Delhi High Court

49,371 judgments

Year:

M/S BIBA FASHION LTD v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

09 Apr 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:2888-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a tax demand order under Section 73 CGST Act for failure to consider the taxpayer's detailed reply and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73 CGST Act Show Cause Notice Input Tax Credit

Fresenius Medical Care India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

09 Apr 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:2886-DB

The Delhi High Court directed that the IGST rate on import of dialysis machines under HSN code 90189031 is 5% as per the notification dated 13.10.2023, binding the respondents to this rate subject to HSN code verification.

tax petition_allowed Integrated Goods and Services Tax IGST rate HSN code 90189031 dialysis machines

M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence

09 Apr 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:2887-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition after the GST authority vacated the attachment of the petitioner's bank account and directed the bank to comply with the vacating order.

administrative petition_allowed attachment of bank account GST Intelligence vacation of attachment Canara Bank

Rachna Sagar Pvt Ltd v. Sovereign Mercantile Pvt Ltd & Ors.

09 Apr 2024 · Sanjeev Narula · 2024:DHC:2963

The Delhi High Court confirmed interim injunction restraining defendants from using marks deceptively similar to plaintiff’s prior-used and registered trademarks, holding that plaintiff demonstrated prima facie passing off.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant passing off trademark infringement prior use interim injunction

Vateena Begum v. Shamim Zaffar & Anr.

09 Apr 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:3134

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for condonation of nearly seven years' delay in filing a first appeal, holding that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay Section 5 Limitation Act 1963 sufficient cause limitation period

Manish Gupta v. M/S P Singh Chit Fund Pvt Ltd

09 Apr 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:2814

The Delhi High Court allowed the revision petition setting aside the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree due to non-service of summons, directing the petitioner to deposit part of the decree amount and appear for trial.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXXVII CPC Order IX Rule 13 CPC ex parte decree service of summons

JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v. Ram Byash Yadav

09 Apr 2024 · Sanjeev Narula · 2024:DHC:3572
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction and damages to JK Lakshmi Cement Ltd. against unauthorized use of deceptively similar trademarks and trade dress by Defendant No. 1, affirming protection for well-known marks and allowing summary adjudication in absence of defense.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off trade dress well-known trademark

Vodafone Idea Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II

09 Apr 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:2853

The Delhi High Court held that orders under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act are not independently appealable but interest computations under Section 7-Q included in Section 14-B orders can be challenged, and set aside a recovery certificate issued despite a conditional stay on damages.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7-Q Section 14-B Section 7-I

D.T.C. v. Ami Chand

09 Apr 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:3566

The Delhi High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award setting aside a termination order due to a flawed departmental inquiry and limited the scope of writ jurisdiction in labor disputes.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant departmental inquiry principles of natural justice Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(2)(b)

AIIMS v. Ashok Kumar

09 Apr 2024 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2024:DHC:3246

The Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's award granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement to a daily wage worker acquitted of theft charges, emphasizing limited writ jurisdiction and discretionary relief in labor disputes.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant daily wage worker illegal termination compensation in lieu of reinstatement writ jurisdiction

CP Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Skywood Interior Solutions

09 Apr 2024 · Vibhu BakhrU; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:2877-DB

The Delhi High Court held that for an application under Order VII Rule 10(2) CPC, the court must accept the plaint's averments as true and if they disclose territorial jurisdiction, the plaint cannot be returned.

civil appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction Order VII Rule 10(2) CPC Trade Marks Act, 1999 cause of action

Gautam Mehra v. Sonia Mehra

09 Apr 2024 · Rajiv Shakdher; Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:3333-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against Family Court directions on child custody visitation due to non-compliance and rendered the appeal ineffective by the passage of time, leaving pending matters to the Family Court.

family appeal_dismissed Family Court custody visitation non-compliance

SPLENDOR BUILDWELL PVT LTD & ANR. v. RAJESH KUMAR PASRICHA

09 Apr 2024 · Dinesh Kumar Sharma · 2024:DHC:3268

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award, holding that the limited grounds under Section 34 do not permit interference with the arbitrator's reasoned decision awarding principal and interest in a real estate dispute.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration Act Public policy Patent illegality

Magicon Impex Pvt Ltd v. Megnostar Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd.

09 Apr 2024 · Dharmesh Sharma · 2024:DHC:3167

The Delhi High Court dissolved Megnostar Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, ending winding up proceedings due to lack of assets and discharged the Official Liquidator.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant winding up company dissolution Section 481 Companies Act 1956 Official Liquidator discharge

Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd v. Shivaa Trading

09 Apr 2024 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2024:DHC:3094

The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award as the sole arbitrator was de jure ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that such appointments are void ab initio absent an express written waiver.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12(5) de jure ineligibility arbitrator appointment

Raj Kumar Hingorani v. Shilpi Srivastav

09 Apr 2024 · Rajiv Shakdher; Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:3020-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal based on a lawful Memorandum of Settlement directing withdrawal of complaints and compliance with payment terms.

civil appeal_allowed Memorandum of Settlement withdrawal of complaints Director General Bureau of Civil Aviation Security No Objection Certificate

Rajeev Gupta v. Sarita Garg & Ors.

09 Apr 2024 · Manmohan, ACJ; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J · 2024:DHC:2930-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a suit challenging the validity of a registered Will and seeking partition of the deceased's estate is maintainable and dismissed the appeal against rejection of the plaint for want of cause of action.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant registered Will partition suit Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action

Ayan Ahmed & Anr. v. GNCT Delhi & Anr.

09 Apr 2024 · Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:2870

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 354A, 323, 506, 509, and 34 IPC following an amicable settlement between the parties, holding that minor offences settled between parties can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of FIR amicable settlement minor offences

Jagdev Singh alias Dev Singh alias Jasdev Singh and Anr. v. Competent Authority and Administrator

09 Apr 2024 · Subramonium Prasad · 2024:DHC:2941

The Delhi High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA cannot condone delay beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 68(O) of the NDPS Act, and dismissed the writ petition challenging refusal of condonation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5 Limitation Act NDPS Act, 1985 Section 68(O)

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. M/S. International Engineers & Project Consultant Ltd.

09 Apr 2024 · Neena Bansal Krishna · 2024:DHC:3054
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court allowed the review petition and held that a suit under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for production of the entire arbitration record is maintainable despite prior receipt of the award copy, and once the record is filed, no further directions to the arbitrator are necessary.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Act, 1940 Section 14 Arbitration Act Section 30 Arbitration Act Limitation Act, 1963