Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Royalgolf Link City Projects Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Times Innovative Media Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory nature of strict timelines for filing written statements in commercial suits, dismissing condonation of a five-day delay despite COVID-era precedents.
Ranveer Pratap Singh Bundela v. Union of India and Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging transfer and inquiry proceedings but directed release of withheld salary as the petitioner complied with reporting orders.
Union of India v. Kolli Uday Kumari
The Delhi High Court upheld that widowed daughters are eligible for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, overruling exclusionary guidelines and affirming binding precedent from the Supreme Court.
Parmeshwar Jana v. Lakhan Singh
The Delhi High Court upheld the mandatory 120-day period for filing written statements under the Commercial Courts Act, rejecting pandemic-related extensions beyond that period.
Northern India Paint Color and Varnish Co. LLP v. Union of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed a restrainment order barring construction on a property lawfully conveyed to the petitioner, holding that the property is not enemy property and the petitioner’s possession is lawful.
Premwati v. District Magistrate North & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the rejection of the petitioner's application for alternate plot allotment as time barred, holding that COVID-19 lockdown suspension of limitation and correct filing dates warranted reconsideration on merits.
Allergan Inc v. Controller of Patents
Delhi High Court allowed amendment of patent claims from method to product claims for intracameral implants, holding that claims must be construed with specifications under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act.
Sachin & Ors. v. Central Reserve Police Force & Anr.
Delhi High Court granted a three-year age relaxation as a one-time measure for CRPF Head Constable recruitment due to administrative delay in conducting examinations since 2016.
Corona Remedies Private Limited v. Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The Bombay High Court allowed Corona's appeal, holding that concurrent registration under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act bars infringement claims between similar registered pharmaceutical trademarks and that no passing off or confusion arose from the use of the mark "STIMULET".
M/s. Instakart Services Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a logistics service provider delivering goods sold on an e-commerce platform is neither a dealer nor importer under Maharashtra LBT laws and is not liable to register or pay Local Body Tax.
Vijay Jagannath Salvi v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court held that revocation of permission to hold a Body Building Competition on grounds of the Model Code of Conduct was arbitrary and unsustainable, emphasizing the need for valid grounds and hearing before administrative cancellation.
Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the rejection of a two- and three-wheeler aggregator license application due to non-compliance and absence of State policy, holding that no aggregator can operate without a valid license under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ram @ Pappu Arun Kore v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld a preventive detention order under the M.P.D.A. Act, ruling that the petitioner’s violent acts disturbed public order and that procedural requirements were complied with.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Rati Ram
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken or compensation tendered, setting aside the High Court's contrary decision.
Delhi Government v. Ritu Ram
The Supreme Court clarified that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed under the 2013 Act only if possession was not taken and compensation not paid for five years before 2014, setting aside the High Court's contrary order.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Rati Ram
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken or compensation tendered, overruling the High Court's contrary decision.
de2c7e46b2569ac4d3ae523361b01fb69f86796f83ee3ac9f623e62d8f83614c
The court upheld the applicability of the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2013, including Section 24(2), to police disciplinary proceedings from January 1, 2014, dismissing the appeal against the High Court's interpretation.
Delhi Development Authority v. Dewan Chand Pruthi
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was not taken due to a court stay but compensation was tendered, overruling earlier contrary precedent.
Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Pruthi & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act do not fail merely due to non-possession caused by a court stay if compensation is paid, overruling earlier precedent and allowing the appeal of Delhi Development Authority.
Delhi Vikas Pradhikaran v. Diwan Chand Pruthi
The Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was prevented by court injunction or compensation was paid, overruling earlier contrary precedent.