Delhi High Court

92,628 judgments

Year:

Jane Norman Limited v. Jane Norman Retail Pvt Ltd & Ors.

15 May 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2575

The Delhi High Court held that a plaintiff with trans-border reputation in a trademark is entitled to protection in India against defendants' fraudulent use of identical marks and domain names, granting permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement and passing off.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off trans-border reputation domain name

Dinesh Kumar v. UOI & Anr.

15 May 2014 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Jayant Nath · 2014:DHC:2555-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a BSF constable for assault, intoxication, and insubordination, rejecting claims of bias and procedural irregularity in summary trial proceedings.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Summary Security Force Court BSF Rules 1969 Section 57 BSF Act bias in disciplinary proceedings

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. KAMLA & ORS

15 May 2014 · SURESH KAIT · 2014:DHC:2563

Delhi High Court upheld compensation awarded in a motor accident claim including 30% future prospects addition and non-pecuniary damages, dismissing the insurer's appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 168 future prospects non-pecuniary damages

Lal Chand v. Prem and Ors.

15 May 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:2562

The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by adding 15% future prospects for a 56-year-old self-employed injured claimant and increased non-pecuniary damages, directing timely payment with interest.

civil appeal_allowed Significant compensation enhancement future prospects self-employed income permanent disability

Harish v. State

15 May 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:2573

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking permission to obtain photographs of a suicide note and handwriting samples for private expert comparison, citing inordinate delay and forensic limitations.

criminal petition_dismissed Section 482 CrPC suicide note handwriting expert forensic examination

Pushpesh Sinha v. Rajiv Batra and Another

15 May 2014 · G. S. Sistani · 2014:DHC:2574

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside an ex parte decree due to insufficient proof of sufficient cause for non-appearance under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Order IX Rule 13 CPC ex parte decree sufficient cause setting aside decree

Parvez alias Bablu Chikna v. State

15 May 2014 · Indermeet Kaur, J. · 2014:DHC:2564

The Delhi High Court upheld the robbery convictions of four appellants, drawing adverse inference from their refusal to participate in TIP, but reduced their sentence from five to three years imprisonment.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Test Identification Parade Adverse inference Identification evidence Robbery

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v. Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority

15 May 2014 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Siddharth Mridul · 2014:DHC:2560-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside PFRDA's rejection of HDFC's pension fund bid for failure to evaluate the technical bid, directing compliance with the RFP's sequential evaluation process.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Request for Proposal technical bid evaluation commercial bid rejection

Radha Nigam v. Manas Bansal & Ors.

15 May 2014 · Suresh Kait · 2014:DHC:2561

The Delhi High Court held that the son of the owner of a vehicle who died as a passenger in an accident is entitled to compensation as a third party under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, distinguishing from precedents relating to owner-driver deaths.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 third party owner-driver

Delhi Select Service Hospitality Private Limited v. Devyani Food Street Private Limited

15 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2580

The Delhi High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between two companies under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, after satisfying statutory requirements and absence of objections.

corporate petition_allowed Scheme of Amalgamation Companies Act 1956 Section 391 Section 394

Survidhi Financial Services Ltd v. Unity Fin-Cap Private Ltd

15 May 2014 · Ved Prakash Vaish · 2014:DHC:2571

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's discretion to allow a substitute witness and admission of documents subject to proper proof, ensuring the accused's right to a fair defence in a Section 138 NI Act complaint.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Substitution of witness Indian Evidence Act Section 482 CrPC

Eldeco Midc Sez Ltd v. Eldeco Infrastructure and Properties Ltd

15 May 2014 · Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2014:DHC:2579

The Delhi High Court approved a Scheme of Arrangement for capital reduction and amalgamation, dispensing with shareholder and creditor meetings due to majority consent and absence of creditors.

corporate appeal_allowed Scheme of Arrangement Reduction of Capital Amalgamation Companies Act 1956

Mera Baba Real Estate Pvt Ltd v. Sandeep Goel and Anr

15 May 2014 · Hima Kohli · 2014:DHC:2570

The Delhi High Court allowed the appellant’s appeal to set aside an ex-parte decree in a summary suit for recovery of money, restoring the leave to defend application subject to deposit of decretal amount and costs.

civil appeal_allowed Significant summary suit leave to defend ex-parte decree Order XXXVII CPC

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Gurmail Singh @ Gurmer @ Gurnal Singh and Anr.

15 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2566

The Delhi High Court held that an insurance company is not liable to pay compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act if the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, allowing the insurer’s appeal and setting aside the compensation award.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 driving licence insurance company liability compensation claim

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Balwan Singh and Anr.

15 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2567

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal, upholding the award of 100% compensation to a driver totally disabled due to an accident arising out of employment under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1930.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employee’s Compensation Act, 1930 employer-employee relationship total disablement disability compensation

M/S GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. MR. JASWANT SINGH & ORS.

15 May 2014 · Valmiki J. Mehta · 2014:DHC:2565
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to condone a 326-day delay in filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, holding that the arbitral award was duly communicated and the delay was not sufficiently explained.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Limitation Condonation of delay

Inderjeet v. State

15 May 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2559

Delhi High Court modified conviction from attempt to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 IPC to voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC and reduced sentence considering mitigating factors.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 308 IPC Section 325 IPC attempt to commit culpable homicide voluntarily causing grievous hurt

Ravinder Chauhan v. State (NCT of Delhi)

15 May 2014 · S.P. Garg · 2014:DHC:2558

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal as not pressed after he completed the sentence, directing the trial court to verify compliance with sentence and fine payment.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 367 IPC Section 377 IPC appeal dismissed sentence served

Ajanta Limited v. M/s Ajanta Transistor Clock Manufacturing Co

13 May 2014 · Manmohan Singh · 2014:DHC:2546

The Delhi High Court appointed a Court Commissioner to monitor interim compliance with a Memorandum of Understanding and court orders in a trademark dispute pending arbitration, emphasizing the court's power to enforce compliance and prevent contempt.

civil other Significant Memorandum of Understanding contempt proceedings Court Commissioner interim orders

Oliver Kujur & Anr. v. State of Delhi

13 May 2014 · Kailash Gambhir; Sunita Gupta · 2014:DHC:2547-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants convicted for murder due to failure of prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC blood-stained clothes