Delhi High Court

30,090 judgments

Year:

Star Sintered Products Ltd. v. Karan Bhutani

31 Jul 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:6286

The Delhi High Court set aside the order closing the appellant's right to file a reply in trademark rectification petitions due to lack of clear proof of effective service, granting a final opportunity to file the reply with costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 rectification petitions service of notice limitation

TREIBACHER INDUSTRIE AG v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

31 Jul 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:6291

The Delhi High Court set aside the Controller's refusal of a patent application for lack of reasoned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of amended claims under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Patents Act, 1970 Section 59(1) Amendment of claims Inventive step

Ved Prakash Garg v. Dhruv Singh

31 Jul 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:6267

The Delhi High Court cancelled the Respondent's deceptively similar trademark registrations "FUNSHINE" in favour of the prior user "FUNFINE" under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Trademark infringement Deceptive similarity Prior user rights

VI-John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India Limited

31 Jul 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:6269

The Delhi High Court held that a trial court must independently consider condonation of delay applications on merits and set aside disproportionate cost imposed solely based on a prior precautionary order.

civil appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay cost imposition written statement amicable settlement

TABLETS (INDIA) LIMITED v. M/S. SPEY MEDICALS PRIVATE LIMITED & THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS

31 Jul 2025 · Tejas Karia, J · 2025:DHC:6268

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a trademark opposition as deemed abandoned due to the opponent's failure to submit evidence or notify non-submission within prescribed timelines, affirming the mandatory nature of procedural compliance under the Trade Marks Act and Rules.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Trade Mark Rules, 2017 Opposition proceedings Counter statement

Celebi Ground Handling India Private Limited v. Union of India

31 Jul 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4755

The Delhi High Court upheld the revocation of the petitioner's security clearance by BCAS on national security grounds, affirming the statutory authority to act without adherence to natural justice principles in such cases.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Security Clearance Bureau of Civil Aviation Security National Security Revocation

Somdutt v. Narcotics Control Bureau

31 Jul 2025 · Arun Monga · 2025:DHC:6308
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a large-quantity NDPS case considering prolonged incarceration, slow trial progress, and absence of prima facie material indicating knowledge, clarifying the application of Section 37 NDPS presumption at bail stage.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS prolonged incarceration

Sahil Alias Bhondi v. State of NCT of Delhi

31 Jul 2025 · Arun Monga · 2025:DHC:6307

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a murder case due to lack of direct evidence and eyewitness identification, emphasizing that mere suspicion and circumstantial evidence are insufficient to deny bail.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC disclosure statement

State Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Jaidev

31 Jul 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6310

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions and imposed punitive sentences on police officers convicted of persistent sexual offences against neighbors, emphasizing proportionality and deterrence in sentencing.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant sexual offences sentencing Delhi Police Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

Mr. Sumit Mishra; Ms. Muskan Gupta; Ms. Mokshita Sharma v. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

31 Jul 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:6309

The Delhi High Court held that independent, non-executive, and nominee directors not involved in day-to-day management cannot be held liable under Section 141 NI Act, quashing summons against them, while upholding summons against directors actively managing the company.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act Independent Director liability Non-executive Director

Kanta Devi v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

31 Jul 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:6290

The Delhi High Court held that prior medical examination during ad-hoc government service exempts an employee from fresh medical tests upon regular appointment, entitling the family to pension despite non-submission of a fresh medical fitness certificate.

administrative petition_allowed Significant family pension medical examination government service pensionable post

Shilpa v. State NCT of Delhi

31 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6274

Anticipatory bail was granted to the accused under the NDPS Act where only a co-accused's confessional statement implicated her and she was already on bail in other cases.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail NDPS Act confessional statement co-accused

Savan v. State of NCT Delhi and Another

31 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6300

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 69 BNS on the ground of amicable settlement between parties who subsequently married and are living together.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 69 BNS amicable settlement inherent jurisdiction

Rohit Khatri alias Jonty v. State of NCT of Delhi

31 Jul 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6272

Anticipatory bail was granted to the accused due to incomplete and unreliable medical evidence and investigation despite allegations of grievous injuries.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail grievous injury medical evidence investigation

Avon Solutions and Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

30 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:6364-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to inadequate notice and remanded the matter for fresh hearing, leaving the validity of extension notifications to the Supreme Court.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST portal Additional Notices Tab Section 168A GST Act

Avon Solutions and Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

30 Jul 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:6362-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to improper notice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving the validity of extension notifications pending before the Supreme Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST portal Section 168A Central GST Act natural justice

M/S R.K. Jain and Sons Hospitality Services (P) Ltd v. New Delhi Municipal Council

30 Jul 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:6493
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that judicial scrutiny at this stage is limited to prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving merits to the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of arbitrator scope of judicial scrutiny

Atul Goyal v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

30 Jul 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6254

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act following amicable settlement and payment of dues, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 135 Indian Electricity Act Section 528 BNSS amicable settlement

Roopa Goyal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)

30 Jul 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:6253-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed the time-barred Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16, holding TOLA 2020 inapplicable and reaffirming the limitation period under Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act Section 149(1) limitation Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment) Act 2020 AY 2015-16 reopening

Rajesh Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43(1)

30 Jul 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar · 2025:DHC:6246-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of disputed Income Tax notices and orders under Sections 148 and 148A, emphasizing procedural compliance and opportunity of hearing.

tax other Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act Section 148A Income Tax Act Section 153C Income Tax Act time-bar