Delhi High Court

36,666 judgments

Year:

Rakesh Kumar Soin v. Sh. Nitin Soin & Ors.

16 Apr 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:2682

The High Court allowed reopening of evidence and cross-examination in a civil suit despite prior non-appearance, emphasizing merit-based adjudication subject to costs and strict compliance.

civil appeal_allowed Significant non-appearance closure of evidence cross-examination medical exigency

Prime Care Hospital Ltd. & Anr. v. Kamla Devi Deceased & Ors.

16 Apr 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:2669

The High Court directed the Trial Court to compassionately reconsider the petitioner's restoration and waiver of cost applications after dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution due to procedural lapses.

civil other waiver of cost non-prosecution restoration of suit Order IX Rule 9 CPC

Supertech Limited v. Kanwal Batra & Anr.

16 Apr 2025 · Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:2668
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court set aside the NCDRC's imprisonment order against Supertech's Managing Director for non-compliance, directing fresh execution proceedings for recovery of the balance decretal amount.

consumer_protection appeal_allowed Significant consumer complaint National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission execution petition non-compliance

Harpal Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

16 Apr 2025 · Navin Chawla; Manoj Jain · 2025:DHC:2583-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging disciplinary punishments and adverse performance appraisal remarks of a BSF Head Constable, affirming limited judicial interference in such administrative matters.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary punishment performance appraisal APAR Border Security Force

SMT Saroj & Ors. v. Union of India

16 Apr 2025 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:2595

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a compensation claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the death did not arise from an untoward incident attributable to the railways.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 124-A Railways Act untoward incident bona fide passenger

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union of India

16 Apr 2025 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:2584

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove he was a bonafide passenger injured due to an untoward incident during railway travel, thus denying compensation under the Railways Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Railways Act, 1989 untoward incident bonafide passenger

Gurpreet Singh @ Bawa @ Baba v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

16 Apr 2025 · Vikas Mahajan · 2025:DHC:2615
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a multi-crore DDA property fraud case, holding that prolonged pre-trial detention without trial violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail Article 21 right to liberty economic offences

Poonam Batra v. Ashwani Kumar Sharma & Ors.

16 Apr 2025 · Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2025:DHC:2646
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court declared a forged sale deed and mortgage null and void, granted ownership and injunction to the plaintiff, and ordered cancellation of the forged deed under Order XV Rule 1 CPC due to absence of triable issues.

civil appeal_allowed Significant forged sale deed impersonation Order XV Rule 1 CPC declaration of ownership

Diageo Scotland Limited v. Prachi Verma and Anr.

16 Apr 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:2612

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal of Diageo Scotland Limited, setting aside the dismissal of opposition and directing removal of the confusingly similar "CAPTAIN BLUE" trademark from the register to protect the appellant's prior "CAPTAIN" family marks.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 11 Trademark opposition Deceptive similarity

Mankind Prime Labs Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks

16 Apr 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:2611

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and directed registration of the composite trademark "CROSSRELIEF", holding that generic components do not preclude registration if the overall mark is distinctive and not confusingly similar to prior marks.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 11(1) Trademark registration Likelihood of confusion

Grey Swift Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks

16 Apr 2025 · Saurabh Banerjee · 2025:DHC:2609

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and held that the composite trademark "BharatStamp" is inherently distinctive and registrable under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, overruling the Registrar's refusal.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 9(1)(a) distinctiveness composite trademark

Sharda Arya v. Union of India

16 Apr 2025 · Tushar Rao Gedela · 2025:DHC:2600

The Delhi High Court held that employees who did not exercise the option to remain under CPF by the 1987 cutoff date are deemed to have switched to the Pension Scheme and are entitled to pensionary benefits, quashing the University of Delhi's denial of such benefits to the petitioner.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Contributory Provident Fund Scheme Pension Scheme Office Memorandum 01.05.1987 Deeming fiction

Vinay Jain v. Rakesh Jain & Ors.

16 Apr 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2597-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC, the plaintiff has the right to begin evidence unless the defendant admits the plaintiff's material facts, and set aside the order directing the defendant to lead evidence first without such admission.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC burden of proof right to begin evidence family settlement

Durga Prasad Yadav v. Director General CISF

16 Apr 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:2599-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings against a CISF officer, holding that the minor penalty imposed for insubordination was valid and the disciplinary authority competent.

administrative petition_dismissed CISF Rules 2001 disciplinary proceedings nemo judex in causa sua Section 15 CISF Act 1968

Asha Gupta & Ors. v. The NCT of Delhi

16 Apr 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:2684

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC based on a genuine and voluntary settlement between the parties resolving matrimonial disputes.

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

Anuj Singhal & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

16 Apr 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:2681

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement and mutual consent divorce, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 498A IPC mutual consent divorce

Suleman & Ors. v. The State & Anr.

16 Apr 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:2680

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under sections 498A, 354, 406, 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on an amicable settlement and fulfillment of terms between estranged spouses.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita settlement in matrimonial disputes 498A IPC

HSH NORDBANK AG v. GOODWILL HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE LIMITED

16 Apr 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:4265

The Delhi High Court allowed the Official Liquidator's application to dissolve Goodwill Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, due to absence of recoverable assets and time-barred debts.

corporate petition_allowed Significant winding up company dissolution Official Liquidator Companies Act 1956

Riya Balhara v. Srijan Raj

16 Apr 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:3312

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of a defamation and criminal intimidation complaint, holding that the Respondent’s email did not constitute defamation or intimidation under IPC Sections 499/500 and 503/506.

criminal petition_dismissed defamation Section 499 IPC criminal intimidation share transfer

Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Dharam Narayan Parashar & Ishwar Parihar

16 Apr 2025 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2025:DHC:3268

The High Court upheld the acquittal of Directors in a SEBI CIS violation case, holding that mere designation without evidence of involvement in company affairs does not attract criminal liability.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant SEBI Act, 1992 Collective Investment Scheme Director liability Criminal prosecution