Delhi High Court

29,724 judgments

Year:

M/S TRIOM HOSPITALITY v. M/S J.S. HOSPITALITY SERVICES PVT. LTD.

24 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:10391-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The court held that allegations of forgery do not preclude arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is manifestly non-existent, and detailed validity issues must be decided by the arbitral tribunal, thus setting aside the refusal to refer the dispute to arbitration.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act prima facie review arbitration agreement validity forgery allegations

Gaurav Khattar v. Virender Aggarwal

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10361

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition challenging dismissal of a civil appeal on grounds of delay and improper service, holding summons were validly served and no error apparent on record was shown.

civil petition_dismissed Review Petition Section 114 CPC Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC Service of Summons

Shashank v. State (GNCT of Delhi)

24 Nov 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:10430

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant due to significant inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the prosecution case, emphasizing the benefit of doubt in criminal trials.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant benefit of doubt identification parade medical examination recovery of stolen property

MEDILABO RFP INC v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10362

The Delhi High Court held that pharmaceutical composition claims are not excluded from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, setting aside the refusal and remanding for fresh consideration of amended claims.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Section 3(i) Patents Act method of treatment exclusion pharmaceutical composition patent patent claim interpretation

Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Anr. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia, J · 2025:DHC:10342

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of a patent application for sustained release pharmaceutical formulations, holding the invention obvious in light of prior art and lacking inventive step under Indian patent law.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant inventive step patent application non-aqueous carrier triglycerides

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10348

Delhi High Court held that the presence of a 'Contact Us' page and product listings on websites can prima facie confer territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement suits, requiring trial to decide disputed factual issues.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction Order VII Rule 10 CPC trademark infringement passing off

Castrol Limited v. Sanjay Sonavane and Ors.

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10370

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's subsequent suit for injunction against media disparagement as barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC due to pendency of an earlier suit on the same cause of action, directing the Plaintiff to amend the earlier suit instead.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order II Rule 2 CPC cause of action commercial disparagement trademark infringement

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N. V. & ORS. v. KARMA MINDTECH & ORS.

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10345
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' application for initiating criminal perjury proceedings against Defendant No. 2, holding that mere contradictions or denials in affidavits without unimpeachable evidence do not constitute perjury warranting criminal action at the interlocutory stage.

civil petition_dismissed Significant perjury false affidavit copyright infringement trade secret

Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10368

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition to cancel a copyright registration for an artistic work substantially reproducing the petitioner’s original SWASTIK device, holding it lacked originality and violated the petitioner’s rights under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

intellectual_property petition_allowed Significant Copyright Act, 1957 Section 50 rectification petition artistic work

Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10364

Delhi High Court grants interim injunction restraining defendant's use of marks deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered trademarks, affirming jurisdiction based on e-commerce presence and prior user rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant interim injunction trademark infringement passing off territorial jurisdiction

Mohammed Aamir v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

24 Nov 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:10435-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order for denial of hearing, remanding the matter for fresh consideration after allowing the petitioner to file a reply, while leaving the validity of related tax notifications open pending Supreme Court decision.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Goods and Services Tax Section 168A Show Cause Notice Natural Justice

Vansh Mehra v. State of NCT of Delhi

24 Nov 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:10425

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused after completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet under Section 316(2) of the BNS, emphasizing that custody's purpose is to ensure trial attendance and not pre-trial punishment.

criminal appeal_allowed bail regular bail Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Section 316(2)

Envitech Consultants India Pvt Ltd v. Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited & Ors.

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia, J · 2025:DHC:10351
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that the plaint alleging copyright infringement and violation of moral rights by unauthorized use of DPRs discloses a cause of action and cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC despite disputed ownership claims under the Copyright Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC copyright infringement moral rights Section 57 Copyright Act

Vijay Partap Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

24 Nov 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:10404

The Delhi High Court set aside the framing of charges under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner, holding that departmental exoneration and lack of grave suspicion warrant discharge at the charge framing stage.

criminal petition_allowed Significant framing of charges Section 354 IPC discharge departmental enquiry

Har Swarup Verma v. State of Delhi

24 Nov 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:10405
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court acquitted accused public servants for lack of proof of prior demand of bribe and held that unauthorized investigation does not vitiate trial absent miscarriage of justice.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7 PC Act Section 13 PC Act demand of illegal gratification

ITC LIMITED v. PELICAN TOBACCO CO LTD & ORS.

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia, J · 2025:DHC:10358

The Delhi High Court upheld an injunction restraining defendants from using marks and trade dress deceptively similar to ITC's 'GOLD FLAKE' trademark, affirming trademark infringement and passing off despite defendants' claims of genericness and delay.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Trade Marks Act, 1999 Order XXXIX CPC

Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar of Trade Marks

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10350

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Registrar's refusal of the trademark 'SoEasy', holding it to be a suggestive and inherently distinctive mark registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 19 withdrawal of acceptance Section 9 absolute grounds for refusal distinctiveness

Hermes International v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10346

The Delhi High Court declared the Plaintiffs' 'Birkin' Bag and 'Hermes' marks as well-known trade marks and decreed the suit for infringement and passing off after the Defendants admitted no infringing products were manufactured or sold.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trade mark infringement passing off well-known trade mark three-dimensional shape mark

The Coca-Cola Company v. M/S Raj Trade Links

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10369

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application to file belated additional documents in a commercial suit, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines under the Commercial Courts Act to ensure expeditious trial and prevent prejudice.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Order XI Rule 10 CPC belated filing of documents reasonable cause

M/S WHITEFIELDS OVERSEAS LTD. & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

24 Nov 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:10403

The Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners in a commercial dispute, holding that mere breach of contract without dishonest intention at inception does not constitute cheating under IPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 420 IPC cheating summoning order Section 482 CrPC