Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority
The Delhi High Court held that the DDA is not bound by Ministry notifications reserving 50% of EWS flats for apartment owners, vacating the interim stay and allowing DDA to allot EWS units on a first come first serve basis.
M/S KALSI FINANCE PVT. LTD. v. D. D. A.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging DDA's demand for composition and unearned increase charges, holding that the petitioner’s delay and laches barred relief under Articles 226 and 227.
RPG Enterprises Limited v. RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court cancelled the respondent's trademark registration for "RPG" due to bad faith adoption and infringement of the petitioner's well-known "RPG" mark, affirming protection for well-known trademarks against identical marks even on allied goods.
Diamond Modular Pvt. Ltd. v. Yash Arora as Trading as Siddhi Vinayak Traders
The Delhi High Court cancelled the registration of the trademark "GREEN DIAMOND" held by a former distributor for dishonest adoption and passing off against the prior registered and well-known "DIAMOND" trademark of the petitioner.
Novartis AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to file an additional written statement beyond the statutory period under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to include facts about the plaintiffs' refused Divisional Patent Application, holding that such filing is within the Court's discretion and not barred by prior interlocutory findings.
FMI LIMITED v. MIDAS TOUCH METALLOYS PVT. LTD.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from using the deceptively similar trademark 'INDEED' on measuring tapes, affirming the plaintiff's prior user rights and passing off claim.
KGF Cottons Pvt Ltd v. Haldiram Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award as barred by limitation since the initial filing without the award was non-est and subsequent filing was beyond the prescribed period under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
VIJAY PRABHU v. S.T. LAJAPATHIE
The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of specific performance claim under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, holding that a party not ready and willing to perform and not having paid full consideration cannot claim partial specific performance.
Haldhar Prasad Gupta v. Deepak Kumar & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed university authorities to adjudicate the petitioner’s claims for salary arrears and pension following absorption, emphasizing fact-finding enquiry and administrative resolution rather than court adjudication.
Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India & Anr.
The Supreme Court held that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage and must be adjudicated following statutory procedure, directing immediate release of the appellant who was a juvenile at the time of the offence.
INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION v. SRI BALA & CO.
The Supreme Court held that a second suit for specific performance filed beyond three years from rejection of the earlier plaint is barred by limitation and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bansal Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for arbitration claims following consumer complaint proceedings and directed payment of interest on delayed insurance claim from the date the claim was held within limitation.
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to urgently frame and implement a statutory scheme for cashless treatment of motor accident victims during the golden hour to uphold the right to life under Article 21.
Meera Singh v. Deepak Kumar
The Supreme Court held that disputes over salary arrears and pension entitlement following absorption require adjudication through enquiry and reasoned orders, not contempt proceedings, and directed university authorities to decide the claims accordingly.
DHIRENDRA KUMAR v. DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS
The Supreme Court held that claims for salary and pension arrears of absorbed employees require fact-finding enquiries by university authorities and cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings, disposing of the petitions with directions for such adjudication.
BAIDYA NATH CHOUDHARY v. DR. SREE SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH
The Supreme Court directed a fact-finding enquiry to adjudicate the petitioner's claims of salary arrears and pension following absorption, dismissing the contempt petition for non-compliance.
Dr. Shyam Narayan Singh v. Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court directed a fact-finding enquiry and administrative adjudication for payment of salary arrears and pension to absorbed employees, dismissing the contempt petition challenging interim withholding of dues.
H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a six-year delay in recalling a suit dismissed as abated, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws and res judicata principles.
Anraj Devi v. Deepak Kumar
The Supreme Court directed Magadh University to adjudicate and pay family pension and post-retiral benefits to the petitioner’s deceased husband’s family in compliance with its earlier absorption order, disposing of the contempt petition with procedural directions.
Dr. Yugeshwar Yadav v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed a fact-finding enquiry to adjudicate disputed claims of salary arrears and pension following absorption into service, holding that interim withholding of payments pending enquiry does not amount to contempt.