Delhi High Court

71,423 judgments

Year:

META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANR

06 Jul 2022 · Navin Chawla · 2022:DHC:2524

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction against defendants using the deceptively similar 'Facebake' mark, recognizing the plaintiff's 'Facebook' marks as well-known trademarks and awarding nominal damages for infringement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant well-known trademark trademark infringement unfair competition permanent injunction

Rahis v. State; Javed v. State; Jakir @ Chuhi v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

06 Jul 2022 · Anu Malhotra · 2022:DHC:2435

The Delhi High Court upheld robbery convictions under Sections 392/34 IPC but restricted Section 397 IPC liability to the appellant who actually used the deadly weapon (ustara), setting aside such conviction for co-accused.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC deadly weapon

Ovington Finance Private Limited v. Mukesh Kumar Sharma; Ovington Finance Private Limited v. Ved Prakash; Ovington Finance Private Limited v. Arjun Singh

06 Jul 2022 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:6025
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw arbitration petitions to serve notice of invocation of arbitration clause, dismissing the petitions as withdrawn.

civil appeal_allowed arbitration petition withdrawal of petition notice of invocation arbitration clause

Rahis v. State

06 Jul 2022 · Anu Malhotra, J. · 2022:DHC:5985
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of one accused for robbery with use of a deadly weapon under Section 397 IPC but set aside the same conviction for co-accused who did not use the weapon, modifying their sentences accordingly.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant robbery Section 397 IPC deadly weapon ustara

Rahis v. State; Javed v. State; Jakir @ Chuhi v. State

06 Jul 2022 · Anu Malhotra, J. · 2022:DHC:5983
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of three appellants for robbery using a deadly weapon (ustara) under Sections 392/34 read with 397 IPC, affirming that only the actual user of the weapon is liable under Section 397 IPC and that reliable witness testimony suffices for conviction despite minor discrepancies.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC deadly weapon

Rahul Sikri v. National Institute of Open Schooling

06 Jul 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:3521

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition challenging the rejection of a correction application as time barred, remanding it for fresh consideration in light of a subsequent NIOS notification and Supreme Court precedent.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant correction of educational records limitation period National Institute of Open Schooling Notification 23/2022

Director General Project Varsha v. Navayuga Van Oord JV

06 Jul 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:7090

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral order restraining invocation of Bank Guarantees, holding that invocation letters complied with BG terms and no special equities justified injunction.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Bank Guarantee Invocation of BG Interim injunction Special equities

Nardev Soni and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

05 Jul 2022 · Siddharth Mridul; Gaurang Kanth · 2022:DHC:2423-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging six-decade-old land acquisition notifications on grounds of delay and acceptance of compensation, reaffirming that stale acquisition proceedings cannot be reopened despite subsequent legal developments.

property petition_dismissed Significant land acquisition delay and laches evacuee property Displaced Persons Act

Pawan Gupta v. Kamal Gupta & Ors.

05 Jul 2022 · Mini Pushkarna · 2022:DHC:2424

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to preserve the petitioner’s share of family business assets pending arbitration, while leaving substantive disputes for the Arbitral Tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant family settlement Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 interim relief Section 17 powers of Arbitral Tribunal

NIPPON A&L INC. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS

05 Jul 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:2434

The Delhi High Court allowed amendment of patent claims from product by process to process claims under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, holding such amendment permissible if within original scope and supported by specification.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant patent amendment product by process claims process claims Section 59(1) Patents Act

Food Corporation of India v. M/S Adani Agri Logistics Ltd.

05 Jul 2022 · Vibhu Bahru · 2022:DHC:2414

The Delhi High Court set aside the arbitral award to the extent it altered the express contractual commencement date of the twenty-year Service Period, holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot rewrite clear contract terms under the guise of interpretation.

commercial arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 28(3) Arbitral award

Anish Gupta v. Union of India

05 Jul 2022 · Siddharth Mridul; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2022:DHC:2416-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that disciplinary proceedings delayed beyond a reasonable time without timely extension lapse, entitling the employee to promotion benefits and closure of proceedings.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Departmental Inquiry Disciplinary Proceedings Prem Nath Bali CVC Circular

Siemens Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Director General Armed Forces Medical Services

05 Jul 2022 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:2428

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act as barred by limitation, holding that arbitration must be invoked within the prescribed period from contract termination.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Limitation Contract termination

Anish Gupta v. Union of India

05 Jul 2022 · Siddharth Mridul; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2022:DHC:2417-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that departmental disciplinary proceedings must be completed within a reasonable time and rejected the Union of India's belated extension request, directing closure of proceedings and granting the petitioner promotion benefits.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Departmental Inquiry Disciplinary Proceedings Prem Nath Bali Extension of time

Philips Lighting Holding B.V. v. Jai Prakash Agarwal

05 Jul 2022 · Navin Chawla · 2022:DHC:2446

The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff's registered design for a T-shaped LED bulb is prima facie infringed by the defendants but also prima facie vulnerable to cancellation due to prior registrations, allowing amendment of cause title and interim relief while leaving final adjudication open.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Design infringement Designs Act, 2000 Registered design Novelty and originality

Novo Nordisk A S v. Union of India

05 Jul 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:2470
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court directed the Deputy Controller to consider the petitioner’s representation substantively and emphasized strict adherence to procedural timelines and transparency in post-grant opposition proceedings under the Patents Act.

intellectual_property petition_dismissed Significant post-grant opposition Patents Act 1970 Patent Rules 2003 Opposition Board

Sanjeev Malhotra & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

05 Jul 2022 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2022:DHC:2511

The Delhi High Court held that co-owners of demarcated property shares can independently seek building plan sanctions without requiring NOCs from other co-owners, setting aside the Municipal Corporation's rejection on that ground.

property appeal_dismissed Significant building plan sanction co-owners No Objection Certificate Master Plan of Delhi 2021

Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd v. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equipments Ltd

05 Jul 2022 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2022:DHC:2412

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award for lack of reasoned adjudication and improper rejection of counterclaims, emphasizing the necessity of clear reasoning and proper issue determination in arbitration awards.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Certificate of Completion of Facilities Performance Guarantee Test

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd v. Kaushalya Devi

05 Jul 2022 · Gaurang Kanth · 2022:DHC:2820

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's decree declaring the electricity theft bill and inspection report illegal and directed restoration of electricity, emphasizing the necessity of due process and conclusive evidence for disconnection.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Electricity theft Section 163 Electricity Act 2003 Inspection report Seizure memo

Roger Yang v. Registrar of Trade Marks

05 Jul 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:2480

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal to advertise the trademark 'TRAVELER'S CHOICE' subject to conditions limiting exclusivity to the composite mark and subject to opposition.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 9 Section 11 Trademark registration