliance with natural justice and CGST Rules.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant GST registration cancellation show-cause notice natural justice Rule 25 CGST Rules

Rajiv Sikka & Anr v. Ashok Kumar Jain

07 Sep 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3560
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court upheld the discretionary appointment of a local commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC before evidence was led, dismissing the petition challenging the order under Article 227 as a misuse of jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC local commissioner Article 227 Constitution of India discretionary order

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. MS. PNB Housing Finance Ltd

07 Sep 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:3682-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the ITAT's deletion of disallowances under Sections 36(1)(viii) and 14A of the Income Tax Act, affirming that Section 14A does not apply to exempt income from investments held as stock-in-trade.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 36(1)(viii) Income Tax Act Section 14A Income Tax Act stock-in-trade exempt income

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Nath

07 Sep 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:3536-DB

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Transport Corporation to recognize the respondent under the Employee Pension Scheme, 1995 and complete pension disbursal within six weeks, disposing of the petition accordingly.

labor petition_allowed Employee Pension Scheme, 1995 EPF 1995 Delhi Transport Corporation pension coverage

Mohan Sakpal and Anr. v. Abhay Goyal and Anr.

07 Sep 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:3510
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the NCDRC's discretionary order directing company directors to appear personally in execution proceedings, clarifying the limited scope of Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Article 227 Constitution of India National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission execution proceedings directors personal appearance

Anita Rai v. State

07 Sep 2022 · Anu Malhotra · 2022:DHC:3491

The Delhi High Court directed police to register an FIR for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, holding that refusal to register FIR in such cases is impermissible and police must investigate the offence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant bigamy Section 494 IPC FIR registration Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Bizibi Infotech Pvt Ltd v. HCL Infosystem Ltd

06 Sep 2022 · Prateek Jalan · 2022:DHC:3477

The Delhi High Court dismissed Bizibi's petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding the claims ex facie barred by limitation and partly outside the arbitration agreement.

arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Limitation Ex facie time-barred Arbitrability

Jasween Sandhu v. State

06 Sep 2022 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2022:DHC:3627

The High Court held that only the drawer and signatory of a cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and quashed the complaint and summons against a non-drawer petitioner.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Dishonour of cheque Drawer liability Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act

Arun Kumar Murarka v. Rajesh Sultania & Anr.

06 Sep 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:3609

The Delhi High Court held that a trademark opposition filed within the pandemic-extended limitation period must be accepted by the Registry, rendering a cancellation petition infructuous and directing the Registry to update the trademark status accordingly.

intellectual_property petition_dismissed Significant Trademark opposition Extension of limitation COVID-19 pandemic Trade Marks Act 1999

M/S P. M. K VASTARA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. v. OFFICE OF THE JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (DISTT.- SOUTH) AND ANR

06 Sep 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:3508

The Delhi High Court directed the petitioner to deposit the awarded amount within eight weeks to set aside the ex-parte Labour Court Award, dismissing the writ petition for delay and non-compliance.

labor appeal_dismissed ex-parte Award Labour Court Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 setting aside ex-parte order

PCIT, Delhi-7 v. M/S PNB Housing Finance Ltd

06 Sep 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:3506-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the income tax appeal challenging ITAT's deletion of disallowance under Section 36(1)(viii), emphasizing the importance of consistency and no substantial question of law arising.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 36(1)(viii) disallowance total business receipts

Cross Fit LLC v. RTB Gym and Fitness Centre

06 Sep 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:3499
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and costs to Cross Fit LLC against RTB Gym for unauthorized use of the 'CROSSFIT' trademark, and initiated contempt proceedings for violation of the injunction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Permanent injunction Contempt of court

Amrit Sandhu Coster v. State & Another

06 Sep 2022 · Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2022:DHC:3628

The Delhi High Court quashed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act holding that a cheque issued in discharge of a time-barred debt does not attract penal liability.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act time-barred debt legally enforceable debt quashing petition