Delhi High Court
76,343 judgments
Microsoft Corporation & Anr v. Rajesh Divakaran & Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed a civil suit in terms of a voluntary Settlement Agreement acknowledging plaintiffs' copyright ownership and defendants' use of licensed software.
Vipul Kakkar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 IPC following reconciliation between the married parties and withdrawal of the complaint.
PUMA SE & ANR v. FOOTWEAR (KLICK) INDIA PVT LTD & ORS.
The Delhi High Court accepted a voluntary out-of-court settlement in a trademark dispute and decreed the suit accordingly under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
Ram Pyari v. Ram Dulari
The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order dismissing the tenant's leave to defend, finding the landlord's accommodation needs genuine and the tenant's evidence insufficient.
Union of India & Ors. v. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that circulars altering guaranteed wagon allotment terms constituted fundamental contract alteration permitting termination, upheld writ jurisdiction despite arbitration clause, but set aside the arbitrator appointment inconsistent with the arbitration agreement.
Satender @ Satte v. State; Ram Singh @ Aarami v. State
The Delhi High Court heard criminal appeals against convictions of Satender and Ram Singh, referring to an earlier related judgment for detailed reasoning.
Anoj Poddar & Ors. v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute following a lawful and amicable settlement and mutual divorce decree.
Gloria Chauhan v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court ordered restoration of custody of a minor child to the mother, rejecting the father's claim of mental illness and unlawful removal, emphasizing the child's welfare as paramount.
TI Infotech Pvt Ltd v. Sumit Narang & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining defendants from using the plaintiff's software source code based on their denial of infringement and undertaking not to infringe.
Sharvan Jagnani v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation remain unpaid for over five years, regardless of court stay orders preventing possession.
Balwan & Ors v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid within five years, and mere deposit in treasury does not constitute payment.
Manju Sharma v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings pending for over five years without possession or compensation are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, irrespective of interim court stays.
Kusum Lata v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years before the 2013 Act's commencement.
Surinder Singh Dhingra (HUF) and Anr v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not effected within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in court without tendering to landowners does not constitute payment.
B.R.PIPES PVT. LTD & ORS v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not effected within five years of the award.
Manju Bala v. Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation remains unpaid for over five years after the award.
Ryan International School & Anr. v. Hemlata & Anr.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of a dismissal order against a school employee due to lack of evidence and withdrawal of the foundational complaint, clarifying the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
S. Maithani v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Cement Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking change of Inquiry Officer and refused to interfere with ongoing inquiry proceedings despite objections to document admissibility and alleged bias.
Om Prakash & Anr v. Birbal Singh & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding rejection of the plaint for lack of cause of action, barred by limitation, and non-compliance with statutory requirements for pleading fraud in a suit challenging a registered sale deed.
Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Rajesh Kumar and Anr.
The Delhi High Court held that bona fide requirement for eviction must be immediate and not deferred, setting aside eviction order and granting leave to defend on this ground.