Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Sudhir Bhatia Trading As v. Central Government of India & Ors.

19 May 2022 · Jyoti Singh · 2022:DHC:1973

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an illegible trademark advertisement after registration, holding that statutory remedies under the Trade Marks Act must be exhausted and writ jurisdiction is not a substitute.

intellectual_property petition_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 writ petition advertisement of trademark illegible advertisement

MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORPORATION v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

19 May 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:1961-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed appeals as infructuous after the ITAT ruled in favor of appellants on the remanded issue of royalty on shrink wrapped software.

tax appeal_dismissed remand royalty shrink wrapped computer software Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

SEMCO Infratech Pvt Ltd v. Simla Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

19 May 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:2020

The Delhi High Court upheld the amendment of the trademark suit, consolidated related proceedings, and recorded a settlement delineating the use of 'SIMCO' and 'SEMCO' marks across specified classes, thereby resolving the dispute.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Amendment of pleadings Interim injunction

Ayesa Ingenieria y Arquitectura S.A.U v. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited

19 May 2022 · VIPIN SANGHI; JASMEET SINGH · 2022:DHC:1907-DB

Delhi High Court upheld the tender evaluation treating a twin tube metro project as a single contract, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the award on grounds of plausible interpretation and absence of arbitrariness.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Tender evaluation Quality and Cost Based Selection Twin tube tunnel Contract interpretation

SEMCO Infratech Pvt Ltd v. Simla Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

19 May 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:2016
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed amendment of the trademark suit, consolidated related proceedings, and recorded a settlement delineating the use of 'SIMCO' and 'SEMCO' marks across specified classes, thereby disposing of all disputes between the parties.

intellectual_property settled Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Amendment of pleadings Order VI Rule 17 CPC

Mohd Anas v. State (Govt NCT of Delhi)

19 May 2022 · Talwant Singh · 2022:DHC:2002

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail to the accused holding that custodial interrogation is necessary due to non-cooperation and evidence implicating him in a violent assault.

criminal petition_dismissed anticipatory bail custodial interrogation non-cooperation with investigation weapon of offence

PUMA SE v. HI-TEC POINT TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. AND ORS.

19 May 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1947

The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement granting permanent injunction to PUMA SE against defendants using the 'PUMA' mark on GPS devices, directing cessation of use, domain transfer, and removal of infringing online content.

civil settled Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Permanent injunction Settlement decree

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. MOL Corporation

19 May 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:1960-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the ITAT's remand order on royalty payments as infructuous, affirming adherence to binding Supreme Court precedent.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remand order royalty payments Assessing Officer

Yogesh Saraogi & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

19 May 2022 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2022:DHC:1971

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under multiple IPC sections on the basis of a voluntary and amicable settlement between the parties, applying the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR matrimonial disputes non-compoundable offences

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Microsoft Corporation

19 May 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:1963-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals holding that payments for software licensing under EULAs do not constitute taxable royalty income in India, following binding Supreme Court precedent.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 9(1)(vi) royalty software licensing

M/S SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA

19 May 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1945

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal against refusal of the trademark 'SBS World School', directing the Registrar to reconsider the application in light of the appellant's existing similar registrations.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trademark registration Section 11(1)(a) Trademarks Act Section 11(1)(b) Trademarks Act Similarity of marks

SEMCO Infratech Pvt Ltd v. Simla Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

19 May 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:2019

The Delhi High Court allowed amendment of the trademark suit, consolidated multiple proceedings, and recorded a settlement delineating the use of SIMCO and SEMCO marks across specified classes, thereby resolving the dispute amicably.

intellectual_property settled Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Interim injunction Amendment of pleadings

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation v. MOL Corporation

19 May 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:1962-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the ITAT's remand order, affirming that software sales constitute sale of copyrighted articles under the Indo-US DTAA and are not taxable as royalty.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant software sale copyrighted article royalty Indo-US DTAA

Mukish v. State

19 May 2022 · Mukta Gupta; Mini Pushkarna · 2022:DHC:2299-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor under the POCSO Act, relying on scientific evidence and presumption provisions despite hostile witnesses and non-examination of the victim.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act Section 6 POCSO Aggravated penetrative sexual assault DNA evidence

Narendra Kumar Saxena & Anr. v. Surendra Kumar Saxena & Anr.

19 May 2022 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:3349

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator due to lack of territorial jurisdiction over a dispute concerning immovable property situated in Rajasthan, holding that arbitration agreements are separable from underlying contracts and stamping issues do not bar arbitration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration clause territorial jurisdiction immovable property partnership deed

Munesh Kumari v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

18 May 2022 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2022:DHC:1927

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging SDMC encroachment removal notices and ATMCD order, holding that the petitioners must seek remedy before the District Judge as per Supreme Court precedent.

administrative petition_dismissed writ petition Article 226 Article 227 South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Usha Mann v. Rajiv Vaid & Ors.

18 May 2022 · C. Hari Shankar · 2022:DHC:1992

The Delhi High Court held that a party, including a lawyer, cannot be prohibited from self-representation in civil proceedings and quashed an order directing the petitioner to engage counsel or be barred from conducting her own case.

civil petition_allowed Significant self-representation right to conduct own case Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 court authority

Ojha v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks

18 May 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1954

The Delhi High Court clarified procedures for handling trademark oppositions filed beyond limitation during the pandemic, attributed communication lapses to the CGPDTM office, upheld costs on officers, and directed expeditious recruitment to address pendency.

administrative other Significant Trademark opposition Limitation period Extension of limitation Trade Marks Act, 1999

Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks

18 May 2022 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2022:DHC:1952

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal permitting registration of the mark “DON’T WORRY” in Class-3 on a proposed-to-use basis, recognizing prior registrations and use in other classes and imposing conditions to protect common words.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 9 Section 11 proposed-to-use basis

Hardev Singh v. Income Tax Officer Ward 62(1), Delhi

18 May 2022 · Manmohan; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2022:DHC:1950-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed the reopening order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements and remanded the matter for reconsideration after due hearing.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 148A Income Tax Act principles of natural justice reopening assessment reply to show cause notice