Delhi High Court

38,124 judgments

Year:

Shyam Sunder Sethi v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr

08 Jan 2025 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:48
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition of a petitioner seeking allotment of a plot after voluntarily cancelling his registration, holding no vested right arose from a mistaken draw of lots and ordering refund of deposit with interest.

civil petition_dismissed Significant registration cancellation allotment of plot draw of lots laches

Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority

08 Jan 2025 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:47

The Delhi High Court held that the DDA is not bound by Ministry notifications reserving 50% of EWS flats for apartment owners, vacating the interim stay and allowing DDA to allot EWS units on a first come first serve basis.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Delhi Development Authority Economically Weaker Section Developer Entity Housing Scheme

M/S KALSI FINANCE PVT. LTD. v. D. D. A.

08 Jan 2025 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2025:DHC:46

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging DDA's demand for composition and unearned increase charges, holding that the petitioner’s delay and laches barred relief under Articles 226 and 227.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ jurisdiction Articles 226 and 227 Delhi Development Authority composition charges

RPG Enterprises Limited v. RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd

08 Jan 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:38

The Delhi High Court cancelled the respondent's trademark registration for "RPG" due to bad faith adoption and infringement of the petitioner's well-known "RPG" mark, affirming protection for well-known trademarks against identical marks even on allied goods.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 well-known trademark rectification petition bad faith

Diamond Modular Pvt. Ltd. v. Yash Arora as Trading as Siddhi Vinayak Traders

08 Jan 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:37

The Delhi High Court cancelled the registration of the trademark "GREEN DIAMOND" held by a former distributor for dishonest adoption and passing off against the prior registered and well-known "DIAMOND" trademark of the petitioner.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Dishonest adoption Trade Marks Act 1999

Novartis AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited

08 Jan 2025 · Mini Pushkarna · 2025:DHC:51

The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to file an additional written statement beyond the statutory period under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to include facts about the plaintiffs' refused Divisional Patent Application, holding that such filing is within the Court's discretion and not barred by prior interlocutory findings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VIII Rule 9 CPC additional written statement Divisional Patent Application patent infringement

FMI LIMITED v. MIDAS TOUCH METALLOYS PVT. LTD.

08 Jan 2025 · Amit Bansal · 2025:DHC:32

The Delhi High Court upheld the ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from using the deceptively similar trademark 'INDEED' on measuring tapes, affirming the plaintiff's prior user rights and passing off claim.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant trademark infringement passing off prior user rights interlocutory injunction

KGF Cottons Pvt Ltd v. Haldiram Snacks Pvt Ltd

08 Jan 2025 · Subramonium Prasad · 2025:DHC:271

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award as barred by limitation since the initial filing without the award was non-est and subsequent filing was beyond the prescribed period under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act limitation period arbitral award non-est filing

Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India

07 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:123-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging termination from BSF service for lack of territorial jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

administrative petition_dismissed territorial jurisdiction cause of action forum non conveniens writ petition

Babrey Singh v. Union of India

07 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:40-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld disciplinary findings of dereliction of duty against a security personnel and held the punishment of salary reduction proportionate, dismissing the writ petition.

administrative petition_dismissed dereliction of duty disciplinary authority proportionality of punishment Railway Protection Force Act, 1957

Abhishek Kumar v. Union of India

07 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:33-DB

The Delhi High Court directed a fresh medical re-examination by an independent Board to resolve a dispute over corneal opacity affecting fitness for CISF appointment, making the new medical opinion binding.

administrative other medical fitness corneal opacity Central Industrial Security Force Assistant Sub Inspector recruitment

Kalu Ram Saini v. Union of India

07 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:6-DB

In absence of a prescribed tie-breaker, age-based seniority prevails to resolve equal marks in CISF AC (Executive) LDCE, entitling the petitioner to appointment and retrospective seniority.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant tie-breaker principle age seniority CISF AC Executive LDCE UPSC examination rules

Tabassum v. Amna Begum

07 Jan 2025 · Sanjeev Narula · 2025:DHC:29

The Delhi High Court upheld a senior citizen's right to evict family members under the Senior Citizens Act, dismissing claims under the DV Act where no domestic violence allegations against the owner or spouse existed.

family petition_dismissed Significant Senior Citizens Act Delhi Senior Citizens Rules Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act eviction

Kausthuba Nand Pant v. Union of India & Anr

07 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:5-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld adverse entries in the petitioner’s APAR and dismissed his writ petition challenging denial of promotion to Commandant in ITBP, emphasizing the finality of departmental decisions and proper application of promotion guidelines.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Annual Performance Appraisal Report Adverse remarks Promotion denial Departmental Promotion Committee

Ajit Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

07 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:4-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld adverse remarks and below benchmark grading in a BSF officer’s APAR, holding that judicial interference is limited and the grading was justified based on the officer’s conduct and performance.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Annual Performance Appraisal Report APAR judicial review administrative authority

Shreya Juyal v. Union of India

07 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:49-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Medical Boards' decision declaring the petitioner medically unfit for Air Force appointment due to Beta Thalassemia Trait, refusing to override the service medical guidelines despite contrary civilian medical opinions.

administrative petition_dismissed Beta Thalassemia Trait Medical Board Indian Air Force Medical fitness

Kuldeep Singh v. Director General CRPF

07 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:7-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a disability arising during service is presumed service-connected absent contrary reasons, entitling the petitioner to Disability Pension with broad banding and arrears.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Disability Pension Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules Medical Board Attributability of Disability

Kalu Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

07 Jan 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:8-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the premature retirement of a CISF Head Constable under Rule 48 of CCS Rules after 30 years of service, holding that no show cause notice is required and the order was not arbitrary.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant premature retirement Rule 48 CCS Pension Rules Fundamental Rule 56(j) compulsory retirement

Capital Property Consultants v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 31, Delhi

07 Jan 2025 · Vibhu Bakhru, ACJ; Tushar Rao Gedela, J · 2025:DHC:144-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a second notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act based on different information is a standalone notice subject to limitation, and set aside the reassessment notices and order issued beyond the limitation period.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148A(b) Section 148A(d) Section 148

Kishore Kumar Arora v. Mayank Rastogi

07 Jan 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:181

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction order on bona fide need grounds, holding that the landlord’s need was genuine and alternate accommodation unsuitable, while emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

property petition_dismissed Significant bona fide need eviction Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alternate accommodation