Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Pani Ram v. Mohan Lal Joshi
The Delhi High Court held that in a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint, issuance of notice under Section 223 B.N.S.S. before examining the complainant is valid as the affidavit filed suffices as evidence at the pre-cognizance stage.
PROGNOSYS MEDICAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging tender conditions, holding that an unsuccessful bidder who withdrew and was disqualified without timely challenge cannot later question the tender process at an advanced stage.
Bela Dalmia & Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council
The Delhi High Court quashed a municipal property tax assessment order due to a 14-year delay in adjudication, holding such delay unreasonable and allowing fresh reassessment under the NDMC Act.
M/S Nakoda Food Marketing & Ors. v. M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal to vary the injunction restraining the appellants from using the trademark "SALONI" in Class 30 after they obtained registration, holding that co-existing registered proprietors may use identical marks in their respective classes without infringement.
Manoj Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to furnish one consolidated surety for 21 pending cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act, holding that excessive bail conditions defeating liberty can be modified under inherent powers of the court.
Sandeep v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that concurrence between the Detailed Medical Examination and Appeal Medical Board findings conclusively determines medical fitness, denying the petitioner a fresh medical examination despite a contrary independent medical opinion.
M/S VAIDYA RISHI INDIA HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. SURESH DUTT PARASHAR & ORS.
The Delhi High Court held that no infringement action lies between registered proprietors of identical or similar trademarks in their registered classes, setting aside an injunction granted solely on infringement grounds.
Union of India v. Raj Bala
The Delhi High Court held that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld from an employee on the ground of non-transfer of pro-rata pension by the previous employer and directed immediate release of pension with interest.
Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Union of India & Anr.
The High Court held that an appeal against a show cause memorandum praying for revocation of suspension must be treated as an appeal against the suspension order and directed the authority to decide it within two weeks.
Roshan Lal Saini v. Union of India and Ors
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging rejection of appointment under the withdrawn LARSGESS Scheme, holding no vested right arises from a discontinued government scheme.
M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD v. MS. SURIYA NAHEED
The Delhi High Court held that it will not interfere under Article 227 with concurrent findings of fact by consumer fora absent patent illegality or perversity, dismissing the petition challenging refund amount in a deficiency of service complaint.
M/S INTEC CAPITAL LTD. v. FRONTLINE RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.
The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause providing for unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is not void ab initio and allowed the appeal setting aside the dismissal of the Section 9 petition seeking interim relief.
Kausal Goyal and Ors. v. Awadh Oils Private Limited
The Delhi High Court directed the Commercial Court to rehear the interim injunction application afresh without being influenced by the impugned order, keeping all parties' rights open and dismissed the appeal.
Sangeeta Patel & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court transferred a writ petition concerning Physiotherapists' service matters to the Central Administrative Tribunal, recognizing the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
M/S. TRANS INDIA LOGISTICS v. GSTO, WARD-60 & ANR.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand order due to improper notice on the GST portal and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner a fair hearing, while leaving the validity of extension notifications to the Supreme Court.
Jagan Deep Sandhu v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 61 Zone 5
The Delhi High Court set aside ex-parte GST demand orders due to defective service of Show Cause Notices and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard, while leaving the validity of extension notifications open pending Supreme Court decision.
Arvind Kumar @ Gaurav v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant in a POCSO sexual assault case due to failure of prosecution to establish foundational facts and conclusive identification, thereby negating the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
Aarti Mangla Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Customs New Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that show cause notices issued within limitation under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 are valid and directed the Customs Department to hear petitioners willing to pay duty before passing orders on seized gold chains.
Manoj Plastic v. The Govt of NCT of Delhi
Delhi High Court dismissed writ petition challenging GST time extension notifications, directing petitioner to file appeal with pre-deposit, pending Supreme Court's final ruling on notification validity.
TARA INTERNATIONAL v. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE (DRI)
The Delhi High Court upheld the jurisdiction of DRI officials to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act and held that pre-notice consultation is not mandatory for notices under Section 28(4), dismissing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to file appeal before CESTAT.