Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Gur Amritpal Singh Multani v. Mahesh Kumar & Ors.

14 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:3849

The Delhi High Court dismissed the motor accident claim appeal as withdrawn following an amicable settlement between the vehicle owner appellant and the respondents.

civil appeal_dismissed Procedural Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation

Sachin Dahiya & Anr v. Union of India

14 May 2025 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:3815
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that his death by being run over while crossing railway tracks did not amount to an untoward incident under the Railways Act, thus no compensation was payable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Railway Claim Tribunal Act bona fide passenger untoward incident Railways Act Section 123(c)

Rajat Pillai & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

14 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3735

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC on the basis of a valid 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 BNSS 2023 Section 498A IPC settlement agreement

Raghav Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi

14 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3728

The Delhi High Court dismissed the accused's second interim bail application on medical grounds for seizure treatment, emphasizing the seriousness of charges and directing timely medical care within custody.

criminal appeal_dismissed interim bail medical grounds seizures knee injury

Sudhir Dhaka v. NTPC Ltd & Ors.

14 May 2025 · Prateek Jalan · 2025:DHC:3726

An employee acquitted in criminal proceedings is entitled to full pay, leave encashment, and ex-gratia for suspension period treated as duty, but not to allowances or promotions contingent on active service.

labor petition_allowed Significant suspension promotion earned leave half pay leave

Gaurav Narula & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

14 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3746

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC in a matrimonial dispute after the parties reached a full and final compromise and mutual consent divorce.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC matrimonial dispute compromise

Sumit Kumar and Ors v. State Through SHO PS Maidan Garhi and Anr

14 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3743

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC on the ground of a voluntary compromise and full settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC

Jatin Bhola & Ors. v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

14 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3742

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC on the ground of compromise and mutual settlement between parties in a matrimonial dispute.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC

Atul Singh and Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

14 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3759

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground of compromise and full settlement between parties in a matrimonial dispute.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Dowry Prohibition Act compromise

NXXXX XXXXX v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

14 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3723

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking directions for further investigation, holding that the Investigating Officer's decision to issue notice instead of arrest was lawful and no interference was warranted.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 41A CrPC fair investigation protest petition sexual assault

Hukum Chand @ Monu v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

14 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3725
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court dismissed interim bail sought for medical treatment of piles in a murder case, holding that the ailment was not serious and appropriate treatment was already provided in custody.

criminal appeal_dismissed interim bail medical treatment piles Section 302 IPC

Deepak Tyagi v. State NCT of Delhi

14 May 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:3722

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a dacoity case on the principle of parity with a co-accused, considering his lesser involvement and procedural irregularities in arrest.

criminal appeal_allowed bail parity dacoity conspiracy

Pluto Travels India Private Limited v. PTW Holidays Private Limited

14 May 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2933
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction restraining defendant from using the deceptively similar mark "PLUTO TOURS" infringing plaintiff's registered trademark "PLUTO" in travel services.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement interim injunction deceptive similarity passing off

Sushila Devi Mittal & Amit Mittal v. Shikha Garg

14 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:3761
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court quashed domestic violence proceedings against the brother-in-law due to lack of specific allegations and held that general claims without material cannot sustain such complaints under the DV Act.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 482 CrPC domestic violence specific allegations

Anique Abdullah v. Mahenoor @ Eirum

14 May 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:3762

The Delhi High Court modified the interim maintenance payable by the husband under the Domestic Violence Act, reducing it to Rs.20,000 per month after considering the parties' income, property, and children's educational expenses.

family petition_allowed Significant interim maintenance Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12 DV Act Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Indorbit Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

14 May 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:3718
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC cannot be granted merely due to defendants' default without the plaintiff proving prior adoption and use of the trade dress, and thus refused to pass a decree without trial in a passing off and copyright infringement suit.

civil other Significant Order VIII Rule 10 CPC passing off trade dress copyright infringement

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