Delhi High Court judgments

The Delhi High Court quashed the ex-parte interim injunction against Nugenesys after finding the plaintiff deliberately concealed a cease-and-desist notice, breaching the duty of candour in the Statement of Truth. The decision warns trademark litigants that material suppression will invalidate injunctive relief under the Commercial Courts Act.

The Delhi High Court set aside the Section 148 order that forced the accused to deposit 20 % of the compensation amount during the pendency of his appeal. It waived the deposit requirement and instructed the appellate court to dispose of the appeal within six weeks, easing the petitioner’s financial hardship.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the 2026 amendment to Section 96 of the IBC operates retrospectively, extinguishing the interim-moratorium bar for personal guarantors. Consequently, suits against guarantors can proceed despite a pending moratorium. This decision broadens creditors' enforcement options in ongoing insolvency proceedings.

Delhi High Court dismisses appeal, upholding arbitral award and confirming narrow scope of judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Without the requisite stamp duty, an arbitral award cannot be treated as a valid instrument for execution. The Delhi High Court also stayed any enforcement while a Section 34 challenge remains pending, leaving the award ineffective until the petition is finally decided. This restricts award holders and creditors from pursuing recovery until both stamp duty is paid and the petition is resolved.

The Delhi High Court set aside a life-sentence for sexual assault, ruling that a child victim’s inconsistent testimony cannot alone satisfy the evidentiary burden under the IPC and POCSO Act without supporting forensic evidence. The decision underscores that corroboration is mandatory for convictions based solely on child witness statements.

By reading the UAPA’s reference to CrPC 167 as a reference to BNSS 187, the Delhi High Court confirmed that default bail remains barred for 180 days in terrorism-related cases. This prevents a premature 90-day bail claim and affects all accused charged under the UAPA.

The Delhi High Court ordered monthly supervised visits to include group activities like board games to strengthen the father-twin bond, and mandated make-up visits with a child counsellor for any missed sessions. The ruling targets parents in contempt for breaching visitation orders, underscoring the court’s focus on child welfare.

Delhi HC rules arbitration clause survives final award for subsequent distinct disputes, appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) for GST reimbursement claim. Court confines Section 11 inquiry to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement, not dispute merits. Decision protects arbitration rights in long-term contracts where fresh claims arise post-award.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s finding that ‘NOVIETS’ is deceptively similar to the well-known mark ‘NOVARTIS’, considering visual and phonetic resemblance in the pharmaceutical sector. The court reiterated that appellate interference with interim injunctions is warranted only where the order is perverse or ignores settled principles, dismissing the appeal filed by Noviets Pharma.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a Section 164 statement remains valid even if a parent assists as interpreter, and that PoCSO’s interpreter requirement is fulfilled by any person competent in the child’s mode of communication. This expands admissibility of child-witness testimony and clarifies interpreter qualifications for future PoCSO sexual-offence cases, affecting prosecutors and defence counsel.

Delhi High Court ruled Section 34 challenges to international commercial arbitral awards are limited to patent illegality, rejecting waiver-of-timeline arguments. The decision narrows judicial interference, reinforcing finality of cross-border awards. Parties must rely on these narrow grounds.

Charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 IPC were upheld at the charge-framing stage because the court said a prima facie case based on the material record, including supplementary statements, suffices. This clarifies that detailed proof is not required until trial, guiding prosecutors and defence in dowry-death matters.

The Delhi High Court held that the three-month limitation for filing a Section 34 petition only begins when a Section 33 application is finally disposed, even if the application is a sham. Consequently, parties can file Section 34 petitions later than previously thought, and courts may award punitive costs against frivolous Section 33 filings.

The Delhi High Court rejected the Section 34 challenge to the 2018 arbitral award on the Safdarjung Tomb illumination contract, reiterating that awards can be set aside only on the narrow grounds enumerated in the Arbitration Act. This reinforces limited judicial interference, affecting parties seeking to overturn commercial arbitration outcomes.

The Delhi High Court ruled that once a criminal trial is underway, the court’s inherent powers cannot be used to set aside the FIR, even when the complainant and accused have reached a settlement. This limits the ability of parties to terminate pending prosecutions through private compromise after prosecution has begun, affecting litigants seeking FIR quash on settlement grounds.

A Delhi High Court set aside an eviction decree, ruling that only the Rent Controller can determine whether a rent-increase notice under Sections 6A and 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was validly served. Consequently, civil courts cannot adjudicate rent-increase disputes until that determination, impacting landlords and tenants across Delhi.

Omaxe Ltd’s petition under Section 37(1)(c) was dismissed, leaving the arbitral award that orders the builder to pay compensation for delayed possession, with 15% interest, untouched. The ruling clarifies that courts may intervene only for evident misconduct or jurisdictional error, not merely to alter award amounts. Homebuyers and developers in builder-buyer agreements are directly impacted.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits setting aside an award only on patent illegality or public-policy grounds. Consequently, the appellant’s force-majeure claim and interest-rate dispute were dismissed, narrowing set-aside avenues for parties in commercial and real-estate arbitrations.

Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is deemed applicable to appeals arising from suits filed before the Act’s commencement, even after the suits are re-numbered. Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, signalling that pre-Act commercial litigants cannot invoke the Act’s appeal provisions.

The Delhi High Court struck down an Appellate Tribunal interim order that sought to channel frozen proceeds of crime to settle liabilities of another company, holding such diversion beyond the scope of Section 42 of the PMLA. This bars authorities from using seized assets to satisfy third-party debts, affecting enforcement actions against money-laundering suspects.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that an interlocutory injunction in a separate trademark dispute does not disqualify a bidder and that a change in shareholding does not erase the bidder’s earlier project experience required under the tender. This clarifies that eligibility is judged on substantive qualifications, not on unrelated litigation or post-tender ownership changes, impacting all participants in government procurements.

Delhi High Court held that a sole arbitrator appointed solely by one party breaches Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, rendering the award void. It cautions that contract clauses permitting unilateral appointments are ineffective without a written waiver, impacting commercial arbitrations.

Delhi HC ruled that a CGST penalty must be contested through a Section 107 appeal and that the pre-deposit requirement is governed by the original provision, staying recovery until the taxpayer deposits 25 % of the penalty. The order clarifies the procedural path for taxpayers while the scope of Section 122(1) remains pending before the Supreme Court.