Delhi High Court

58,104 judgments

Year:

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

Vinod Kumar Bhatia v. State of NCT of Delhi

24 Nov 2025 · Amit Mahajan · 2025:DHC:10402

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of an ex-employee under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 for wrongful withholding of company property post retirement, affirming the successor entity's right to initiate proceedings.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 630 Companies Act wrongful withholding Delhi Electricity Reform Act revision petition

Kross Diamonds Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(3)

24 Nov 2025 · V. Kameswar Rao; Vinod Kumar

The Delhi High Court dismissed the assessee's appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upholding the ITAT's order treating unexplained excess cash deposits as income under Section 69C, holding that no substantial question of law arose.

tax appeal_dismissed Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 69C Section 260A unexplained cash deposits

Greenway Modern School v. Rammilan Rawat and Anr.

24 Nov 2025 · Avneesh Jhingan · 2025:DHC:10451
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Delhi High Court held that a chargesheet issued by a school manager, if ratified by the Disciplinary Authority Committee constituted under Rule 118, is valid, set aside the Tribunal's quashing of removal order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Disciplinary Authority Committee Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 chargesheet validity manager's authority

Deepak Gupta v. Kirori Mal College & Ors.

24 Nov 2025 · Avneesh Jhingan · 2025:DHC:10395

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the chargesheet as premature, holding that mere issuance of chargesheet without adjudication by the disciplinary authority does not warrant interference.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant chargesheet writ petition prematurity promissory estoppel

Kamal Rajput v. Union of India

24 Nov 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Renu Bhatnagar · 2025:DHC:10436

The Delhi High Court set aside a GST adjudication order passed without hearing the petitioner, remanding the matter for fresh consideration while leaving the validity of related tax notifications open pending Supreme Court review.

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

Trident Limited v. Controller of Patents

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia · 2025:DHC:10343

Delhi High Court set aside patent refusal for yarn with homogeneously distributed pores, remanding for fresh inventive step analysis considering appellant's manufacturing parameters and avoiding hindsight bias.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant patent application inventive step homogeneous pore distribution water-soluble fibres

Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.

24 Nov 2025 · Tejas Karia

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that 'HAVELI' is a generic term common to trade, and the impugned marks 'AMRITSAR HAVELI' and 'THE AMRITSAR HAVELI' are not deceptively similar to the appellant's marks, upholding the Registrar's order allowing their registration.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant Trade Marks Act, 1999 HAVELI Deceptive similarity Generic mark

Sharmila v. Union of India & Ors.

24 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:10473-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition for default and non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear on the hearing dates.

constitutional petition_dismissed writ petition default non-prosecution dismissal

Major Anish Muralidhar v. Maj Bhavesh Talera Retd

24 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 318 (2025) DLT 711
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension to a retired army officer, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising during service are service-connected and limiting its review to errors of law apparent on record.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disability pension armed forces prolonged intervertebral disc medical board

Singh and Sgt. Mritunjay v. Ex MWO Jai Prakash

24 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 318 (2025) DLT 711
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's petition and upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of 50% disability pension for Primary Hypertension to a retired air force personnel, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising during service are service-related unless proven otherwise.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Primary Hypertension Armed Forces Tribunal Release Medical Board

Kumar Singh and Sgt Mritunjay v. 651705 EX JWO Billu Singh (Retd)

24 Nov 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 318 (2025) DLT 711
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension, affirming the presumption that disabilities arising after service entry are service-related unless rebutted by the employer.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disability pension Primary Hypertension Armed Forces Tribunal Medical Board

Rani Alankar Jewellers Private Ltd. v. Kundan Lal and Sons

24 Nov 2025 · Nitin Wasudeo Sambre; Anish Dayal · 2025:DHC:10413-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside a premature ex-parte decree passed before expiry of the 30-day period to file a written statement under Order VIII CPC, emphasizing procedural fairness despite the Commercial Courts Act's mandate for expeditious disposal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VIII Rule 1 CPC written statement service of summons Commercial Courts Act 2015