Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [March 9-15, 2026]

1. [Kapil Mishra] A Delhi court has refused to direct the registration of an FIR against BJP leader and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra over allegations relating to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar dismissed an application filed by complainant Mohd. Ilyas seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR against Mishra and several others. “Keeping in view of the above findings, prayer for registration of FIR against BJP MLA Kapil Mishra and others, on the basis of application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS is hereby rejected,” the court said. However, the court directed that the application be treated as a private complaint. It granted liberty to the complainant to lead evidence in support of his allegations under Section 210(1)(a) read with Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The matter has been listed for March 27 for the examination of the complainant. The plea had sought registration of an FIR against Mishra, the then Station House Officer of Dayalpur police station and several others, including BJP MLA Mohan Singh Bisht and former BJP legislators Jagdish Pradhan and Satpal Sansad. In his complaint, Ilyas alleged that on February 23, 2020, he witnessed Mishra and his associates blocking a road and vandalising street vendors’ carts while police officials stood nearby. He further claimed that protestors were warned to vacate the area or face consequences.

Bench: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar

Click here to read more

2. [Shahrukh Pathan] A Delhi court has rejected the regular bail plea of Shahrukh Pathan, the man accused of pointing a gun at a police constable during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts dismissed the plea, observing that the Delhi High Court had already declined bail to Pathan in October 2024 and there had been no change in circumstances warranting a different view. The court said that when the High Court had refused bail earlier and the circumstances remained unchanged, except that some time had passed, it would not be appropriate for the trial court to grant relief. “Accordingly, this Court is of the view that when the Hon’ble High Court has declined bail to the applicant/accused vide order dated 22.10.2024 and the circumstances have not changed, except the fact that almost one and a half years have passed, this Court should not grant bail to him even now,” the judge observed. The case arises out of FIR No. 51/2020 registered at Jafrabad Police Station in connection with the riots that broke out in North-East Delhi in February 2020. Pathan had allegedly pointed a gun at Police Constable Deepak Dahiya during the violence, an incident that gained widespread attention after photographs of the act went viral on social media. Pathan was arrested on March 3, 2020 and has remained in judicial custody since then.

Case Title: Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan v. State

Bench: ASJ Sameer Bajpai

Click here to read more

3. [AI Summit Protest Case] A Delhi Court has granted interim protection from arrest to a T-shirt designer in connection with the protest that took place during the AI Impact Summit at Bharat Mandapam on February 20. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amit Bansal of the Patiala House Courts granted relief to Umesh Chandra Padala, who has been accused of designing T-shirts allegedly worn by protestors during the demonstration organised by members of the Indian Youth Congress. Removal While granting interim protection, the court directed Padala to cooperate with the ongoing investigation being conducted by the Delhi Police. The court also ordered that in the event the investigating agency seeks to arrest him, Padala must be given a seven-day prior notice. Padala, a resident of Guntur, has been attributed the role of designing the T-shirts allegedly used during the protest. Investigators claim that he assisted the alleged main conspirators in planning the demonstration that took place during the summit. During the hearing, Padala was represented by Advocates Saimon Farooqui and Mohd Azam Khan. The case arises from a protest staged during the AI Impact Summit held at Bharat Mandapam on February 20. According to the police, the demonstration was organised by members associated with the Indian Youth Congress.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amit Bansal

Click here to read more

4. [Sexual Harassment in Delhi Metro] A Delhi Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of a man for sexually harassing a woman inside a moving Delhi Metro train by exposing himself and masturbating next to her, observing that such incidents raise serious concerns about the safety of women in public transport. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi of the Saket District Courts dismissed the appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case relates to an incident that occurred in 2021 inside a metro train running on the Yellow Line between Saket Metro Station and INA Metro Station. According to the prosecution, the accused exposed himself, masturbated in front of the woman passenger and touched her inappropriately while standing next to her in a crowded coach during the journey. The woman raised an alarm during the incident, following which other passengers intervened and forced the accused to get off the train. A complaint was subsequently lodged and an FIR was registered at the metro police station at INA. The trial court, after examining the evidence, had convicted the accused for outraging the modesty of a woman and committing sexual harassment. He was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment for each offence along with a fine of ₹5,000 under both Sections 354 and 354A IPC, with the sentences directed to run concurrently. Challenging the conviction, the accused argued that the trial court had relied solely on the testimony of the complainant and that there was no independent corroborative evidence to support the allegations.

Case Title: Mohd. Tahir v. The State

Bench: ASJ Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi

Click here to read more

5. [Sharjeel Imam] A Delhi Court has granted 10 days’ interim bail to Sharjeel Imam in a case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots to allow him to attend his brother’s wedding. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court allowed Imam’s plea for temporary release, granting interim bail from March 20 to March 30. Imam had approached the court seeking six weeks’ interim bail to attend the wedding scheduled later this month. The court, however, granted him relief for 10 days. Imam is among the accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 communal violence in northeast Delhi, which left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured. Notably, the Supreme Court rejected Imam’s regular bail plea in January this year. At the time, the apex court also refused bail to Umar Khalid in the same conspiracy case. In its January 5 order, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria held that delay in trial and prolonged incarceration cannot become a “trump card” for securing bail in cases registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court had observed that while personal liberty is an important constitutional value, it cannot be the sole factor when allegations involve serious offences affecting public order and national security.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai

Click here to read more

6. [Lacoste] In a major ruling, the Delhi High Court has restrained Hong Kong based Crocodile International from using a crocodile logo that was found to infringe the trademark and copyright of French luxury fashion brand Lacoste. The ruling came after a long running legal dispute between the two companies over the use of reptile imagery in the apparel industry. A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that Lacoste had successfully established infringement of its protected crocodile trademark as well as the copyright in the artistic work that forms part of its iconic logo. The court therefore barred Crocodile International from using the disputed mark in India. At the same time, the bench declined to grant relief to Lacoste on its claim of passing off. The court observed that the company had not produced sufficient material to demonstrate the extent of goodwill required to sustain such a claim under trademark law. The dispute between the two companies dates back more than two decades and represents one of the many legal battles between the brands in different jurisdictions over their respective crocodile themed logos. Lacoste had approached the Delhi High Court in 2001 seeking protection of its trademark and copyright in India. The company sought to restrain Crocodile International and its Indian subsidiary from manufacturing, selling or promoting clothing and related products that carried a crocodile device which it claimed was confusingly similar to its own well known logo.

Case Title: Lacoste & Anr. v. Crocodile International Pte Ltd. & Anr.

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Click here to read more

7. [Kuldeep Singh Sengar] The Delhi High Court has deferred the hearing on a plea filed by the Unnao rape survivor seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar and other convicts in connection with the custodial death of her father. The court granted additional time to the convicts to file their responses and listed the matter for further hearing on March 28. A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja was hearing the plea filed by the survivor, who has challenged the quantum of punishment awarded to Sengar and others. The survivor has urged the court to enhance the sentence imposed on the convicts and argued that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. During the proceedings on Wednesday, the bench allowed more time to the convicts to submit their replies to the plea. Taking note of the request, the court adjourned the matter and directed that the case be taken up again later this month. The plea seeks enhancement of the sentence awarded to Sengar by a Delhi court in March 2020. At that time, the trial court had convicted Sengar for his role in conspiring in the custodial death of the survivor’s father and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The survivor has argued before the High Court that the punishment awarded by the trial court is inadequate in light of the seriousness of the offence. According to the plea, the circumstances surrounding the death of her father warrant a far stricter penalty, and the convicts should be awarded the death sentence.

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

8. [National Herald Case] The Delhi High Court has adjourned the hearing of a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging a trial court order that had refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint against several Congress leaders in the alleged National Herald linked money laundering case. The matter will now be heard on April 20. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the court would not be able to hear the matter on the scheduled date and agreed to grant a short adjournment after a request from the agency’s counsel. Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju requested the court to list the matter soon for hearing. Accepting the request, the bench adjourned the case to April 20. The case arises from the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge to a December 16, 2025 order passed by a trial court which held that it could not take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The trial court had concluded that the complaint was legally unsustainable because it was not based on a First Information Report relating to the scheduled offence.

Case Title: Enforcement Directorate v. Sonia Gandhi & Anr.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

9. [Trademark Registration] The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Parle Products Pvt Ltd in a trademark dispute concerning the mark “20-20”, thereby upholding the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks granting registration of the mark in favour of Avon Agro Industries. The bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while deciding the matter, held that Parle’s later commercial use of the mark could not override Avon Agro’s earlier application for registration. The Court emphasised that both companies had filed their trademark applications on a “proposed to be used” basis, making the date of filing a crucial factor in determining priority. “…..it is clear that the respondent no.2 had applied for registration of mark “20-20” on 29.09.2007, while the appellant had applied on 04.10.2007, thus, undeniably making respondent no.2 the senior/prior adopter of the said mark. Consequently, the putting to use of the mark ‘20-20’ by the appellant while manufacturing goods from the year 2009 would also be rendered inconsequential in terms of the aforesaid ratio which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is squarely applicable to the present case”, the Court ruled. The dispute dates back nearly two decades. Avon Agro Industries first applied to register the mark “20-20” on September 27, 2007 for goods falling under Class 30 of the Trade Marks classification. This category includes food products such as coffee, tea, biscuits and other edible goods.

Case Title: Parle Products Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

10. [Reliance Entertainment] The Delhi High Court has held Reliance Entertainment Studios Private Limited and its directors guilty of contempt of court in a dispute arising from financing arrangements related to film and web series projects, including the Amazon Prime Video series “Indian Police Force”. The Court found that the company had failed to comply with earlier judicial directions requiring it to deposit certain amounts payable to Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd., popularly known as T-Series, under a loan agreement executed between the parties. The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order after examining the record and noting that the defendants had not fully complied with earlier directions of the Court despite being granted multiple opportunities. The Court consequently directed Reliance Entertainment to deposit the outstanding amount along with interest at the rate of 12.5 percent within two weeks. It further warned that if the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the concerned directors could face four weeks of imprisonment. “….this Court finds the Defendant to be guilty of wilful disobedience of the directions issued by the Court on 19.12.2023 with respect to deposit of sum of Rs. 7.42 crores and Rs. 2.32 crores within a period of two [2] weeks i.e. w.e.f. 22.01.2024”, the Court observed. The dispute arose from a loan agreement dated May 19, 2021 under which T Series had advanced funds to Reliance Entertainment for film and web series projects. T Series later approached the High Court seeking recovery of ₹60.23 crore, alleging that the defendant company had defaulted on its repayment obligations. During the course of proceedings, the Court had earlier directed Reliance Entertainment to deposit ₹7.42 crore that was receivable from Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. The Court had also instructed the company to account for the revenues generated from the release of two projects, namely the film “Crakk” and the web series “Indian Police Force”.

Case Title: Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v. Reliance Entertainment Studios Private Limited

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more