Delhi High Court

33,441 judgments

Year:

Rajender @ Kallu v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

28 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:4534

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ seeking emergency parole due to concealment of earlier petitions and false submissions, emphasizing the need for full disclosure and candor in court proceedings.

criminal petition_dismissed emergency parole writ petition concealment of facts false submissions

Vikram Pal v. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr.

28 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:4532

The Delhi High Court directed the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner's furlough request treating disputed parole periods correctly under prison rules.

criminal other furlough parole Delhi Prison Rules Rule 1221

Nishant Pitti v. State of NCT of Delhi & Sonila Mehra

28 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs against Nishant Pitti, holding them to be mala fide and an abuse of process arising from business disputes, affirming the High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs even after chargesheets are filed.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR mala fide prosecution abuse of process

Rajesh Chopra v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 62(1) Delhi

28 May 2025 · Vibhu BakhrU; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:4472-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a Section 148 notice digitally signed on 31.03.2021 but dispatched on 01.04.2021 is deemed issued on the latter date, validating reassessment proceedings under amended provisions and dismissing the petitioner’s limitation challenge.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 notice Section 148A(b) Section 149 limitation

AIR CUSTOMS v. Ram Chander

28 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:4584

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Customs Department's appeal and upheld the acquittal of a police constable accused of smuggling gold, holding that the prosecution failed to prove recovery and seizure beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused's statement under Section 108 Customs Act required corroboration.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 108 Customs Act Section 135(1)(a) Customs Act statement admissibility hostile witnesses

Subhash v. State

28 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:4585

The Delhi High Court quashed the summoning order against police officials in a criminal case due to lack of evidence and absence of mandatory sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC summoning order police officials sanction under Section 197 CrPC

Shiv Dutt Bakshi v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

28 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:4586

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the quashing of FIR registration against a public servant, holding that prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory before investigation or prosecution.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 197 Cr.P.C. Prevention of Corruption Act prior sanction FIR registration

Selle Royal Group S.P.A. v. ACE Footmark (P) Ltd. and Anr.

28 May 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2014 SCC OnLine Del 367

The Delhi High Court cancelled the respondent’s trademark FIZIFREAK for being confusingly similar to the petitioner’s prior trademark fi’zi:k, affirming protection of prior user rights and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off prior user rights trade marks registration

Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu

28 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Renu Bhatnagar
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the wife's appeal for guardianship due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and directed the return of the minor child to the husband in Arizona, emphasizing the child's welfare and respecting foreign custody orders.

family appeal_dismissed Significant guardianship ordinary residence jurisdiction welfare of child

Steelcase Inc. v. Mr. K.J. Bhuta and Anr.

28 May 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:4521

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application for stay and rectification under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, holding that the plea of invalidity of the plaintiff's trademark "STEELCASE" was not prima facie tenable.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 124 prima facie tenability trademark invalidity

Divesh Kumar Dutta v. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr

28 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:4544

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 420 IPC based on an amicable settlement and full restitution, applying the principles of abuse of process and interest of justice under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 420 IPC Section 528 BNSS 2023 amicable settlement

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Bali Ram Trading as Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.

28 May 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:4527

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to remove the impugned trademark 'CROMPTON' for being identical and deceptively similar to the petitioner's well-known mark 'CROMPTON GREAVES', holding it liable for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 well-known trademark rectification prior use

Vinod Kumar Poddar & Anr. v. Local Level Committee through DC South Delhi & Ors.

28 May 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:4517
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

Delhi High Court, exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, appointed a registered institution as legal guardian for a mentally disabled adult and directed a structured transition to institutional care while interim administration of assets continues.

family appeal_allowed Significant parens patriae jurisdiction legal guardianship mentally disabled adult National Trust Act 1999

Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks

28 May 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:4519

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal to register the trademark "ONE FOR ALL" for educational books, holding it to be a common descriptive phrase lacking distinctiveness and not entitled to protection under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 9(1)(a) distinctiveness secondary meaning

Saleem Ahmad v. Shri Sudarshan Kumar Joshi & Anr.

28 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:4606
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s issuance of warrants of arrest under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC for non-compliance in execution proceedings but kept them in abeyance on condition of the petitioner’s appearance and response.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Execution Petition Order XXI Rule 37 CPC civil imprisonment warrants of arrest

Vikram Singh Dalal; Shipra Bali; Pratham Chawla v. Sunita Jain

28 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:4608

The High Court granted the defendant one final opportunity to examine a defense witness who could not appear earlier due to reasons beyond control, subject to payment of costs.

civil appeal_allowed defense witness examination of witness adjournment costs

Deepak Mowar v. Payal Singh & Anr.

28 May 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:4610
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court granted limited interim relief by keeping non-bailable warrants in abeyance and directed the petitioner to seek urgent hearing before the appellate consumer commission without expressing opinion on the merits.

civil petition_dismissed non-bailable warrants execution proceedings consumer disputes redressal commission appeal

Sharafat Ali Ansari & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr

28 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:4545
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 308/34 IPC based on a genuine amicable settlement between the parties, applying Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and Supreme Court precedent.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS 2023 amicable settlement compromise deed

Manish Kumar Lamba & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

28 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:4546

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC on the basis of a genuine settlement and mutual divorce, emphasizing the court's power to prevent abuse of process through amicable dispute resolution.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 498A IPC matrimonial dispute

Ashwini Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

28 May 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:4505

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of NHPC CMD, holding that locus standi is required even in quo warranto petitions and that ACC's approval of eligibility relaxation validates the appointment.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ of quo warranto locus standi eligibility criteria relaxation Appointments Committee of the Cabinet