Delhi High Court

47,108 judgments

Year:

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd

10 May 2019 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2019:DHC:2573

The Delhi High Court held that the strict test for passing off applicable to pharmaceuticals equally applies to nutraceuticals, granting interim injunction against the defendant's deceptively similar trademark 'GLOTAB' infringing the plaintiff's 'GLOEYE'.

civil appeal_allowed Significant passing off nutraceuticals pharmaceuticals trademark infringement

Renu Jain v. Kamla Vati Jain

10 May 2019 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2019:DHC:2574

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting the validity of a registered Will due to lack of proper proof and affirmed the binding nature of a family settlement recorded in a Memorandum of Settlement.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Will execution Indian Succession Act Indian Evidence Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Dwarika Projects Ltd. v. Superintending Engineer, Karnal, PWD (B&R), Haryana

10 May 2019 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2019:DHC:2570

The Delhi High Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award where the seat of arbitration was not fixed in Delhi and the contract and performance were centered in Karnal.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 territorial jurisdiction seat of arbitration

Gopal Krishan v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.

10 May 2019 · S. Muralidhar; I. S. Mehta · 2019:DHC:2569-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against the rejection of a review petition challenging a merger order, holding that such an order is not appealable and the appellant was not entitled to relief as he was not a registered shareholder.

corporate appeal_dismissed Significant Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Section 391(7) Review petition

Praveen Marwah & Anr. v. Rajeev Marwah & Anr.

10 May 2019 · Rajiv Shakdher · 2019:DHC:2591

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve partnership disputes despite respondents denying partnership existence but acknowledging arbitration agreement.

civil appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Partnership Deed Arbitration agreement

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sonu

10 May 2019 · Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:2592

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal in a rape case, holding that the prosecutrix's inconsistent testimony and lack of corroborative evidence failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape sole testimony prosecutrix DNA profiling

Tiny Todd School and College Education Society v. National Council for Teacher Education

10 May 2019 · C. Hari Shankar · 2019:DHC:2580

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioners to appeal against the withdrawal of recognition by NCTE and permitted the institution to continue functioning pending the appeal, emphasizing procedural fairness and the drastic nature of derecognition.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant NCTE Act 1993 withdrawal of recognition Section 17 NCTE Act inspection under Section 13

Ananya Kumar v. Registrar, Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University

10 May 2019 · Siddharth Mridul · 2019:DHC:2579-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a delayed review petition against the withdrawal of a writ petition challenging medical admission policies, holding no error apparent and refusing relief after the admission deadline had passed.

constitutional petition_dismissed review petition writ petition withdrawal Medical Council of India admission schedule

Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt Ltd v. Imperia Structure Limited

10 May 2019 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2019:DHC:2589

The Delhi High Court granted summary decree to the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1.85 crores based on admissions in FIR and rejected the defendant's time-barred counterclaim in a dispute over an unregistered Re-purchase Agreement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC Order VII Rule 11 CPC Re-purchase Agreement Admission in FIR

Deepak Dhemla v. State & Anr.

10 May 2019 · Manmohan; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:2578-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed a 2001 COFEPOSA detention order against the petitioner due to undue delay and absence of a live-link between alleged smuggling activities and detention.

criminal petition_allowed Significant COFEPOSA Act detention order live-link delay in detention

Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva v. State

10 May 2019 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2019:DHC:2577

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction under Section 6 POCSO due to ineffective legal aid and lack of proper cross-examination, ordering a retrial to ensure a fair trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant POCSO Act Section 6 POCSO fair trial effective cross-examination

Syndicate Bank v. Surendra

10 May 2019 · G. S. Sistani; Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:2588-DB

The Delhi High Court held that compulsory retirement without a finding of moral turpitude does not amount to termination for forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and dismissed the Bank's appeal.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 forfeiture of gratuity compulsory retirement termination of service

Lupin Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

10 May 2019 · Vibhu Bakhru · 2019:DHC:2576

The Delhi High Court held that ceiling price notifications fixing prices for Metered Dose Inhaler forms do not apply to Dry Powder Inhalation forms, requiring separate price fixation under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 ceiling price fixation Dry Powder Inhalation (DPI) Metered Dose Inhaler (MDI)

Kishan Lal v. State

10 May 2019 · R. K. Gauba · 2019:DHC:2590

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of dowry death and cruelty charges, holding the victim's death accidental and prosecution evidence insufficient under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dowry death Section 304B IPC Section 498A IPC cruelty

State v. Sanjay

10 May 2019 · Manmohan; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2019:DHC:2587-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's leave petition and upheld the acquittal of the accused in a POCSO and rape case due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and lack of medical and scientific corroboration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sexual assault POCSO Act rape prosecutrix testimony

Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. The State (GNCT), Delhi & Anr

10 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2581

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 498-A, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the ground of amicable settlement between parties, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

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

The State Govt of NCT of Delhi v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd

10 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2582

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Police to deputize a senior officer to inquire into the missing original complaint and submit a report, modifying the trial court's order accordingly.

criminal appeal_allowed missing complaint inquiry police accountability trial court powers

The State Govt of NCT of Delhi v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd

10 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2583

The Delhi High Court directed a senior police officer to inquire into the missing original complaint leading to an FIR and submit a report, modifying the trial court's order accordingly.

criminal appeal_allowed missing complaint FIR police inquiry trial court jurisdiction

Munna Lal & Ors. v. State & Ors.

10 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2585

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 323, 308, and 34 IPC on the ground of amicable settlement and cleared misunderstanding between parties, applying the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction settlement

Rohit Tiwari & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

10 May 2019 · Sunil Gaur · 2019:DHC:2586

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the ground of an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

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