Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.

07 May 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:3382

The Delhi High Court held that the dyeing agent or pigment is an essential element of the plaintiff's patent and dismissed the interim injunction application as the defendants' products lacking this element do not prima facie infringe the patent.

intellectual_property petition_dismissed Significant patent infringement dyeing agent or pigment essential element doctrine of equivalents

Ajay Kumar and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr

07 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3768

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce between the parties, emphasizing the futility of continuing criminal proceedings.

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

Akash Bisht v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

07 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3467

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case involving intermediate quantity of charas, holding that the statutory bar under Section 37 does not apply and bail is justified given the trial stage and petitioner’s antecedents.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act intermediate quantity regular bail Section 37 NDPS Act

Cholpon Bisht v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

07 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3466

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a foreign national accused in an NDPS case involving intermediate quantity of Charas, holding that statutory bail bar under Section 37 does not apply and foreign nationality alone cannot deny bail when passport is seized.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant NDPS Act intermediate quantity bail foreign national

Karan Kochhar and Ors v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr

07 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3436

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual divorce between the parties, applying Supreme Court precedents to prevent further animosity.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute mutual divorce settlement agreement

Radhey Shyam & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

07 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3414

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406 and 498A IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute following an amicable settlement and withdrawal of maintenance proceedings.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 406 IPC Section 498A IPC

Pawan Kumar Mittal v. Vijay Gupta & Ors.

07 May 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:5313-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court set aside an unreasoned refusal of ex parte injunction in a trademark infringement suit and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of injunction, waiver of service, and appointment of Local Commissioner.

civil appeal_allowed Significant ex parte injunction trademark infringement passing off Local Commissioner

Karan Arora and Ors. v. State of Delhi NCT and Anr.

06 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3364

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC following a mutual divorce and amicable settlement between the parties, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 498-A IPC Section 406 IPC

Himanshu Yadav & Ors. v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

06 May 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:3348

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 308, 452, and 34 IPC based on a genuine compromise between the parties, affirming the Court's power to end criminal proceedings where continuation would be unfair or an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita compromise in criminal cases amicable settlement

Mohd Danish v. The State NCT of Delhi

06 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3459

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for regular bail in a case involving serious allegations of sexual assault, blackmail, and digital exploitation supported by forensic evidence, holding that such matters require trial and bail is not warranted at this stage.

criminal appeal_dismissed regular bail sexual assault digital exploitation criminal intimidation

Sachin Tomar v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

06 May 2025 · Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3376

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 506 and 509 IPC based on a voluntary settlement between the parties, reaffirming the court's power to quash proceedings to promote peace and avoid futile litigation.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 506 IPC Section 509 IPC settlement agreement

Umesh Chand Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors.

06 May 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:3335-DB

The Delhi High Court held that recovery of excess GPF payments made due to employer’s bona fide mistake without employee fault is impermissible after retirement and quashed the recovery, directing refund with interest.

administrative petition_allowed Significant excess payment recovery General Provident Fund bona fide mistake Article 14

Sonia v. Sita Ram

06 May 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4458

The High Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC without a finding of undervaluation and correct valuation, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the trial court's order.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC undervaluation of relief rejection of plaint Section 115 CPC

J M Traders v. Union of India

06 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3791-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to defective service of notice and lack of personal hearing, directing fresh adjudication while leaving the validity of extension notifications pending before the Supreme Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice GST portal Section 168A Central GST Act natural justice

IE Venture Fund I v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi 4 & Anr

06 May 2025 · Vibhu BakhrU; Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:3537-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that non-claim of carry forward loss in subsequent years does not preclude settlement of a dispute relating to reduction of loss under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

tax petition_allowed Significant Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme DTVSV Rules carry forward loss reduction of loss

National Research Development Corporation & Anr. v. M/S ARDEE HI-TECH PVT. LTD.

06 May 2025 · Jasmeet Singh · 2025:DHC:3939
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator, holding the arbitration notice valid and within limitation, applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act liberally, and directing appointment of an independent arbitrator in line with Supreme Court precedents on impartiality.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 14 Limitation Act Notice invoking arbitration

Rajender Prasad v. Government of NCT of Delhi

06 May 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:3912
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, the court's role is limited to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, leaving merits and limitation issues to arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration Act appointment of arbitrator scope of judicial scrutiny prima facie arbitration agreement

JM Traders v. Union of India

06 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3570-DB

Delhi High Court set aside GST adjudication order passed without personal hearing and directed fresh hearing, leaving validity of extension notifications to Supreme Court.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant GST Act Section 168A show cause notice personal hearing

MMR Electricals v. Sales Tax Officer Class II, Ward106, Zone 4, Delhi

06 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3584-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a sales tax demand order, holding that the petitioner had opportunity to be heard and must pursue remedy by filing an appeal under the CGST Act.

administrative petition_dismissed Article 226 Constitution of India Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 Section 107 CGST Act show cause notice

Charu Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax

06 May 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Rajneesh Kumar Gupta · 2025:DHC:3575-DB

Delhi High Court set aside GST adjudication orders and remanded for fresh hearing, leaving validity of extension notifications open pending Supreme Court decision.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Goods and Services Tax Section 73 GST Act Section 168A GST Act Show Cause Notice