Delhi High Court
33,441 judgments
The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Microsoft Corporation
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.
M/S SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA
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.
SEMCO Infratech Pvt Ltd v. Simla Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation v. MOL Corporation
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.
Mukish v. State
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.
Narendra Kumar Saxena & Anr. v. Surendra Kumar Saxena & Anr.
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.
Munesh Kumari v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.
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.
Usha Mann v. Rajiv Vaid & Ors.
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.
Ojha v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
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.
Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
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.
Hardev Singh v. Income Tax Officer Ward 62(1), Delhi
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.
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.