Delhi High Court

29,725 judgments

Year:

Sunil Kumar Dawar v. District Magistrate & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:7194

The Delhi High Court held that the Registrar has no power to annul a registered Sale Deed alleged to be fraudulently executed, and such disputes must be resolved by Civil Courts.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Registration Act 1908 Section 81 Registration Act Section 82 Registration Act Sale Deed

Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited

22 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:7167

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's injunction application, holding that 'YATRA' is a generic term and the Defendant's marks 'BOOKMYYATRA' and 'BOOKMYYATRA.COM' do not infringe or pass off the Plaintiff's trademarks.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Generic mark Descriptive mark

Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr. v. The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P.

22 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:7159

The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit involving online business, emphasizing purposeful targeting and commercial transactions within the forum and restricting interference under Article 227 to cases of patent illegality.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction trademark infringement Section 134 Trade Marks Act Section 20 CPC

Champion Project Enterprises & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:7165

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition alleging copyright infringement of the 'SPAN' Project by the Government's APAAR ID Project due to lack of evidence of copying or unauthorized use.

constitutional petition_dismissed copyright infringement intellectual property Article 226 Right to Information Act

Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks

22 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:7141
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma's appeal and set aside the refusal to register the trademark 'PETKIND', holding that the appellant's prior use and goodwill in the 'KIND' family of marks outweighed the similarity with the cited mark under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 11(1) likelihood of confusion KIND family of marks

Brigadier Sudarshan Kumar Grover v. Brig. (Retd.) Surinder Kumar Grover

22 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7301

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to allow examination of additional witnesses at a belated stage in a long-pending partition suit, dismissing the petition under Article 227.

civil petition_dismissed Order XVI Rule 1 CPC additional witnesses partition suit closure of evidence

Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks

22 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:7143

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Registrar's rejection of the trade mark “PRO.FITNESS”, holding that distinctiveness must be assessed as a whole without dissecting composite marks.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 9(1)(a) distinctiveness Anti-Dissection Rule

Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Ram Kumar M/s Dr. Kumars Pharmaceuticals

22 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:7142
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma's petition to cancel the 'UNKIND' trademark registered by the respondent for non-use and deceptive similarity with the petitioner's established 'KIND' family of marks.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 rectification petition non-use of trademark deceptive similarity

Allied Blenders and Distillers Limited v. Kulbir Singh & Anr.

22 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:7158
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to remove the 'ROGER' trademark registered by Respondent No.1 for non-use under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, recognizing the Petitioner as a person aggrieved with prior rights in the 'JOLLY ROGER' mark.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 47 non-use person aggrieved

GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. DILEEP KUMAR ALIAS DILIP & ANR.

22 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:7256

The Delhi High Court upheld the award of 60% permanent functional disability and compensation to the injured claimant while staying the award pending deposit of the decretal amount, rejecting the insurer's challenge on disability quantum but issuing notice on delay in DAR and loss of income evidence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Detailed Accident Report Permanent functional disability Loss of future earnings

CONDOR FOOTWEAR (INDIA) LIMITED v. NEXGEN FOOTWEAR PRIVATE LIMITED

22 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia, J · 2025:DHC:7140

The Delhi High Court held that additional documents filed with replication in response to specific denials in a commercial suit are permissible under court rules without separate leave, dismissing the defendants' appeal against their admission.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC Replication Additional Documents

Ranjan Rattan Vadhera v. State & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Tejas Karia, J · 2025:DHC:7154
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review application and upheld the dismissal of probate petition due to failure to prove the Testatrix's signature on the Will as required under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, rejecting the applicability of the presumption under Section 90.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Will Probate Indian Evidence Act Section 69

Joginder Pal Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7211
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that a petition for letters of administration cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on limitation grounds based on extraneous material beyond the petition, and validity challenges to the Will require trial.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC limitation Indian Succession Act 1925 letters of administration

Navin Ahuja v. Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi, NCT of Delhi & Anr

22 Aug 2025 · Sanjeev Narula · 2025:DHC:7212

The Delhi High Court set aside the Sentence Review Board's rejection of a life convict's premature release for inadequate reasoning and remanded the case for reconsideration in line with legal principles emphasizing reformative progress.

criminal remanded Significant premature release Sentence Review Board life imprisonment reformative progress

Mohd. Ubaid v. New Delhi Municipal Council

22 Aug 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:7218

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ seeking regularization of a shop license, holding that eviction of the predecessor-in-interest had attained finality, barring any transfer of rights, and that repeated litigation constituted abuse of process barred by res judicata.

property petition_dismissed Significant regularization license deed eviction order res judicata

Mohit Goel & Ors. v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

22 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:7180

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement between matrimonial parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR

Inderjeet & Ors. v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.

22 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:7202

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC based on a voluntary amicable settlement in a matrimonial dispute, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

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

Fardeen Ali & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

22 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:7181

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under non-compoundable offences based on a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

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

Harikant Tripathi v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr

22 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:7208

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under multiple IPC sections based on an amicable settlement between parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justice.

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sterlite Power Transmission Ltd.

22 Aug 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:7249
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court condoned a 22-day delay in filing an insurance appeal, emphasizing adjudication on merits over technical delay, subject to cost.

civil petition_allowed Significant condonation of delay appeal limitation insurance claim deficiency in service