Delhi High Court

74,231 judgments

Year:

Qarshi Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Abdul Mueed & Ors.

17 May 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:1694-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal seeking interim injunction in a passing off suit over the trademark 'JAM-E-SHIRIN', holding that a strong prima facie case is required against a registered proprietor and that pleadings must be complete before grant of injunction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant passing off trademark interim injunction descriptiveness

Maruti Traders v. Itron India Pvt Ltd

15 May 2015 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5291

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award dismissing the petitioner’s claims for exclusive dealership and commission, holding that no valid contract existed prior to the Reseller Agreement and that the respondent’s direct sales and appointment of other resellers did not breach the non-exclusive reseller agreement.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Reseller Agreement Non-exclusive dealership

Duttmenon Dunmorsett v. Union of India

14 May 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; A. K. Chawla · 2018:DHC:4217-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court held that reimbursements for senior counsel fees cannot be included in the taxable value of services under the Finance Act, 1994 prior to the 2015 amendment, quashing the service tax demand on such reimbursements.

tax petition_allowed Significant service tax valuation of taxable services reimbursements Finance Act 1994

Gagan Sharma v. The Secretary, Services Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

11 May 2015 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:4208
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed a belated claim for compassionate appointment by the son of a deceased Work Charge employee, reaffirming that such appointments must be granted promptly to families facing immediate financial crisis and are not a vested right.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant compassionate appointment delay laches financial crisis

Mandir Shri Krishan Bhagwan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

10 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3737-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years from the award date.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse non-payment of compensation

Sanjay Khanna v. M/S Vasu Tech Ltd. & Ors.

06 May 2015 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2016:DHC:3576

The Delhi High Court dismissed defendant's leave to defend application in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, holding that a corporate guarantee with personal endorsement constitutes a written contract and that frivolous defenses of duress cannot defeat recovery.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Corporate Guarantee Order XXXVII CPC Leave to defend Written contract

Shiv Lal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

02 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3405-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years, granting the petitioners a declaration of lapse.

property petition_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24(2) acquisition proceedings lapse

Shiv Lal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi

02 May 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2016:DHC:3408-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years of the award, regardless of possession claims.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 compensation non-payment acquisition proceedings lapse

GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED v. M/S RATHI STEEL AND POWER LTD

28 Apr 2015 · Vibhu BakhrU · 2022:DHC:632

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that limitation is a substantive issue for arbitration unless claims are ex-facie barred.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Limitation Pay For If Not Taken

ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. DABICO Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors.

23 Apr 2015 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:7900

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for appointment of a local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC to inspect defendants' products for patent infringement, holding that sufficient evidence already existed and the provision cannot be used to gather better evidence.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC scientific investigation local Commissioner patent infringement

Hira Lal Bhat v. Chairman and Managing Director BSNL and Ors.

11 Apr 2015 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9915-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

Delhi High Court held that emergency medical treatment expenses incurred by a government employee in a non-empanelled hospital must be fully reimbursed, overruling the Tribunal's denial and emphasizing the binding nature of Emergency Certificates.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant medical reimbursement emergency treatment liver transplant surgery Central Government Health Scheme

Patricia Helen Atwal v. M/S ING Vyasa Bank Ltd.

31 Mar 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:705-DB

Surinder Singh Sachdev v. Canara Bank & Ors.

23 Mar 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Indermeet Kaur · 2016:DHC:395-DB

Tanveer El Umar Khan v. State & Anr

21 Mar 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:2382-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 379 IPC and Section 135 Indian Electricity Act following amicable settlement and payment by the petitioner, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC illegal abstraction of electricity Section 379 IPC

Ali Emam Khan v. State & Anr

21 Mar 2015 · Siddharth Mridul · 2016:DHC:2834-DB

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under the Indian Electricity Act for illegal abstraction of energy following an amicable settlement and payment of dues by the petitioner.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Indian Electricity Act 2003 illegal abstraction of electricity amicable settlement

Sanjay Kumar Dubey v. Union of India

18 Mar 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:2323-DB

The Delhi High Court modified the removal and dismissal penalties imposed on two CISF personnel for misconduct during a scuffle, emphasizing limited judicial review and proportionality in disciplinary actions.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry disciplinary proceedings CISF service revolver

Sanjay Kumar Dubey v. Union of India

18 Mar 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Deepa Sharma · 2016:DHC:2322-DB

The Delhi High Court modified the removal and dismissal penalties imposed on two CISF personnel for misconduct, holding that while evidence supported misconduct, the punishment was disproportionate and warranted reduction.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry disciplinary proceedings judicial review Article 226

Navayuga Engineering Co. P Ltd v. Public Works Department

15 Mar 2015 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:2151-DB

The Delhi High Court restored parts of an arbitral award allowing market rate claims for delay caused by the employer under Section 55 of the Contract Act, while rejecting bonus claims based on altering the scheduled completion date.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration award Extension of time Market rates Section 55 Indian Contract Act

MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC v. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

13 Mar 2015 · Sanjeev Narula · 2023:DHC:3748
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

Delhi High Court set aside the patent office's rejection of a software patent application under Section 3(k), directing re-examination under the 2017 CRI Guidelines emphasizing technical contribution and effect.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Patents Act 1970 Section 3(k) computer program per se technical contribution

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SATYAPAL SINGH YADAV

09 Mar 2015 · C. HARI SHANKAR; AJAY DIGPAUL · 2025:DHC:487-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of departmental punishment against a police constable acquitted in criminal proceedings, holding that mere hostility of witnesses does not justify disciplinary action under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 Rule 12 DPPAR criminal acquittal departmental proceedings