Delhi High Court

69,037 judgments

Year:

Yahoo! Inc v. Sanjay Patel & Ors.

01 Sep 2016 · S. Muralidhar · 2016:DHC:6214

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to Yahoo! Inc. against Apricot Foods Pvt. Ltd. and its director for unauthorized use of the well-known 'YAHOO' trademark on snack products, holding it to be trademark infringement and passing off.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Permanent injunction Well-known trademark

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board v. Shashi Malik & Ors.

01 Sep 2016 · Sanjiv Khanna; Sunita Gupta · 2016:DHC:6213-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme cannot retrospectively withdraw financial upgradations vested under the earlier Assured Career Progression Scheme.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme financial upgradation retrospective effect

Neetu Tuli v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

01 Sep 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:6211

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by an individual member seeking possession of land allotted to a Cooperative Society, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi and the claim was barred by laches despite repeated representations.

civil petition_dismissed Significant locus standi laches delay writ petition

M/S PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LTD. v. AMITABH DEVENDRA & ANR.

01 Sep 2016 · Sunil Gaur · 2016:DHC:6223

The Delhi High Court allowed an interim injunction restraining the respondent association from issuing communications undermining the appellant's exclusive copyright licensing rights, emphasizing the presumption of ownership under Section 55 of the Copyright Act.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant interim injunction copyright infringement exclusive license Copyright Act 1957

Suraj Singh @ Sunny v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

01 Sep 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:6208

The Delhi High Court disposed of the victim's appeal for enhancement of sentence as settled after the respondents voluntarily offered additional compensation, and the victim chose not to proceed.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 372 Cr.P.C. enhancement of sentence victim compensation criminal appeal

Krishan Kumar v. Union of India

01 Sep 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6209
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal holding that a civil suit challenging statutory disciplinary orders under the CISF Act is barred by res judicata and limitation, and such orders must be challenged by writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant CISF Act disciplinary authority statutory orders res judicata

Harkirat Singh Ryait v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

01 Sep 2016 · S.P. Garg · 2016:DHC:6210

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the charge under Section 328 IPC, holding that at the charge framing stage, the victim's allegations of administration of a substance to vitiate consent cannot be disbelieved despite absence of medical evidence.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 328 IPC Section 376 IPC charge framing victim's consent

Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors.

01 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6200

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable FIR under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on an amicable settlement, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

Narinder Kumar Sikka v. State (NCT of Delhi)

01 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6201

The High Court upheld the framing of charges against the petitioner for using a forged invitation letter to obtain a visa, holding that sufficient prima facie material existed at the charge framing stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed framing of charge forgery cheating invitation letter

Ashok Kumar Bind v. State NCT of Delhi

01 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6202

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to recall prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination, holding that once witnesses are examined, cross-examined, and discharged, they cannot be recalled merely due to ineffective earlier cross-examination or change of counsel.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall of witnesses cross-examination ineffective cross-examination

Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.

01 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6203

The Delhi High Court quashed a non-compoundable matrimonial offence FIR under Section 498-A IPC based on an amicable settlement, exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC matrimonial dispute

Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. State (GNCT of Delhi)

01 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6204

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of a husband charged with murder of his wife, holding that parity with co-accused does not guarantee bail and serious offences require careful scrutiny before granting bail.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail Section 302 IPC aluminum phosphide poisoning parity in bail

Inderjeet @ Poppy v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

01 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6205

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of Inderjeet @ Poppy in a murder case, holding that the prima facie evidence and risk of witness tampering justified denial of bail.

criminal petition_dismissed bail Section 439 CrPC murder Section 302 IPC

Harbhajan Singh v. State

01 Sep 2016 · P.S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6206

Bail was rightly refused to an accused charged with murder who was declared a proclaimed offender and absconded, with the court holding that parity with co-accused granted bail is not an absolute ground for release.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail proclaimed offender Section 302 IPC parity principle

Ravi Kant Prabhakar v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

01 Sep 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:6207

Bail was denied to the petitioner accused of cheating and forgery involving fraudulent discount coupons due to pending investigation, non-arrest of co-accused, and risk of tampering with evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed bail Section 439 Cr.P.C. cheating forgery

MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt Ltd v. Union of India; IBIBO Group Pvt Ltd v. Union of India

01 Sep 2016 · S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru · 2016:DHC:6193-DB

The Delhi High Court held that DGCEI cannot arrest officials or take coercive action without issuing a show cause notice under the Finance Act, and that online travel agents are liable to pay service tax only on their commission, not on gross hotel booking amounts.

tax appeal_allowed Significant service tax Finance Act, 1994 DGCEI powers arrest

M/S MANGLAYATAM PROJECTS PVT LTD v. DHARAM VEER SINGH THR LRS & ANR

01 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6226

The Delhi High Court granted specific performance of a sale agreement for agricultural land, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration and obtaining necessary statutory clearances.

civil appeal_allowed specific performance Agreement to Sell sale consideration legal notice

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Medi Pharma & Another

01 Sep 2016 · Hima Kohli · 2016:DHC:6229

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining defendants from using the trademark "POLYCAP" for pharmaceutical products, holding it infringed the plaintiff's registered mark and goodwill.

civil appeal_allowed trademark infringement passing off permanent injunction pharmaceutical trademark

Paramjit Kaur & Ors. v. Teja Singh & Ors.

01 Sep 2016 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:6220

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a restrictive clause in a Will prohibiting alienation of property for 10 years post-death, declared a relinquishment deed violating this clause void, and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the appellants.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Will proof Indian Succession Act restrictive covenant relinquishment deed

Amtul Habib v. Maujma Khan

01 Sep 2016 · Jayant Nath · 2016:DHC:6230

The Delhi High Court set aside the order granting leave to defend in an eviction petition under the DRC Act, affirming the landlord's bona fide requirement and ownership, and passed an eviction order against the tenant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) leave to defend landlord-tenant relationship