Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 451 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 900Delhi High Court Quashes Trademark Registration Of 'Captain Blue' In Plea By Producer Of 'Captain Morgan' RumCase title: Diageo Scotland Limited vs. Prachi Verma & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 451The Delhi High Court has directed the removal 'Captain Blue' mark from the Trade Marks Registry, in a plea by the alcoholic...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 451 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 900
Case title: Diageo Scotland Limited vs. Prachi Verma & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 451
The Delhi High Court has directed the removal 'Captain Blue' mark from the Trade Marks Registry, in a plea by the alcoholic beverages manufacturer anddistributor Diageo Scotland Limited, which produces the 'Captain Morgan' brand of rums.
Diageo Scotland Limited (appellant) is a part of the Diageo Group which holds a vast and diverse portfolio of spirit brands. Its flagship brand includes 'Captain Morgan' and sub-brands such as 'Captain Morgan Gold', 'Captain Morgan White Rum' and 'Captain Morgan Dark Rum'
Citing Draupadi From Mahabharat, Delhi High Court Discharges Man In Adultery Case
Title: ASHOK KUMAR SINGH v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 452
Citing Draupadi from Mahabharat as an example to denote woman being considered as the property of the husband, the Delhi High Court has discharged a man in an adultery case filed against him by a woman's husband.
“The woman being considered as the property of the husband and its devastating consequences are well documented in Mahabharat wherein Draupadi was put on stake in a game of gamble by none other than her own husband Yudhishtra where other four brothers were the silent spectators and Draupadi had no voice to protest for her dignity,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: MINOR S (THR. FATHER B) v. State & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 453
The Delhi High Court has issued slew of guidelines for providing prompt and appropriate legal guidance and medical support to minor rape victims who have to undergo medical termination of pregnancy.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that victims of sexual assault, particularly those who are minors and come from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, often remain unaware of the appropriate legal forum to approach or the procedure to be followed in cases involving termination of pregnancy resulting from sexual assault.
Case title: Shashank Garg vs. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 454
While expressing sympathy for patients who face delays in settling medical insurance claims, the Delhi High Court has observed that delayed procedures for settling claims may be a ground for seeking compensation for mental harassment, but does not amount to a criminal offence.
Title: MOTHER X OF VICTIM A v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 455
The Delhi High Court has observed that Section 21 of the POCSO Act is intended to prevent suppression of sexual offences and ensure timely action in the best interest of the child and is not meant to penalise those who, despite personal vulnerabilities, report the crime ultimately.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. vs. Sudhir Tyagi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 456
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that the grant of post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) is mandatory. The only discretion which the Arbitral Tribunal has is to decide the rate of interest to be awarded. Where the Arbitrator does not fix any rate of interest, then statutory rate, as provided in Section 31(7)(b), shall apply.
Title: ALL INDIA BAR ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 457
The Delhi High Court has directed that the calendar for National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) be fixed in consultation with its President, while taking into account the views and interest of all the stakeholders, including the Bar Association.
Case title: Mohd Sheikh Noor Hussain vs. State NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 458
Remarking that jail authorities must show sensitivity while deciding parole, the Delhi High Court has observed that parole applications cannot be rejected on the same ground repeatedly.
It further observed that once a court has applied its mind on the validity of any ground for rejecting or granting parole, in such a case jail authorities should scrupulously adhere to such order.
No Coercive Action Against Hotel Le Meridien On License Issue: Delhi High Court To Authorities
Title: C J INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD & ORS v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE LICENSING & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 459
The Delhi High Court has restrained the city authorities from taking any coercive action against Hotel Le Meridien, which sought to renew its eating house and lodging license.
Justice Sachin Datta directed the authorities to process the hotel's application for renewal of the eating house and lodging license, without insisting on a health trade license.
Case title: Agarwal Packers And Movers Ltd vs. Aggarwal Cargo Packers And Movers And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 460
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of the logistics company, Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd, against trademark infringement by a business offering goods packaging and transportation services.
Title: Ashok Swain v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 461
The Delhi High Court rejected an appeal moved by academic and writer Ashok Swain seeking expunging of remarks made by a single judge while adjudicating his case against OCI card cancellation, that prima facie some of his tweets contained objectionable insinuations undermining the constitutional apparatus and legitimacy of India.
Case : CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES VS. MASTER ADITYA SINGH, MINOR and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 462
The Delhi High Court directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to republish and renotify within four weeks the final list of selected candidates who gave the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) UG examination 2025.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela decided a batch of petitions challenging the results of the CLAT UG examination 2025, held in December last year for admissions to undergraduate law course in various National Law Universities.
Case title: Vinod Kumar Bindal vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 463
The Delhi High Court has observed that inclusion of an individual's name in an intelligence agency's list of 'Undesirable Contact Men' and publication of the same in newspaper and official website prima facie violates 'human rights' within the meaning of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Case title: M S Deepak And Co Through Its Partner Smt Poonam Porwal vs. IRCTC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 464
The Delhi High Court has quashed a tender awarded to a bidder by the IRCTC for providing onboard catering services in trains for a period of five years, noting that the successful bidder did not disclose any transgression or criminal antecedents that may impinge on the anti-corruption principle.
Delhi High Court Orders Attachment Of Saket Gokhale's Salary In Defamation Case By Lakshmi Puri
Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 465
The Delhi High Court has ordered attachment of salary of Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale in the defamation case filed against him by Lakshmi Puri, former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations.
Case title: M/S Impressive Data Services Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax Gst, Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 466
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that it has no discretion to allow a prayer seeking waiver of pre-deposit condition prescribed under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for preferring an appeal under the statute.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption Delhi v. IILM Foundation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 467
The Delhi High Court has held that a Charitable Trust's status cannot be taken away citing violation of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely because it made reasonable payment for services rendered by a related party.
Case title: Exide Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 468
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand of over ₹12 crores raised on storage battery manufacturer Exide Industries, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Indian multinational for “laxity” in responding to the repeated hearing notices issued by the Department.
Title: Medha Patkar v. VK Saxena
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 469
Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar withdrew from the Delhi High Court her plea against her conviction in the criminal defamation case lodged against her by Vinai Kumar Saxena in 2001.
Case title: Ms Stesalit Limited & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 470
The Delhi High Court will soon decide the GST rate applicable to roof-mounted air conditioners of specific designs manufactured for the railways.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta are seized with a petition filed by railways and aerospace technology company StesaLIT Limited, challenging a Circular issued by the Union Finance Ministry in 2024, stipulating that above said AC units shall be classified under HSN 8415 and not HSN 8607.
Title: KARANJEET SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 471
The Delhi High Court has observed that the offence of dowry death strikes at the very foundations of dignity and justice in domestic life but underscored that there is no blanket prohibition for grant of bail in such cases.
Title: MANU WAHDWA @ MOHIT v. THE STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 472
The Delhi High Court has observed that gullible individuals facing rough time in their life fall prey to inducements in the name of religious preachers, terming it to be a harsh reality of the society.
“One cannot ignore the harsh reality of our society where gullible individuals facing the rough weathers in life fall prey to such inducements in the name of religious preachers,” Justice Girish Kathpalia said.
Title: USTAD FAIYAZ WASIFUDDIN DAGAR V/s MR. A.R. RAHMAN & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 473
In an interim order, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Veteran Indian classical singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in his suit alleging copyright infringement of his “Shiva Stuti” composition by music composer A.R. Rahman and other producers in Tamil film Ponniyan Selvan 2 song "Veera Raja Veera.”
Title: Medha Patkar v. VK Saxena
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 474
The Delhi High Court suspended the sentence of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in the criminal defamation case lodged against her by Vinai Kumar Saxena in 2001.
Case title: Praveen vs. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 475
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere absence of recovery of narcotic drugs from an accused is not a sufficient reason for the grant of bail, when there is prima facie evidence of involvement of the accused in a narcotic network.
Case title: M/S Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Ltd Additional Commissioner (Adjn.) v. CGST Delhi North & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 476
The Delhi High Court has asked the Adjudicating Authority under Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 to undertake fresh adjudication of the show cause notice issued to an assessee, raising demand of more than ₹10 crores.
Case title: M/S Brijbihari Concast Pvt. Ltd. (Through Its Director Sh. Rajeev Agarwal) v. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Meerurt Zonal Unit (Through Its Additional Director General) & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 477
The Delhi High Court has asked the GST authority not to prejudice the business of an assessee, involved in manufacturing of mild steel products, by attaching its complete bank account pending adjudication of ₹15.09 crores tax evasion proceedings.
Sikh People Usually Wear 'Kada', Personal Effect: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Detention By Customs
Case title: Dalvinder Singh Sudan v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 478
Observing that Sikh persons usually wear kada as part of their religious practice, the Delhi High Court set aside the detention of a Dubai resident's gold kada by the Customs Department.
Case title: J. G'S Departmental Store v. Income Tax Officer Ward 60(1) & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 479
The Delhi High Court has set aside the reassessment action initiated against a partnership firm under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 over cash deposits made by it during demonetisation, stating that this ground was not mentioned in the notice issued to the firm under Section 148A(b).
Case title: Haris Aslam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 480
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department cannot sit over an appellate body's order directing it to release the goods of an assessee, merely on the ground that the Department seeks to prefer a revision against such order.
Case title: Bhavna Luthra L/H Of Sh. Narain Das Luthra, Proprietor Of M/S. Hunny Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, Range 8, CGST, Delhi & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 481
The Delhi High Court recorded the “harrowing experience” that a widow had to go through for obtaining a refund from the GST Department.
The GST registration of the firm owned by her now deceased husband was cancelled in view of his death. However, his widow sought a refund of ₹10,45,793/- balance in the electronic cash ledger of the firm.
Case title: M/S L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 482
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer cannot add income that allegedly escaped assessment in different previous years, to meet the threshold of ₹50 lakh prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for initiating reassessment action after lapse of three years.
Case title: M/S. Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 483
While dealing with a case under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017, the Delhi High Court has held that though cross-examination can be granted in certain proceedings if it is deemed appropriate, the right to cross-examine cannot be an unfettered right.
Case title: Rajbir Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 484
The Delhi High Court has flagged the rampant misuse of the Central government's Duty Drawback Scheme by various exporters.
Unable To Decide Regular Matters Due To Acute Shortage Of Judges: Delhi High Court
Case title: Mukesh Gupta @ Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 486
While allowing an accused to travel abroad for a Rotary club programme, the Delhi High Court observed that many regular matters cannot be heard due to an acute shortage of judges, and thus, in such circumstances, an individual cannot be deprived of travelling abroad, even for a leisure trip.
Case title: CBI vs. Avnish Kumar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 487
While granting remand of three government officials to the CBI, the Delhi High Court has observed that the allegation of conspiracy among officials of CBI, ED and other government departments for taking bribes “shakes the entire edifice” of the investigating machinery and thus necessitates interrogation by the investigating agency.
Case title: Ankit Khandelwal v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 488
The Delhi High Court has held that when determining whether a reassessment action meets the ₹50 lakh threshold prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the value of income that allegedly escaped assessment as determined by the Assessing Officer at Section 148A(d) stage is relevant.
Case title: San Nutrition Private Limited vs. Arpit Mangal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 489
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction in favour of San Nutrition Private Limited in its plea against alleged defamation, disparagement and trademark infringement by four social media influencers who made videos featuring San Nutrition's 'Doctor's Choice' products.
Case title: Sukhbir S. Dagar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 490
The Delhi High Court has held that sanction for initiation of reassessment action against an assessee under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, cannot be issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Versus Vihaan Networks Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 491
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia dismissed BSNL's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) holding that the Single Judge correctly upheld the Arbitrator's finding that Vihaan Networks Limited carried out the work under the Advance Purchase Order, issued on BSNL's specific instructions, which was later withdrawn. Therefore, the Respondent was rightly compensated under the principle of quantum meruit for the losses incurred.
SCN Uploaded On 'Additional Notices' Tab Of GST Portal Not Proper: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S Gmt Garments v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 492
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that uploading of show cause notice by the GST department under the 'additional notices' tab on its portal is not proper as the assessee may miss it.
Case Name : Yashvardhan v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 493
The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan held that compassionate appointment, an exception to regular recruitment, is granted only to relieve financial hardship after a government servant's death in service. It can be denied if the family is financially stable or has received sufficient benefits under various schemes.
Title: ANSH JINDAL v. State and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 494
The Delhi High Court has held that mere quarrels or fights in a marriage or family do not amount to the offence of abetment of suicide.
Case title: Anand Mehta v. Director General Of Foreign Trade
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 495
The Delhi High Court has held that unless specific allegations which discuss the role of a director in the export performance are made, there is no question of finding the director personally liable for non-fulfilment of export obligations by the company.
Case Title – Railtel Corporation of India Limited v. Primatel Fibcom Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 496
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has observed that where the disputes between the parties are already the subject matter of an earlier arbitral reference, a separate notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) would not be necessary for separate proceedings to adjudicate counter claims.
Title: SHAFEEQ AHMAD & ORS v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 497
The Delhi High Court has observed that false rape complaints not only puts unnecessary load on the overflowing dockets but also causes grave injustice to actual rape victims.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Provision On Limitation Under Contempt Of Courts Act
Case title: Rajesh Ranjan vs. Union Of India And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 498
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the vires of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, noting that the petitioner did not raise any substantial grounds to challenge the validity of the provision.
Title: Amit Agrawal v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 499
The Delhi High Court said that it is crucial for courts to recognise and be conscious of the right of an accused to speedy trial and to prevent the same from being defeated, rather than wake-up much too late and lament that such right has been defeated.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted bail to a man in a cheating case, observing that trial will take a long time to conclude.
Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 500
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea filed by Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale seeking recall of a ruling asking him to put an apology on social media and pay Rs. 50 lakh damages to Lakshmi Puri, former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations, in a defamation case filed by her.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav also dismissed Gokhale's application for condonation of delay in seeking his relief.
Case title: M/S Montage Enterprises Private Limited (Through Its Authorized Representative Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Ors. v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 501
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Noida based firm allegedly involved in GST fraud of over Rs. 550 crores.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were unappreciative of the Petitioner's conduct in responding to the Department's proceedings.
Rule 86A CGST Rules | Credit Ledger Can't Be Blocked For More Than One Year : Delhi High Court
Case title: Shri Sai Ram Enterprises v. Pr. ADG, DGGI, Gurugram & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 502
The Delhi High Court has ordered unblocking of an enterprise's Electronic Credit Ledger following the lapse of one year since its initial blocking.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which lays down the conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger. It prescribes that the credit ledger of an assessee cannot be blocked beyond the period of one year.
Case title: M/s Jai Opticals v. GNCTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 503
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Goods and Services Tax authorities are expected to empathetically consider an assessee's request for adjournment of personal hearing on medical grounds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said the Department should not proceed to pass adverse orders in such matters.
Title: Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 504
The Delhi High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary enquiry over the allegations of extortion racket being run inside the Tihar jail.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also directed Delhi Government's Principal Secretary (Home) to conduct a fact finding enquiry to find out the officials responsible for administrative lapses inside the jail.
Delhi High Court Orders Adequate Legal Representation To Three Indians On Death Row In Indonesia
Title: N. DEEPIKA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 505
The Delhi High Court has ordered that adequate legal representation be provided to three Indian nationals who are on death row in Indonesia.
Justice Sachin Datta directed the Indian Consulate in Indonesia to take requisite steps for ensuring that the convicted Indian nationals are afforded adequate legal representation and to render appropriate assistance to them for pursuing appellate remedies.
Case title: Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 506
The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a CAPF personnel for failing to intimate the force about his absence from duty due to his health condition.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was of the view that being in a disciplinary force, a high level of accountability was expected from the personnel and “it was incumbent upon him, post-surgery, to apprise the respondents of his medical condition and to seek leave from them.”
Case title: M/S Zine Davidoff SA v. Union Of India And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The Delhi High Court has come to the rescue of the Swiss company which owns luxury coffee brand Davidoff, whose trademark was removed from the register over alleged delay in seeking renewal of the mark.
Justice Amit Bansal noted that the Trade Marks Registry had admitted to not having any records indicating that form O3 notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the removal of the mark.
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Bharti Airtel Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 508
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department claiming that Bharti Airtel should have deducted TDS on payments made to overseas telecom service providers for bandwidth services.
Take Expeditious Steps To Enact Advocates Protection Bill: High Court To Delhi Government
Title: DEEPA JOSEPH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 509
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to take expeditious steps for enacting the Advocates Protection Bill, 2024.
Justice Sachin Datta directed the Delhi Government to file a fresh status report in a plea claiming that there was an "alarming rise" in incidents of violence inside the court premises of different district courts in Delhi.
Title: Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 510
The Delhi High Court dismissed the interim injunction plea filed by IPL team Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) in its suit against Uber Moto over allegedly disparaging YouTube advertisement featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad's cricketer Travis Head.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee rejected the interim injunction application filed by RCB, observing that the impugned advertisement does not call for any interference at this stage.
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 511
The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to take strict action against anyone, either lawyer or non-lawyer, who causes obstruction or disturbance in the conduct of Shahdara Bar Association elections which are scheduled to be held on May 09.
The order was passed by a full bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice C Hari Shankar.
Case title: Varun Jindal v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 512
The Delhi High Court has asked the Railway Department to pay ₹8 lakh as compensation to a man who sustained grievous injuries that resulted in amputation of his left leg back in the year 2015, after falling from a moving train.
The incident was a result of a heavy jerk on the train due to which the Appellant lost his balance and fell out of the allegedly overcrowded general compartment.
Case title: Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 513
The Delhi High Court has refused relief to an aspiring CRPF Sub-Inspector (Staff Nurse) who was denied marks as he failed to mention requisite work-experience mandatorily required in the application for recruitment.
Though the Petitioner had worked as Male Nurse Staff at a private hospital for more than five years, he was awarded 0 out of 5 marks earmarked in the selection criteria for prior experience.
Case title: Abhin Narula v. The High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 514
In a peculiar order, the Delhi High Court found force in a challenge to the 2023 Delhi Judicial Service Exam answer key but did not grant any relief to the aggrieved aspirant, citing a coordinate bench decision denying relief in a similar case.
A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul said it had to exercise 'judicial discipline'
Case title: SC Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 515
The Delhi High Court has held that though the provisions of CPC contained in Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 (pertaining to principle of Res Judicata) may not be strictly applicable to writ proceedings, however, the broad principles enshrined therein including the principle of Constructive Res Judicata will have application even to writ proceedings.
Title: A R Rahman v. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 516
The Delhi High Court stayed an interim injunction order granted in favour of veteran Indian classical singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in his suit alleging copyright infringement of his “Shiva Stuti” composition by music composer A.R. Rahman and other producers in Tamil film Ponniyan Selvan 2 song "Veera Raja Veera.”
Case title: Rajiv Sarin & Ors. v. Directorate Of Estates & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 517
The Delhi High Court has held that prolonged illegal occupation of private property by government authorities is unconstitutional and that State power cannot override property rights.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav emphasized, “Executive overreach beyond the four corners of the law must be met with constitutional censure, for when the protector of rights becomes the violator, the very fabric of the rule of law is imperiled. In a constitutional democracy governed by the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, the preservation of legal rights such as that of proprietary must remain an unyielding commitment of the State.”
Title: SAISHA CHHILLAR MINOR REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER MS. JYOTI CHHILLAR v. THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 518
The Delhi High Court has observed that a school cannot deny transfer certificate to a child merely because the parents have ongoing matrimonial or guardianship dispute.
“…the school cannot deny the issuance of Transfer Certificate (TC) to the child who has sought admission in other school. In the event of delay in issuance of Transfer Certificate, even a disciplinary action can be taken against the Head-Master or In-Charge of the school. Needless to say that in a matrimonial or guardianship dispute, it is the interest of the child which is of paramount consideration,” Justice Vikas Mahajan said.
Case Title: SUDHANSHU PATHAK v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 519
The Delhi High Court has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to take a concrete decision so that no student giving Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) entrance examination is excluded due to language barrier.
Case title: Gurudas Mallik Thakur v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 520
The Delhi High Court has held that the penalty for GST evasion contemplated under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, can be imposed on 'any person'— whether taxable or non-taxable.
Case Title: Shristi Infrastructure Development vs Scorpio Engineering Private Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 521
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that an ad-hoc arbitrator (appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) is empowered to grant interest rate contemplated under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, even if the reference was not made to the MSME Facilitation Council for resolving disputes.
Case title: Maharani Bagh Co-Operative House Building And Welfare Society Ltd., & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 522
The Delhi High Court has held that individuals who erect unauthorized structures and encroach upon public land cannot be permitted to assert their purported rights in priority of other citizens.
Title: TV Today v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 523
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed by TV Today, which owns Aaj Tak and India Today news channels, highlighting the misuse of deepfake.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked TV Today to give its suggestions to the Committee of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy), which is examining the issue of deepfakes.
Title: Coomi Kapoor v. Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 524
The Delhi High Court referred to mediation a dispute between Coomi Kapoor- senior journalist and author of the book “The Emergency: A Personal History”, Manikarnika Films and Netflix over alleged breach of contract and damaging her reputation.
Delhi High Court Postpones Conduct Of Shahdara Bar Association Elections To May 24
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 525
The Delhi High Court postponed the conduct of Shahdara Bar Association elections to May 24. The polls were scheduled to be held on May 09.
The order was passed by a full bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice C Hari Shankar.
Case title: Ms. X v. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 526
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if part of a cognizable offence alleged, occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of a Police station, they must register a regular FIR and probe the offence rather than registering a 'Zero FIR' and transferring the case to another police station.
Case title: Dilshad Hussain v. Pushpa Devi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 527
The Delhi High Court has elucidated the difference 'intermediate' and 'interlocutory' orders in relation to Section 379 CrPC, which bars revision of interlocutory orders.
Case Title: SMAS Auto Leasing India Private Limited v. Gensol Engineering Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 528
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the the petitioner who is the owner of electric vehicles (EVs) leased under Master Lease Agreements upon apprehensions of financial distress, default in lease payments by the respondents and a risk of dissipation or deterioration of assets pending arbitration. The Court restrained the respondents from transferring or encumbering the EVs.
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 529
The Delhi High Court ruled that the permission for felling of 50 or more trees in the national capital will be supervised by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as per the order of the Supreme Court.
Justice Jasmeet Singh added that permission for felling of upto 50 trees shall continue till the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is implemented by the city authorities.
Delhi High Court Closes Hamdard's Suit After Ramdev Removes Videos Making 'Sharbat Jihad' Remark
Title: Hamdard National Foundation India v. Patanjali Food Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 530
The Delhi High Court closed the suit filed by Hamdard National Foundation India against Yoga Guru Ramdev over his “Sharbat Jihad” remark against former's Rooh Afza product.
Justice Amit Bansal decreed the suit after Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar informed Court that affidavits have been filed by Ramdev and Patanjali Foods Limited that the impugned videos and posts have been taken down.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 531
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee cannot claim he was not granted an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed, if he fails to check the GST portal for show cause notice and respond to the same.
Case title: Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 532
The Delhi High Court has held that the plaint filed for instituting a suit cannot be read in isolation and the documents annexed with it can be considered to determine whether the plaint discloses a 'cause of action' for proceeding in the matter.
Case title: Neeraj Gupta & Anr. v. MCD & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 533
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the demolition of tehbazari sites (kiosks) being carried out by the National Capital Region Transport Corporation (NCRTC) at Sarai Kale Khan, for development of a metro rail station as part of the Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) project.
Title: NEERAJ GUPTA v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 534
he Delhi High Court imposed Rs. 20,000 as costs after a Central Government standing counsel sought repeated adjournments in an IPR case.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee renotified the matter and granted adjournment, subject to payment of costs to be paid to the Army Central Welfare Fund by the Central Government within four weeks.
Case title: Arun Kumar Jindal v. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 535
The Delhi High Court refused anticipatory bail to a Senior Section Engineer of the Railways, who was hauled up in a corruption case following trap proceedings conducted on co-accused.
Case title: M/S Mahesh Fabrinox Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 536
The Delhi High Court has criticized the “pattern” of persons, who either availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit or enabled the availment of fraudulent ITC, invoking Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge orders imposing penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017, on technical grounds.
Title: Anjali Birla v. X Corp. and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 537
The Delhi High Court closed the defamation suit filed by IRPS Officer and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla's daughter, Anjali Birla, against social media posts alleging that she cleared UPSC exam in her first attempt by indulging in corrupt practices and misusing her father's position.
Case Title – Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 538
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that a judgment debtor is not entitled to move objections under Section 47, CPC in an application for execution of award under Section 36, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) as it would amount to effectively opening a second round for challenging the Award which would undermine the provision of section 34 i.e. challenge to Award on limited grounds and go against the intent of ACA.
Case title: Goethe-Institut E.V. v. Abhishek Yadav & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 539
Reaffirming the principle that rights of prior user are superior to that of a proprietor holding a registered trademark, the Delhi High Court granted interim injunction in favour of Goethe-Institut, a German society which runs six educational institutes in India in the name of 'Max Mueller Bhavan', offering German language courses.
Case title: Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashish Bansal And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 540
The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger the following questions of law in relation to trademark infringement:
“(i) Whether a suit for infringement can lie against the proprietor of a registered trademark, with respect to the use of such trademark?
(ii) Whether, assuming such a suit can lie, the Court can pass any interlocutory order, injuncting the use, by the defendant, of the allegedly infringing registered trademark?
Case title: Mukesh Kumar Garg v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 541
The Delhi High Court has once again flagged concerns over rampant misuse of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 by traders, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
Case title: Praveen Kumar v. Pooja Arya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 542
The Delhi High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is qualified and was employed, if she was compelled to quit to take care of the child.
Title: RAJESH KUMAR ALIAS RAJE v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 543
The Delhi High Court has ruled that conditional liberty must override the statutory restrictions on grant of bail under Section 21 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
Case title: Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 544
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the 'Complete Specification' of an invention is sacrosanct for determining infringement of its patent.
Title: Sanser Pal Singh v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 545
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation alleging that deaths were being caused in the national capital due to negligence in constructions here.
Title: Anand Mishra v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 546
The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation highlighting the issue of overcrowding of Tihar jail in the national capital.
Case title: M/S A. G. Overseas Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Chetan Dass
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 547
The Delhi High Court has held that the 120 days time-limit prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure for filing of written statement by a defendant does not apply to the party while filing reply to an amended plaint.
Title: Upendra Nath Dalai v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 548
The Delhi High Court rapped a litigant for filing a public interest litigation alleging that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 which replaced the erstwhile Indian Penal Code of 1860, is a “criminal act” of the Government of India.
Title: AMIT SAHNI v. UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE) THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 549
The Delhi High Court closed a PIL seeking expeditious filling of the judicial vacancies in the Court by elevating eligible District Judges and Advocates from the Bar.
Case title: Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr. v. Franchise India Brands Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 550
The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Piruz Khambatta, Chairman of Rasna Group and Ambassador of the government's Make In India initiative, on his plea against Franchise India Brands Limited.
Case Title – Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v. Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 551
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has observed that it is not open to the referral court in a petition filed under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) to examine the issue whether the claim is barred by res judicata. Such an examination falls within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Timelines Under Rule 100 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Are Mandatory, Cannot Be Waived: Delhi High Court
Case title: Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta v. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 552
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the one-month notice period mentioned under Section 100 of the Trademarks Rules 2017 before the Registrar can initiate rectification of register, is mandatory and cannot be waived.
Title: ANSHUL v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 553
While granting bail to a husband in a dowry death case, the Delhi High Court held that mere suspicion of extramarital affair or strained relations without more is not enough to invoke the charge of abetment of suicide.
Delhi High Court Directs Saket Gokhale To Publish Apology For Defaming Lakshmi Puri
Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 554
The Delhi High Court has directed Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale to publish the apology for defaming Lakshmi Puri, former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations, as directed by a single judge last year.
Case title: Shamikh Shahbaz Shaikh v. State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 555
The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to an agent of fintech Rapipay, allegedly involved in duping a man of ₹17,95,000/- in an online part-time job scam.
Case title: Dinesh Aneja v. State Through Government Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 556
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a Sessions Court order forfeiting the fixed deposit of a rape accused, as he failed to intimate on affidavit his itinerary for foreign travel which was allowed by the Sessions Court during pendency of trial.
Case title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 557
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that registration of a trademark in other countries does not by itself entitle registration of the said mark in India.
Case title: Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v. The Controller Of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 558
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Controller of Patents must clearly specify in the hearing notice the 'known substance' against which the claimed invention of an applicant is being assessed.
Title: ADITI CHATTERJEE v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 559
The Delhi High Court has set aside disciplinary proceedings against a resident student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) initiated over protest on allegedly illegal raids conducted at the women's hostels in 2017.
JEE-Main: Delhi High Court Orders CFSL Probe In Plea Alleging Manipulation Of Score Cards
Title: ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 560
The Delhi High Court has ordered investigation by Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), CBI, in a petition filed by two candidates alleging manipulation of their score cards in JEE (Main)-2025.
Title: RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 561
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused of causing serious injuries to a man in a road rage case, emphasizing that all are equal in the eyes of law and none can be treated as more equal.
Title: MANIDEEP MAGO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 562
The Delhi High Court has observed that Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, does not grants to a person immunity for offences committed under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Title: A. S. ISMAIL v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 563
The Delhi High Court has denied interim bail to Popular Front of India (PFI) leader AS Ismail booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, observing that his medical condition has significantly improved.
Title: DR. RANDHAWA ULTRASONOGRAPHY IMAGING AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE & Ors v. STATE OF NCT, DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 564
The Delhi High Court has held that the offences under the Pre-Conception & Pre Natal Diagnostic Technique (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, are cognizable and registration of FIR and investigation by the Police under the enactment, per se, is not barred under law.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Versus M/S GR-GAWA R(J.V.)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 565
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that an initial filing made without the essential documents like attaching impugned award etc. required for adjudication is non est in law and has no legal existence. Such a filing, made merely to evade the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be considered valid.
Case title: SP v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 566
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that medical standards to be met for appointment in an armed force are decided by the respective forces and there can be no question of parity among different forces.
Case title: Khushi Sharma v. Union Of India And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 567
The Delhi High Court today expressed “serious consternation” and “regret” at the conduct of both the Delhi Police and the Uttar Pradesh Police in failing to register an FIR regarding the mysterious death of a 20-year-old Delhi resident in Greater Noida.
Case Title:M/S Rhine Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 568
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal has held that the contempt court is empowered to issue directions to reverse any benefits obtained in disobedience of an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) to ensure that parties are restrained from violating the court's orders.
Delhi High Court Awards Damages To Eureka Forbes Over Counterfeiting Of Aquaguard Spare Parts
Case title: Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v. Nandan Sales And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 569
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of home appliance manufacturer Eureka Forbes, against counterfeiting of the spare parts and consumables of its famous Aquaguard.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus M/S NARAINDAS R ISRANI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 570
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that different formulae may be applied depending on the circumstances, and the choice of method for computing damages falls within the arbitrator's discretion. Sections 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Contract Act) do not prescribe any specific formula for the calculation of damages. Therefore, the arbitrator's decision to apply any internationally recognized method, based on their expertise, cannot be faulted.
Case title: Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Hansraj Dugar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 571
“Any person in India has the right to legally import goods from abroad bearing the trademarks of an entity and sell the same in India,” the Delhi High Court has held.
Case Title: RINKOO AGGARWAL versus GAURAV SABHARWAL & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 572
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the bar of limitation for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, cannot be circumvented merely on the ground that the demand-cum-arbitration invocation notice was issued by the petitioner's counsel without proper authorization. The court held that such a contention, if accepted, would render the limitation period for filing such applications meaningless and defeat the very purpose of prescribing a time frame.
Case Title – M.V. Omni Projects (India) Ltd. v. Union of India through Chief Engineer Northern Railways & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 573
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the party giving no-objection to the applicability of Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) has to give such no-objection after the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The waiver to applicability has to be done after the arbitrators are appointed with the names and details. The Court also observed that any waiver before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal is no waiver in the eyes of law.
Case title : FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM V/s AMITA SINGH and connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 574
The Delhi High Court has rejected the pleas moved by Foundation of Independent Journalism, which runs the media platform 'The Wire', and its editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha challenging an order summoning them on a criminal defamation case filed by former JNU professor Amita Singh.
AAP Leader Jasmine Shah Withdraws From Delhi High Court Plea Against Removal From DDCD Post
Title: JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 575
Aam Aadmi Party leader Jasmine Shah withdrew from the Delhi High Court his petition filed against his removal from the post of Vice Chairperson of Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi (DDCD) in 2022.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Versus AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 576
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that unless it is demonstrated that the delay in payment for the completion of the work contract prevented the contractor from undertaking other profitable ventures, damages for loss of profits cannot be awarded.
Case Title: GNCTD v. LG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 577
The Delhi High Court has allowed the withdrawal of a petition filed by then AAP-led Delhi Government against an order of the Lieutenant Governor, overturning the Cabinet's decision to appoint a panel of prosecutors of its choice to argue cases related to Farmers Protest and Delhi Riots.
Title: Akshat Baldwa & Anr. v. Maddock Films & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 578
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to expedite the process of issuance of guidelines on incorporating accessibility features in Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms for persons with disabilities (PwDs).
Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath, Burden Shifts On Employer To Disprove Claims: Delhi HC
Title: DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL v. SANGEETA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 579
Delhi High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Manoj Jain dismissed a petition that was filed by the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. The hospital was challenging a labour court award that awarded compensation to a sanitation worker. The court agreed with the Labour Court and ruled that the worker had been in continuous employment for over 240 days, and was improperly terminated. However, the court only awarded compensation instead of reinstatement.
Title: ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 580
The Delhi High Court asked the Director of National Cyber Forensic Laboratory (NCFL) to expedite the investigation ordered in a petition filed by two candidates alleging manipulation of their score cards in JEE (Main)-2025.
Case Title: MDD Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 581
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while hearing a writ petition challenging the decision of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Respondent No. 1) to revive arbitral proceeding after closing the proceedings due to non-filing of the State of Claim (SOC) observed that since the proceedings have been revived, the Arbitral Tribunal is the competent authority to adjudicate and rule upon.
Case Title: Tirupati Constwell Private Limited Versus Delhi States Employees Federation CGHS Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 582
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that if, after the issuance of a notice invoking arbitration, no bonafide negotiations take place between the parties, and the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) expires, the time allegedly spent in such negotiations cannot be excluded while computing the limitation period under Section 11.
Case Title: IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD versus PUNKAJ BHAGCHAND CHHALLANI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 583
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the intent of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be interpreted to confer jurisdiction on a court that is otherwise incompetent to entertain an application under this provision.
Case title: Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 584
The Delhi High Court observed that a greater degree of latitude has to be necessarily accorded to paramilitary and Armed Forces in cases relating to transfer of personnel.
Case Title: RAM KRISHAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus ASIAN HOTEL (NORTH) LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 585
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the appointment of an arbitrator as an observer in a matter unrelated to the arbitration dispute does not constitute de facto or de jure ineligibility under the Fifth or Seventh Schedules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Consequently, the arbitrator's mandate cannot be terminated on this ground under Section 14 of the Act. However, the court permitted the petitioner to raise this objection under Section 34 after the award is passed.
Title: GREENS ZOOLOGICAL RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTRE SOCIETY & ANR v. HIMAL SOUTHASIAN & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 586
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed by Anant Ambani led Vantara, seeking deletion of an article published on online platform Himal Southasian alleging ill-treatment and transfer of elephants.
Section 377 IPC Can't Be Applied To Prosecute Husband In Marital Relationship: Delhi High Court
Title: SK v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 587
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in a marital relationship, Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot be applied to criminalise non-penile-vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife.
“Such an interpretation would be in line with the reasoning and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar (supra),” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: JITENDER DIXIT v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 588
Emphasizing that the right to speedy trial is not an illusory safeguard, the Delhi High Court has said that personal liberty cannot be whittled down merely because the case is under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
Case title: Maninder Sidhu v. The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 589
The Delhi High Court granted medical bail to a murder accused seeking to undergo laser surgery for Varicose Veins, subject to his marking attendance with the Investigating Officer on video calls.
Ordinarily, those on bail are required to visit the jurisdictional police station in person to mark their attendance with the IO.
Case title: KS Bhandari v. M/S International Security Printers Pvt Ltd. (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 590
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 is not confined to eviction of tenants for bona fide use by a man or a woman and it includes a tenant who is a juristic entity or any other entity such as a firm, company, etc.
Case Title: MDD MEDICAL SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 591
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council to refer a dispute to arbitration under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, following the failure of conciliation under Section 18(2), is not automatically terminated if the referral is not made within 90 days as prescribed under Section 18(5). Unlike Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) Section 18(5) of the MSMED Act does not specify any consequences for non-compliance with the 90-day timeline.
Case title: Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 592
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that common Indian forenames like “NEHA” can constitute protected trademark, provided it acquires an 'inherent distinctiveness' by establishing a secondary meaning in trade.
Title: Aditya Singh Deshwal v. Delhi High Court through Registrar General
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 593
The Delhi High Court closed a public interest litigation to constitute special designated benches to adjudicate quashing petitions on the basis of a settlement.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice dk Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the lawyer Aditya Singh Deshwal to give the suggestions on the administrative side.
Mere Inclusion Of A Mark In Trading Name Does Not By Itself Constitute 'Trademark': Delhi High Court
Case title: Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 594
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that mere inclusion of a mark in a trading name does not, by itself, constitute a protected 'trademark'.
Single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula though conceded that many brands derive their commercial identity through consistent and public-facing use of their trading name, it held that to give rise to protectable rights, such use must be of a kind that identifies the source of the goods and serves to distinguish them from those of others – a concept often referred to by Courts as “use in the trademark sense”.
Case Title: Harshvardhan Metals Ltd & Anr. Versus ISF Commodities (P) Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 595
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that Bye-laws may serve as operational guidelines, but they cannot impose conditions that conflict with statutory rights.
Case Title: PCL STICCO (JV) versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 596
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that once the Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount with the court registry pursuant to a court order, and the Award Holder has notice of such deposit, interest on the deposited amount ceases to accrue. Consequently, interest can only be claimed on the remaining outstanding amount, not on the sum deposited with the court.
Delhi High Court Stays CAG Audit Of Accounts Of Ajmer Sharif Dargah
Title: ANJUMAN MOINIA FAKHRIA CHISHTIYA KHUDDAM KHWAJA SAHIB SYEDZADGAN (REGD.) DARGAH SHARIF, AJMER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 597
The Delhi High Court has stayed the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit of the accounts of Ajmer Sharif Dargah.
Justice Sachin Datta found credibility in the contention of Dargah's submission that the requirements under Section 20 of the CAG Act were not satisfied.
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 598
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a plea seeking implementation of biometric verification process of Advocates for elections to the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).
Case Title – M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Limited v Freyssinet Memard India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 599
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh while setting aside an arbitral award has observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator vitiates the award and if the opposite party fails to reply to the notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”), then such inaction cannot lead to an inference as to implied consent or acquiescence of the party to appointment of the named Arbitrator. The Court held that in such a situation the only recourse available to the party is to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
AgustaWestland Scam: Delhi High Court Modifies Christian Michel's Bail Conditions In ED Case
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 600
The Delhi High Court modified the bail condition imposed on British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the FIR registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam.
Title: MOHSIN KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 601
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused in an espionage case, observing that the nation rests peacefully because the armed forces remain vigilant.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied bail to Mohsin Khan, accused of transmitting sensitive information pertaining to the Indian Army to Pakistan High Commission.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Murder After His Father Hit Deceased With Knife
Case title: Chandan Rai v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 602
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man booked for murder after his father hit the deceased with a knife, during a quarrel involving the three.
Case Title: VASISHTA MANTENA NH04 JV & ORS. versus Mr. Ashish Kothari, Adv. BLACKLEAD INFRATECH PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 603
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul has held that the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is available only when the petition is filed within the normal limitation period that is 90 days as prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act and the court was closed on the last day of that period. It does not apply when the court was closed on the last day of the extendable period under proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: KAL AIRWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED versus SPICEJET LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 604
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Harishankar and Ajay Digpaul observed that the conduct of the appellants in this case is deeply troubling to the court's conscience. They neither informed the respondents about the filing of the present appeals nor disclosed the same to the court, even though the respondents' appeals challenging the same arbitral award had been listed and heard multiple times. Under these circumstances, the delay in filing and refiling the appeals cannot be condoned due to the appellants' evident lack of bona fide.
Case title: Carol Infrastructure Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 605
The Delhi High Court made it clear that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “does not contemplate a hiatus” between handing over and receipt of information or documents pertaining to a non-searched entity.
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Sneh Lata Sawhney (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 606
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be invoked to exclude the period of reference under the Indo-Swiss DTAA, if the reference itself is invalid.
Title: NITIN KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 607
While dealing with a case concerning Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Delhi High Court has said that false allegations in such cases have wide ranging consequences across the society as the same create cynicism and give rise to a suspicion even against genuine victims.
Title: SH. VINEET GUPTA v. SMT. BHAWNA GUPTA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 608
The Delhi High Court has ruled that maintenance m is not a favour but is a recognition of shared parental responsibility, and of the child's right to be supported.
Case title: Amit Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 609
The Delhi High Court has held that where there is no evidence that a goods carriage/ tanker was carrying hazardous material, the mere absence of an endorsement under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 cannot be construed as a breach of statutory conditions sufficient to grant recovery rights to the insurer.
Case title: State v. Neeraj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 610
The Delhi High Court has held that when a Court comes to a conclusion that an accused person is suffering from mental retardation and decides to discharge him, it must consider whether it is safe to release such accused in the society.
Delhi Govt Implements SOP For Handling Bomb Threats In Schools, High Court Closes Contempt Plea
Title: ARPIT BHARGAVA v. DHARMENDRA AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 611
The Delhi High Court has closed a contempt petition after the Delhi Government's Director of Education implemented the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling bomb threats in schools in the national capital.
Title: GUJARAT STATE ROLLER SKATING ASSOCIATION v. ROLLER SKATING FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 612
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the elections of the Roller Skating Federation of India shall be conducted in terms of the National Sports Code and the constitution of the Indian Olympic Association.
Title: JAGTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 613
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur allowed a writ petition filed by a retired BSF officer. The court directed the Union of India to provide lump sum compensation to the retired BSF officer, for a disability that he suffered in the line of duty. The Court held that he was entitled to compensation under Rule 9(3) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972 (“CCS (EOP) Rules”), since his disability was attributable to his service. The Court also explained that any delay by the disabled in approaching the court is not a valid reason to deny disability compensation.
Case Title: M/S CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Versus M/S MCM WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 614
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathanshankar has held that for a valid acknowledgment under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 certain essential requirements must be met. Firstly, the acknowledgment must be made before the relevant period of limitation has expired. Secondly, it must pertain specifically to the liability concerning the right in question. Lastly, the acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the party against whom such right is claimed.
Case Title: NATIONAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR. versus M/S ARDEE HI-TECH PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 615
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that there is no prescribed format for a notice invoking arbitration. The legal requirement is that the party invoking arbitration must clearly outline the disputes between the parties and state that if these disputes remain unresolved, arbitration proceedings will be initiated. The intention to resolve the disputes through arbitration must be explicitly stated in the notice.
Case Title – Porto Emporios Shipping Inc v Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 616
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while allowing an application under Section 8, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) has observed that the plea of waiver of arbitration clause is a plea concerning rights in personam and does not render the dispute to be manifestly non-arbitrable. Consequently, the determination of such a plea properly falls within the jurisdictional domain of the Arbitral Tribunal itself.
Title: DR. SHAHIN NOOREYEZDAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 617
The Delhi High Court closed a petition filed by a doctor against locking of his Facebook account on the ground that his profile picture contained symbols, glorification or support of dangerous people and organisations.
Case title: SDMC v. Moon Steeland General Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 618
The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of an 'Industrial Building' cannot be restricted merely to traditional notions of manufacturing involving tangible and physical goods.
Title: SANJAY RATHORE v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT, DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 619
The Delhi High Court said that the act of threatening or intimidating a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself and must be met with firm accountability.
Case title: Smt. Nirmala And Another v. The State And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 620
The Delhi High Court has directed the District Legal Services Authority to apply their mind and give reasons while deciding the quantum of compensation to be granted under Section 357A(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Title: Pushkar Raj Thakur v. Google & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 621
The Delhi High Court ordered take down of allegedly defamatory YouTube videos against financial educator and entrepreneur Pushkar Raj Thakur.
Title: BUREAU OF OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS AND DD M/O INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CANARA BANK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 622
A single judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the gratuity that remains unreleased at the time of an employee's death, becomes part of his estate. The court confirmed that this can also be attached against decrees passed against their legal heirs. The court clarified that Section 60(g) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, only protects gratuity if it is received during the employee's lifetime, and not when it passes on as inheritance.
Case Title: M/S KLA CONST TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Versus M/S GULSHAN HOMZ PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 623
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that when an exclusive jurisdiction clause is expressly made "subject to" the arbitration clause, and the arbitration clause designates a different territorial location as the seat of arbitration, the arbitration clause prevails. In case of conflict, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the seat designated in the arbitration agreement which overrides the exclusive jurisdictional clause mentioned in the agreement.
Delhi High Court Asks Govt To Consider Formulating Policy For Rehabilitation Of Stray Dogs
Title: PRATIMA DEVI v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 624
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government and other authorities here to consider formulating a policy for rehabilitation of stray dogs in the national capital.
Title: MAHARANI BAGH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING AND WELFARE SOCIETY LTD., & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 625
The Delhi High Court has taken judicial note of a newspaper report stating that over 3,000 soldiers of the Rajputana Rifles have to pass through a filthy drain every morning while marching out of their barracks for heading towards the parade ground.
Case Title: GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED versus SOPAN PROJECTS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 626
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that arbitral proceedings cannot remain pending for eight years without the pronouncement of an award by the learned Sole Arbitrator. While a hearing was scheduled on 17.10.2023, no reasons were provided for convening the hearing or for the prolonged delay in delivering the award. Such undue and unexplained delay defeats the very purpose of arbitration and is contrary to the public policy of India. Accordingly, the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator was terminated under section 14 of the Arbitration Act.
Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 627
The Delhi High Court refused to grant interim protection from arrest at this stage to an Ahlmad of Rouse Avenue Courts booked in a corruption case by Anti Corruption Branch (ACB).
Title: ANKUR WARIKOO & ANR v. JOHN DOE & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 628
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order and restrained unauthorised publishing and circulation of deepfake videos of YouTuber and influencer Ankur Warikoo.
Title: POOJA MEHTA & ORS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 629
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an eviction order shall be vitiated in absence of a show cause notice under Rule 22(3)(1)(iv)(v) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.
Title: PHULMAI TAMANG @ NEHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 630
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an applicant who seeks bail on the ground of delay in trial must place on record trial court order sheets to rule out the possibility that the case was being adjourned at his or her request.
Title: RAM DEV RAI & ANR v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 631
The Delhi High Court has observed that encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy.
Case title: FOX MANDAL AND ASSOCIATES AND ANR V/s SOMABRATA MANDAL AND ORS And SHUVABRATA MANDAL V/s SOMABRATA MANDAL& ORS. FAO (COMM)-133/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 632
The Delhi High Court set aside a commercial court's interim order restraining Shuvabrata Mandal and Shouryabrata Mandal who run Fox Mandal and Associates from offering legal services under 'FoxMandal' trademark, which is stated to be owned by their brother Som Mandal who runs the Fox Mandal & Co.'
Absolutely Divisive': Delhi High Court Rejects PIL To Constitute 'Gujjar Regiment' In Indian Army
Title: Rohan Basoya v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 633
The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation seeking a direction on the Union Government to constitute a “Gujjar regiment” in the Indian Army.
Title: Arjun Mohan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 634
The Delhi High Court called for a standing operating procedure (SOP) to be adopted by the Centre and Delhi Governments to implement the facilities for online processes and proceedings in various forums under the labour laws.
Title: Nishant Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 635
The Delhi High Court directed that the online applications for 'no entry permits' issued to transport vehicles plying in no entry time must be scrutinised and the documents enclosed with such applications must be verified properly.
Title: Amarkant Singh Chouhan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 636
Amarkant Singh Chouhan, a journalist and Bhind Bureau Chief of Swaraj Express news channel, moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection from the alleged threats to his life from Madhya Pradesh police officials.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja directed the Delhi Police to grant protection to Chouhan for two months, and asked the journalist to approach the concerned High Court in the meantime for availing further legal remedies.
Case title: Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 637
The Delhi High Court has held that even a momentary confusion between two competing trademarks in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to constitute trademark infringement.
Case title: KRB Enterprises & Ors. v. M/S. KRBL Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 638
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that it is not necessary that a trademark must be used in a physical form in relation to the goods.
Title: DIVYA MATTEY AND ORS v. L G GNCTD AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 639
The Delhi High Court has directed that students of Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka, whose names were struck down from the school rolls, shall be allowed to continue their studies, subject to the parents depositing 50% of the hiked school fee for the academic years 2024-25 onwards.
Case title: Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 640
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that even though similarity in two competing trademarks cannot be ascertained by dissecting and comparing their parts, the “dominant parts” of the trademarks can be compared.
Case Title: JAMMU & KASHMIR ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY versus M/S SIMPLEX PROJECTS LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 641
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the law mandates proof of actual loss despite the presence of an Liquidated Damages (LD) clause and does not allow automatic recovery of the entire LD amount upon breach. Therefore, the Petitioner's unilateral adjustment without adjudication was unlawful. The AT rightly held that such unilateral recovery does not obviate the need for proper adjudication of the LD claim.
Title: ANI v. Mohak mangal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 642
The Delhi High Court on directed YouTuber Mohak Mangal to take down specific portions of his video on ANI, while hearing the news agency's defamation suit alleging that his recent video is disparaging and defamatory towards the agency.
Delhi High Court Holds Special Evening Sitting, Grants Bail To Film Director Falsely Accused Of Rape
Case title: Sanoj Kumar Mishra v. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 643
The Delhi High Court ordered release of film director Sanoj Mishra, falsely accused of rape by a woman with whom he had a consensual relationship.
Justice Girish Kathpalia held a special evening sitting after a Full Court reference on the occasion of superannuation of Justice Dharmesh Sharma, “keeping in mind the issue of liberty of the accused”.
Title: SAMUEL KAMALESAN v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 644
The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a Commanding Officer in Indian Army who refused to participate in regimental weekly religious parades on the ground that he belonged to Christian faith, despite multiple opportunities and counselling sessions at various levels by the superiors.
Title: RAVI RANJAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 645
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a direction on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) not to disturb or demolish the Pakistani-Hindu refugee camp at city's Majnu Ka Tila till some alternative piece of land is allotted to the residents.
'Will Consider': Supreme Court Registrar In Pleas For Reservations In Junior Court Assistant Post
Title: TANYA AND ORS v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR REGISTRAR and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 646
The Supreme Court administration told the Delhi High Court that it will decide pleas concerning the recruitment for the post of Junior Cost Assistant in the Supreme Court in various reserved categories.
Title: SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 647
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to stay the trial court proceedings in the corruption case related to the alleged land for jobs scam case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Title: SH. KAMTU ANURAGI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 648
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that absence of train journey ticket on the deceased person after the fatal incident cannot, by itself, negate the legitimacy of the claim for compensation.
Title: SADHGURU JAGADISH VASUDEV & ANR v. IGOR ISAKOV & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 649
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, founder of Isha Foundation, and has restrained various rogue websites and unknown entities from misusing his personality traits through the use of Artificial Intelligence in any platform or medium.
Title: MINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Delhi High Court has ruled that hospitals cannot insist on identification proof of minor rape victims for diagnostic purposes or ultrasound in medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) cases ordered by the Courts.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that hospitals and medical institutions must be sensitised that cases involving victims of sexual assault, especially minor girls, require a more responsive and sensitive approach.
Case title: The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has declared that 'Ritz' and 'Ritz Carlton' run by the Paris based Ritz Hotel Limited are “well-known” trademarks in India.
“The long duration for which the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks have been in use by the plaintiffs, wide geographical area of their use, their knowledge among the general public and their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion, publicity and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiffs, in India as well as other countries, the RITZ and RITZ CARLTON marks have achieved the status of well-known trademarks,” Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Case title: Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652
In a first-of-its-kind order, the Delhi High Court has granted a limited-duration superlative injunction— an enhanced form of dynamic+ injunction— to tackle the unauthorised streaming of IPL, India's England Tour by rogue apps and websites.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants from infringing Star India's exclusive streaming rights and ordered real-time relief against rogue websites and rogue mobile applications which may be discovered during the course.
Case title: M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 653
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order in rectification proceedings must be reasoned, passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dealing with a petition against rejection of Petitioner's application seeking rectification of impugned demand order.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Open School Students Left Out Of JEE Mains Counselling
Title: AKSHITA SEHRAWAT (MINOR) REPRESENT BY HER FATHER SH. DEEPAK KUMAR v. DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (DTU) & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 654
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to various students who got registered with National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and were left out of JEE-Mains 2025 counselling process as their result for class XII examination was not declared.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that students put hard labour for two to four years, or may be more, while preparing for JEE (Mains) and they should not get ousted from consideration in the counselling despite having attained good percentile and rank only on the ground that result of class XII has not been timely declared by the concerned education Board.
Case title: U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 655
A larger bench of the Delhi High Court will decide whether Section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, inserted vide a 2012 amendment to provide an extended period of reassessment for cases involving foreign assets, applies retrospectively.
Section 149(1)(c) prescribes that reassessment notice in respect of any income in relation to any asset located outside India, which had escaped assessment, is not proscribed for a period of 16 years from the end of the assessment year in which such income was chargeable to tax.
Title: ANIL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 656
While dismissing a plea alleging illegal construction at a property with Rs. 50,000 costs, the Delhi High Court has deprecated filing of frivolous petitions with no direct interest in the matter.
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the litigant had no connection with the property, was living 10 kms away from it and the only ground for filing the petition was that he had the same street while coming and going to the office.
Title: ZIHAD AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 657
While quashing a POCSO case, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused to do community service for a month at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital while also asking him to pay Rs. 50,000 costs to be deposited towards “Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties.”
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 658
As elections to the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and all bar associations in the national capital have been successfully concluded, the Delhi High Court has closed a petition on the issue.
A full bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice C Hari Shankar disposed of a plea plea in which directions were issued from time to time regarding conduct of elections to the Delhi High Court Bar Association as also the various Bar Associations in the District Courts.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 659
The Delhi High Court has observed that personal loans or EMIs are voluntary obligations which cannot override the obligation of an earning spouse to maintain the other spouse or the child.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar said that deductions such as house rent, electricity charges, repayment of personal loans, premiums towards life insurance, or EMIs for voluntary borrowings do not qualify as legitimate deductions for the purpose of maintenance.
Title: PRASHANT PAREEK v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 660
The Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR registered against a man accused of causing discomfort to a fellow flight passenger by constantly staring at her.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that a settlement was reached between the parties and the prosecution also had no objection to the same.
Title: INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD v. PUMA SE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 661
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge ruling to the extent of restraining Indiamart from providing registered trademark “PUMA” in respect of the goods as search options in its drop down menu presented to prospective sellers at the time of their registration on the e-commerce platform.
Title: MS SADHANA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 662
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by a candidate who was unable to give Common University Entrance Test (UG) Exam conducted by National Testing Agency (NTA) as she reached the examination centre beyond the gate closing timings, as prescribed in the admit card.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that in the conduct of such a large-scale examination, leniency would lead to chaos and the discipline of the examination ought to be maintained.
Case title: Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 663
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when a minor child is forcefully shifted by one of the parents warring for the child's custody, such shift would not grant territorial jurisdiction for granting guardianship to such parent.
Case title: Karan Kumar v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 664
The Delhi High Court granted relief to a POCSO convict, noting that the prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt that the survivor was a minor at the time of alleged offence.
Justice Amit Sharma observed that the survivor's date of birth mentioned in her school register was not on the basis of any proof of birth document issued by any Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat. Rather, the entry was made based on what was conveyed by her parents.
Case title: Delhi Public School Dwarka vs. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 665
Calling it a reprehensible practice, the Delhi High Court expressed its dismay at the conduct of Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka engaging “bouncers” to physically block entry of students over the issue of fee hike.
Justice Sachin Datta made the observation while disposing of an application filed by parents of various students who were expelled by the school for non payment of fees.
Delhi High Court Suggests Use Of Technology While Probing NDPS Cases, Says It Assures 'Fairness'
Title: IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi High Court has mooted the use of technology while investigating cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the use of technology in such cases enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Widow, Orders Status Quo On Batla House Property Facing Demolition
Title: ISHRAT JAHAN v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 667
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a widow and ordered status quo on her property in city's Batla House area facing demolition.
Vacation judge, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, listed the matter on July 10 while asking the authorities to maintain status quo on her property.
CLAT PG : Delhi High Court Finds Errors In Two Questions; Asks NLU Consortium To Revise Marks
Title: Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 668
The Delhi High Court asked the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to take steps to avoid “excessive” fee charged for raising objections to questions for future examinations.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of the pleas challenging the results of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) PG, 2025 held on December 01 last year.
Title: CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. PREMA EVELYN D CRUZ AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669
The Delhi High Court has observed that the record of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) cannot be at variance with the passport as it would create doubt in the mind of anyone regarding an individual's employment or immigration.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that the citizen of the Country is entitled to a true and correct narration of all necessary and relevant particulars in the public documents that pertain to them.
Case title: Sanjay @ Sanju v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 670
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon a 24 years old boy for committing rape upon a 60 years old woman.
In doing so, Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the youth's plea that in the absence of the “Electropherogram” report, the DNA evidence was insufficient to corroborate the Prosecutrix's version.
Batla House Demolitions : Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan's PIL
Title: Amanatullah Khan v. DDA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 671
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan's PIL against DDA's proposed demolition action in the city's Batla House area.
A division bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia and Justice Tejas Karia expressed that only individual residents can claim that their property does not fall within specified area of proposed demolition site.
It thus permitted Khan to withdraw the plea with liberty to inform the residents of their right to move the appropriate forum, in 3 working days.
Can Commonly Used Slogans Like “One For All” Be Trademarked? Delhi High Court Answers
Case title: Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 672
The Delhi High Court has held that slogans, particularly those which are descriptive or commonly used phrases, face a significantly high threshold for registration of trademark— unless they have acquired a secondary meaning.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held thus while denying relief to Oswaal Books, which publishes books for CBSE, ISC, ICSE Karnataka Board, JEE – Mains & Advanced, NEET, CAT and CLAT, in its appeal against rejection of Trade Mark Application for “ONE FOR ALL” mark.
Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 673
Citing Kautilya's Arthshastra which makes references to the element of reformatory policy of sentencing, the Delhi High Court directed the government to consider afresh the application for premature release of a life convict who had jumped parole.
Justice Girish Kathpali also made reference to the Vth pillar edict of Delhi Topra which refers to a statement of the emperor Asoka that he had let off prisoners 25 times during a span of 26 years.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmad Shah v NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal moved by Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah challenging an NIA court's order denying bail in an alleged case of terror funding.
NIA has alleged that various accused persons conspired for raising and collecting funds for causing disruption in the Kashmir valley and to wage war against the government of India. Shah was arrested in June 2019 and he was arrayed as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA on October 04, 2019.
The allegations against him are that he played a key role in building a separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, paying tribute to family of slain terrorists, receiving money through hawala transactions and raising funds through LOC trade used to “fule subversive and militant activities.”
Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 675
The Delhi High Court took exception to the practice of members of Sentence Review Board (SRB), appointed in their official capacity, not personally attending SRB meetings and rather sending their representatives.
Justice Girish Kathpali was dealing with the case of a life convict, whose successive applications for premature release were rejected by the SRB
Case title: RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 676
The Delhi High Court has rejected an appeal preferred by RSPL Health Private Limited, alleging that Sun Pharma had adopted a trademark for its medicinal products, which is deceptively similar to RSPL's menstrual product line.
Rejecting the appeal against denial of interim injunction by a single judge, the division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed,
“there is no dispute that the appellant is using its Subject Mark for goods like sanitary napkins, sanitary towels, pads etc., while the respondents are using their Impugned Mark for medicine claimed to be giving relief against constipation. The two goods are neither allied nor cognate…the nature of goods, their trade channel, their purpose, and the intended consumers are distinct, and there is no likelihood of confusion being caused by the use of the marks for such goods.”
Case title: Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited v. DDA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 677
The Delhi High Court refused to pass a summary judgment in a suit moved by Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited against DDA, seeking a money decree of ₹4,59,73,61,098/- along with pendente lite and future interest over an auction property.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that since land acquisition proceedings qua the said property were declared 'lapsed' by a judicial order, the company ought to have first shown that the rightful owner is already in possession of the property, to claim refund of consideration amount paid by it.
Case title: State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678
The Delhi High Court expressed shock at the conduct of Madhya Pradesh government in “victimising” a deceased IAS cadre officer by withholding his retiral benefits of almost 7 years.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that the officer was first victimized back in the year 2000, when he was misallocated Chhattisgarh cadre upon reorganization of MP.
Case Title: M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 679
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that the recommendations of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) rendered under a contract constitute an arbitral award which is enforceable as a decree under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court further held that the limitation for enforcement begins from the date of the award, not from the date of the judgment declaring it as an 'award'.
Case title: Newgen IT Technologies Limited v. Newgen Software Technologies Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 680
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an entity cannot seek to set aside an interim injunction passed against it in a trademark infringement suit, merely because its business or IPO launch is jeopardized due to such injunction.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN HYDRAULICS PVT. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kunar Ohri has held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of apparent inconsequential errors and fumbles to challenge the award. Inconsequential errors in the award cannot be a ground to challenge otherwise judicious and reasoned award.
Case title: Manoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a pedestrian in an accident cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence merely because he was crossing the road from a place other than the Zebra crossing.
In doing so, Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Gaytri Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2024) where a coordinate bench held that “even if there was no Zebra Crossing, there can be no presumption of negligence on the part of the pedestrian…The driver of the vehicle has to recognise the first right of the pedestrian and to avoid any person who may be crossing the road.”
Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that contentions regarding the applicability and relevance of an arbitration agreement are to be dealt with by the arbitrator and cannot be gone into at the stage of section 11 petition. Once the existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed, any dispute related to the applicability of the agreement has to be dealt by the arbitrator.
Case title: Shakila v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 684
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that siblings, married or unmarried or the children of such siblings, are not ipso facto disentitled from claiming compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018 (DVCS).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that though the definition of “Dependent” under Clause 2(b) of the DVCS does not include “siblings” however, given the inclusive terminology employed in the definition, non-inclusion of the term “sibling”, cannot ipso facto exclude them from the benefits of the Scheme.
Case title: NKJ v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 685
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a man booked for compelling and swapping his wife with his friends for sexual activities.
Stating that the case does not reflect “stereotyped matrimonial dispute allegations”, Justice Girish Kathpalia denied the relief in a 2024 FIR lodged under Sections 498A (Cruelty), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 376 (Rape), 328 (Causing hurt by stupefying),354A (sexual harassment) and 376D (Gang rape) and under Section 6 POCSO Act.
Case title: Lovee Narula v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 686
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 to attend to his critically ill mother and to make necessary arrangements for her continued medical treatment.
Though the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the ground of illness of a family member of the accused is not available under Section 45 of PMLA, Justice Tejas Karia granted the relief on humanitarian grounds.
Case title: Barun Bhanot v. M/S Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt Ltd & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 687
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the legal notice sent to a cheque drawer over dishonor of the instrument, must specifically demand the payment of 'cheque amount'.
In the absence of such demand, the preconditions to institute proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 do not stand fulfilled.
Case Title: R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla has held that once the right to file a written statement is closed, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking reference to arbitration is not maintainable.
Case title: Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 689
The Delhi High Court has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must deduct the income tax and other statutory obligations from the income of the deceased, for determining the compensation payable to the kin.
Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.: (2009) where the Sypreme Court held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income.
Case title: Vineet Gupta v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 690
The Delhi High Court permitted two persons, allegedly involved in Rs.1626.74 crore bank fraud, to visit their children in the USA.
In doing so, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar not only cited the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution but also noted that the LOC against them stood suspended.
Moreover, though the Supreme Court had directed the Punjab & Haryana High Court to reconsider its order setting aside the declaration of Fraud, the HC order was not stayed and as such, the declaration of fraud remains set aside.
Case title: M/S Best Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. M/S R.D. Sales
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 691
The Delhi High Court granted relief to an entity being prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, for dishonor of a cheque issued by it— due to subsequent freezing of its bank account.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that under Section 138 of the NI Act, an offence is committed when a cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account “maintained by the drawer”.
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that when the language of the contract is plain, clear and unambiguous, recourse to internal aids of interpretation or extraneous materials such as negotiations and correspondence is impermissible. “Ignoring an explicit clause of the contract or acting contrary to the terms of the contract amounts to patent illegality.”, the court held.
Case Title: BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the clause in question indeed contemplates the appointment of an Arbitrator by mutual consent; however, in the event of failure, it vests the power of appointing a Sole Arbitrator with the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1.
It further held that the Company acting through its Managing Director will have interest in the outcome of the dispute and therefore, appointment of Sole Arbitrator will be directly hit by the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Party autonomy as also impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate inter se disputes between the parties are the foundational pillars of arbitration.
Case title: M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 694
The Delhi High Court has observed that demand raised against an assessee qua reversal of availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and qua utilisation of ITC prima facie constitutes double demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted liberty to the Petitioner-assessee to approach the Appellate Authority against such demand, and waived predeposit qua demand of ineligible ITC.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has held that mere movement of file and change in counsel due to administrative issues does not constitute “sufficient cause” to condone inordinate delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court reiterated that for appeals under Section 37 that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule.
Case Title: LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the mere reference to certain assets in a provisional attachment order does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Similarly, the pendency of parallel investigations by the CBI or ED into allegations of fraud does not bar the arbitrator from adjudicating the dispute. Arbitration proceedings can continue independently, even when some aspects of the subject matter are under criminal investigation.
Case title: Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 697
The Delhi High Court rejected the appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against an ITAT order allowing the valuation of a software company's unquoted equity shares by discounted cash flow [DCF] method.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia held that DCF method “is one of the methods that can be adopted by the Assessee under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the [Income Tax] Rules for determining the FMV of unquoted equity shares in a company in which public are not substantially interested.”
Case title: Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 698
The Delhi High Court came to the rescue of an Australia-based couple, who were precluded from taking their adopted son back to the country for over 4 years, due to inaction of CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority).
Justice Sachin Datta observed that the Adoption Deed was executed in 2020 and thus directed the Authority to forthwith issue a NOC enabling the Petitioner-couple to take the child with them.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Phrases 'Derogatory' To Surf Excel From Ghadi Detergent's Ads
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v/s RSPL LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 699
The Delhi High Court in an interim order has ordered removal of phrases which are “derogatory” to Surf Excel detergent from the advertisements issued by Ghadi detergent powder.
Vacation judge Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that though comparative advertising by itself could be healthy, remarks that are derogatory and defamatory, would not be permissible.
Title: SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 700
The Delhi High Court alowed Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav to travel abroad to Melbourne, Australia between June 27 to July 5 for attending promotional events of the film “Mera Kale Rang Da Yaar”.
Vacation judge Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta permitted Yadav to travel abroad from June 27 to July 05, subject to him furnishing an FDR of Rs. 1 lakh which shall be deposited with the Court's Registry.
Title: SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 701
The Delhi High Court has issued directions for laying down a new sewer line across AIIMS premises to control the waterlogging in Green Park Extension and surrounding areas in the national capital.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the new sewer line is required to be laid across AIIMS Residential complex, considering the required extent of land and the overarching public interest involved in the matter.
Case title: Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 702
The Delhi High Court has restrained fifteen entities from infringing the trademark of famous pizza chain Domino's or its erstwhile trade name Dominick's Pizza, by using deceptively similar marks.
In doing so, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that in disputes involving edible products, the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower than that applied in other cases.
Case title: Sanjay Kaul v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 703
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Income Tax Department cannot issue reassessment notice to an assessee based on general information shared by its Investigation Wing, until the Assessing Officer forms definite 'reason to believe' escapement of income.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S K.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 704
The Delhi High Court rejected Revenue's appeal against deletion of additions made to the income of an assessee-company alleged to have evaded tax, observing that the AO had already scrutinised the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and in the absence of any additional material coming to light, reassessment action could not have been initiated.
Title: T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 705
The Delhi High Court has ordered Google LLC to take down a “fake” YouTube channel using news clipping, videos and deepfake impersonations of Anjana Om Kashyap, anchor and Managing Editor (Special Projects) of Aaj Tak news channel.
Vacation judge Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that such fake YouTube pages or fake profiles being made using the goodwill of Kashyap and the news channel, including their, reputation and personality would be contrary to law.
Case title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 706
The Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining a bus manufacturer and two inter-city bus service providers, from infringing the 'grille slash' trademark of Sweden-based renowned Volvo buses.
Justice Amit Bansal noted that the Defendants deliberately and dishonestly created buses bearing lookalike of Volvo's trademark to encash upon the company's goodwill.
Case title: Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 707
The Delhi High Court held that terms of an employment contract that imposes a restriction on right of the employee to get employed post-termination of the contract are 'void', for contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.
Justice Tejas Karia held that after termination of employment, the non-compete clause can be invoked only to protect the confidential and proprietary information of the employer or to restrain the employee from soliciting the clients of the employer.
Case title: Dazn DAZN Limited v. Buffsports. Me & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 708
The Delhi High Court has granted Dynamic+ injunction in favour of British over-the-top sports streaming and entertainment platform Dazn Limited, restraining rogue websites from infringing its exclusive rights to air FIFA Club World Cup 2025, being played in the United States from June 14 to July 13, 2025.
A Dynamic+ injunction is granted not only in respect of content/work existing at the time of filing of suit, but also future works of the plaintiffs in which their copyright exists and is violated by rogue websites.
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 709
The Delhi High Court issued various directions to ensure that the standard operating procedure (SOP) on felling or transplantation of trees in the national capital be "implemented in an effective manner to achieve the desired objective".
Issuing a slew of directions Justice Jasmeet Singh ordered that the DCF or Tree Officer shall be involved at the very stage of planning of a project which involves felling or transplantation of trees.
Case title:Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an accused under the Arms Act, 1959 cannot seek default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the ground that the chargesheet filed against him in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.
Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is mandatory to prosecute a person for offences under Sections 25/ 27.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 711
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if an assessee fails to respond to a show cause notice duly communicated to it on the GST portal, the Department cannot be blamed for passing an order raising demand, without hearing the assessee.
Delhi High Court Directs Meta To Pull Down Fake Instagram Accounts Posting Obscene Photos Of Minor
Case title: Minor Victim Through Neetu Chadha v. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 712
Coming to the rescue of a 15-year-old minor girl, the Delhi High Court directed Meta, which owns social media platform Instagram, to take action against fake accounts posting her obscene photos.
Justice Manoj Jain further directed the platform to disclose details of the persons behind the fake accounts.
Case title: SS Enterprises Vs Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 713
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of maximum three adjournments that can be granted to a taxpayer during the course of adjudication proceedings, cannot be construed to mean that the taxpayer must be given a minimum of three hearings.
Delhi High Court Grants 90 Days Interim Bail To Woman Booked Under POCSO Act To Care For Her Newborn
Case title: Kushi v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 714
The Delhi High Court has ordered an interim release of a woman, languishing in jail for about six months in connection with a POCSO case, to enable her to take care of her new born child.
The woman was arrested on December 12 last year. She was expecting at the time and delivered a boy child in custody, on May 12.
Meanwhile, chargesheet came to be filed against her alleging offences under Sections 363/366/370/376/354A IPC, Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Case Title: DIN DAYAL AGRAWAL HUF versus CAPRISO FINANCE LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that if a proper application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must refer the parties to arbitration and may reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by law. However, if no such application is filed and no prayer is made for reference to arbitration, the mere existence of an arbitration clause is not sufficient to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Case Title: M/s MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA AND SONS versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 716
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that a party that unilaterally appoints an arbitrator is not prohibited from challenging the award on the ground that it violates Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. Mere exercise of the power to make such an appointment does not constitute an express written waiver as required under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Case title: Pret Study by Janak Fashions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 717
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a demand order passed by the GST Department without hearing the assessee, after noting that the assessee itself was not diligent in responding to the show cause notice or attending the personal hearing despite notice.
Title: JIOSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD v. HTTPS//CRICLK.COM & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718
The Delhi High Court has passed a dynamic+ injunction in favour of JioStar India Private Limited and restrained the illegal and unauthorised streaming of India Tour of England 2025.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the dynamic+ injunction order to protect the copyrighted works of JioStar, as soon as they are infringed or created.
Title: GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719
Ruling in favour of Gameskraft Technologies, the Delhi High Court has restrained various rogue websites, mobile applications and domain entities from using the registered trademarks “Playship”, “Plego”, “Ludo Select”, “Pocket 52”, “Rummy”, “Rummy Culture”, “Gameskraft” and “Culture of Champions.”
Justice Amit Bansal further restrained the defendant entities from infringing on the copyright vested with Gameskraft in the unique content of its websites- www.rummyculture.com, www.gamezy.com, www.playship.com, www.rummyprime.com, and www.pocket52.com or the apps hosted by it under the names “Rummy Culture”, “Gamezy Poker”, “Playship Rummy”, “Rummy Prime” and “Pocket52”.
Delhi High Court Allows Minor Rape Survivor To Terminate 27-Week Pregnancy
Title: MINOR A THR HER MOTHER S v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 720
The Delhi High Court has allowed a minor rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy of approximately 27-weeks gestational period and directed the Medical Superintendent of AIIMS to make necessary arrangement for the same.
Vacation judge Justice Manoj Jain noted that the 16-year-old girl was a victim of sexual assault and was not interested in continuing with the pregnancy.
Title: SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF THE NCT) OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 721
The Delhi High Court set aside a decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) of Delhi Prisons denying the request for premature release made by Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in the 1996 rape and murder case of law student Priyadarshini Mattoo in the national capital.
Singh is serving life imprisonment in the case.
Title: Amazon Technologies Inc v. Lifestyle Equities
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 722
The Delhi High Court stayed a single judge ruling asking Amazon Technologies Inc to pay Rs. 339.25 crore damages and costs for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club.
“The considerations outlined herein above make out, in our considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a complete travesty of justice to require the Appellant Amazon Tech to deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned judgment, in order to maintain its appeal,” the Bench said .
Trial Court Cannot Issue Summons To Accused Without Assigning Proper Reasons: Delhi High Court
Case title: Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 723
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a trial court cannot issue a summons to an accused person without assigning proper reasons for the same.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “Merely taking note of the facts of the case and recording prima facie satisfaction, without giving any reasons for the same, is insufficient.”
Title: SHANKESH MUTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 724
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC can be invoked by a 'fugitive criminal' facing proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1962.
Justice Sanjeev Narula held that an Indian citizen who apprehends arrest in India for an alleged offence committed abroad is not stripped of the protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Title: NK v. K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 725
Distinguishing between interim maintenance and ad-interim maintenance, the Delhi High Court has held that the latter can be granted without filing of a specific application by the concerned party and is payable from the date of the order passed by the Court and not from the date of filing of maintenance application or petition.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Court can grant ad-interim maintenance to alleviate the hardship of the claimant, pending its decision on the grant of interim maintenance and determination of its quantum.
Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 726
The Delhi High Court granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the Parliament security breach case which happened on December 13, 2023.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted bail to the two subject to them furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each and two sureties of like amount.
Title: MM DHONCHAK v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 727
The Delhi High Court upheld a single judge ruling upholding the extension of suspension of MM Dhonchak, a retired judicial officer and former Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed Dhonchak's appeal against the single judge order of March 03 dismissing his petition against the second order of extension of suspension.
Title: Anish Sharma v. DOE GNCTD & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 728
The Delhi High Court closed a PIL seeking special syllabus for children suffering from autism observing that it is a policy decision which has to be taken by the concerned authorities.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the litigant, Anish Sharma, to file an appropriate representation to the authorities- Union Government, Delhi Government, CBSE, education boards and other relevant authority.
Case title: VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 729
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that goodwill, for the purposes of a passing off action, is to be shown in respect of a mark and not in respect of particular goods or a category of goods.
In stating so, a division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul upheld a single judge order restraining luggage and travel accessories manufacturer VIP from making use of the mark 'CARLTON' with respect to any kind of bags.
Case title: RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. V/s SHAZIA ILMI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 730
Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai withdrew his appeal from the Delhi High Court which was filed against a single judge ruling granting partial relief to BJP leader Shazia Ilmi in her defamation case over a video posted by Sardesai on 'X'— alleging that she abused a video journalist of India Today during a televised debate.
The single judge had confirmed an interim order passed in August last year, directing Sardesai to remove the video.
After a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar showed reluctance to interfere in the matter, Sardesai withdrew the appeal.
Case title: M/S Crocs Inc USA v. M/S Bata India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 731
The Delhi High Court has restored the suits filed by Crocs USA against Indian footwear brands Liberty, Bata, Relaxo, Aqualite and others for copying its distinctive clog design.
The suits were dismissed earlier by a single judge by holding that no passing off action can be found on a trade dress which is registered as a design under the Designs Act.
Title: Jitendra Chouksey v. Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 732
The Delhi High Court ordered intervention of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) on a plea filed concerning the issue of approval of drug combinations sold in the market for weight loss treatment.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the DCGI to consult experts and stakeholders, including the manufacturers of the drugs, on the issue.
Title: Aditya Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 733
The Delhi High Court directed the competent authority of the Union Government to take measures and issue directions of frame Rules to ensure that the information under the Right to Information Act (2005) is provided in the mode sought by the information seeker, while also ensuring adequate safety measures.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the competent authority of the Government of India to take a decision on the issue within three months.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 734
The Delhi High Court has observed that the dignity of a dependent wife and child is denied when the financial support is delayed by the husband, underscoring that even a day's lapse defeats the very purpose of maintenance.
“The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse. Financial support delayed is dignity denied, and this Court is conscious of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case title: M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 735
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when a trader imports and sells goods bearing the trademark of another company, such trader cannot sue another authorized dealer of the trademark holder for infringement.
Title: AADRITI PATHAK THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MRS. SADHANA SHARMA v. GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 736
While granting relief to a child with “mild autism”, the Delhi High Court has observed that “inclusive education‟ is not merely about access to education but it is about belongingness.
“It is also about recognising that every child has a place in the classroom not because they are the same, but because they are different, and that difference enriches the learning environment for all,” Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.
Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 737
he Delhi High Court restrained Patanjali Ayurved from running advertisements allegedly disparaging to Dabur's Chyavanprash product.
The Court noted that Patanjali's TVC portrayed that the existing Chyawanprash in the market are ordinary and consumers ought not to settle for ordinary products, which are not prepared in accordance with ayurvedic knowledge as they are not manufactured as per ancient ayurvedic texts and tradition.
Title: INSPECTOR MIN GAJENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 738
The Delhi High Court has upheld a rule placing restriction on the retention of General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) by Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) personnel to a maximum of three years at the last place of posting, when a personnel is thereafter posted to a Non-Family Station.
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. COL. BALBIR SINGH (RETD.) and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 739
The Delhi High Court has ruled that grant of disability pension to Indian Armed Forces personnel is "not an act of generosity" but a rightful "acknowledgement of their sacrifices which manifest in the form of disabilities or disorders" suffered during the course of their military service.
Title: BELVEDERE RESOURCES DMCC v. OCL IRON AND STEEL LTD & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 740
The Delhi High Court has ruled that communications between the parties through WhatsApp and emails can constitute a valid arbitration agreement.
Justice Jasmeet Singh perused Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act and said that it is not necessary for a concluded contract to be in existence for a valid arbitration agreement to be existing between the parties.
Title: VINOD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 741
The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is unduly harsh of the prison authorities to reject the furlough applications of convicts on the ground of delay in surrender by a few says during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma said that courts and prison authorities must also remain mindful of the exceptional and unprecedented circumstances that prevailed during the pandemic.
Title: JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 742
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of Rs. 200 crores money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.
Justice Anish Dayal said that her apprehension that any evidence would be self-incriminating cannot lead to quashing of the ECIR as statutory and constitutional protections are already provided and will have to be assessed in that rubric.
Title: AIIMS v. Minor A & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 743
A minor rape survivor, who had sought termination of her 27-week pregnancy, agreed before the Delhi High Court to carry the child after AIIMS's medical board opined that the pregnancy be prolonged to 34 weeks of gestational period for the best interest of the girl as well as the baby.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal modified a single judge's order which had earlier allowed the 16-year-old girl to terminate her pregnancy which was at 26 weeks and six days as on June 30.
Payments Made To AWS For Cloud Computing Services Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 744
The Delhi High Court has held that payments made to Amazon Web Services (AWS) for cloud computing services do not qualify as “royalty.”
The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision which held that such payments are not taxable as royalties or fees for technical services (FTS).
Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 745
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a registered trademark owner's claim against infringement cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the defendant could have sought removal of the mark from the trademark's register under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 on grounds of 'non-use'.
Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 746
The Delhi High Court has held that though the Trade Marks Act 1999 does not expressly recognise the concept of a 'family of marks' however, the same is judicially developed and can be invoked by a registered trademark owner to seek injunction against specific marks.
Title: PRANAV PANDEY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 747
Rejecting a plea challenging Paper I and Paper II of Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023, the Delhi High Court has observed that it cannot suggest the manner in which questions are framed in a question paper, so long as there is no ambiguity in the question or the answers provided.
Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 748
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appeal from CESTAT under the Central Excise Act 1944 involving the issue of taxability will lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.
Case title: M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 749
The Delhi High Court set aside the reassessment action initiated against journalist Rajat Sharma's company, M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., which owns and runs the India TV channel, over alleged foreign remittances.
Case title: M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 750
Coming to the rescue of an importer, the Delhi High Court has set aside the security of ₹10 crore (approx) demanded by the Customs Department for provisional release of its perishable goods.
Calling the condition 'onerous', a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered provisional release of Petitioner's imported Roasted Areca Nuts on furnishing bond of Rs.4.10 crore along with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 lakh.
Delhi High Court Grants Exparte Injunction To Dazn india Against Websites Illegaly Streaming FIFA 25
Case Title: DAZN LIMITED & ANR vs BUFFSPORTS. ME & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 751
The Delhi High court has granted ex parte dynamic injunction to DAZN Ltd.the official broadcasters of the FIFA World Cup 2025 against illegal streaming rogue website.A single bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee has allowed immediate blocking of rogue websites following an ex-parte order
Title: CONQUEROR INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 752
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited in a patent infringement suit filed against its “find device” technology, which helps users to locate, lock or erase data from their lost or stolen devices.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 753
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against Thomson Press (India) over the sale of a property in Noida back in 2013, allegedly at a price much lower than the prevailing circle rate.
Case title: GNCTD v. Jyoti
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 754
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the OBC certificate is issued to a person from a backward community only for applying to posts under the Central government, such a certificate cannot be used to claim reservation to posts notified by the Delhi government.
Case Title: M/S Viva Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 755
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that an 'exclusive jurisdiction clause' in the arbitration agreement unequivocally denotes the 'seat' of arbitration. The court observed that any contrary determination made by the Arbitrator without the express written consent of the parties only relates to a 'venue' under Section 20(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court therefore dismissed the Section 29A(5) petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Case title: Nand Lal Luhar And Ors v. Western Railway And Ors (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 756
The Delhi High Court recently upheld the action of Railways in bifurcating the posts reserved for visually impaired candidates into two categories— one which could be held by both low vision (LV) and blind candidates and the other which could be held only by LV but not blind candidates.
Case title: Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors v. Ranjit Singh (and connected matter)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 757
The Delhi High Court raised concerns over the trend of financially well-off tenants continuing to occupy the landlord's property for decades altogether, while parting with a very meagre rent.
Irked by mere ₹40 rent paid by the Respondent-tenants in Delhi's Sadar Bazar area, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ordered their eviction.
Case Title: ROSHAN REAL ESTATES PVT LTD versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 758
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that if any person had any professional or supervisory relationship with the party to the Arbitration, such person cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator as per Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule. It does not matter whether such a relationship existed over 17 years ago but the real test is whether such a relationship created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Accordingly, the mandate of the Arbitrator was terminated in the present case.
Case title: Amrit Pal Singh v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that foreign recipients of proceeds of crime are not exempted from scrutiny under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on a mere ground of 'contractual legitimacy' of transactions.
Case Title: M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED. Versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 760
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that clauses of the contract giving an advantage to the employer over the contractor in claiming damages, if not questioned before the Arbitral Tribunal or at the time of formation or execution of the contract, cannot be questioned under section 34 of the Arbitration Act as the parties are deemed to have knowingly incorporated such clauses in the contract.
Case title: CELEBI AIRPORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 761
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by Turkey based company Celebi Airport Services Private Limited challenging the decision of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) revoking its security clearance in the "interest of national security".
Case Name: Raheja Developers Limited v. Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 762
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while hearing amendment petition filed u/s 34 of the A&C Act observed that the omission to plead a ground of challenge in the original Section 34 petition pertaining to non-adherence to the mandatory procedure of Section 29A would not oust the jurisdiction of the Section 34 Court to scrutinize the same. The Court held that the amendments sought in the present application fall within the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction.
Title: STATE v. YOGESH @ GOLU & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 763
The Delhi High Court has observed that State's delay in filing appeals in serious criminal offences prejudices the victim's right to fair adjudication of allegations, especially where the victim comes from marginalized or economically weaker sections of society.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Courts must remain sensitive to the said factor while adjudicating applications for condonation of delay in criminal cases involving serious offences.
Case Title: RAM KAWAR GARG versus BAJAJ CAPITAL INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED NOW NEW NAME IS JUST TRADE SECURITIES LIMITED AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 764
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that although the National Stock Exchange (NSE) Bye Laws do not provide for the automatic termination of the Arbitrator's mandate after the expiry of the time period stipulated under Bye Law 7(b) of the NSE Bye Laws, the mandate of the Arbitrator can be terminated by the Relevant Authority if the Arbitrator fails to pass the award within time thereby indirectly limiting the arbitrator's mandate. This shows that the intent and spirit of both the NSE Bye-Laws and the Arbitration Act is the same as both prescribe for the termination of the arbitrator's mandate if timely award is not passed.
Title: BIRKENSTOCK IP GMBH v. ASHOK KUMAR(S)/JOHN DOE(S) & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 765
While passing a john doe order in favour of footwear brand Birkenstock, the Delhi High Court has ordered inspection by local commissioners on the premises of infringer entities.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants or distributors or sellers or importers or exporters or franchises from selling or marketing or dealing in the products bearing “Birkenstock” trademark or its trade dress.
Title: AAKASH DEEP CHOUHAN v. CBI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 766
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by an accused against interception of calls and messages by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying that corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy.
Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the plea moved by one Aakash Deep Chouhan, challenging a trial court order framing charges against him under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He further sought directions for expunging or destruction of telephonic messages and calls allegedly unlawfully intercepted by CBI.
Case title: GNCTD v. Nisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 767
The Delhi High Court upheld a direction to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board not to treat the OBC certificate granted by the Delhi government to an aspirant as 'migrant', merely because it was based on her father's caste certificate issued by the UP government.
A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul observed,
“The certificate has to be read as it is. It does not purport to have been issued to the respondent merely because she is a migrant. It clearly states that “Nisha, Resident of (address redacted) Delhi belongs to the community JAT which is recognized as Other Backward Class...The mere fact that it has been issued on the basis of the OBC certificate issued to the respondent's father in UP does not deviate from the earlier recitals in the Certificate.”
Title: Saurav Das & Ors v. CIC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 768
The Delhi High Court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking a direction on the Central Information Commission (CIC) to allow members of the general public as well as journalists to attend the proceedings physically as well as virtually.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal remarked the issue is not as simple as the petitioners want to portray and that the matter requires huge infrastructural investment.
Case title: Rahnuma & Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 769
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Railway Claims Tribunal to grant compensation to the heirs of a man who passed away after falling from his train.
While doing so, Justice Manoj Jain observed that it “really does not matter” that the deceased had boarded the train from the wrong side, when it was proved that he had successfully boarded the train and had fallen thereafter.
Delhi High Court Rejects PIL To Abolish Offences Of 'Waging War', 'Unlawful Assembly' From BNS 2023
Title: UPENDRA NATH DALAI v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 770
The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking abolition of offences of waging war against the State and unlawful assembly from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal remarked that it cannot direct the Parliament to abolish the provisions as that will be amounting to legislation, which is not the realm of Courts.
Case title: Gulshan Babbar Advocate v. GNCTD (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 771
The Delhi High Court dismissed with costs a batch of writ petitions seeking court-monitored ED probe into real estate company M/s IREO Residences for allegedly duping homebuyers and siphoning of funds worth over ₹4,000 crore.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the Petitioner was neither a homebuyer nor was otherwise directly or indirectly affected by the alleged acts of the company.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 90-Year-Old Booked In 1984 For Demanding ₹15K Bribe
Title: SURENDRA KUMAR v. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 772
In a 41-year-old corruption case, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to a 90-year-old man, who remained in custody for only one day and remained on bail during pendency of trial and appeal, by commuting his sentence to the period already undergone.
Surendra Kumar, who was working in Chief Marketing Manager of the State Trading Corporation of India (STCI), was arrested in the case in 1984 over the allegations of demanding Rs. 15,000 bribe from a firm partner. Kumar was released on bail shortly after his arrest but was convicted in the case after 19 years- in 2002.
Case title: Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 773
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold jewellery which was seized from a Muslim woman while she was returning from a religious pilgrimage to Mecca.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it is normal practice in our country for women to wear basic jewellery and the same cannot be seized by the Customs Department only on the ground that it is of 24 carat purity.
Case title: Dr Aastha Raj v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 774
The Delhi High Court came to the rescue of a doctor, whose candidature was rejected by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences and was barred from appearing in the exam for two years, over unsubstantiated allegations of using 'unfair means' during the exam.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the stigma of indulging in unfair means can adversely affect the career of a candidate and thus, the Exam authority must afford a meaningful opportunity of defence to the candidate by providing all the documents relied upon by them, including CCTV footage, if any.
Title: SAGIR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 775
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a man, convicted for life in 2003 rape and murder case of an 8 year old, whose plea for premature release was rejected by the Sentence Review Board (SRB).
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that while the crime committed by the convict was gruesome, but he was awarded life imprisonment for the same and had already spent 24 years in jail.
Title: MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 776
The Delhi High Court stayed the release of the controversial movie "Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder", allowing Islamic clerics body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and other petitioners to approach the Central Government in revision against the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the movie.
Till the Central Government took a decision on the interim relief on the petitioner's revision application, the High Court stayed the release of the film.
The film, said to be based on the 2022 murder of Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal, was due for release tomorrow. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, through its President Arshad Madani, approached the High Court against the film alleging that it was communally provocative and vilified the Muslim community at large.
Title: SHIV SHANKAR v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 777
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a wife and her family members in a case accusing them of abetting the suicide of the husband, citing lack of evidence and proof.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that it may be a case where the husband was unhappy and dejected with his marriage but no act of abetment was made out against the wife and her family members, either from the suicide note or from the testimony of the deceased's parents.
Case title: Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 778
The Delhi High Court embarked upon the distinction of rights under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
While dealing with the GI claims of Peru and Chile-based organisations in South America over 'PISCO' for certain alcoholic beverages, Justice Mini Pushkarna observed,
“While the trademark is a private right of an individual or an entity, GI is collective right of producers in a region. The Trade Marks Act distinguishes the goods and services of one trader from others. On the other hand, GI indicates a product‟s origin from a specific geographical origin. While a trademark can be assigned, transferred or licensed, a GI cannot be assigned or transferred. The trademark belongs to one person or entity, however, GI belongs to the community/region.”
Title: DIVYANSHI KHANNA (MINOR) THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN & ORS v. HOCKEY INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 779
Hockey India recently told the Delhi High Court that the schedule for the 15th Hockey India Sub Junior Women NationalChampionship 2025 will be modified or tailored for the Delhi Hockey Team.
This was after the participation of Delhi Hockey Team was cancelled in the championship due to the team being taken off the Hockey India online portal.
Appreciating the stand taken by Hockey India, the Court disposed of the plea filed by group of sub-junior hockey players of the Delhi Hockey Team,represented by their legal guardians.
Title: RUSHANT MALHOTRA & ORS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 780
The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a plea seeking to enhance the monthly remuneration of its law researchers from Rs. 65,000 to Rs. 80,000 along with arrears.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Ranjeesh Kumar Gupta said that prima facie, the Delhi Government ought to consider the approved enhancement for the LRs by the Court and take a decision in an expedited manner.
Title: SHANKAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 781
The Delhi High Court has rapped the Delhi Police over non-appearance and unpreparedness of its investigating officers, calling it “scant regard for liberty” in their eyes.
While dealing with an anticipatory bail plea filed in a cheating case, Justice Girish Kathpalia expressed shocked over the fact that despite repeated directions, neither the IO nor the SHO had appeared.
Title: AXIS MAX LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 782
The Delhi High Court has restrained disclosure or transmission of confidential personal information of Axis Max Life Insurance customers on online platforms and dark web.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the interim order in the suit filed by Axis Max Life Insurance Limited against an unknown entity(s) threatening that the confidential and sensitive personal data of its 20 lakh customers will be published for sale on the dark web, if it did not deal and negotiate.
Title: RAJAB ALI KHAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 783
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of raping and murdering a minor girl in 2018, noting that the post-mortem report provided "clear medical evidence" which revealed that it was a case of "violent and repeated sexual abuse" of the victim.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that prima facie, the strength of the material, including forensic, electronic, medical, and documentary evidence, weighed heavily against the grant of bail to the accused.
Case title: Baba Global Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 29 & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 784
The Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer is the “authority” to decide whether a reassessment action under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 should be initiated against an assessee and his stance can't be revised at the instance of another authority.
Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order, Restrains Infringement Of 'Tata' Trademarks
Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 785
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order restraining the infringement of “Tata” trademarks, observing that repeated instances of duping of customers had occurred through domains that have claimed to offer fake dealerships or distributorships.
Title: UMESH VERMA v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 786
Denying bail to a man in a fraud case, the Delhi High Court has observed that cryptocurrency has profound implications on country's economy which dissolves recognized money into “dark unknown and untraceable money.”
Case title: Kroll Information Assurance LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 787
The Delhi High Court has declined a plea moved by US-based Kroll Information Assurance, seeking to patent 'System to locate users via a Peer to Peer Network'.
Justice Amit Bansal cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970 which declares inventions related to 'algorithm' and 'computer program per se' as non-patentable.
Title: PUMA SE v. HIMANSHU SHARMA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 788
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 8 lakh in favour of footwear brand Puma in its trademark infringement suit against an individual manufacturing counterfeit products.
Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Streaming Maalik, Sarbala Ji Movie Content
Title: TIPS FILMS LIMITED v. HTTPS//0GOMOVIES.COM.TR/ & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 789
The Delhi High Court has restrained 56 rogue websites from illegally and unauthorisedly streaming content of Maalik and Sarbala Ji movies.
Need Evidence To Ascertain Rent, Can't Do Guess Work To Calculate Mense Profit: Delhi High Court
Title: SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 790
The Delhi High Court has held that coming to a figure which might be the rent of an area on its own, without any material, is not permissible in law.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said mere guess work in thin air is no evidence and cannot be used to ascertain rent.
Case title: M/S MJ Bizcrafts LLP Through Partner Rajender Kumar v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South Commissionerate Through Its Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 791
The Delhi High Court has observed that once an appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and pre-deposit is made, there is “automatic stay” of the impugned order raising demand.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA versus VEDANTA LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 792
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that parties cannot be prevented from performing their contractual obligations as interpreted in the Final Partial Award, especially when both the Final Partial Award as well as the contract interpreted therein have not been stayed and remain in force.
Title: BUDHI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 793
The Delhi High Court has ruled that applications for furlough and parole of a convict can be considered by the prison authorities during the pendency of their appeals against conviction before the Supreme Court.
Using Social Media For Disseminating Radical Ideology Attracts UAPA: Delhi High Court
Title: ARSALAN FEROZE AHENGER v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 794
The Delhi High Court has observed that using social media for disseminating radical information or ideology attracts UAPA and that it is not necessary that such an act must be a physical activity.
Case title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 795
The Delhi High Court has ordered e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart to temporarily delist pages of as many as 21 sellers offering counterfeit products in the FMCG sector by misusing Reliance and Jio trademarks.
Case title: Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 796
The Delhi High Court awarded Rs. 1,21,56,864 cumulative damages to pharmaceutical multinational Johnson & Johnson over infringement of its ORSL trademark.
ORS-L (later changed to ORSL) is a range of flavoured electrolyte drinks first introduced by Jagdale Industries Limited in 2003.
Title: ANWAR KHAN @ CHACHA & ORS v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 797
The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no statutory or judicial bar on re-arrest of an accused after curing the procedural defects of a prior illegal arrest.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a lapse or omission on the part of the investigating agency, whether inadvertent or deliberate, cannot result in a blanket immunity to the accused against any future arrest in the same case.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 798
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance.
Self-Declared Information On Matrimonial Site Not Admissible Proof Of Income: Delhi High Court
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 799
The Delhi High Court has observed that any “self-declared information” made on a matrimonial portal, without verification or corroborative evidence, cannot be treated as reliable or admissible proof of income.
Title: SAMIR @ AZHAR v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 800
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a murder case while strongly deprecating the conduct of an investigating officer who appeared in Court without proper case file and diaries.
Title: DR. SUBHASH VIJAYRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 801
The Delhi High Court directed the Union and Delhi Governments to take a decision on framing a standard operating procedure (SOP) or guidelines to avoid unnecessary references being made to the forensic science laboratories (FSLs).
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 802
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to take steps to make ad-hoc appointments to the post of Additional Public Prosecutors or Assistant Public Prosecutors in the criminal courts, pending regular recruitment.
Case title: Bhupender Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 803
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 122(1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can be imposed retrospectively, provided the show cause notice had been issued to the assessee when the provision was introduced.
Title: ABHIJIT MISHRA v. WIPRO LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 804
The Delhi High Court has expunged defamatory remarks made against the character of an employee working with Wipro Limited from his termination letter.
Case title: Tungsten Automation England Limited (Formerly Known As Tungsten Network Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 805
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that consideration paid for merely availing services that require technical expertise would not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Service' under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Customs (ACC Imports) Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 806
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs authority cannot, in absence of some evidence, decline refund of excess duty paid by a trader when the latter furnishes certificates from a qualified chartered accountant in support of its case.
Title: ANIL VERMA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 807
The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 20,000 costs on a woman for filing a sexual assault case against her live-in partner, observing that such a complaint cannot be permitted to be filed in a casual or reckless manner.
CBI Can't Seek Demand Draft Of Suspected Proceeds Of Crime U/S 91 CrPC: Delhi High Court
Case title: Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd v. CBI & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 808
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 91 of CrPC, which empowers the Police to seek production of 'any document or other thing' desirable for the purposes of investigation, cannot be used to seek a demand draft of the amount suspected to be proceeds of crime.
After High Court Rap, Delhi Police Assures Production Of Case Diaries By All Investigating Officers
Title: ANKIT v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 809
After Delhi High Court rap, the Delhi Police has assured the Court that henceforth all the investigating officers shall produce the case diaries of the case for judicial examination.
Case title: Reliance Retail Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 810
The Delhi High Court has issued interim directions restraining infringement of Reliance Retail's Tira trademark in the beauty and personal care sector and its misuse to commit financial scams.
Case Title: MOHD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 811
The Delhi High Court quashed 16 cases registered against 70 Indian nationals accused of sheltering attendees of Tablighi Jamaat congregation in their homes or mosques during COVID-19.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed the chargesheets registered against the Indian nationals and disposed of their pleas seeking quashing of 16 FIRs registered against them.
Case title: Dolby International AB & Anr. v. Lava International Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 812
The Delhi High Court had the occasion to discuss in detail the scope of a pro tem order, while dealing with Europe based audio/video processor Dolby International's suit against alleged patent infringement by Indian mobile phone company Lava.
Case title: Ability Dodzi @ Chinazom Ability v. State NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 813
The Delhi High Court has held that the bar prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Surakhsha Sanhita 2023 against revision of interlocutory orders cannot be bypassed by invoking the High Court's inherent powers.
Case title: Arpit Mishra v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 814
The Delhi High Court has observed that refusal of the prosecutrix to undergo medical examination despite alleging serious sexual assault can weaken the prosecution's case.
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Of About ₹229.5 Crores Against NHAI As 'Termination Payment'
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Union Bank of India Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 815
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has upheld an Arbitral Award directing the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”/”Petitioner”) to deposit ₹229.50 crores as Termination Payment into the Escrow Account along with interest and costs. The court reiterated that the scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is narrow and circumscribed. The Arbitral Award can be set aside on the ground, inter alia, being in conflict with the public policy of India, patent illegality, violation of principles of natural justice.
Title: BALBIR MEENA v. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 816
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 20,000 on a litigant for “misusing and abusing” the victim compensation scheme under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Case title: Neeraj Bharadwaj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 818
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made on a non-searched entity only when the Assessing Officer has incriminating material which “has a bearing” on its total income.
Case Title: CANARA BANK versus SANJEEV SHARMA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 819
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that when an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed in opposition to a civil suit, a party cannot later object that the arbitration was intended to apply only to specific respondents, especially when the pleadings indicate that the agreements formed part of a single commercial transaction.
Case title: Ms. X v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 820
Stating that DNA testing is an “almost perfect science” to determine truthfulness of the allegations of rape, the Delhi High Court has held that Police is duty bound to take accused's blood sample for analysis in such cases.
Title: THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. MUKESH & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 821
The Delhi High Court has observed that confinement within a room is sufficient to make out a prima facie case for framing charge for the offence of wrongful confinement.
Mere Threats Without Intention To Cause Alarm Not Criminal Intimidation: Delhi High Court
Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. JAWAHAR SINGH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 822
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere threats given by the accused, without an intention to cause alarm, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation.
Case Title: Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Punjab national Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 823
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition while upholding that if a borrower has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act, for a one-time settlement, a writ seeking the same relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.
Case title: Amit Jain & Ors. v. Anila Jain & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 824
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that monthly payment of rent made under a registered lease deed cannot be construed as instalments towards the sale consideration of a property.
Title: E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS, LLC & ORS v. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 825
The Delhi High Court has restrained Zydus Lifesciences Limited from manufacturing, selling importing, exporting or dealing in any biologic which is similar to Nivolumab, a drug used to treat cancer, sold under the brand name “Opdivo.”
Case Name: Yash Sharma and Ors vs. West Central Railway and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that identification of posts suitable only for low vision within the 1% reservation for visually impaired is valid, as post-wise identification within reserved vacancies based on the nature of duties and safety requirements is permissible, and blind candidates cannot claim posts not identified as suitable for them.
Case title: Teena Choudhary v. UPSC & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 827
The Delhi High Court has expressed its 'unhappiness' with the Union Public Service Commission for ousting an aspirant from the recruitment process to Central Armed Police Force, merely because she uploaded the caste certificate of an earlier date.
Case title: Banti Kumar Mathur v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 828
While dealing with the bail plea of a murder accused, the Delhi High Court was shocked to note that certain case diaries were missing from Police records.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 829
The Delhi High Court has observed that the child being in custody of the husband after matrimonial disputes arise between the parties is not cruelty or harassment under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
“…merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes interse arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A IPC,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: SANEESH SOMAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 830
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely receiving a package without the accused being aware of its illicit contents is not “conscious possession” under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
“The act of merely receiving a package, absent any material to suggest that the Applicant was aware of its illicit contents, prima facie, cannot by itself satisfy the legal threshold of “possession” under the NDPS Act,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Case title: Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 831
The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 276C, 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act 1961 merely on the basis of some unauthorised documents alleging existence of an undisclosed Swiss Bank account in his name.
Case title: Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 832
The Delhi High Court has suggested to the legislature to define what constitutes 'infringement' under the Patents Act 1970.
A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul noted that while other intellectual property statutes define what constitutes infringement therein, the Patent Act is 'peculiarly' silent on this aspect.
Title: MS VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. YASH RAI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 833
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 5 lakh as costs and damages to famous Veerji Malai Chaap Wale restaurant in its trademark infringement suit against various eateries and food delivery joints.
While the matter was settled with one of the defendant eateries, Justice Amit Bansal noted that the other five food joints did not appear before the Court and thus, their conduct not only warranted but also necessitated imposition of both costs and damages.
Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. ED and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to Prabir Purkayastha, editor-in-chief and founder of news portal NewsClick, in Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case as well as Delhi Police's EOW FIR concerning allegations of foreign funding.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pronounced the verdict and disposed of the pleas filed by Purkayastha in 2021.
Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 835
The Delhi High Court said that it was not satisfied with the steps and measures taken by the Delhi Government and the Police in running one stop centres provide support for women and children facing violence in the national capital.
Issuing guidelines to the authorities, a division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that necessary steps and action which are required to be taken in the matter have not been taken by the Delhi Government and the Delhi Police.
Case title: Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited v. John Doe & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 836
The Delhi High Court directed social media platforms Meta and X to take down pirated links of Vishnu Manchu starrer Telugu film 'Kannappa'.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the interim order on a copyright infringement suit filed by the film production Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited.
Case title: Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan v. State Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 837
Reinforcing the principle of right to speedy trial, the Delhi High Court admitted on bail an accused under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999, citing prolonged incarceration of over 8 years.
Case title: SKD v. MG & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 838
Stating that “capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things”, the Delhi High Court recently upheld the grant of maintenance to an MBA-qualified wife.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that when the couple separated, their child was very young and in order to take care of the child, the wife may have left her job.
Case title: AS v. NKS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 839
The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court order dissolving the marriage of a couple on the grounds that the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty by making derogatory complaints to his employer.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that marriage requires adjustment and parties may take a long time to adjust with each other but both husband and wife are expected to show due respect to each other.
Title: MOHAMMAD SHAHID @ SAHID v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 840
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere friendship cannot give liberty to a boy to indulge in sexual intercourse with a girl without her consent.
“….merely because a girl befriends a boy, the latter cannot be given liberty to indulge into sexual intercourse with her without her consent,” Justice Girish Kathpalia said.
Title: MOHD RIZWAN ASHRAF v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 841
The Delhi High Court denied default bail to a man accused of being an active member of the ISIS, procuring arms, ammunitions and explosives for the extremist armed group and radicalising impressionable youth.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the appeal filed by Mohd. Rizwan Ashraf who was arrested in the UAPA case on October 01, 2023.
Title: BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT. LTD v. ANIL KUMAR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 842
Comparing the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Delhi High Court has held that cognizance cannot be taken on a complaint before giving notice to the accused under the new law.
Title: Mohd Alam v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 843
The Delhi High Court has directed the jail authorities in the national capital to ensure that a written note of date of surrender is handed over to the convict at the time of releasing him or her on parole or furlough after taking their acknowledgement to avoid any ambiguity.
Justice Girish Kathpalia said that in various cases, it is seen that due to illiteracy and ignorance, the convict released on parole or furlough fails to surrender back in time and the delayed surrender leads to punishment.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 1993 Plane Hijacker In Plea Against Denial Of Premature Release
Title: HARI SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 844
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a man, convicted for hijacking an Indian Airlines flight in 1993, in his plea against the decision of the authorities denying him premature release.
Justice Sanjeev Narula set aside the decision of the sentence review board (SRB) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, noting that the convict's conduct in jail indicated elements of reformation.
Title: B.D. SHARMA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 845
The Delhi High Court has directed that all the judges in the trial courts in the national capital shall pronounce orders or judgments in the reserved cases within two or three weeks after their transfer and that the same will not be listed before the subsequent judge for rehearing.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 846
The Delhi High Court has observed that a highly qualified wife, who is unemployed, has a right to be supported and managed by the husband till the time she is able to get gainful employment or develop the source of income.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a husband's plea challenging a family court order directing him to pay Rs. 1 lakh ad-interim maintenance monthly to the wife.
Delhi High Court Upholds ICC Verdict Finding DU Professor Guilty Of Sexual Harassment
Title: DR AMIT KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by a professor of the Delhi University against the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) holding him guilty over the allegations of sexual harassment made by various students and an alumnus, as well as the decision to compulsory retirement him.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the Executive Authority gave a fair hearing to the professor and its failure to pass a speaking order did not pass the test of prejudice.
Title: NAVEEN HANDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU NARCOTICS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 848
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere possession of drugs or psychotropic substances under a valid license does not automatically trigger the provisions of NDPS Act.
Title: JAI BHAGWAN SANGWAN v. UOI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 849
The Delhi High Court has observed that a person joining a uniformed service cannot walk away from his duty when he is faced with an uncomfortable situation.
Title: DEVENDER KUMAR v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 890
The Delhi High Court has observed that reports of corruption in the police department contribute to perception of injustice and the decision makers, whether in judiciary or executive, must use all force to root it out.
Title: SATYA NISHTH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA ) & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 891
While dealing with a plea concerning NEET-UG 2025, the Delhi High Court has directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to constitute a Standing Grievance Redressal Committee to resolve issues of candidates who suffer loss of time due to technical issues, without any fault on their part.
Title: NNAMDI EZENECHE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 892
The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to conduct an inquiry or investigation in an incident alleging violence in a detention centre by the detainees, after the agencies, including the Delhi Police, passed buck on manning the CCTV which captured the occurrence.
Title: FERRERO SPA & ORS v. M.B. ENTERPRISES
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 893
The Delhi High Court has declared “Nutella”, a popular hazelnut cocoa spread, as a well known trademark, saying that it is recognized all across the globe and not just India.
Title: INDIAN SOCIAL ACTION FORUM v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 894
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Union Government refusing to renew the certificate issued under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act of an NGO namely Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF).
Delhi High Court Upholds Medha Patkar's Conviction In Defamation Case Filed By LG VK Saxena
Title: Medha Patkar v. VK Saxena & other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 895
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in the criminal defamation case lodged against her by Vinai Kumar Saxena in 2001.
Simplicity No Bar To Patentability, Even Simple Changes Can Lead To New Inventions: Delhi High Court
Case title: Dong Yang PC, Inc v. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 896
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a simple invention, if novel and non-obvious, warrants patent protection when it addresses a technical problem with ingenuity.
Case title: Major League Baseball Properties Inc v. Manish Vijay & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 897
Noting the global goodwill of 'BLUE JAYS' in connection with Canadian professional baseball team based in Toronto, the Delhi High Court ordered cancellation of 'BLUE-JAY' trademark registered in favour of a partnership firm in India.
Case title: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors v. Mr Siddhartha Mukherjee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 898
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the role of the Central Information Commission constituted under the Right to Information Act 2005 is to ensure transparency and disclosure of information by a public authority, and not make policy prescriptions.
Title: AJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 899
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a husband after his wife, who was three months pregnant, committed suicide within nine months of marriage over alleged harassment for dowry and cruelty towards her.
Case title: Dong Yang PC, Inc v. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 900
The Delhi High Court has held that if by suppressing any prior art, an applicant is able to obtain patent undeservingly, then such prior art can certainly be relied even at a later stage to challenge the grant of patent to such an applicant or to revoke such patent, under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.