Delhi High Court
71,673 judgments
ATEN CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI & ANR.
The Delhi High Court quashed the reassessment order under Section 148A(d) for failure to consider the assessee’s timely reply, emphasizing mandatory compliance with statutory procedure and natural justice.
Munesh Kumari v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging SDMC notices for encroachment removal, holding that statutory remedies before the District Judge must be exhausted and prior civil suit statements consenting to removal are binding.
Suresh Kumar Garg v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1
The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal's order for failure to independently examine contentions and record reasons, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication with a clear mandate on the necessity of reasoned orders by quasi-judicial authorities.
Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging SDMC notices for encroachment removal, holding that statutory remedies before the District Judge must be exhausted and prior admissions estop the petitioners.
Shailendra Paul v. Mukesh Aggarwal
Delhi High Court set aside arbitral award rejecting petitioner’s claims on fabricated agreement and limitation grounds, remanding for fresh consideration.
M/S Sri Shyam Incorporation v. M/S Shree Balaji Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging a trial court order due to improper language attributing obstinacy to the court, emphasizing the necessity of dignified pleadings and allowing refiling with proper language.
Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. .....
The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging municipal encroachment removal notices and appellate orders, directing petitioners to seek remedy before the District Judge as per Supreme Court precedent.
Satyender Srivastav v. State of NCT of Delhi
Bail was denied to the petitioner accused of repeatedly raping a minor and kidnapping, as the case was at a preliminary stage with risk of witness tampering and no parity with co-accused granted bail.
Radico Khaitan Ltd v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and directed advertisement of the trademark “EFKAY’S XXX RUM” after recognizing valid assignment of earlier marks to the appellant, while restricting exclusive rights over generic terms.
Ojha v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The Delhi High Court upheld costs on CGPDTM officers for procedural lapses, clarified the procedure for oppositions filed beyond limitation during the pandemic, and directed expeditious recruitment and mediation to address trademark opposition pendency.
Udipt Mani Jain v. The State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed bail to accused in an economic offences case, holding that absence on bail order date due to misunderstanding does not indicate flight risk and that the dispute over money receipt is a trial issue.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills
The Delhi High Court upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award for damages under a liquidated damages clause due to failure to plead and prove actual loss, affirming that proof of legal injury is essential even under such clauses.
Ravinder Yadav v. Puneet Kumar Goel & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging the disposal of a contempt petition after the original Court order was modified, holding that the contempt petition lost its maintainability and no illegality was found in accepting respondents' affidavits without advance copies.
Arun Chopra v. Chandra Associates Pvt Ltd
The High Court upheld eviction of a sub-tenant inducted without owner’s consent, affirming limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent control disputes.
Ojha v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The Delhi High Court clarified procedural lapses and directed administrative reforms in CGPDTM’s handling of trademark oppositions filed beyond limitation, while upholding costs and ensuring oppositions proceed on merits without affecting ongoing civil disputes.
Ojha v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The Delhi High Court upheld costs on CGPDTM officers for procedural lapses, clarified the procedure for oppositions filed beyond limitation under pandemic extensions, and directed expeditious recruitment and mediation to address trademark opposition pendency.
M/S Rudraksha Marketing v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1
The Delhi High Court condoned delay and set aside the Tribunal's order for lack of reasoned findings, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
Radico Khaitan Ltd v. Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and directed registration of the trademark “EFKAY’S XXX RUM (Device)” after recognizing the valid assignment of the mark “EFKAY’S” to the appellant, subject to non-exclusivity of descriptive elements.
Gulati Enterprises v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
The Delhi High Court held that mandatory pre-show cause consultation under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is a prerequisite to issuing a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act, and set aside the impugned notice for non-compliance.
M/S BLUE HEAVEN COSMETICS PVT LTD v. SHIVANI COSMETICS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS VINOD MONGA NISHANT MONGA
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to Blue Heaven Cosmetics for trademark and trade dress infringement by Shivani Cosmetics, proceeding ex parte due to the defendant's non-appearance.