The Delhi High Court upheld an interim order restraining Ganraj Enterprises from using HP+ and HP®+ for screws.

The dispute arose after Landmark Crafts, owner of the registered “HP” trademark in Class 6, discovered identical screws being sold under deceptively similar marks.

Applying the statutory presumption of validity, the Court found that the competing marks were nearly identical and used for the same goods, amounting to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also noted that the unauthorised use of the ® symbol reflected a lack of bona fides and heightened consumer confusion. 

Dismissing the appeal, the Court allowed the restraint to continue during the pendency of the suit.

[Ganraj Enterprises & Ors. v. Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court held that a statutory appellate remedy cannot be defeated due to tribunal vacancies, recusals, or administrative hurdles.

The Court was dealing with a case where auction purchasers were unable to pursue their appeal because of obstacles at the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

Observing that the litigants were not at fault, the Court ruled that writ jurisdiction may be exercised when a statutory appeal becomes ineffective in practice. It emphasised that procedural or institutional failures cannot deny parties meaningful access to justice.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the pending appeal be entertained within seven days, reaffirming that statutory rights cannot be frustrated by systemic shortcomings.

[True Value Marketing Services Pvt Ltd. v. UOI]

The Delhi High Court has held that SEBI cannot rely on an “intrinsic” investigation report to prosecute an accused without sharing a copy with them.

Setting aside a trial court order, the Court ruled that the report forms the very basis of SEBI’s decision to prosecute and is essential for a fair defence. 

Relying on Article 21 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling in T Takano v SEBI, the Court held that claims of regulatory confidentiality cannot override the right to a fair trial.

It observed that withholding such material would place the accused at a clear disadvantage and violate principles of natural justice.

[Siddharth Shankar v. SEBI]

The Delhi High Court has urged the GST Council to convene an urgent meeting to consider reducing GST on air purifiers from 18% to 5%, noting Delhi’s severe air pollution crisis.

The Court observed that if clean air cannot be ensured, lowering GST is the minimum relief citizens deserve.

Referring to parliamentary recommendations, it also asked the Council to examine whether air purifiers can be classified as medical devices for tax purposes.

Stressing the urgency of the issue, the Court said the matter would be reviewed shortly in view of escalating pollution levels and public health concerns.

[Kapil Madan v. UOI & Ors]

The Delhi High Court held that former BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar cannot be categorised as a "public servant," and therefore, Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(b) of the IPC are not attracted.

The Court observed that the offence would instead fall under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, prescribing a minimum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. This clarifies the legal basis behind the suspension of his life sentence by the High Court yesterday. 

On Tuesday, the Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence pending appeal, subject to conditions including a ₹15 lakh personal bond, weekly reporting to police, surrender of passport, travel restrictions, and a complete prohibition on contacting the survivor or her family.

[Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI]

The Delhi High Court passed directions to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and the Delhi government to proceed against cafes and restaurants functioning in Majnu-ka-tilla without mandatory permissions and breaching safety norms.

The directions were issued while disposing of a PIL highlighting that several establishments were functioning without sanctioned building plans, fire safety clearances, or other statutory approvals, despite being located on the Yamuna floodplains.

The petitioner sought strict enforcement of building regulations and safety standards. The DDA informed the Court that a suo motu complaint had already been registered.

The Court closed the PIL and ordered authorities to act within three months.

The Delhi High Court declined to stay the release of the web series UP 77, after the producer stated it is a work of fiction and not based on gangster Vikas Dubey.

The Court noted the producer’s assurance that a clear disclaimer to this effect would appear before every episode. The plea was filed by Dubey’s wife, who alleged that the series violated her right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court recorded the producer’s undertaking and directed submission of an affidavit regarding the disclaimer. 

The matter is listed for further hearing on January 7, 2026.

[Richa Dubey v. Waves OTT Platform]

The Delhi High Court has suspended the life sentence of former BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, pending appeal.

The Court imposed stringent conditions, including execution of a ₹15 lakh personal bond, weekly reporting to the local police, surrender of passport, restrictions on travel, and a complete bar on contacting or approaching the survivor or her family.

The Court clarified that any violation of the conditions would lead to cancellation of relief. 

The appeal is listed before the roster bench on January 15, 2026

[Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI]

The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of obscene online content falsely depicting actor R Madhavan and webpages selling merchandise using his name without authorisation.

The interim directions were passed in a suit filed by Madhavan seeking protection of his personality rights.

After examining the flagged URLs, the Court ordered immediate takedown of obscene material and unauthorised commercial use of the actor’s name and likeness. Social media intermediaries were also directed to disclose basic subscriber details of the alleged infringers within three weeks.

The Court, however, deferred passing directions on certain AI-generated fan content and stated that the issue would be considered separately.

[Ranganathan Madhavan v. G Fimlz Studioz & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court today urgently listed a petition filed by Richa Dubey, wife of gangster Vikas Dubey, seeking a stay on the release of the web series UP 77, reportedly based on his life. The series is scheduled to be released on December 25.

Vikas Dubey, accused of killing eight police personnel in Kanpur, was killed in a police encounter in July 2020.

Following his death, the Supreme Court appointed an inquiry commission, which later cleared the Uttar Pradesh Police but recommended action against officials who allegedly patronised Dubey.

The High Court is likely to hear the petition later today.

[Richa Dubey v. Web Series Producers]

The Delhi High Court has directed Meta, X Corp, and several e-commerce platforms to take down social media posts falsely attributing quotes to former cricketer Sunil Gavaskar, along with listings selling unauthorised merchandise bearing his name or likeness.

The Court observed that the circulation of fabricated statements could seriously damage Gavaskar’s credibility and reputation as a broadcaster and cricket commentator. 

It noted that misuse of his identity amounted to a violation of personality and publicity rights.

Granting interim relief, the Court restrained further use of Gavaskar’s name and image without consent. It also permitted impleadment of users responsible for the posts once their details are disclosed by the platforms.

The Delhi High Court has held that the non-obstante clause under Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act prevails over Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act while dealing with arbitral appeals.

The Court dismissed appeals filed against orders passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

It observed that the phrase “any other law for the time being in force” in Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act is wide enough to include the Delhi High Court Act.

It ruled that once a dispute falls within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, the appellate framework provided under that statute alone would govern, excluding recourse under the Delhi High Court Act.

[Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr.]

Indian Kanoon has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order directing removal of articles and URLs relating to a money laundering accused who was later exonerated.

The trial court had invoked the “right to be forgotten”, observing that continued online availability of case records caused harm to dignity despite the acquittal.

The High Court issued notice on the plea but declined to stay the trial court’s order, noting that broader questions on the right to be forgotten are already pending before the Supreme Court.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 15, 2026.

The Delhi High Court has flagged the misuse of victim compensation in sexual offence cases and issued guidelines for the effective implementation of victim compensation mechanisms.

The Court noted that interim compensation awarded after FIR registration is often not recovered when victims later withdraw allegations, enter into settlements, seek quashing of proceedings, or turn hostile during trial.

It observed that the Delhi State Legal Services Authority is often not informed of quashing orders, including in cases under Section 376 IPC and the POCSO Act, preventing examination of recovery.

To address this gap, the Court directed trial courts to forward quashing and closure orders to DSLSA and mandated disclosure of compensation details in petitions seeking quashing of sexual offence cases.

[State v. Toshib alias Paritosh & Ors.]