Delhi High Court

58,912 judgments

Year:

Honasa Consumer Limited v. Cloud Wellness Private Limited & Anr.

26 Sep 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:8662

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim injunction application in a copyright and passing off suit over skincare product trade dress, holding that disputed questions of originality, prior use, and distinctiveness require trial and that mere similarity in colour schemes without evidence of confusion does not warrant interim relief.

civil petition_dismissed Significant copyright infringement trade dress passing off interim injunction

XERO DEGREES v. M/S FRANKART GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

26 Sep 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:8663

The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff to file additional WhatsApp communications at a preliminary stage under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC upon establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure, emphasizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC reasonable cause additional documents disclosure of documents

G4S LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. 4GROUP SAFEGUARD AND SECURITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

26 Sep 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:8657

The Delhi High Court granted and confirmed interim injunction restraining defendants from using marks deceptively similar to plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'G4S', holding that corporate name registration does not excuse trademark infringement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Interim injunction Trade Marks Act 1999

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

26 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8703

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 451, 323, 506, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement non-compoundable offences

HOTELS.COM, LP v. BARATH M L AND ANR

26 Sep 2025 · Tejas Karia, J · 2025:DHC:8656

The Delhi High Court granted summary judgment in favor of HOTELS.COM, LP, restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks and awarded damages for trademark infringement and passing off.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Summary Judgment Initial Interest Confusion

Aethlon Medical, Inc v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks

26 Sep 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:8666

Delhi High Court remanded a patent refusal under Section 3(i) for fresh consideration of amended claims, holding that belated objections cannot be entertained and amendments at appellate stage are permissible.

intellectual_property remanded Significant patent application Section 3(i) Patents Act novelty inventive step

Helsinn Healthcare SA & Anr. v. Hetero Healthcare Limited

26 Sep 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:8658

The Delhi High Court held that the period for filing replication in a suit where the defendant's written statement is belatedly filed and condoned starts from the date the written statement is taken on record, allowing the plaintiff's replication filed within that period.

civil petition_allowed Significant Replication Written Statement Condonation of delay Rule 5 Chapter VII Delhi High Court Rules

Vinkal Prakash v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

26 Sep 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:8719

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC based on an amicable settlement between estranged spouses, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

Neeraj Gupta v. The Controller of Patents and Designs

26 Sep 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:8664

The Delhi High Court set aside the Controller's rejection of a patent application for an intravenous catheter device due to inadequate reasoning on inventive step and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant inventive step patent application valve closure member prior art

Afzal v. State (NCT of Delhi)

26 Sep 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:8726

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for robbery at knife point, holding that credible eyewitness testimony sufficed despite absence of CCTV footage and public witnesses.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant robbery knife point apprehension recovery of stolen property

Omwati v. The Bank of Maharashtra and Anr

26 Sep 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:8676
Cites 9 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Bank’s policy of including notional interest income from terminal benefits in family income calculation, dismissing the petitioner’s claim for ex-gratia payment under compassionate appointment scheme.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant ex-gratia payment compassionate appointment notional interest income terminal benefits

Naresh Batra v. Anand Prakash Bansal

26 Sep 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:8600-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the decree of specific performance, holding that the plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract under the Agreements to Sell.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act Agreement to Sell

Poonam Agarwal v. Government of NCT

26 Sep 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:8681
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that non-renewal of a contractual employee’s contract contrary to established appraisal policy and motivated by pregnancy was arbitrary, entitling her to contract renewal and maternity benefits with compensation.

administrative petition_allowed Significant contract renewal performance appraisal maternity benefits maternity leave

Sallauddin v. The State NCT of Delhi

26 Sep 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:8680

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a murder case, emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, despite the seriousness of charges.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant regular bail prolonged pre-trial detention right to speedy trial Article 21

State of Delhi v. Shyam & Anr

26 Sep 2025 · Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:8672

The Delhi High Court upheld conviction under Sections 325/323/34 IPC and dismissed the State's appeal seeking conviction under Section 308 IPC, affirming that grievous injuries without intention or knowledge to cause death do not attract Section 308 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 308 IPC grievous hurt intention to cause death probation of good behaviour

CROCS INC v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS NEW DELHI & ANR.

26 Sep 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:8660

The Delhi High Court allowed Crocs Inc.'s petition to cancel a deceptively similar trademark registration, holding that the impugned mark infringed the prior registered 'CROCS' mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Trademark cancellation Deceptive similarity Prior user

Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v. Bhanwar Lal Dhabhai and Ors.

26 Sep 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:8659
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages against Defendant No. 1 for infringing the registered trademark "SANDVIK" by using deceptively similar marks on identical goods, establishing liability for trademark infringement and passing off.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Permanent injunction Deceptively similar marks

ChamelI Devi v. Ashwani Kumar & Anr.

26 Sep 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:8675

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief under Article 227 preventing MCD from demolishing the petitioner's property until the non-functional Appellate Tribunal MCD hears the stay application.

administrative petition_allowed Article 227 Constitution of India Appellate Tribunal MCD interim relief stay application

Manish Kumar Giri alias Sabi Giri v. Union of India and Ors.

26 Sep 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:8653-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court referred to a Full Bench the question of whether the Armed Forces Tribunal can adjudicate constitutional challenges to statutory provisions like Section 9 of the Navy Act, holding that such challenges generally lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of constitutional courts.

constitutional other Significant Armed Forces Tribunal Navy Act constitutional validity jurisdiction

M/S DEN DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS PVT LTD v. M/S EXPLORER ASSOCIATES

26 Sep 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:8683

The High Court upheld the trial court's discretion to allow additional evidence before the defendant's evidence commenced, emphasizing that disputes must be decided on merits rather than procedural defaults.

civil appeal_dismissed additional evidence trial court discretion Article 227 Constitution of India leading evidence