Delhi High Court

71,673 judgments

Year:

Ikram & Ors. v. State & Ors.

13 Jun 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4761
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that offences under Section 307 IPC are non-compoundable and refused to quash the FIR despite a settlement between the parties, emphasizing the societal interest in prosecuting serious crimes.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 307 IPC quashing of FIR non-compoundable offences settlement between parties

R K Aggarwal v. Brig Madan Lal Nassa

13 Jun 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4752

The High Court held that in summons cases under Chapter XX Cr.P.C., there is no stage of discharge after summoning, and procedural irregularity in non-service of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. does not vitiate trial if accused are represented and have cross-examined witnesses.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 251 Cr.P.C. summons case discharge of accused Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Renu Sehrawat v. Sunny Sehrawat & Ors.

13 Jun 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4748

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused, holding that mere allegations of threats without evidence do not justify cancellation of bail.

criminal petition_dismissed anticipatory bail cancellation of bail Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. death threats

Munna Lal v. Karan & Ors.

13 Jun 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4750

The Delhi High Court upheld interim maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., ruling that an ex parte decree under Section 9 HMA cannot bar maintenance claims when the wife was unrepresented and prevented from appearing.

family petition_dismissed Significant Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance ex parte decree Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act

Satish Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

13 Jun 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4749

The Delhi High Court upheld bail granted to the accused in a cheating and forgery case, ruling that bail cannot be cancelled on pre-existing grounds absent new facts indicating misuse or interference.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant bail cancellation cheating forgery mortgage concealment

Mayank Pathak v. M/S Elcome Trading Company Pvt Ltd & Anr

13 Jun 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4751

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding territorial jurisdiction and service of notice were proper and the petitioner’s belated jurisdictional plea was inadmissible.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act territorial jurisdiction legal notice service revision petition

Hasim Khan v. Anjum Nissa @ Anjum

13 Jun 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4753

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that typographical errors do not vitiate such orders and factual disputes are to be decided at trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed interim maintenance Section 125 Cr.P.C. revision petition typographical error

Tarun Tyagi v. Central Bureau of Investigation

13 Jun 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4754
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking supply of cloned copies of seized source code discs, holding that refusal to supply unprotected copies to prevent misuse does not warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 482 Cr.P.C. source code cloned copies write-protect software

Horam Singh v. Raman Monga

13 Jun 2016 · P. S. Teji · 2016:DHC:4755

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the summoning order under Section 420 IPC, holding that the Trial Court's discretion to summon the accused at the prima facie stage cannot be interfered with absent manifest illegality.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 420 IPC summoning order Section 482 CrPC prima facie case

Telefonktiebotaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd

10 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4740

The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant a final opportunity to file additional rebuttal evidence within a strict schedule, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines and preventing abuse of court process in a patent infringement suit involving FRAND issues.

civil other Significant patent infringement FRAND rebuttal evidence Section 151 CPC

Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. LAVA International Ltd

10 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2016:DHC:4741

The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of ownership, essentiality, validity, and infringement of standard essential patents, warranting continuation of trial and potential injunction against the defendant for patent infringement under FRAND terms.

civil other Significant Standard Essential Patents FRAND ETSI IPR Policy Section 3(k) Indian Patents Act

Rudravaram Jhansi Rani v. Religare Finvest Limited

10 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4738

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging an arbitral award upholding the respondent's claim for loan repayment with interest, finding no infirmity in the award despite the petitioners' unawareness of arbitration proceedings.

civil petition_dismissed Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act Loan Agreement Interest Rate Dispute

SIDHI INDUSTRIES v. RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED

10 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4742
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioners' objections to an arbitral award as time barred under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, refusing to condone delay beyond the statutory period.

civil appeal_dismissed Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 setting aside arbitral award limitation period

Tecpro Systems Limited v. Indure Private Limited

10 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4743

The Delhi High Court held that unconditional Bank Guarantees can be invoked irrespective of underlying disputes but continued interim protection against encashment during arbitration proceedings upon petitioner’s undertaking to keep guarantees alive.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Bank Guarantee Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 unconditional bank guarantee

Tecpro Systems Limited v. Indure Private Limited

10 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4744

The Delhi High Court held that an unconditional Bank Guarantee is enforceable irrespective of underlying disputes and continued interim stay on its encashment pending arbitration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Bank Guarantee Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 unconditional bank guarantee

WeP Solutions Limited v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

10 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh · 2016:DHC:4739

The Delhi High Court refused ex-parte interim relief to stay the termination of a printing services contract pending arbitration, directing notice to the respondent and further hearing.

civil other Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 interim relief contract termination

Mukesh Sharma v. Roger Shashoua & Ors.

07 Jun 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2016:DHC:4737

The court held that where the arbitration seat is outside India and governed by foreign law, Part I of the Arbitration Act is excluded, rendering Section 34 petitions in Indian courts not maintainable, and upheld the jurisdictional order dismissing the challenge to arbitral awards.

arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 petition jurisdiction seat of arbitration

Mukesh Sharma v. Roger Shashoua & Ors.

07 Jun 2016 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2016:DHC:4736

The Delhi High Court held that Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is excluded where the arbitration seat is in London and the arbitration agreement is governed by English law, rendering Section 34 petitions in Indian courts not maintainable.

arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 petition Jurisdiction Seat of arbitration

Sushil Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

06 Jun 2016 · Manmohan · 2016:DHC:4734

The Delhi High Court upheld the Wrestling Federation of India's selection of the quota-winning athlete for the 2016 Rio Olympics without fresh trials, dismissing the petitioner's plea for a trial and emphasizing the autonomy of sports federations in selection matters.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant National Sports Development Code 2011 Olympic selection trials Wrestling Federation of India quota berth

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. Gillete India Ltd

06 Jun 2016 · Manmohan Singh; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:4735-DB

The Delhi High Court stayed an interim injunction restraining Reckitt Benckiser from using a blue colour similar to Gillete's razors and making unverified superiority claims in advertisements, emphasizing the need for independent verification and considering commercial delay.

civil appeal_allowed Significant interim injunction advertisement disparagement unfair trade practices colour trademark