Delhi High Court

35,876 judgments

Year:

Mankind Pharma Limited v. Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd.

14 May 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:3706

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal of Mankind Pharma, holding that the mark 'FLORASIS' is deceptively similar to the prior registered trademark 'FLORA' and directed removal of 'FLORASIS' from the trademark register.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 11(1)(a) Section 11(1)(b) prior use

Romil Gupta Trading as Sohan Lal Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

14 May 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:3697

The Delhi High Court set aside the cancellation of a trademark registration due to the Registrar's failure to give mandatory one month's notice and held that correcting a clerical error without substantial alteration is permissible under the Trade Marks Rules.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 57(4) Rule 37 Trade Marks Rules, 2017 Rule 100 Trade Marks Rules, 2017

Anil Kumar and Ors. v. The State & Anr.

14 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3737

The Delhi High Court quashed a 2013 FIR under Sections 328, 506, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement between parties, emphasizing the Court's power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to end criminal proceedings where continuation would be unjust.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita mental harassment

Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

14 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3732

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a genuine and voluntary settlement between matrimonial parties, emphasizing the role of mediation and abuse of process doctrine.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC mediation

Abid Ali Siddiqui v. State (Govt of NCT Delhi) and Anr

14 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3734

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under section 498A IPC based on a genuine amicable settlement between the parties, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR section 498A IPC amicable settlement memorandum of understanding

Sh. Rakesh Kumar and Ors. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

14 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3729

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC following a genuine settlement between estranged spouses, emphasizing the court's power to prevent abuse of process through amicable dispute resolution.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS 2023 Section 498-A IPC compromise in matrimonial dispute

Rajeev Kumar and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi

14 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3727

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 34, and 406 IPC following a genuine and voluntary amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the Court's power to end criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 498A IPC amicable settlement

Shamikh Shahbaz Shaikh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

14 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3698

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail in a serious cyber fraud case, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation and the distinct approach required for economic offences.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant anticipatory bail cyber fraud economic offences organized crime

Gaurav Jajoria & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

14 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3923

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 506, and 34 following a voluntary mutual settlement between the parties, promoting peace and avoiding futile litigation.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita matrimonial dispute mutual settlement

Hemant Bhardwaj & Ors. v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

14 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3916

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR based on an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the court's power to prevent futile litigation and promote peace.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita private dispute

Ravi Kumar & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

14 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3922

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 following an amicable mediation settlement and mutual divorce, emphasizing the court's power to quash proceedings to promote harmony.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita mediation settlement mutual divorce

Naveen Juyal and Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

14 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3924

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 IPC following an amicable mediation settlement and divorce between the parties, emphasizing the court's power to quash proceedings to promote peace.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS 2023 mediation settlement Section 406 IPC

Pardeep Garg & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

14 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3919

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 of the BNSS following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties, emphasizing the court's power to promote harmony through compromise in matrimonial disputes.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS matrimonial dispute compromise deed

Sakshi Dhall v. Indira Dhall & Ors.

14 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4977

The Delhi High Court upheld the maintainability of a simpliciter suit for partition by a co-owner presumed in joint possession and held that fixed court fee suffices absent pleaded ouster.

civil petition_dismissed Significant partition suit joint possession ouster court fee

Jasleen Kaur v. Sarvjeet Singh

14 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4757

The High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's application to reject the plaint in a malicious prosecution suit, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the suit was within limitation considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation period during the COVID-19 pandemic.

civil petition_dismissed Significant malicious prosecution Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action limitation

M/S MKU Ltd v. Union of India

14 May 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:4580
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, judicial scrutiny is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator to decide disputed issues including limitation and novation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant arbitration agreement Section 11 Arbitration Act judicial scrutiny prima facie existence

ANKUSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI v. JAMSHED ALAM & ORS.

14 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4498

The High Court upheld the setting aside of an ex-parte decree in a summary suit, directing the respondents to deposit Rs.15 lacs to contest the suit and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant ex-parte decree summary suit Order XXXVII CPC Order IX Rule 13 CPC

H AND M HENNES AND MAURITZ RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1) NEW DELHI & ANR.

14 May 2025 · Vibhu BakhrU; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:4173-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued without mandatory prior approval under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, affirming that extended limitation under TOLA does not alter the specified authority for approval.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A Section 151

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-1, New Delhi v. Goto Technologies Ireland Unlimited Company

14 May 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:3747-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that subscription payments for cloud services by a non-resident are not taxable as royalty income under the India-Ireland DTAA and Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant royalty income cloud services software as a service India-Ireland DTAA

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 v. Raja Arora

14 May 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:3749-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's order setting aside an income tax assessment for failure to obtain mandatory prior approval before selecting the return for scrutiny under CBDT Instruction No. 5/2017.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 143(3) Instruction No. 5/2017 prior approval