Delhi High Court

93,075 judgments

Year:

BAYER CORPORATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

05 Nov 2014 · Vibhu Bakhru, J · 2014:DHC:5716

The Delhi High Court held that export of patented pharmaceutical API for regulatory studies abroad falls within the safe harbor exemption under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 and does not constitute patent infringement.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Section 107A Patents Act Bolar exemption patent infringement compulsory license

State v. Deepak

05 Nov 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2014:DHC:5717-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused on charges of abduction and rape due to lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 363 IPC Section 376 IPC rape abduction

Bestochem Formulations (I) Limited v. Alps Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors.

05 Nov 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:5718

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to the plaintiff for trademark infringement and passing off of the mark "COLISPAS" by defendants who failed to contest the suit.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off permanent injunction punitive damages

United India Insurance Co Ltd. v. Ishwar Lal & Ors.

05 Nov 2014 · Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:5742

The Delhi High Court upheld the motor accident compensation award, ruling that the multiplier for loss of dependency must be based on the deceased's age and not the claimant's, and dismissed the insurer's appeal challenging the quantum and impleading of the driver.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant loss of dependency multiplier notional income future prospects

Heineken Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v. Surjeet Lal and Ors.

05 Nov 2014 · Manmohan Singh, J. · 2014:DHC:5732

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining defendants from using the mark TIGER CHAKRA and tiger device, holding it infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark TIGER under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 56

Mahinder Singh & Anr v. Gaon Sabha Ghitorni

05 Nov 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:5733

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging land vesting under the DLR Act, holding that continuous unauthorized construction extends limitation and final orders without preliminary decrees can be valid.

property petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 Section 81 DLR Act limitation period unauthorized construction

Denso India Limited v. Unknown

05 Nov 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:5722

The Delhi High Court confirmed the reduction of share capital of Denso India Limited under Sections 100 to 105 of the Companies Act, 1956, dispensing with the procedure under Section 101(2) after ensuring creditor protection and requisite approvals.

corporate petition_allowed reduction of share capital Companies Act 1956 Section 101(2) Special Resolution

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Fateh Singh Rana & Ors.

05 Nov 2014 · S. Ravindra Bhat; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:5735-DB

The Delhi High Court held that BSNL can recover excess salary payments made under mistake of fact without employee culpability but limited recovery to three years on equitable grounds, modifying the CAT order accordingly.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant excess salary recovery public employer mistake of fact One Time Bound Promotion Scheme

Manish Kumar Khanna v. State

05 Nov 2014 · Pratibha Rani · 2014:DHC:5737

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the refusal to impose costs on the prosecution for adjournments, holding that the trial court's discretion was judicially exercised and the petitioner as defence counsel is not entitled to such costs.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant right to speedy trial imposition of costs prosecution adjournments Section 309 CrPC

Satish Jain & Ors. v. Taro Devi

05 Nov 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:5736

The Delhi High Court dismissed the tenants' revision petition, holding that bona fide necessity of the landlord's family member for business use justifies eviction despite payment of pagri and absence of alternative accommodation.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bona fide necessity eviction pagri premium

Ashwani Sharma & Ors. v. Kanta Sharma & Ors.

05 Nov 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:5740

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging dismissal of the first appeal for non-prosecution, holding the suit lacked prima facie merit and was an abuse of process.

civil petition_dismissed non-prosecution interim injunction Article 227 declaratory decree

Urmila & Anr. v. Ram Avatar & Anr.

05 Nov 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:5741

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction decree passed ex parte under the Delhi Rent Control Act and held that objections in execution proceedings cannot substitute contesting the main eviction petition, dismissing the petition under Article 227.

property petition_dismissed Significant Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 eviction ex parte proceedings execution proceedings

Narcotics Control Bureau v. Anju Tiwari & Anr.

05 Nov 2014 · S. Muralidhar · 2014:DHC:5731

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in an NDPS case due to failure of the prosecution to produce genuine independent witnesses and involuntariness of confessional statements.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant NDPS Act independent witnesses voluntariness of confessional statements seizure of heroin

STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR v. ROY MA & Ors.

05 Nov 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:5723

The Delhi High Court granted ex-parte interim injunctions and directed blocking of rogue websites infringing the plaintiffs' exclusive broadcasting and copyright rights in the 2014 India-Sri Lanka cricket series.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant exclusive broadcasting rights copyright infringement Section 37 Copyright Act interim injunction

Narender Kumar Sharma v. Ram Kumar Sharma

05 Nov 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:5726

The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal against a possession decree, holding that issues not raised earlier cannot be entertained and concurrent findings of fact are binding absent substantial questions of law.

civil appeal_dismissed second appeal court fee possession decree partition by metes and bounds

Rajeev Chaudhary v. Baldev Raj Wasan

05 Nov 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:5725

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the decree for possession based on appellant's admission and sufficient description of the suit property without requiring partition.

civil appeal_dismissed decree for possession admission partition suit property

M L Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.

05 Nov 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:5724

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking direction to the Land Acquisition Collector for substitution as legal heir, upholding the Reference Court's order due to absence of proof of application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Order 22 Rule 3 CPC substitution of legal heir Land Acquisition Collector Reference Court

Tarun Kaushik v. Seema Kaushik

05 Nov 2014 · Sunil Gaur · 2014:DHC:5721

The Delhi High Court upheld interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000 per month to the respondent wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act despite her capability to earn, as she was not actually employed due to the troubled marriage.

family petition_dismissed interim maintenance Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act earning capacity marriage troubled

Poonam Chopra & Anr. v. Satish Chopra & Ors.

05 Nov 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:5743

The Delhi High Court held that a Memorandum of Understanding acted upon by parties is binding and directed the corporate guarantor to clear the loan to protect plaintiffs from property sale under SARFESI Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Memorandum of Understanding specific performance Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC

Jagdish Sagar v. Bar Council of India

05 Nov 2014 · The Chief Justice; Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2014:DHC:5729-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Bar Council of India's Rule 7 restriction on retired officers practicing before certain tribunals but clarified that such officers may practice before judicial officers of any rank within the territorial jurisdiction.

constitutional petition_dismissed Bar Council of India Rules Rule 7 retired officers practice restriction