Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:
Showing 2024 — 8501 judgments found

Sarabjeet Singh v. Anup Sharma & Ors.

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:8964-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff was not continuously ready and willing to perform the Agreements to Sell and thus not entitled to specific performance.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness agreement to sell breach of contract

Harmaninder Kaur v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

20 Nov 2024 · Manoj Jain · 2024:DHC:9026

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking allotment of a flat due to automatic cancellation for non-payment and long delay, but directed refund of the deposited amount.

property petition_dismissed Significant writ of mandamus housing allotment automatic cancellation laches

MS Lion Security Guards Services; MS Aakanksha Enterprises; MS Rekart Innovations Pvt Ltd v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

20 Nov 2024 · Manmohan, CJ; Tushar Rao Gedela, J · 2024:DHC:9038-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a joint venture's technical bid for non-compliance with essential tender conditions relating to Power of Attorney execution and inconsistent designation of lead member.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant tender process technical bid Power of Attorney joint venture

Navigators Logistics Ltd v. Kashif Qureshi & Ors.

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu BakhrU; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:8965-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal against rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that post-employment non-compete clauses are void under Section 27 of the Contract Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action copyright infringement confidential information

Pawan Chaudhry & Anr. v. Nimesh Jain & Ors.

20 Nov 2024 · Vikas Mahajan · 2024:DHC:9021
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a suit involving allegations of forgery cannot be decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC merely due to defendants' failure to file written statements without evidence proving the disputed facts.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VIII Rule 10 CPC deemed admission failure to file written statement disputed questions of fact

M/S M.H. ONE TV NETWORK PVT. LTD. v. M/S MH 7 NEWS AND ANR.

20 Nov 2024 · Mini Pushkarna · 2024:DHC:9048

The Delhi High Court cancelled the respondent's trademark registration for 'MH7' due to deceptive similarity with the petitioner's prior registered trademark 'MH1/MH ONE', affirming protection against infringement and unfair competition.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement deceptive similarity prior use goodwill

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Abhishek

20 Nov 2024 · C. Hari Shankar; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:9052-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing a re-medical examination by a dermatologist to assess the respondent's fitness for Delhi Police Constable recruitment in light of tattoo restrictions, dismissing the petition challenging it.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant re-medical examination tattoo restriction functional fitness Central Administrative Tribunal

Apollo Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd v. M/S Jalan Transolutions (India) Ltd

20 Nov 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8981
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the Section 11 stage, only the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement is to be examined and appointed a sole arbitrator despite respondent's claim of accord and satisfaction.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant arbitration agreement Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act appointment of arbitrator accord and satisfaction

VCARE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD v. MR NIKHIL RAI

20 Nov 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:9045

The Delhi High Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 upon confirming the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, leaving all substantive disputes to arbitration.

civil petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12 arbitration agreement

M/S SOMA NEW TOWNS PVT LTD v. M/S VIKAS BUILDMART PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS

20 Nov 2024 · Sachin Datta

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a share purchase agreement, directing arbitration as per the contract and Arbitration Act provisions.

civil appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 12 Section 17

SNAP ON TOOLS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MS METRICS APPLICATIONS

20 Nov 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8982
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a reseller agreement where parties failed to agree on arbitrator appointment.

arbitration petition_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 appointment of arbitrator Sole arbitrator appointment Authorised Reseller Agreement

Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railways and Anr.

20 Nov 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8980
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court appointed an independent sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate disputes arising from termination of a railway parcel leasing contract, following the Supreme Court's ruling invalidating the contract's arbitration appointment procedure.

other appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Appointment of arbitrator Railway parcel leasing contract

Ashish Kochar v. State

20 Nov 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:8951
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a murder case, holding that the serious nature of the offence and likelihood of evidence tampering outweigh the petitioner’s liberty interests.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail murder Section 439 CrPC tampering evidence

Malkhan Singh & Ors. v. State

20 Nov 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8989

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence of appellants to the period already undergone due to prolonged trial and their personal circumstances.

criminal sentence_modified prolonged trial sentence modification first-time offender Section 374(2) CrPC

Prakash Pipes Limited v. Jai Ambay Industries and Anr.

20 Nov 2024 · Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:9221

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to cancel the respondent's trademark 'KIRANPARKASH' for fraudulent registration and deceptive similarity with the petitioner's prior mark 'PRAKASH'.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Trademark cancellation Fraudulent registration Deceptive similarity

Dhan Prakash Gupta v. Income Tax Department

20 Nov 2024 · Vibhu BakhrU; Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:8967-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the jurisdiction and merits of reassessment notices issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, holding that the Assessing Officer validly initiated proceedings based on information suggesting income escaping assessment.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 148A(b) Reassessment proceedings Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer

Rongali Naidu v. Indian Coast Guard

19 Nov 2024 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:8902-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed writ petitions of candidates wrongly rejected in Indian Coast Guard recruitment due to minor inadvertent discrepancies, directing their reinstatement subject to verification and completion of formalities.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Indian Coast Guard recruitment Document verification GPA to marks conversion OBC certificate discrepancy

National Highways Authority of India v. Oriental Pathways (Agra) Pvt. Ltd.

19 Nov 2024 · Subramonium Prasad · 2024:DHC:9673
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed NHAI's challenge to an arbitral award denying recovery of damages, holding that the award was not patently illegal or perverse and that courts cannot reappreciate evidence under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration Act Patent Illegality Perversity

Rahul Kesarwani v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

19 Nov 2024 · Amit Mahajan · 2024:DHC:9418

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a petition seeking initiation of perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, holding that mere discrepancies in evidence without deliberate obstruction of justice do not warrant such action.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 340 CrPC perjury false evidence discretionary power

Kanohar Electricals Limited v. Delhi Transco Limited

19 Nov 2024 · Sachin Datta · 2024:DHC:8935

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from delay and liquidated damages in a transformer supply contract.

civil appeal_allowed Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) sole arbitrator appointment liquidated damages