Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

Astral Ltd v. M/s. Ajay Enterprises

24 Dec 2025 · Tejas Karia, J · 2025:DHC:11925

The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to try a trademark infringement suit where the plaintiff has a subordinate office and part of the cause of action arises in Delhi, notwithstanding the principal office being elsewhere.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction subordinate office cause of action Section 20 CPC

Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v. NIXI & Anr.

24 Dec 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2025:DHC:11874

The Delhi High Court held that domain name registrars must verify registrant details and comply with court orders to block infringing domain names, directing coordinated systemic measures involving banks and law enforcement to prevent trademark infringement and cyber fraud.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Domain Name Registrar Trademark Infringement Interim Injunction Cyber Fraud

A.O. Smith Corporation and Anr. v. Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

24 Dec 2025 · Tejas Karia, J · 2025:DHC:11885
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining defendants from using a trade name and domain name deceptively similar to plaintiffs' registered trademarks, holding such use infringes Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and constitutes passing off.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29(5) interim injunction trade name infringement

Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar and Ors.

24 Dec 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh · 2025:DHC:11862

The Delhi High Court held that Domain Name Registrars must disclose registrant details and block infringing domain names to protect trademark rights and prevent cyber fraud, directing coordinated systemic reforms involving banks, law enforcement, and government agencies.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Domain Name Registrar Trademark Infringement Interim Injunction Privacy Protect Feature

Bhupinder Mehta v. Pradeep Bareja

24 Dec 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:11863

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition cancelling a trademark registered in bad faith, holding that prior user rights and deceptive similarity principles mandate removal of the impugned mark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 57 Rectification Petition Prior user rights

ARCHIDPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. ARCHIT NUWOOD INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

24 Dec 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:11922

The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff's application to amend the plaint by substituting an erroneously signed affidavit with the correct one, emphasizing that procedural errors can be rectified to serve the ends of justice without affecting substantive rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of pleadings affidavit substitution procedural error

South Municipal Corporation v. Central Bureau of Investigation

24 Dec 2025 · Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:11921

The Delhi High Court held that a criminal trial court cannot issue administrative directions for departmental proceedings beyond its criminal adjudicatory jurisdiction, expunged unwarranted observations, and dismissed petitions challenging such directions after compliance.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant jurisdiction of trial court departmental proceedings Prevention of Corruption Act criminal trial

Mr. Manish Kumar Singh and Mr. Mritunjay v. Ex MWO Umesh Chandra Mishra

24 Dec 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3956
Cites 3 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension found to be service-connected despite RMB's contrary finding.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Primary Hypertension Armed Forces Tribunal Release Medical Board

Ms. Himanshi Singh; Ms. Monalisha Pradhan; Ms. Priya Khurana v. Capt. Bhartender Singh Kanwar

24 Dec 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:11961-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition and upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal order granting disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming established precedents on service connection despite late onset.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disability pension Primary Hypertension Armed Forces Tribunal Release Medical Board

Union of India & Ors. v. A Ex JWO Ramesh Kumar Retd

24 Dec 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:11951-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Diabetes Mellitus Type II, affirming consistent precedents that such disabilities may qualify for pension despite RMB findings.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Diabetes Mellitus Type II Armed Forces Tribunal Release Medical Board

Birendra Kumar v. UOI and Ors

24 Dec 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:11958-DB

The Delhi High Court granted leave to withdraw a writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies and disposed of the petition accordingly.

constitutional petition_allowed writ petition withdrawal of petition leave to withdraw alternative remedies

M/S Traffic Media (India) v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

24 Dec 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:11979
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award for failing to adjudicate the core breach of contract issue and lacking proper reasons, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration Act Reasoned Award Breach of Contract

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/S Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

24 Dec 2025 · Nitin Wasudeo Sambre; Anish Dayal · 2025:DHC:11795-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award directing insurer to pay enhanced insurance claim, affirming limited scope of judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and rejecting insurer's challenge based on coercion, forged documents, and surveyor's report.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 37 Insurance claim

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sunita Tyagi & Ors

24 Dec 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:11915
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation award with minor reduction, affirming principles on negligence, future prospects, dependents, and non-deduction of insurance benefits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim rash and negligent driving future prospects multiplier

MMTC Limited v. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Limited

24 Dec 2025 · Nitin Wasudeo Sambre; Anish Dayal · 2025:DHC:11831-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed MMTC's appeal challenging the maintainability of a civil suit to set aside a final arbitral award and contract addendum on grounds of fraud, affirming the exclusive jurisdiction of arbitration law and finality of arbitral awards.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Fraud Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 5 Arbitration Act

GNCTD Through Department of Training and Technical Education v. M/s Human Potential Development and Research Society

24 Dec 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:11801-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld dismissal of a Section 34 petition for non-filing of the Arbitral Award, affirming that such filing is mandatory and COVID-19 relaxations do not excuse procedural non-compliance.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Arbitral Award filing Non-est filing Limitation period

Pawan Dube v. Deepa Tuteja & Anr.

24 Dec 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 636

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to accept delayed affidavits accompanying the Written Statement with costs, emphasizing expeditious disposal and procedural leniency.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Written Statement Statement of Truth admission/denial affidavit procedural delay

Chandan Kumar Sura v. Rachna Shah & Ors.

24 Dec 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:11966
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking expedited disposal of a recently filed contempt petition by the CAT, holding that no interference is warranted without evidence of delay.

administrative petition_dismissed Central Administrative Tribunal Contempt Petition Expeditious Disposal Frivolous Petition

Pramit Jain v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

24 Dec 2025 · Vivek Chaudhary; Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:11965-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking production of a wife who voluntarily chose to live separately, emphasizing respect for individual autonomy and allowing the petitioner to seek other remedies.

constitutional petition_dismissed Habeas Corpus Article 226 Section 528 B.N.S.S. 2023 voluntary separation

Pawan Gupta & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

24 Dec 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:11938

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under multiple IPC sections arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement