Delhi High Court

49,377 judgments

Year:

Aakash Educational Services Ltd v. Parvesh Kumar Dhiman

27 Mar 2024 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5909
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that a unilateral arbitrator appointment clause is unenforceable and appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve the dispute.

civil petition_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Section 12(5) unilateral appointment of arbitrator

Aakash Educational Services Limited v. Vivek Srivastava

27 Mar 2024 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:6916
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible and directed reference of employment disputes to arbitration under DIAC with a neutral arbitrator appointed by the institution.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(5) unilateral appointment arbitrator appointment

Sumita Rastogi v. Gaurav Rastogi

26 Mar 2024 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:2500

The Delhi High Court allowed the transfer of a family law case to consolidate interconnected proceedings before one court to ensure expeditious justice.

family appeal_allowed transfer petition family court interconnected proceedings expeditious justice

M/S Hotline Fashion India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Sentinel Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

25 Mar 2024 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:2015
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of a transferee pendente lite challenging execution of a decree for possession of a basement, holding that such a transferee cannot resist execution under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order XXI Rule 97 CPC transferee pendente lite Section 52 Transfer of Property Act execution proceedings

M/S Chehak Fashions v. Commissioner, Delhi GST

22 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:2571-DB

The Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) CGST Act requires objective satisfaction and proper notice, modifying the cancellation date to the Show Cause Notice date and allowing the petition.

tax appeal_allowed Significant GST registration cancellation retrospective cancellation Section 29(2) CGST Act Show Cause Notice

Vishal Banga v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

22 Mar 2024 · The Acting Chief Justice; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora · 2024:DHC:2429-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of probate for NRE fixed deposits under a Will, holding that the condition of maintaining bank guarantees ceased upon loan repayment, validating the bequest to the beneficiary.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant probate Indian Succession Act, 1925 Will interpretation conditional bequest

Sandeep Pawar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

22 Mar 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:2327

The Delhi High Court denied interim bail on medical grounds but directed the accused to be admitted to AIIMS for specialized treatment under custody, balancing his health rights with the gravity of the offence.

criminal other Significant interim bail medical grounds judicial custody right to healthcare

M/S COSMOS INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LIMITED

22 Mar 2024 · Rajiv Shakdher; Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:2800-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the injunction restraining the lessor from interfering with the lessee's possession, holding that the security deposit must be refunded subject only to specified deductions before possession can be handed over.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant lease agreement security deposit possession restoration costs

GSK Consumer Healthcare S.A. v. Celebrity Biopharma Ltd. and Anr.

22 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Narula · 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744

The Delhi High Court cancelled the trademark “OTRINIR” for being deceptively similar to GSK’s prior registered marks “OTRIVIN” and “OTRINOZ”, affirming the petitioner’s exclusive rights and rejecting the respondent’s claim of genericness.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Deceptive similarity Trademark cancellation Prior use

Union of India v. M/S PNSC Infrastructure Pvt Ltd

22 Mar 2024 · Rajiv Shakdher; Amit Bansal · 2024:DHC:3037-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal against the dismissal of a delayed Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award, holding that the limitation period restarts upon return of the petition and delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 34 Arbitration Act condonation of delay limitation period return of petition

Union of India v. M/S. Tech Mahindra Ltd.

22 Mar 2024 · Jasmeet Singh · 2024:DHC:3103

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award, holding that the award did not suffer from patent illegality and the arbitrator's contract interpretation and factual findings were justified.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Patent Illegality Section 34 Arbitration Act Service Level Agreement

MUFG Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2 & Anr

22 Mar 2024 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:2958-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an assessee can settle individual appeals independently without settling all appeals for the same assessment year.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 settlement of tax disputes unit of settlement appeal under VSV Act

MUFG BANK LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 & ANR

22 Mar 2024 · Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:2957-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, a taxpayer can settle one or more disputes arising from an assessment year without settling all pending appeals or petitions.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 VSV scheme partial settlement income tax assessment

Nandini Rai v. The State of NCT of Delhi

22 Mar 2024 · Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2024:DHC:2326

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR alleging harassment and impersonation on Instagram, holding that the FIR discloses cognizable offences and investigation must be allowed to continue.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 Cr.P.C. cognizable offence Information Technology Act

Sangeeta Beri v. Chander Kant Beri

22 Mar 2024 · Shalinder Kaur · 2024:DHC:2349

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioner's application for judgment on admission, holding that the respondent's defenses raised factual disputes requiring trial.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC judgment on admission oral family settlement adverse possession

LARSEN AND TOUBARO LIMITED AND PASSAVANT ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT GMBH JV v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND ANOTHER

22 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:2671-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a tax demand order under Section 73 CGST for failing 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 Input Tax Credit Show Cause Notice

Rajesh Kumar Sehrawat v. Laxmi

22 Mar 2024 · Vibhu Bakhru; Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2024:DHC:2480-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal against eviction after lease expiry and rent default, upholding the eviction decree and denying further indulgence.

civil appeal_dismissed lease expiry tenant eviction Order XII Rule 6 CPC Section 151 CPC

Upakarma Ayurveda Private Limited v. Rasayanum Enterprises

22 Mar 2024 · Anish Dayal · 2024:DHC:2374

The Delhi High Court upheld the plaintiff's injunction against the defendant's deceptively similar trade dress for 'PURE SHILAJIT' products, allowing the defendant a limited period to adopt distinctive packaging for one product variant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trade mark infringement passing off trade dress color combination

Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Sanjay Jain & Anr.

22 Mar 2024 · Anish Dayal · 2024:DHC:2369
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking removal of the respondent's trademark 'POMA-EX KIWKHEAL', holding that the petitioner has no exclusive rights over the word 'KWIK' and the marks are not deceptively similar.

intellectual_property petition_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 rectification trademark infringement passing off

K.C.P INDIA v. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES & ANR.

22 Mar 2024 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:2655-DB

The Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) CGST Act requires objective reasons and opportunity to the taxpayer, and modified the cancellation date to the petitioner's application date.

tax appeal_allowed Significant GST registration cancellation retrospective cancellation Section 29(2) CGST Act non-filing of returns