Delhi High Court

70,895 judgments

Year:

Jiya Lal and Others v. Manav Bharti India International School

29 Jul 2022 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2022:DHC:3362
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that Labour Court under Section 33 C(2) Industrial Disputes Act cannot adjudicate disputed entitlement claims and dismissed the writ petition challenging denial of arrears computation.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Section 33 C(2) Industrial Disputes Act Delhi School Education Act Section 10 Labour Court jurisdiction Computation of arrears

Theos Food Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Theobroma Foods Pvt. Ltd.

29 Jul 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:2918

Delhi High Court recorded an amicable settlement between Theos and Theobroma resolving trademark disputes over 'THEOS' and 'THEOBROMA' marks with territorial and usage restrictions.

civil settled Procedural Trademark infringement Passing off Unfair competition Amicable settlement

Devender Pal Singh v. Union of India

29 Jul 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:2841-DB

The Delhi High Court held that employees promoted to ASI rank on or after 01.01.2006 are entitled to pay fixation at not less than the entry pay fixed for direct recruits, directing re-fixation with arrears and interest.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant pay fixation Assistant Sub-Inspector Central Industrial Security Force Assured Career Progression Scheme

Dr Ajay Chhabra v. Union of India

29 Jul 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:3037-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking interim participation in an interview due to age limit issues, upholding a Tribunal's consent order directing disposal of the petitioner's representation.

administrative petition_dismissed consent order interim relief age limit Government of India letter

Dinesh Jhunjhunwala v. Citixsys Technologies Ltd.

29 Jul 2022 · Navin Chawla, J. · 2022:DHC:2874

The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal of a company petition under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, holding that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to inspect and challenge the register of members before maintainability is denied on membership grounds.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Companies Act 1956 Section 397 Section 398 Section 399

Neetu Rani & Ors. v. Kishan Devi @ Kishori Devi

29 Jul 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:3078

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as abated due to the appellants' failure to substitute the deceased respondent despite multiple opportunities.

civil appeal_dismissed appeal abatement substitution of deceased party procedural compliance dismissal of appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Air India Ltd.

28 Jul 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:2862-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act does not override the beneficial provisions of a DTAA, allowing tax deduction at source at the lower DTAA rate even if the non-resident payee lacks PAN.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 206AA Double Tax Avoidance Agreement Tax Deduction at Source PAN

TCG Media Limited v. Maxposure Media Group India Pvt. Ltd.

28 Jul 2022 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2022:DHC:2861

The Delhi High Court appointed the sole arbitrator under the valid arbitration agreement to adjudicate disputes arising from the Business Transfer Agreement, leaving issues of limitation and pendency to be decided by the arbitrator.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) appointment of arbitrator Business Transfer Agreement

Dinesh v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

28 Jul 2022 · Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal · 2022:DHC:2914-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for murder based on consistent and credible testimonies of injured child witnesses corroborated by medical evidence and motive.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant child witness testimony injured witness murder Section 302 IPC

MEGALOGIX v. ST.MARTINS DIOCESAN SCHOOL

28 Jul 2022 · Prateek Jalan · 2022:DHC:6017

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that a two-member tribunal clause is invalid and the respondent's failure to appear permits such appointment.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 10(1) Section 10(2)

NAYATlHEALTHCARE AND RESEARCH PVT LTD v. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD

28 Jul 2022 · V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2022:DHC:6031

The Delhi High Court dismissed arbitration petitions as withdrawn following an amicable settlement between Nayati Healthcare and Kotak Mahindra Prime.

arbitration appeal_dismissed arbitration settlement withdrawal of petition dismissal as withdrawn

Ramesh Nath Sharma v. Raj Nath Sharma

28 Jul 2022 · Rekha Palli · 2022:DHC:2848

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to condone a 522-day delay in filing it, holding that vague reasons like illness and pandemic do not justify such inordinate delay without specific explanation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay partition suit appeal sufficient cause

M/S Leo Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs

28 Jul 2022 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2022:DHC:2894-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the 90-day timeline for submission of the Inquiry Report under Regulation 20(5) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 is mandatory, and delay beyond this period invalidates the revocation proceedings against a customs broker.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 Regulation 20(5) mandatory timeline Inquiry Report delay

Padam Kumar Dagar v. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)

28 Jul 2022 · Anu Malhotra · 2022:DHC:2833

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of financial fraud under the Land Pooling Policy, emphasizing cooperation with investigation and parity with co-accused already on bail.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail financial fraud Land Pooling Policy Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd.

Sh. Harish Singh Rawat v. Union of India

28 Jul 2022 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Tushar Rao Gedela · 2022:DHC:2884-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition challenging the dismissal of his Original Application by the Tribunal, granting liberty to file a review petition before the Tribunal.

administrative appeal_dismissed withdrawal of petition Original Application Tribunal review petition

Daljit Singh Sumbrya v. Union of India

28 Jul 2022 · Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee · 2022:DHC:2851-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s claim for increments and pay scale benefits in accordance with a prior coordinate bench judgment.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ of mandamus date of assumption of charge increment grant Assistant Sub Inspector (Clerk)

Novartis A G & Anr. v. Supermax Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited & Anr.

28 Jul 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:2989

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction restraining defendants from manufacturing or selling patented Nilotinib during the patent term based on their bid submissions indicating infringement.

civil appeal_allowed patent infringement permanent injunction Nilotinib pharmaceutical patent

S Chand and Company Ltd v. Preeti Agarwal & Ors.

28 Jul 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:2869

The Delhi High Court approved a settlement restraining defendants from using the author's name and branding in competing publications, enforcing publishing agreement terms and preventing misleading representations.

civil settled Significant publishing agreement right of first refusal negative covenant copyright infringement

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. The Chief Commissioner, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities

28 Jul 2022 · Rekha Palli · 2022:DHC:2849

The Delhi High Court held that the Chief Commissioner under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 cannot issue binding directions for retrospective promotions, and such orders are only recommendatory.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Chief Commissioner Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Section 75 jurisdiction

Bakshi Mohemmed Riyazuddin v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

28 Jul 2022 · Jasmeet Singh · 2022:DHC:2863

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR under the Arms Act against a petitioner for mere possession of ammunition without conscious knowledge, emphasizing that conscious possession is essential for criminal liability under the Arms Act.

criminal petition_allowed Significant conscious possession Arms Act, 1959 ammunition possession quashing of FIR