Delhi High Court
31,024 judgments
S Farhan Husain v. Dr. Shamim
The Delhi High Court upheld that eligibility for recruitment must be determined as on the application deadline, and retrospective recognition of qualifications cannot validate candidates not qualified on that date.
Shri Braham Prakash v. Shri Rohtash
The Delhi High Court dismissed a second appeal filed after a 1650-day delay, refusing to condone the delay based on the appellant's counsels' government appointments and the appellant's failure to prosecute the case diligently.
Rahul Mavai v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed after six years of unexplained delay, holding that delay and laches disentitle a petitioner from discretionary relief under Article 226, and negligence of counsel alone does not excuse such delay without convincing proof.
Ex. Major General M.S. Jaswal v. Union of India and Ors
The High Court held that a charged officer is entitled to inspect GCM proceedings during trial but certified copies only after conclusion and signing, upholding the Army Rules and relevant Supreme Court precedents.
Rohita Jaidka v. Air India Limited
The Delhi High Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable against Air India Limited post-privatization as it ceases to be a public authority, dismissing the petition but allowing the petitioner to seek alternate remedies.
Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover
The Delhi High Court held that the transfer of shares was valid and effective despite alleged non-payment of consideration, dismissing the plaintiff's claim to rescind the agreement and granting no interim injunction.
Shivani Vig Kapoor and Rushi Tiwari Makker v. Registrar of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the rejection of the trademark "WONDERFUL WORLD", holding it to be suggestive and registrable, and emphasized the need for reasoned refusal orders.
R K Associates and Hoteliers Pvt Ltd v. BW Businessworld Media Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court directed reference of disputes to arbitration and appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rejecting the respondent's contention regarding a subsequent agreement.
Yashoda Hospital and Research Center Limited v. Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital and Anr
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex parte IPAB order removing a trademark for failure to effect due service and violation of natural justice, ordering a fresh hearing.
PVR INOX LTD. v. SHEETAL ANSAL & ANR.
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes between the petitioner and Respondent 1, leaving inclusion of Respondent 2 to the arbitrator's discretion.
Cadbury U K Limited v. Manoj Agarwal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark and copyright infringement suit by consent based on a settlement agreement containing undertakings to cease infringing use and withdraw conflicting registrations, and ordered refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. v. VIKRAM SURI TRADING AS M/S ARMEX AUTO INDUSTRIES
The Delhi High Court held that service of a counter statement by email without an email ID provided by the opponent does not constitute valid service under Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and set aside the order deeming the opposition abandoned.
Karam Bir v. All India Council for Technical Education
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging AICTE's remedial examination modalities, holding that adequate public notice was given, registration deadlines must be respected, and no legal basis existed to relax pass criteria or round off marks.
PVR INOX LTD. v. SHEETAL ANSAL & ORS.
The Delhi High Court referred disputes between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 3 to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, leaving the inclusion of respondent 2 to the arbitrator's determination.
Neeraj Kumar Uttam v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court directed the CRPF to decide the petitioner's application for withdrawal of resignation under Rule 26(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, emphasizing that tentative file notings do not constitute binding acceptance.
M/S AXALTA COATING SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. M/S PANDIT AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.
The Delhi High Court directed reference of disputes under a Supply Agreement to arbitration and appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with the respondent's consent.
GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. v. SURENDRA SINGH
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing payment of interest on delayed retiral benefits and interest on that interest, ruling that the Interest Act's prohibition on interest on interest does not apply to such administrative tribunal orders.
Ajay Deep Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act due to failure to nominate an arbitrator, directing arbitration to proceed under SAROD rules.
Ajay Deep Construction Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act after the respondent failed to nominate one, directing arbitration to proceed under SAROD rules.
Akhilesh Rawat & Anr. v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging JNU's policy on Ph.D. supervision by permitting the co-supervisor to take over after the original supervisor's retirement without ruling on the policy's validity.