Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1351 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1804Victims Of False Police Complaint Can Institute Proceedings U/S 211 IPC, Bar Under S.195 CrPC Won't Apply: Delhi High CourtCase title: Sunair Hotels Ltd. v. State & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1351The Delhi High Court has held that a private individual who is falsely accused in a police complaint can himself initiate...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1351 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1804
Case title: Sunair Hotels Ltd. v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1351
The Delhi High Court has held that a private individual who is falsely accused in a police complaint can himself initiate proceedings against the accused under Section 211 IPC, without having to get the action initiated by the court.
Case title: PC Jhalani & Ors v. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1352
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once a final winding up order has been passed against a Company and the Official Liquidator has taken charge, the Company Court is not required to come to the aid of guarantors so as to shield them from recovery proceedings initiated by creditors.
Case title: Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd v. UIDAI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1353
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with UIDAI's decision to reject the lowest financial bid submitted by Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd for audit and quality check of Aadhar applications.
Case title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. John Doe & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1354
The Delhi High Court ordered take down of an alleged AI generated deepfake video, alleging poisoning of guests by employees of the renowned hotel Taj Lake Palace in Udaipur.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Remfry And Sagar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1355
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the ITAT allowing IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to treat the license fees paid by it to acquire its founder's goodwill, as a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
Case title: Save India Foundation v. GNCTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1356
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to make Delhi's CCTV footage public.The plea filed by Save India Foundation sought directions to the Delhi Police to upload and share the CCTV feed from the cameras installed by the Delhi Government on a public domain, in a time bound manner.
Case title: M/S B S Enviro N Infracon Private Limited v. Vij Contracts Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1357
The Delhi High Court has held that it is inequitable of a creditor to demand balance payment after accepting a lesser sum towards satisfaction of a claim.
Case title: Sh. Samarendra Das v. M/S Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1358
The Delhi High Court has held that a medical sales representative, who has received specialized training for his field of work, cannot be categorised as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Case Name : Union of India Through Secretary & Ors. vs. S K Jasra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1359
A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that a chargesheet issued without the prior approval of the competent disciplinary authority under Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is void ab initio, non-existent in law. Further it cannot be validated by subsequent ratification.
Case title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Vivanta Stays
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1360
The Delhi High Court has restrained an entity from infringing the trademark of Tata Group's Indian Hotels Company Limited which runs and operates hotel brand 'Vivanta'.
Case title: Arjun Patil v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1361
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Indian currency can be seized by the Enforcement Directorate under provisions of the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, if the same is intended to be used for illegal purchase of foreign exchange.
Case title: Future Consumer Limited v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1362
The Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned GST demand order is valid, if the same is accompanied by DRC-07 which contains the details of the official who passed the order.
Case title: M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1363
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a taxpayer cannot ignore an order passed against it and uploaded on the GST portal, merely because copy of the order was allegedly illegible.
Delhi High Court Directs Customs To Ensure Strict Implementation Of Minimum Import Price On Soda Ash
Case title: Alkali Manufacturers Association of India v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1364
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs authorities to ensure strict implementation of the Minimum Import Price (MIP) imposed by DGFT on Soda Ash, warning of stringent action in case of any violations.
Case title: M/S Balaji Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1365
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee is entitled to copies of the data stored on its electronic devices which are seized by the GST Department, unless the same is prejudicial to the probe.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. HARESH SINGH, ADVOCATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1366
The Delhi High Court has discharged a lawyer in a criminal contempt case for misbehaving with a woman judge and intimidating her by using derogatory and threatening language.
Title: THOPPANI SANJEEV RAO v. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1367
The Delhi High Court has said that Police officials must treat women with dignity and avoid using inappropriate language with them.
Case title: Amit Kumar Basau & Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 13 (Special Zone) Zone 12 Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1368
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 is not an embargo to suits filed by unregistered firms, if any statutory or common law right is being sought to be enforced.
Title: BHUPENDER SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1369
The Delhi High Court has observed that the practice of sex determination undermines value of female life and strikes at the hope of a discrimination free society.
Case title: Nitco Logistics Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1370
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a Customs Housing Agent is responsible for the actions of its employees and it must exercise due diligence in supervising their activities.
Title: STANLEY CHIMEIZI ALASONYE @UKA CHUKWU v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1371
The Delhi High Court ruled that the version of the police cannot be disbelieved merely because the search and seizure of narcotics under the NDPS Act is not videographed or photographed.
Case Title: STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED versus BRITISH MARINE PLC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1372
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) filed by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) against an arbitral award passed in favor of British Marine PLC.(Respondent).
Case title: Punita Khatter v. Explorers Travel & Tour Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1374
The Delhi High Court has held that an employee is strictly liable under Section 452 of the Companies Act 2013 to return company property, at the end of his/ her employment.
Title: SRI SAI SAPTHAGIRI SPONGE PVT. LTD v. THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1375
The Delhi High Court has observed that the cheques issued only for security purpose and not for depositing to the bank are not encashable for any existing debt or liability.
Title: JAI MANGAL MEHTO v. STATE (GOVT. N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1376
The Delhi High Court has observed that change of the clothes of a minor rape victim under the POCSO Act before her medical examination cannot weaken the prosecution evidence.
Title: ABDUL HAMEED REHMANI v. SPECIAL DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1377
The Delhi High Court has observed that legal heirs have right to seek Impleadment after the appellant's death in pending appeals under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
Title: GURBACHAN SINGH MATTA v. CENTRAL BAUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1378
The Delhi High Court has held that criminal prosecution cannot continue when the departmental proceedings as well as the Vigilance inquiry have found no merit in the allegations against an individual.
Title: UDAI PAL v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1379
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the prosecution must prove that the minor rape victim was below the age of 16 years, for securing conviction of the accused in cases commencing prior to Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
Title: RENU ARORA AND OTHERS v. ST. MARGARET SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANR & other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1380
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Committees appointed by the Court on zonal and central level to decide on fee hike and payment of teachers of unaided private schools in the national capital cannot perform judicial functions.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 v. M/S Agroha Fincap Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1381
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Commissioner's order granting sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for reopening assessment after four years of the relevant Assessment Year (AY) can be in the words— “Yes, I am convinced”.
Title: VIVEK DEEP v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1382
The Delhi High Court has observed that an accused can be denied anticipatory bail if he has been posting complainant's photographs on social media using inappropriate language as well as making posts against the judge or investigating agency.
Title: P S JAYAKUMAR & ANR v. STATE (NCT of Delhi) & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1383
The Delhi High Court has held that banks cannot be summoned as an accused for defamation as they lack the state of mind or mens rea necessary to constitute the offence.
Case title: Mr. Gurdev Raj Kumar v. Collector Of Stamps (Government Of Nct Of Delhi)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1384
The Delhi High Court has held that GST cannot be levied on renting/ leasing of residential premises for use as residence.
Title: HARBANS SINGH v. ANAND TYAGI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1385
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere omission by a landlord to disclose other properties owned by him will not disentitle him from obtaining eviction of a tenant for bonafide use of the tenanted premises.
Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. SH ABHISHEK VERMA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1386
The Delhi High Court has allowed recording of evidence of a US based prosecution witness via video conferencing in an Official Secrets Act case concerning businessman Abhishek Verma.
Title: VIRENDER SINGH BIDHURI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1387
The Delhi High Court has observed that assaulting a woman and using caste based remarks against her on a flyover falls within the meaning of “public view” to satisfy the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Case title: Prof. Madhu Kishwar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1388
The Delhi High Court has quashed an attempt to murder case lodged against commentator Prof. Madhu Kishwar back in 2008, over an alleged altercation with the Basoya family while she was clicking pictures of alleged unauthorised constructions in the city for her organization, Manushi.
Title: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS v. AMIT KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1389
The Delhi High Court has ruled that rejecting a physically disabled individual's candidature citing no vacancy for such individuals defeats the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. Dynamite News Network Private Limited & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1390
The Delhi High Court rejected an appeal filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI), challenging a single judge order passed in its copyright infringement suit against news platform Dynamite News.
Title: Nora Beniwal v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1391
The Delhi High Court asked the authorities to take steps to provide better digital access to the students in higher education in various disciples and to also minimise the “digital divide.”
Case title: Mrs Shumita Sandhu v. Mrs Tani Sandhu Bhargava
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1392
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that mere failure of a party, alleging that a document is fraud, to provide particulars of such fraud doesn't lead to a conclusion that the party has admitted the genuineness of such document.
Case Title: Mecwel Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1393
The Delhi High Court held that an order terminating arbitral proceedings under section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) on account of non-filing of statement of claim does not amount to an arbitral award and therefore cannot be challenged under section 34.
Case Title: Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1394
The Delhi High Court held that an award passed after expiry of the arbitrator's mandate is non-est and unforceable holding that the court has no power to extend the mandate post award if no application seeking extension of the mandate was pending before the award was passed.
Title: RUSHANT MALHOTRA & ORS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1395
The Delhi High Court ordered retrospective payment of enhanced remuneration of Rs. 80,000 per month to its law researchers with effect from October 01, 2022.
Delhi High Court Sentences Man To One Month Jail For Threatening Local Commissioner With Gun
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. NITIN BANSAL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1396
The Delhi High Court sentenced a man to one month of simple imprisonment, along with Rs. 2,000 fine for threatening a Court appointment Local Commissioner with a pistol during execution of the commission.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1397
The Delhi High Court set out the key principles to be followed while determining maintenance to the wife and child, while also calling for reasoned orders by Family and Mahila Courts in the national capital.
Case title: Devyani Kundra v. State Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1398
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a young law graduate booked for the murder of her mother, citing the welfare of her minor child.
Case title: Mr Krishan Lal Gulati & Anr. v. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1399
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a party cannot be sued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonor of cheques issued by it, if presented by a dissolved company.
Case title: Jamia Teachers Association v. Jamia Millia Islamia
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1400
The Delhi High Court has quashed two office orders and an advisory issued by Jamia Millia Islamia, dissolving the Jamia Teachers Association (JTA), an autonomous body of varsity teachers constituted in the year 1967 and administered through an Executive Committee elected by its members.
Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. TAUHID KHAN @ SHAHID @ LAMBA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1401
The Delhi High Court has ruled that recovery of a contraband cannot be attributed to an accused under the NDPS Act without any proof of possession or independent witnesses.
Case title: Subhash Pahwa @ Subhash Chander v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1402
The Delhi High Court has held that a plea of guilt made by an accused does not efface the rule against double jeopardy and a Court cannot conduct second prosecution for the same offence, based on such a plea.
Case title: Archana Chaudhary v. Harsh Dawar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1403
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision to recall any person as a witness under Section 311 CrPC is meant to ensure justice, and is not a tool to delay proceedings in a criminal trial.
Title: Chetna Gautam v. The Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1404
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain two petitions filed challenging the certification given to “The Taj Story” film which is slated to be released on October 31.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1405
The Delhi High Court has observed that when the residential rights of a daughter in law have been protected under the Domestic Violence Act, the right of senior citizens, being the in-laws, to live in their house without distress cannot be suspended indefinitely.
Case title: Union of India v. Smt. Guddi Bisht W/O Late Hav Puran Chandra Singh Bisht
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1406
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, directing the Central government to pay arrears of special family pension to the widow of an army personnel, who died back in 1978.
Title: DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR v. SAHIL LOHCHAB & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1407
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the waitlist panel cannot operate in a segregated manner, especially when the selection process of recruitment involves provisional result.
Title: ARVIND BHATNAGAR v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1408
The Delhi High Court has observed that a matrimonial FIR cannot be quashed if the settlement agreement between the estranged couple is not executed.
Case title: Patil Shivaji Madhukar v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1409
The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force Sub-Inspector for developing illicit relations with a colleague's wife.
Case title: Prabhat Singh Charak v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1410
A CRPF personnel serving the nation deserved better treatment, remarked the Delhi High Court while lamenting the 20 years long battle fought by a sub-inspector to get clearance in disciplinary proceedings.
Title: MAHARASHTRA CARROM ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR & other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1411
The Delhi High Court has restrained the All India Carrom Federation (AICF) from using the expression “India” or “Indian” in its name or logo or in the further competitions conducted by it.
Case Name: M/s Connoisseur Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. through Mr. Anil Sharma (Ex-Director) v. Official Liquidator of M/s Connoisseur Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1412
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, has upheld the liability of a company to reimburse the official liquidator's security expenses for safeguarding corporate assets.
Case title: Union of India v. Ajay Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1413
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Railway authorities for forcing into litigation a medal-winning boxer, working under the sportspersons quota, for increments due to him.
Case title: Air India Limited v. Airport Employees Union (Regd.) & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1414
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Labour Court to reconsider the maintainability of an application filed by the Airport Employees Union against Air India Limited, seeking parity of pay for sub-contract workers.
Title: MISS KIARA RAWAT THROUGH MRS. LOVELY GUSAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1415
The Delhi High Court has constituted a Committee to supervise and oversee the operation of Union Government's crowd funding digital platform for treatment of people with rare diseases.
Title: SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1416
The Delhi High Court has directed the Director General (Prisons) to frame and notify a SOP on the access of mobile phones to open-prison inmates.
Case Name : Suresh Sankhla vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1417
A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that a superior authority rejecting a representation against adverse remarks is not legally obligated to record or communicate detailed reasons for its decision.
Case title: Neeraj Agarwal v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1418
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a bail condition, precluding a doctor, allegedly involved in a medical offence, from running his own medical centre, does not violate such a doctor's right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Title: TAPAS KUMAR MALLICK & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1419
The Delhi High Court has permitted an intending couple to move ahead with surrogacy procedure, despite the husband being above the maximum age limit prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1420
The Delhi High Court has ruled that upon committal of a case, only the Court of Sessions can order further investigation and not an ilaqa magistrate.
Case Name: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Himalyan Flora And Aromas Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1421
The Delhi High Court, while hearing an appeal u/s 37 of the A&C Act filed against the the Award dated 11.12.2024 (“Impugned Award”) passed by the Emergency Arbitrator under the Delhi International Arbitration Center (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2023 (“Rules of 2023”) observed that the terms 'Emergency Arbitrator' and 'Arbitral Tribunal' are not interchangeable. Rule 14.11 of the Rules of 2023 bars the Emergency Arbitrator from being a part of the Arbitral Tribunal, except otherwise agreed by the parties.
Title: COOMI KAPOOR v. NETFLIX ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES INDIA LLP & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1422
The Delhi High Court has closed a suit filed by Coomi Kapoor- senior journalist and author of the book “The Emergency: A Personal History”, against Manikarnika Films and Netflix over alleged breach of contract and damaging her reputation.
Title: RAJIV KHOSLA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1423
The Delhi High Court has asked Lieutenant Governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena to consider approving the Rules on appointment of local commissioners and receivers in the district courts in the national capital.
Title: DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1424
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition against the decision of Foods Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) banning Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS) labelling on drink beverages.
Title: COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1425
The Delhi High Court ruled that no student enrolled in any recognized law college university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits of career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.
Title: SUMIT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1426
While granting bail to a 20 year old in a rape case, the Delhi High Court has explained the difference between false promise to marry and breach of such a promise.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1427
The Delhi High Court has observed that judicial estimation is must where there is no direct proof of income of the parties for the purpose of grant of maintenance in matrimonial cases.
Title: Celina Jaitly v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1428
The Delhi High Court disposed of a plea filed by actress Celina Jaitly seeking effective legal representation for her brother, a retired Indian Army officer, over his arrest and detention in the UAE.
The Court directed the authorities to take steps provide effective legal representation to the brother regarding his arrest and detention abroad.
Title: INFRASTRUCTURE WATCHDOG v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1429
The Delhi High Court ruled that banks acting in a "bona fide" manner, cannot be "made answerable to the judiciary" regarding the economic expediency of their decisions when no cogent material is shown.
Case Title: Suparshva Swabs India v. AGN International & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1430
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Suparshva Swabs India, the manufacturer of Tulips cotton buds and hygiene products, which sought to restrain a perfume company from using the mark “AGN TULIP.”
Title: SATYA PRAKASH BAGLA v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1431
The Delhi High Court observed that the mere phrase “no coercive steps” does not imply stay or suspension of investigation against an individual.
Title: ED v. M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD & other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1432
The Delhi High Court ruled that the profits earned on bribe money after investment in share market amounts to proceeds of crime and is liable to be attached under the PMLA.
Title: SHASHI ARORA & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1433
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere taunts, casual references and general family friction occurring in ordinary wear and tear of marital life is not sufficient to constitute the offence of cruelty.
Title: OM SARAN GUPTA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1434
The Delhi High Court ruled that Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward a married woman, will be applicable even if marriage between the parties is subsequently declared invalid.
Title: PUSHKAR RAJ & ANR v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1435
The Delhi High Court has upheld Jawaharlal Nehru University's decision permitting students to vote across all constituencies- undergraduate, postgraduate and research scholar, in elections for student representatives to the Internal Committee (IC) dealing with sexual-harassment matters.
Title: Arnab Goswami v. State & Ors and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1436
The Delhi High Court quashed summons issued against journalist Arnab Goswami in a criminal defamation case filed against him.
Title: MS KRRISH REALTECH PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECERATARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1437
The Delhi High Court has observed that the provisional attachment order (PAO) cannot be challenged in the writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy is available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Title: SHRAVAN GUPTA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1438
The Delhi High Court flagged a “disturbing trend” of media reporting innocuous remarks made during the hearings “only to create sensation.”
Case Title: Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Rajkumar Sabu & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1439
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim order restraining Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) and certain family members, who are also directors of the company, from using the “Sachamoti” mark, a well-known brand of sabudana (sago) products. e members of Sabu family affirming a March 2024 Single Judge order that prohibited them from using the brand and label.
Title: COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. GEEP INDUSTRIES & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1440
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is not empowered to impose interest retrospectively or from a date preceding the valid service of a demand notice.\
Case Title: Bima Sugam India Federation v. A Range Gowda & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1441
The Delhi High Court in an interim order upheld its earlier direction restraining a insurance agent from using the mark “BIMA SUGAM”, a name associated with India's upcoming unified digital insurance marketplace, or any deceptively similar name, including related domain names.
Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LTD. & ORS v. RAMESH BIDHURI and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1442
The Delhi High Court refused to discharge TV Today Network Limited, which owns Aaj Tak and India Today group, in a criminal defamation case filed by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri in 2011.
Case Title: Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1443
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. in its trademark dispute with LG Electronics India, ruling that the company's attempt to restrain LG's use of the “Quantum” mark was undermined by its failure to disclose material information
Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. Damyaa (PJ) Foods Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1444
In a relief for popular Desi Chinese brand Ching's Secret, the Delhi High Court restrained a UP-based food manufacturing company from using the name 'Schezwan Tufani Chutney' or any expression deceptively similar to 'Schezwan Chutney', a registered trademark of Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title: Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Saklin Alias Prince
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1445
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd., restraining a Delhi-based trader from manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'Hero Genuine Oil' bottles that infringed the company's registered trademarks and bottle designs.
Title: X v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1446
The Delhi High Court has ordered that if any case is wrongly marked to a Court lacking jurisdiction before the trial courts, the file must be returned to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for its fresh allocation.
Title: RENEW WIND ENERGY (AP2) PVT. LTD v. SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1447
The Delhi High Court has observed that the briefing lawyers and law firms must verify the case laws before citing them, highlighting that relying on decisions which are under review may mislead adjudicatory process.
Case Title: Spice Jet v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1448
The Delhi High Court ruled that international workers employed in Indian companies, who are not covered by a social security scheme in their home country, must enroll in and contribute to the Employees' Provident Fund. The court rejected claims that this requirement was discriminatory or unconstitutional.
Title: Ronak Khatri v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1449
The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to expedite the request made by Ronak Khatri, former President of Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU), for police protection over allegations of extortion threat by Rohit Godara gang.
Case Title: Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. Lotus Beauty Salon Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1450
The Delhi High Court has restrained a beauty salon from using the name “Lotus Salon” or any mark deceptively similar to Lotus, a popular personal care and cosmetics brand, observing that there was prima facie evidence of trademark infringement and passing off.
Case Title: Mohammad Talha v. M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1451
The Delhi High Court ruled that while the marks “Karim's” and “Gulshan-e-Karim” are similar, a complete ban on the latter's use would be excessive. The Court has allowed a Moradabad-based restaurant to continue using its name, provided it clearly states that it has no connection with the iconic Karim's chain in Delhi.
Title: DR. ADITYA SEHRAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1452
The Delhi High Court has said that it is “inundated with petitions” on a daily basis filed by personnel in paramilitary forces challenging their transfers.
Title: PARAG PRAKASH RUDRANGI v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1453
The Delhi High Court has observed that the character of a victim, "no matter how blemished, cannot be weaponised against her to imply consent" in rape cases.
Title: RAJAT SHARMA & ANR v. TAMARA DOC & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1454
The Delhi High Court ordered takedown of two YouTube channels hosting and circulating deepfake and fabricated videos using personality rights of senior journalist Rajat Sharma.
Title: DEEPAK SRIVASTAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1455
The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a standing order issued by the Director General (Prisons) mandating one-year “watch period” before being eligible to be released on furlough on their return to jail after dismissal of their conviction appeals.
Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1456
The Delhi High Court delivered split verdict in the plea moved by jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid challenging costs imposed on him by a trial court while granting him custody parole to attend the Parliament.
Case Title: A Range Gowda v. Bima Sugam India Federation & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1457
The Delhi High Court has stayed a Single Judge's order that had directed the transfer of the domain names www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in to the Bima Sugam India Federation, pending the outcome of a trademark dispute with A. Range Gowda, a private individual and insurance agent.
Title: PJ v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1458
The Delhi High Court has ordered administrative inquiry action against two judicial officers of the national capital for their alleged role in influencing a young lawyer for influencing and coercing her to retract her allegations in a rape case filed against a lawyer.
Title: LOKINDER SINGH PHOUGAT v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1459
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by a lawyer seeking to contest elections of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.
Title: NEHA MALAV v. DEAN (ADMISSIONS BRANCH), UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1460
The Delhi High Court has observed that it cannot pass a mandamus compelling a University to conduct a fresh round of counselling in its admission process.
Title: ARKA BHATTACHARYA v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1461
The Delhi High Court has observed that the grant of transit bail is a short lived safeguard whose effect ceases when the jurisdiction of the competent court is invoked.
Title: AANCHAL AND ANR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1462
The Delhi High Court has observed that inter caste unions are in the national interest and must be protected from familial or communal interference.
Title: Jaya Bachchan v. Bollywood Bubble & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1463
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of actor and Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) Jaya Bachchan
Case Name : Union of India & Anr. vs. Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1464
A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that administrative delay in the employees' joining created a shortfall in their qualifying service for promotion. Hence the employees were eligible for promotion as the delay was attributable to the administrative process of UOI and not to any fault of the officers themselves.
Case Title: DAZN Limited & Anr. v. 9GOALS.IO & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1465
The Delhi High Court has restrained 26 websites from illegally streaming live matches of the ongoing 'Serie A Championship', after finding that they were broadcasting the content without authorization from DAZN Limited which is the exclusive rights holder of the sporting event.
Case Title : Mankind Pharma Limited v. De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1466
The Delhi High Court has restrained De Harbien Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a pharmaceutical company, from using the marks “NEFROKIND” and “SILOKIND.” The Court found these marks deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma Limited's well-known trademarks “MANKIND,” “KIND,” and other “KIND” formative marks.
Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. KRS Multipro Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1467
In yet another order granting relief to Ching's Secret sauces maker Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court has once again stepped in to protect the company's trademark “Schezwan Chutney.”
Case Title: ITC Limited & Anr v. Bukhara Inn
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1468
The Delhi High Court has restrained a city based hotel, Bukhara Inn, from using the name “Bukhara,” ruling that it infringed ITC Limited's well-known trademark associated with its iconic restaurant, Bukhara, at ITC Maurya, New Delhi.
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1469
The Delhi High Court has barred Patanjali Ayurved from airing an advertisement that labeled all other Chyawanprash products as “dhoka” (deception), ruling that it constitutes commercial disparagement. The restriction will remain in place until the next hearing on February 26, 2026.
Case Title: Techsync v. The Superintendent of Customs SIIB ACC Imports and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1470
The Delhi High Court has directed the CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) to conduct inter-ministerial consultation in respect of coming up with a uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of products declared as 'body massagers' or sex toys.
Case Title: INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND ALLIED SCIENCES (IHBAS) versus MI2C SECURITIES AND FACILITIES PVT LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1471
The Delhi High Court held that a clerical or typographical error in the title of an arbitral award can be corrected even after 30 day limitation period provided under section 33 of the Arbitration Act if the mistake originated from the tribunal itself and not from the parties.
Case title: M/s Vedanta Ltd v. ACIT Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1472
In granting relief to Vedanta Limited, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the the Income Tax Department for initiation of reassessment action against the Copper manufacturer, over alleged fraudulent availment of Input tax credit worth over ₹424 Crore.
Title: MOHAMED ALI JINNAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1473
The Delhi High Court has observed that an undertrial's desire to console ailing parents, is not, by itself, a ground for emergent parole under the Delhi Prison Rules.
Title: MEHMOOD PRACHA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1474
The Election Commission of India (ECI) informed the Delhi High Court that the CCTV footage of Lok Sabha Elections 2024 is not longer in the custody of the seven District Election Officers (DEOs) in the national capital as the same stands destroyed.
Justice Mini Pushkarna took the statement on record and disposed of an application filed by Advocate Mehmood Pracha last year, seeking preservation of the video footage.
Case title: Munna Lal Yadav v. Department Of Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1475
The Delhi High Court has held that recommendations of the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD) have to be generally followed by the government authorities.
Case Title: Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited vs Indospirit Beverages Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1476
The Delhi High Court refused to stay the operation of a single-judge order that had restrained actor Ravi Mohan's production house from using the title 'BRO CODE' for its upcoming Tamil film, following a trademark dispute with Indospirit Beverages Private Limited, the maker of the alcoholic beverage 'BROCODE'.
Case title: Manmohan Gaind v. Negolice India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1477
The Delhi High Court has held that Post-Dated Cheques (PDCs), issued as security for financial liability, can mature into an actual outstanding liability, thus attracting provisions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, if dishonoured.
Title: Upendra Nath Dalai v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1478
The Delhi High Court rapped a litigant for repeatedly filing petitions challenging certain provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, despite dismissal of his earlier pleas seeking similar reliefs.
Case: AMRIT KAUR v. ASI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1479
The Delhi High Court has directed the authorities to consider a complaint alleging illegal encroachment near the Qutub Minar complex in Delhi's Mehrauli area.
Case Name : Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Railways vs. Sh. R.K. Mittal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1480
A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that non-supply of the inquiry officer's report to the delinquent employee before imposition of penalty vitiates the disciplinary proceedings unless the employer provides valid justification for such omission.
Title: Shujaat Ali v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1481
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking a free and fair probe into three FIRs registered overI love Muhammad” posters displayed by individuals in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh on the occasion of Milad-un-Nabi, commemorating the birth and passing of the Prophet.
Case title: Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 105, Zone 4, Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1482
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 61(2) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 bars further action against an assessee, including any demand under Section 73.
Case title: XY v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1483
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that an informer, who apprises the Department about evasion of goods and services tax by an entity, cannot seek reward for sharing such information as a matter of right.
Title: KAILASH WATI v. STATE OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1484
The Delhi High Court has directed the State Authorities to frame rules to cater to situations where convicts are unable to surrender even after lapse of the period of release on parole or furlough, due to being incapacitated by virtue of their health or age.
Case title: Santosh Kumar Suri v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1485
The Delhi High Court criticized the Income Tax Department for an over 2-year delay in implementing an ITAT order, directing it to reconsider the demand raised against an assessee.
Title: PJ v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1486
The Delhi High Court granted extension of time to surrender to a lawyer whose anticipatory bail was cancelled over allegations of raping a young woman advocate.
Case title: Gameloft Software Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax, Range 152 & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1487
The Delhi High Court has called upon the Goods and Services Tax Department to expeditiously process the refund applications filed by registered persons/ entities.
Title: SMT. RAJESH RATHI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1488
The Delhi High Court has observed that while child care leave (CCL) granted to women government employees is not an entitlement but the same cannot be denied arbitrarily or mechanically.
Case title: Abid v. State (and connected matters)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1489
The Delhi High Court has held that ocular evidence, duly corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for a murder conviction, even if the motive of the crime is not fully established.
Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs American Dream 11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1490
The Delhi High Court has directed American Dream 11, a US-based fantasy gaming company, to take down or block all its social media pages and profiles that allegedly infringe the trademark Dream11 on platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, and Instagram.
Case Title – Renew Wind Energy (Ap2) Pvt Ltd v. SECI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1491
In a noteworthy judgment for the renewable energy sector, the Delhi High Court has observed that the power of Central Electricity Commission (“CERC”) under Section 79(1)(f), Electricity Act to refer parties to arbitration is wider than its power to adjudicate.
Title: RAJIV SAREEN v. M/S DIVYANSHU ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1492
The High Court of Delhi, while clarifying the limits of the jurisdictional bar under section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, has held that a civil suit seeking cancellation of a registered Sale Deed is maintainable before a civil court, even where the property is simultaneously subject to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The ruling reinforces that DRTs cannot adjudicate disputes concerning the validity or cancellation of registered conveyances, which continue to lie exclusively within the domain of civil courts.
Case title: M/s Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1493
The Delhi High Court has held that under Section 169(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, a communication sent to an email address provided at the time of GST registration is adequate service of a decision, order, summons or notice or any other communication.
Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacture, Sale of Glucose Test Strips Copying Chinese Company Sinocare
Case Title: Changsha Sinocare Inc & Anr v. Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1494
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained several Indian firms from manufacturing, marketing, or selling blood glucose test strips or any other medical devices under the brand names “Safe AQ” and “Safe Accu”, after Chinese medical device maker Changsha Sinocare Inc. raised objection.
Case title: Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1495
The Delhi High Court has clarified that a traveller, whose goods are seized by the Customs, is not liable to pay a redemption fine or penalty for the release of goods if the Department failed to issue a show cause notice within the statutory timeframe.
Case title: Raj Kumar Gupta v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1496
The Delhi High Court slammed a trader, allegedly involved in clandestine manufacture of pan masala to evade tax and recovery of ₹70 lakh from his premises, for his failure to cooperate in the probe.
Case title: Devender Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi West
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1497
The Delhi High Court has held that where fraudulent availment of tax by a fake firm comes to light, penalties can be imposed on the person behind the bogus operations.
Case title: M/S Shiva Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, GNCTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1498
In an unusual turn of events at the Delhi High Court, an “innocuous” petition filed by a trader seeking cancellation of its GST registration unravelled fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit worth lakhs.
Case title: M/S Swarn Cosmetics (India) v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1499
The Central Goods and Services Tax Department recently explained to the Delhi High Court the process its officers follow when uploading any show cause notice or order on the GST portal. The explanation was tendered in response to a plea filed before the Court, challenging the legality of a demand order on the ground that the impugned SCN and the impugned order were not duly signed either physically or digitally.
Delhi High Court Permanently Bars Lubricant Maker From Using Castrol-Like Trademarks And Packaging
Case Title: Castrol Limited & Ors v MR Ali Hussain Amir Ali Namdar & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1500
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained ZRH Lubes, an automative lubricant maker from using marks such as CREMESTROL, ACTION, MADMAXX ACTION logo, and packaging, after finding them deceptively similar to Castrol Limited's registered trademarks and trade dress.
Case title: Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukund Maheshwari v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1501
The Delhi High Court has held that the Courts must, while dealing with cases involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, balance the interest of trader with that of burden on State exchequer due to tax evasion.
Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Cricfy TV & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1502
The Delhi High Court has ordered several rogue mobile apps and websites to stop illegally streaming the upcoming South Africa and New Zealand cricket tours of India, protecting Jiostar India's exclusive broadcast rights. The injunction will remain in force until March 3, 2026.
Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. POONAM MALIK & other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1503
The Delhi High Court slammed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for freezing bank accounts of a woman on mere suspicion, while setting aside the agency's orders calling them “cryptic” in nature.
Case title: BSNL v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1504
The Delhi High Court has allowed BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) to belatedly challenge the Rs. 12,63,01,812/- imposed upon it by the Customs Department for misdeclaration of imported goods.
Title: DIDAR SINGH & ANR v. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1505
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a husband and a son for murdering a woman by setting her on fire, holding that her dying declarations were consistent, voluntary and free from suspicion.
Case title: C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi-South & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1506
The Delhi High Court has held that the time limit set out under 73(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act for issuance of show cause notice in relation to alleged short payment of tax, etc. is mandatory in nature, and cannot be excused on account of technical glitches on GST portal.
Case title: Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1507
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that the Delhi Development Authority cannot levy GST on conversion of property from leasehold to freehold.
Case title: GMG Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence HQ & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1508
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an order passed by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) provisionally attaching the bank accounts of a trader.
Case Name: Puneet Batra vs. UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1509
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in the application by the GST Department seeking the handing over of the parsed hard drives of the seized Central Processing Unit (CPU) of an advocate, which is in possession of the IT Officers of the Court, for further examination.
In doing so, the Court has instructed the presence of representatives from both sides, including a Court officer, and directed the submission of parsed data and hard drives to the Court.
Case title: M/S IMS Mercantiles Ltd v. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1510
The Delhi High Court criticised the GST Department for demanding tax on the total turnover of a company, despite figures of the actual sales being available with it.
Case title: Sushil Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs [Export]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1511
The Delhi High Court refused to show any leniency to two employees of a Customs House Clearing Agent (CHA), found involved in smuggling of cigarettes worth Rs.3,40,74,000/-.
Case title: Varian Medical Systems International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1512
The Delhi High Court has quashed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to a company before conducting audit, holding that the authorities violated principles of natural justice by issuing the SCN before expiry of time granted to respond to the pre-SCN.
Case: CHRISTIAN MICHEL JAMES V/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1513
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a petition filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel, challenging Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty, executed back in the year 1999.
Case Title – MTNL v M/s Motorola Inc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1514
The Delhi High Court allowing a Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) appeal filed by MTNL against an arbitral award passed in favour of Motorola amounting to ~USD 8,768,505 has revived a 17-year-old between the parties.
Case Title: Gautam Khaitan v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1515
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) provisional attachment of properties belonging to lawyer Gautam Khaitan, rejecting his challenge to the action in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal.
Case title: Manoj Kumar Nagar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1516
Stating that Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act, the Delhi High Court refused to waive the pre-deposit for appeal by certain Customs Housing Agents against ₹30 crore penalty imposed upon them over import fraud.
Order Merely Issuing Notice on Interim Injunction Not Appealable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Perpetual Vision LLP & Anr. v. Vaibhav S Pingal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1517
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that an order merely issuing notice on an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not constitute an appealable order under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Case Title: FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application by FMC Corporation seeking to restrain Natco Pharma Limited from manufacturing and selling its insecticidal product “Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD.”
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. En.ssyou.tube & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1519
The Delhi High Court has restrained several online sites that facilitate “stream-ripping” (illegal downloading) of music, barring them from downloading, reproducing, or distributing copyrighted songs and recordings owned by Saregama India Limited. The injunction will remain in effect until February 27, 2026.
Case title: Mohd Yahya & Ors v. Farat Ara & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1520
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the rights conferred upon a landlord under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be waived off by entering into a private contract/ agreement with the tenant.
Case title: M/S Ec Constructions P Ltd v. Neeraj Zutshi And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1521
The Delhi High Court has cautioned the lawyers that the “courtesy” of passover or adjournment granted to them during proceedings should not be construed as a “right”.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1522
The Delhi High Court observed that adjudication in child custody matters cannot turn on “unproven imputations of moral conduct” by one parent on another.
Case title: ABP Pvt Ltd v. ITC Hotels Ltd & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1523
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by ABP Pvt Ltd, publisher of The Telegraph, in a defamation case filed by ITC Hotels back in 2004.
Case Title – IREDA v Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1524
The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that under the Generation Based Incentive Scheme (GBI) Scheme, 2010 by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the tariff at the time of registration of project would remain constant for a period of 25 years and any upward revision of tariff by State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (“SERC”) from back date shall not be counted. The Court denied relief to Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co Ltd. in its dispute with IREDA in relation to the GBI Scheme.
Delhi High Court Bars Former Distributor from Selling CREED Perfume, Awards Rs 37.42 Lakh in Damages
Case Title: Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1525
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favor of Fontaine Limited, owner of the luxury perfume brand CREED, restraining a former distributor from selling CREED products or using the CREED trademark after the expiry of their distribution agreement.
Case title: V. Prabha & Ors. v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1526
The Delhi High Court disposed of a 38-year-old Will dispute, remarking that the case exemplifies the “friction” in the wheels of justice, against which the Supreme Court had cautioned in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and Others (2023).
Case title: Myratgeldi Mammedov v. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1527
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain the writ petition moved by a Turkmenistan national, alleging that the Indian Customs Department had illegally arrested him in connection with alleged gold smuggling back in 2018.
Title: NADEEM v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1528
The Delhi High Court has observed that the minimum one year imprisonment criteria for being eligible for parole under the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute and can be relaxed in special circumstances like filing SLP against conviction before the Apex Court.
Case Title: Aqualite Industries Private Ltd v. Relaxo Footwears Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1529
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the interim injunction granted by a Single Judge restraining Aqualite from manufacturing and selling slippers alleged to infringe Relaxo Footwears Ltd.'s registered designs.
Case title: Crest Digitel Private Limited v. DMRC & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1530
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal preferred by a company, initially entrusted to provide mobile and network connectivity for Delhi Airport Metro Express Line, against its replacement by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.
Title: T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1531
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction in favour of Anjana Om Kashyap, anchor and Senior Managing Editor of Aaj Tak news channel, in her suit against a “fake” YouTube channel using her news clipping, videos and deepfake impersonations.
Title: ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1532
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to file documents regarding alleged victims of rape and their families to support his defence in the defamation suit filed by Isha Foundation, founded by spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.
Title: FARMAN v. THE STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1533
The Delhi High Court has flagged “serious concerns” over allegations of custodial assault and extortion inside city's Mandoli jail, made by an undertrial prisoner.
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr v. Hari Shankar Bilwal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1534
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Jaipur hotel from using marks featuring a polo player device that were found to be deceptively similar to the well-known Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) logo. The ex-parte ad-interim injunction will remain in force until February 02, 2026.
Title: ABC v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1535
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a lawyer for standing outside his residence without a mask during the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020.
Title: PAWAN MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1536
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an Indian national challenging the Union government's decision to initiate a magisterial inquiry into Canada Government's request seeking his extradition for an alleged hit-and-run case that caused a pedestrian's death.
Case title: Commissioner of Customs v. Ravi Dhanwariya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1537
The Delhi High Court has ordered forfeiture of ₹2,00,000/- out of the ₹5 lakh security deposit made by a Customs Broker at the time of obtaining license, citing allegations of duty drawback fraud against it.
Title: TAEKWONDO FEDERATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1538
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Union Sports Ministry cannot act as a mere “rubber stamp” to grant recognition of National Sports Federation (NSF) to any entity or body “handpicked” by an International Federation.
Title: Sanyukt Ahir Regiment Morcha & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1539
The Delhi High Court allowed the pan India theatrical release of Farhan Akhtar starrer movie “120 Bahadur” based on the Battle of Rezang La in 1962.
Case Title: SignatureGlobal (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1540
The Delhi High Court has granted ad-interim relief to real estate developer SignatureGlobal (India) Limited, restraining the operator of 'signatureglobal.com' from using the impugned domain or any online platform that impersonates the company.
Case Name: Aadhar India vs. The Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1541
The Delhi High Court, while examining whether pre-consultation prior to a GST Show Cause Notice was mandatory or discretionary, granted interim relief to Aadhar India by permitting the proceedings arising from the Show Cause Notice dated 29 November 2024 to continue, but directing that any final order passed pursuant thereto should not be given effect without further orders of the Court.
Case title: Manish Sharma v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1542
The Delhi High Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the power of attorney holder of a company, purportedly involved in smuggling of prohibited items like poppy seeds.
Case title: H.G. International v. The Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes, Delhi (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1543
The Delhi High Court has quashed a batch of VAT assessment orders issued by VAT Audit Officer, stating that the authority did not have necessary delegation to carry out assessments.
Case title: Mrs Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union Of India And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1545
The Delhi High Court has held that an economic offender's plea to travel abroad citing medical grounds is not tenable when appropriate treatment is readily available in India.
Case Title: SanDisk LLC v. M/S. Welborn Industries Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1546
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of SanDisk LLC, the global flash-storage manufacturer, after Welborn Industries Pvt. Ltd., an Indian electronics company that sells memory-storage products, agreed to permanently discontinue packaging that SanDisk said copied the distinctive red-and-black trade dress of its USB drives and SD cards.
Case title: Vijender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1547
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that there can be no discrimination between persons with locomotor disability and those with hearing impairment.
Case title: Om Prakash v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1548
The Delhi High Court has held that mere lack of care is not sufficient to attract the offence of causing death by negligence under Section 304A of IPC and mens rea is an important element to invite culpability.
Case title: BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Bhagwanti & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1549
The Delhi High Court has directed BSES Yamuna Power Limited, responsible for power distribution in the national capital, to supply electricity to properties booked for unauthorised construction, until MCD takes actual action against such properties.
Title: PRINCE KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1550
The Delhi High Court has observed that Courts cannot create exceptions for “near majority consensual relationships” when consent of a person below the age of 18 years is irrelevant for the purpose of POCSO Act.
Title: RAJ SHAMANI & ANR v. JOHN DOE/ ASHOK KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1551
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of podcaster Raj Shamani, observing that he is a known face in India, especially in the field of content creation.
Case Title: TCNS CLOTHING COMPANY LIMITED versus SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1552
The Delhi High Court held that a dispute arising from a lease agreement under which premises were used actually used for running a retail showroom qualifies as a commercial dispute under section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 even if the property is situated in a residential zone under the Municipal Law.
Case title: Mohd Umar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1553
The Delhi High Court allowed the plea of a man, convicted for cheque dishonour, to set off the amount recovered from him in a civil suit relating to the same cheques, against the compensation to be paid in the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
Title: APEKSHITA KALA & ANR v. DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1554
The Delhi High Court has observed that the district medical boards under the Surrogacy Regulations, 2023, need not insist on physical presence of the intending couple.
Case title: Anil Singh v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1555
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once cognizance of an offence has been taken and the accused placed in Column No.12 (suspect) of the chargesheet is not summoned, he cannot be summoned subsequently without there being any additional evidence on record.
Case title: Anoop Kumar Garg v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Imports)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1556
The Delhi High Court has held that an amount deposited with the Customs under protest, during investigation by the Department, can be adjusted towards pre-deposit to be made when filing appeal against its order.
Delhi High Court Allows 'Nourish You' To Use Its Registered Name, Sets Aside Injunction
Case Title: Nutrivative Foods Private Limited v. B.L. Agro Industries Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1557
The Delhi High Court has overturned a Commercial Court order that had temporarily barred superfoods maker Nutrivative Foods Pvt. Ltd. from using its “Nourish You” mark, holding that the injunction violated the statutory protections granted to a registered trademark owner under the Trade Marks Act.
Case Name: Sakshi Goyal Proprietor of MIS Parshavnath Industries vs. Principal Commissioner CGST
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1558
The Delhi High Court, in a matter concerning retrospective cancellation of registration despite having amended place of business, directed “The GST Department may re-inspect the new premises of the Petitioner and obtain a physical inspection report.”
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1559
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's belated criminal allegations cannot detract from or outweigh the husband's consistent evidence of sustained cruelty meted out to him.
Case title: State v. Bimla (and connected matter)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1560
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the bail granted to two women allegedly involved in large-scale inter-state child trafficking racket, facilitating sale and purchase of new-born infants for monetary gain.
Case title: Mujahat Ali Khan v. Lokpal of India Through Under Secretary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1561
The Delhi High Court has held that Lokpal of India, pursuant to its powers under Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, cannot order an investigation against a public servant without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: National Building Construction Corporation vs Sharma Enterprises
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1562
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an arbitrator is the master of both the quantity and quality of evidence, and therefore the court, while exercising appeal or supervisory jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate factual findings recorded in an arbitral award.
Case title: M/s RBC Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1563
The Delhi High Court has set aside the demand raised against a stock broker, noting that both the show cause notice as well as the final order were bereft of any reasons, disabling the broker to make effective representation.
Title: Gautam Gambhir Foundation & Ors v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1564
The Delhi High Court allowed a plea filed by Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir, his foundation and its members seeking quashing of a case involving allegations of hoarding and unlicensed distribution of drugs during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic.
Title: DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. AMLENDU PANDEY (D) THROUGH LR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1565
The Delhi High Court clarified that Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not restrict the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct searches only at the premises of persons who have been named in the prosecution complaint.
Title: JASIR BILAL WANI @ DANISH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1566
The Delhi High Court refused to pass urgent order permitting Jasir Bilal Wali, co-accused in the case concerning the recent Red Fort blast, to meet with his lawyer in the NIA headquarters.
Case title: Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1567
The Delhi High Court has held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Anantara Hotel Chain, Bars 'Club Anantara' From Using Its Mark
Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Club Anantara Suites and Retreat & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1568
The Delhi High Court has restrained Club Anantara Suites and Retreat from using the marks “Anantara”, “Club Anantara” and related domain names after finding them deceptively similar to the trademarks of the luxury ANANTARA hotel chain.
Case title: Delhi Sales Corporation v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1569
The Delhi High Court allowed Delhi Sales Corporation to deposit pre-SCN penalty contemplated under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, despite issuance of show cause notice under Section 74(8).
Title: AIIMS v. DR. SANJAY KUMAR YADAV & ORS & other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1570
The Delhi High Court has held that the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) is obligated to pay stipend payments to Indian Junior Residents and not the foreign-national postgraduate medical trainees.
Case title: Grid Solutions SAS v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1571
The Delhi High Court found time-barred, an income tax reassessment notice generated by the Department on the last day of the limitation window but, issued to the assessee only a day after.
Case Title: Ferrero Spa & Ors. v. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1572
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Firozabad-based glass manufacturers from making and selling empty glass jars found to be deceptively similar to the registered Nutella jar shape used by Ferrero Spa, the maker of Nutella spreads.
Title: PIARE KHAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1573
The Delhi High Court has held that delay in filing complaint is no ground to deny relief to the senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Case title: Inder Dev Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2-Delhi (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1574
The Delhi High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title – BWL Limited (formerly known as Bhilaw Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1575
The Delhi High Court held that if pre-award or pendente lite interest is not added to the principal amount in an arbitral award or on appeal, then post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) cannot be charged on it.
Case title: Tara Dutt v. State (and connected appeal)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576
The Delhi High Court upheld the 2021 conviction of former Delhi Police ASI Tara Dutt for offering ₹50,000 bribe to a judge of the Tis Hazari Courts, so as to secure a job (peon at Delhi district courts) for one of the co-accused, Mukul Kumar.
Case title: KA v. SA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1577
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal preferred by a wife, challenging the divorce decree passed over her alleged extra marital relationship with two men.
Case Title: Living Media India Limited and Anr v. Amar Ujala Limited and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1578
The Delhi High Court restrained Amar Ujala and News18 from using the trademark 'Aaj Tak' in their website source code or as meta tags, after both companies informed the Court that they had already removed the infringing links and did not wish to contest the trademark suit filed by Living Media India Ltd, owner of the Aaj Tak news brand.
Case Title: Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1579
In a clash over look-alike facial kits, the Delhi High Court has granted Visage Beauty an interim injunction restraining Freecia Professional India from copying its packaging layout, usage instructions, ingredients text and from using the trademark 'DERMOMELAN'.
Case Name : Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1580
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that voluntary retirement is deemed automatically accepted if not expressly rejected within the stipulated period, and any subsequent demand for technical resignation cannot override a retirement that has already taken effect.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1581
The Delhi High Court has held that once the initial onus cast upon an assessee to show the genuineness of its creditors is duly discharged, the question as to whether the funds of the creditor were obtained through genuine purchases or not cannot be gone into by the Revenue.
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1582
The Delhi High Court confirmed a temperory injunction restraining Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. from manufacturing or selling its “Gold Flame” and “Gold Fighter” cigarettes, holding that their packaging and marks were deceptively similar to ITC Limited's well-known “Gold Flake” brand.
Case title: Tara Dutt v. State (and connected appeal)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1583
The Delhi High Court has held that an unsolicited offer of a bribe to a public servant constitutes the offence of abetment, punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, irrespective of whether there was a prior demand or subsequent acceptance.
Case Title: Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1584
The Delhi High Court has ruled that no restaurant can claim exclusive rights over the commonly used word “Haveli,” dismissing appeals by Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Ltd. and upholding the registration of the marks “Amritsar Haveli” and “The Amritsar Haveli” for food and restaurant services.
Case Title: Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1585
The Delhi High Court recognised the three-dimensional shape of Hermès' iconic Birkin bag, along with the “Hermès” name and its stylised logos, as well-known trademarks in India.
Case title: M/S Arjun Engineering Co. v. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1586
The Delhi High Court has said that granting mere one-day notice to an assessee for attending personal hearing with respect to proposed GST demands amounts of 'infraction' of natural justice.
Case title: Cheeli J Ratnam v. Union Of India & Ors. (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1587
The Delhi High Court declared as unconstitutional Rule 20(1) and 20(2)1 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 which prescribe rank-based superannuation age.
Case title: M/S Ganga Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1588
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to grant one more opportunity to a septuagenarian woman, who failed to appear for personal hearing in connection with ₹1,95,11,160 demand raised against her firm.
Case title: Tarun Arora v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1589
The Delhi High Court allowed an air traveller to prefer a time-barred appeal against confiscation of gold by the Customs Department, upon his arrival from Thailand.
Case title: Naresh Bansal & Ors. v. Adjudicating Authority And Anr (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1590
The Delhi High Court has held that though cricket betting is not a separate predicate offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the property generated from such illegal activities can be attached by the Enforcement Directorate.
Case Title: Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S NaturalIndia Oils And Proteins & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1591
The Delhi High Court has cancelled a copyright registration granted for an edible oil label featuring a 'Swastik' device, holding that the artwork was a substantial reproduction of a label long used by Rajani Products, a manufacturer and seller of edible oils. Finding that the rival work lacked originality, the Court directed that the entry be expunged from the Register of Copyright.
Case Title: Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1592
The Delhi High Court has overturned the Trade Marks Registrar's refusal to register the mark “SoEasy” for a Hindi learning and testing platform, holding that the phrase is suggestive rather than descriptive and is therefore capable of trademark protection. The Court directed the Registrar to process the application for registration.
Case title: Mohammad Rashid v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1593
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the six-month extension contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 for issuance of a show cause notice after detention of goods by the Customs must be issued before expiry of the initial six-month window.
Title: JATINDER PAL SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1594
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR over allegations of hurt and criminal intimidation after the victim as well as the accused entered into a settlement agreement.
Case title: Gulfam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1595
The Delhi High Court has held that statements made by an assessee to the Customs Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, upon seizure of its goods, is not admissible as evidence in court of law.
Case title: Shyamsundar Sharma v. ACIT/ Initiating Officer, Benami Prohibition Unit-2, Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1596
The Delhi High Court has held that the standard of 'reason to believe' prescribed under Section 24 of the Benami Act is higher than 'reasonable suspicion' under Section 35 of BNSS which empowers a police officer to arrest a person for alleged involvement in a cognizable offence.
Case title: Pavneet Oberoi v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1597
The Delhi High Court has held that continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the Show Cause Notice or the personal hearing have been waived via an oral waiver.
High Court Refuses To Restrain Delhi Race Club From Enforcing 'Family Unit' Cap In Horse Races
Title: RAVINDER PAL SINGH CHAUHAN v. DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1598
The Delhi High Court refused to pass an interim order restraining the Delhi Race Club from enforcing 'family unit' cap qua the number of horses for races for Delhi Meeting 2025-2026.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Medilabo's Patent For Neurodegenerative-Disease Drug
Case Title: Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1599
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order refusing Medilabo RFP's patent application for a pharmaceutical composition used in treating neurodegenerative diseases, holding that the authority rejected the application without examining the amended claims and without explaining how the invention fell within the bar on “methods of treatment” under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Case Title: Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1600
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Gaay Chhap, a Kanpur-based detergent brand, restraining a Uttar Pradesh trader from using the marks “Gopal Gai Chhap” , “Cow Brand,” and similar labels for detergent soaps, cakes, and washing powders.
Case title: M/S Om Fire Safety Company Pvt Ltd v. Umakant
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1601
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted with a specific aim of expediting commercial disputes and the processes adopted by them can't be in such a casual manner, so as to convert them into general civil suit.
Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1602
The Delhi High Court has upheld a Commercial Court order refusing interim injunction to cosmetics brand OPAL, holding that its mark is not deceptively similar to “SHEOPAL'S,” a mark used by Sheopals Pvt. Ltd. (SPL), which also manufactures beauty and wellness products.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Customs For “Harassing” Companies Importing Body Massagers
Case title: Techsync v. The Superintendent Of Customs Siib Acc Imports And Ors (and connected petition)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1603
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for “unnecessarily harassing” two entities involved in import of body massagers.
Case Title: Navin Road Lines Vs. Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1604
The Delhi High Court has held that where the Service Tax portal had become non-functional after the migration to the GST regime, the taxpayer cannot be compelled to make the mandatory pre-deposit strictly under the Service Tax ledger for maintainability of an appeal. The Court observed that once the deposit has already gone to the Government exchequer under the Excise Head.
Case title: Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1605
The Delhi High Court has slammed the GST authorities for cancelling the registration of Imagine Marketing Ltd., the parent company of smart wearables brand boAt, without considering the company's replies.
Cause Title: Sanjeev Krishan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1606
The Delhi High Court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on a litigant while dismissing his writ petition that sought to halt proceedings pending before two Debts Recovery Tribunals and the National Company Law Tribunal.
Case Title: Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1607
The Delhi High Court on Monday granted relief to the U.S.-based electric vehicle company Tesla Inc. by directing that the undertaking earlier given by the India-based Tesla Power India Pvt. Ltd., stating that it will not manufacture or market electric vehicles or use any mark deceptively similar to 'Tesla' for EVs, shall continue until the trademark infringement suit is finally decided.
Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT LTD & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1608
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting the plea of National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) to substitute itself with a special purpose vehicle (SPV) in an ongoing arbitration initiated by CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (CFM ARC).
Case Title: Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1609
The Delhi High Court has refused to initiate perjury proceedings against a former Philips employee, holding that Philips had not produced the kind of clear and unquestionable evidence required for criminal action. The ruling came in a copyright and trade secret dispute involving Philips' medical imaging software “IntelliSpace Portal” (ISP).
Case title: Yatin Miglani v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1610
The Delhi High Court has held that though Section 128A(4A) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes that appeals “shall” be decided within six months, the timeline is applicable only where it is possible to do so.
Long-Pending GST Refund Appeals Hurt Businesses: Delhi High Court To Appellate Body
Case title: IDP Education India Private Limited v. Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1611
The Delhi High Court has observed that long pendency of GST appeals seeking tax refund can hurt financial front of businesses.
Title: AJAY ALIAS VISHAL VEERU DEVGAN v. THE ARTISTS PLANET & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1612
The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of bollywood actor Ajay Devgn.
Case Name: J M Jain Prop SH Jeetmal Choraria vs. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1613
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition has upheld Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the GST Department which was based on an intelligence, by the Income Tax Department
Case title: Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1614
The Delhi High Court said that a private consultancy providing marketing services to a foreign university is prima facie covered by its decision in Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited (2025).
Case Title: Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1615
The Delhi High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that refused Trident Limited a patent for its “air rich” yarn and fabric technology. The court said the Patent Office failed to properly examine the key feature of the invention, which is the “homogeneous distribution of pores across the radial cross-section of yarn”, and had not correctly assessed obviousness under Indian patent law.
Title: SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1616
The Delhi High Court issued directions to strengthen the system to deal with customer complaints by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Ombudsman.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1617
The Delhi High Court has refused to return the plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., holding on a prima facie basis that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi through the defendant-Artura Pharmaceuticals' online presence.
Case Title: Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1618
The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “BLUE SPOT” registered to Stardford Spirits Pvt. Ltd.,a local spirits company after finding that the alcohol brand had not been used for more than five years.
Title: ANU DUGGAL v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1619
The Delhi High Court has ordered Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into death of a 23-year-old hotel manager in 2017, while flagging lapses in the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police.
Delhi High Court Condones Company's Delay In Filing GST Appeal On Ground Of Director's Illness
Case title: Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its Managing Director Siddhartha Jain v. Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1620
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay made by a company in challenging the GST demand of over ₹75 lakhs, on grounds of illness of its Director.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 9-Month Delay By Assessee In Filing Revised Income Tax Return
Case title: Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry Of Finance
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1621
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 9-months by an assessee in filing his revised income tax return (ITR).
Case Title: JAGDISH KAUR versus JASBIR SINGH SANDHU & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1622
The Delhi High Court held that the courts under sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) possess limited but definite authority to correct manifest computation errors without reopening the merits of the case.
Delhi High Court Restrains Knam Foods From Using 'AL-BUSTAN' Rice Packaging, Terms It 'Slavish Copy'
Case Title: Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1623
The Delhi High Court has barred Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. from using the “AL-BUSTAN” brand name and its blue-and-yellow rice packaging after finding that the company had “slavishly copied” the design, layout, Arabic script, and even the mobile number printed on the bags of rival rice exporter Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd.
Delhi High Court Directs Tihar Jail Authorities To Provide Adequate Medical Treatment To Yasin Malik
Title: Yasin Malik v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1624
The Delhi High Court directed the Tihar Jail authorities to provide appropriate medical treatment to convicted Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik sentenced to life imprisonment in a terror funding case.
Title: MS. NILANJANA BHOWMICK v. RAVI NAIR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1625
The Delhi High Court has quashed a defamation case filed against journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick over an article published in 2010 in the Times Magazine, observing that factually correct reporting cannot be termed as defamatory.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1626
The Delhi High Court has directed a family court judge to undergo an “appropriate and comprehensive refresher training program” in matrimonial laws, citing serious misapplication of law and by him while dealing with divorce cases.
Case title: Sushma v. Rattan Deep & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1627
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that while Section 29 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 recognises customary divorce, the burden to prove prevalence of such a custom is heavy.
Case title: Sanjay Aggarwal v. Union Of India & Ors (and connected matters)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1628
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that probe by Serious Fraud Investigation Office into the affairs of a company does not bar parallel proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Title: V.THIRUNAVUKKARASU v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1629
The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Consulate General of India in Dubai to take urgent steps to ensure safety of a 25-year-old Indian woman allegedly being held captive and physically abused by a foreign national in Dubai.
Delhi High Court Deletes Bail Condition On Accused To Share 24x7 Location Through Google With Police
Title: HARINDER BASHISHTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1630
The Delhi High Court has deleted a bail condition imposed on an accused mandating him to share his location 24 x 7 through Google with the Investigating Officer.
Title: MOHD SHAUKAT ALI @ DOLLY v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1631
The Delhi High Court recently granted interim bail to an accused in a murder case suffering from tuberculosis after his condition worsened due to severe air pollution in the city.
Title: MASTER ARNAV RAJ v. DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1632
The Delhi High Court has asked a private school in the national capital to restore a Class X student's admission whose name was struck off over non payment of fees, after a lawyer volunteered to contribute Rs. 2.5 lakh to clear the outstanding dues.
Case Detail: South East Asia Company vs. Superintendent, CGST
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1633
The Delhi High Court has allowed the filing of a consolidated appeal in a matter where a 'common and single' order was issued, although the demand pertained to multiple financial years.
Title: Sushila Sharma & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1634
The Delhi High Court closed a plea moved by parents of Ashoka Chakra awardee late Major Mohit Sharma seeking urgent stay on the release of the film “Dhurandhar.”
Justice Sachin Datta directed the Board to consider and examine the grievances of the parents raised in their plea, before deciding on the film certification.
Case Title: Vaneeta Impex Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1635
The Delhi High Court has held that when a taxpayer has already deposited the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for the same disputed tax amount before the State GST Appellate Authority, the Central GST authorities cannot insist on another separate pre-deposit for the same amount while filing a second appeal.
Title: SMT. POONAM GAHLLOT v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1636
The Delhi High Court has held that the summons issued for discovery and production of evidence under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, are governed by Code of Civil Procedure and not Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case title: MS Jamil Trading Co Thrg Proprietor Mr Jamil Ahmed v. Union Of India Thrg The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1637
The Delhi High Court criticised the GST Authorities for issuing a “strange” personal hearing notice to an assessee, which said that the assessee need not attend the hearing as the notice is issued only for the purpose of uploading final order.
Case Title: Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC And Anr. v. Assistant Controller Of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1638
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Patent Office's refusal to grant Amylin Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals a patent for their sustained-release exenatide injection for diabetes, ruling that the formulation was 'obvious' from existing science and lacked the inventive step required for protection.
Case title: Monish Kansal Through Spa Ritik Agnihotri v. Commissioner Of Custom & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1639
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the high-value Rolex watch of a NRI, citing Supreme Court's ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017).
Case title: Monish Mohammed v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1640
The Delhi High Court permitted a labourer, working in the middle-east, to redeem gold bars confiscated by the Customs Department, after a four-year delay.
Case title: Sanchit Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs (and connected matter)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1641
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs on two Petitioners who falsely claimed that their old gold jewellery was seized by the Customs Department upon their arrival from Dubai.
Case title: Javed Ali Gouse v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1642
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot make a passenger or his lawyer sign an undertaking for waiver of show cause notice or personal hearing, when they appear for appraisement of seized articles.
Case title: M/S Eves Fashion v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1643
In a rare instance of relief, the Delhi High Court has directed the GST Department to restore the registration of a trader, cancelled over three years ago, citing the medical issues and dispute with the Chartered Accountant which prevented it from acting earlier.
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi vs. TC Global India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1644
The Delhi High Court has held that TC Global, operating as an App-based platform offering admission support solutions like promotional and marketing services, advertisements, roadshows, fairs, counselling to foreign universities, against payment in foreign exchange would qualify as 'Export of Service' instead of 'Intermediary Service'.
Case Name : Ex Flt Cdt Tarang Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1645
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that termination of a trainee cadet for an isolated act committed under severe mental distress, without dishonest intent is shockingly disproportionate and violates the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Arm Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Ritesh Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1646
The Delhi High Court held that disputes arising out of employment agreements cannot be treated as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act merely because they contain business related clauses.
Case title: Roovi v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1647
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging confiscation of an air travellers' gold jewellery by the Customs, citing disputed ownership of the gold.
Case Title: Hero MotoCorp Limited v. Sunanda Greentech Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1648
The Delhi High Court has restrained Sunanda Greentech Pvt. Ltd., an electric two-wheeler manufacturer, from producing or selling scooters under the marks “Destiny”, “Destiny+”, “Destiny Pro” and “Dest Pro,” after finding them deceptively similar to Hero MotoCorp's registered “Destiny/Destini” trademarks.
Case title: Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Lokpal Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1649
The Delhi High Court quashed an order of the Lokpal of India for probe into alleged irregularities in recruitment and promotions within the National Productivity Council, stating that the authority had pre-judged the case.
Case title: Nazarmammet Nuryyyalev v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1650
The Delhi High Court has condoned the delay of three years by a Turkmenistanian national in redeeming his gold jewellery from the Customs Department.
Case title: Rohit Khatri v. Food Corporation Of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1651
Stating that “termination for ineligibility attaches no stigma”, the Delhi High Court upheld the removal of an employee of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) after six years, over invalid OBC certificate.
Case Title: Bignet Solutions LLP v. Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1652
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a suit filed by Bignet Solutions LLP seeking a declaration that its use of pre-1965 sound recordings at a private event would not infringe Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd.'s copyright, after noting that Novex had categorically stated it does not claim any rights over sound recordings published before 1965.
Title: DR. PANKAJ PUSHKAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1653
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking a direction for a Court monitored Committee to supervise all stages of the trial in the recent red fort blast case.
Case Title: Ganraj Enterprises v. Land Mark Crafts Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1654
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Ganraj Enterprises, a Maharashtra-based screw manufacturer that uses the mark “HP+”, against a 2022 order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to cancel Land Mark Crafts Ltd.'s registration for the mark “HP” for identical goods.
Case Name: Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1655
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition pertaining to service of notice through speed post where delivery reports could not be found, sets aside ex-parte demand order creating a demand to the tune of Rs. 1 crore.
Case title: Manpar Exim INC v. Additional Director, DGGI And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1656
The Delhi High Court has observed that pre-SCN Consultative Notice prima facie serves no purpose in large-scale GST fraud cases involving multiple entities and a complex maze of transactions.
Case title: Neeraj Guglani v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15 & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1657
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay by an assessee in filing his Income Tax Return, citing his health condition as 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Case title: Sandeep Kumar v. Kaptain Singh Rathi Through LRs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1658
The Delhi High Court slammed an advocate for allegedly trying to intimidate a trial court judge, reminding the counsel that a “a judge is a judge”, no matter where she/he is placed in the judicial hierarchy.
Title: Greater Kailash-II Welfare Association Through its General Secretary: Mr. Sanjay Rana v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1659
The Delhi High Court advised a litigant to approach the Supreme Court for seeking urgent measures to control and reduce the air pollution levels and Air Quality Index (AQI) in the national capital.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1660
The Delhi High Court refused to grant Novo Nordisk an interim injunction against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. and OneSource Specialty Pharma Ltd. over semaglutide, the active ingredient used in its anti-diabetic and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy.
Case title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v/s DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR BDO
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1661
The Delhi High Court expressed "strong displeasure" with the conduct of a lawyer appearing in a contempt matter with red tape on his lips, which he claimed symbolized that he had been "silenced" during arguments in the hearing of the case.
Case Title – BHEL v Koneru
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1662
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Dutta has observed that where a party raises an objection that the “No Dues Certificate” was given under duress, it is incumbent upon the Arbitrator to give a finding on the issue of voluntariness of the “No Dues Certificate”.
Case Title: Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1663
The Delhi High Court has restored a trademark infringement suit filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. against its earlier marketer, Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a 2025 Single Judge decision that had returned the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Title: ASSOCIATION OF DIGITAL CINEMA TECHNOLOGY V/S COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1664
The Delhi High Court requested the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to expeditiously consider an application filed by the Association of Digital Cinema Technology seeking to be heard in the ongoing investigation against PVR Inox over the alleged abusive levy of the Virtual Print Fee (VPF).
Case Title: Vedanta Limited v. Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1665
The Delhi High Court disposed of a Writ Petition, upholding the Government's order to deduct Rs. 29,23,55,117.68 from Vedanta Limited's Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) for non-compliance of the Milestone period prescribed under the Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement.
Case title: CELINA JAITLY v/s UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1666
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (December 4) asked the Ministry of External Affairs to help facilitate contact between actor Celina Jaitly with her brother, a retired Indian Army officer, who was arrested and detained in UAE.
Case title: M/S A V Metals Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner CGST & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1667
The Delhi High Court has asked the GST Department to exercise caution when mentioning financial year, other relevant dates in the show cause notices and orders issued by it to a taxpayer.
Case title: Ram Singar Singh v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1668
While upholding the conviction of a sentry for vengeful murder of his colleague, the Delhi High Court observed that revenge is a powerful, instinctual and momentarily rewarding emotional response that rarely translates into genuine, lasting peace or well-being.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1669
The Delhi High Court has held that in the absence of any physical presence, virtual services rendered by a foreign law firm in India would not constitute taxable service under India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
Case title: Dhruv Mittal v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1670
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for repeatedly delaying implementation of its orders for release of articles seized from passengers arriving from abroad.
Delhi High Court Rejects ITC's Plea To Restrain Adyar Gate Hotels From Using 'Dakshin' Mark
Case Title: ITC Ltd and Anr vs Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1671
The Delhi High Court rejected ITC Limited's interim plea to restrain Chennai-based Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the restaurant brand Dakshin. The court held that ITC had failed to establish territorial jurisdiction and had not made out a prima facie case of infringement or passing off.
Case Title: Karyan Global LLP v. Vivek Kumar Mishra and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1672
The Delhi High Court has held that mere allegations of fraud or forgery cannot be used to oust the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The court ruled that civil courts cannot entertain parallel suits when the same issues are already before the NCLT in an oppression and mismanagement case.
Delhi High Court Upholds DMRC's Arbitral Award Against Parsvnath Builders Amounting To ₹70 Lakhs
Case Title – Parsvnath Developer Limited v Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1673
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has upheld an arbitral award in favour of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (“DMRC”) against Parsvanath Developers Limited (“PDL”) relating to development of commercial space in Tis Hazari Metro Station.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused After Mismatch In Drug Identification During Field Test
Case title: Sahil Sharma alias Maxx v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1674
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 following mismatch in identification of seized drug field testing and in forensic testing.
Delhi High Court Awards ₹1.5 Lakh To Tommy Hilfiger Against Kolkata Trader Who Sold Fake Products
Case Title: Tommy Hilfiger Europe BV vs Partha Chatterjee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1675
The Delhi High Court has held that a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off has been established against a Kolkata trader who was found supplying counterfeit Tommy Hilfiger products.
Case Name : Shambhu Nath Rai v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1676
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the interests of a disabled dependent prevail over administrative convenience, and caregivers of persons with disabilities are entitled to exemption from routine transfers, and reasonable accommodation is mandatory.
Case title: Priyanshu Raj v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1677
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to a CAPF aspirant, who was disqualified from recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant for being 0.4cm short of minimum height prescribed in governing rules.
Case title: Neehal Taneja v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1678
The Delhi High Court has asked the city's traffic committee to consider a representation for 24X7 operation of traffic lights across Delhi, especially in smaller colonies, keeping in mind the increase in late-night delivery personnel and road-safety concerns arising when signals are placed on blinker mode.
Case title: Amandeep Singh Proprietor, Guru Kripa Enterprises v. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 10 (1)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1679
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with income reassessment action initiated by the tax authorities merely on the ground that two successive notices under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 were issued to the assessee.
Case title: Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1680
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals cannot remand assessment back to the Assessing Officer, unless it decides the jurisdictional validity of AO's order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Case title: Canara Bank v. M/S Karishma Enterprises & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1681
The Delhi High Court has held that the action of a bank, declaring an account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on the 90th day of irregularities, cannot be said to be 'premature'.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs. M/S Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1682
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against M/s Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd., reaffirming that no substantial question of law arises where the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) conclusions are unsupported by cogent evidence and the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee in earlier years.
Case Title – M/s Sunlight Project Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1683
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that where DDA has sold plots to buyers on “as is where is basis”, the buyer cannot refuse to pay the balance sale consideration on the ground that DDA did not provide the requisite civic amenities. In such a situation, DDA has no obligation to provide the facilities as a pre-requisite to full payment.
Case title: Shambhu Nath Rai v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1684
The Delhi High Court criticised the Border Security Force for denying an officer's request for compassionate posting on grounds of his son's 50% locomotor disability, citing the latter's employment and 'handsome salary'.
Title: SURENDAR KUMAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1685
The Delhi High Court has directed the Special Committee constituted by the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consider as representation a plea to make arrangements for polling of votes for the upcoming Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections.
Major Unmarried Daughter Can Seek Maintenance From Father Under Section 125 CrPC: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1686
The Delhi High Court has observed that a major unmarried daughter can file a joint application along with the mother seeking maintenance from the father under Section 125 of CrPC.
Woman's Right To Shared Household Not License To Indefinitely Occupy In Laws' Home: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1687
The Delhi High Court has held that a woman's right to shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act is a right of protection and not a right of ownership or a licence to indefinitely occupy premises of the in-laws, especially when such occupation causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens.
Title: M/S PATTALI MAKKAL KATCHI v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1688
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot decide on the internal disputes within an unrecognised political party, and that a such disputes would have to be resolved in a civil suit.
Title: SANTOSH YADAV & ANR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1689
The Delhi High Court has deprecated the practice of lodging FIRs with inflated allegations, underscoring that criminal justice system cannot be used to settle personal scores.
Case title: M/S Sirez Limited v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1690
The Delhi High Court has held that internal disputes between the Directors of a company is not 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, preventing timely filing of its Income Tax Return, particularly in absence of convincing evidence.
Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. MOHALLA TECH PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1691
The Delhi High Court has refused to return the copyright infringement suit filed by Zee Entertainment against ShareChat and Moj platforms, observing that it has territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.
Case title: SK v. RR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1692
The Delhi High Court upheld the divorce decree granted by the Family Court in favour of a husband, on finding that the marriage remained unconsummated from inception and that the Appellant-wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty.
Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Local Supplier From Using 'HIMALAYA' Mark For Ayurvedic Products
Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Greenland Trading Company
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1693
The Delhi High Court has temporarily barred Greenland Trading Company, a Delhi-based supplier of ayurvedic supplements, from manufacturing, selling or advertising any products under the mark “HIMALAYA” or similar variants.
Delhi High Court Bars 28 Websites From Streaming DAZN's Tyson Fury–Oleksandr Usyk Rematch
Case Title: DAZN Limited & Anr. v. Back.methstreamer.com & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1694
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained 28 rogue websites from illegally streaming DAZN's exclusive broadcast of the rematch between heavyweight boxers Tyson Fury and Oleksandr Usyk, held on December 21, 2024.
Title: Vijay Bhasker Verma v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1695
The Delhi High Court refused to pass urgent directions on a plea seeking constitution of special courts to deal exclusively with offences related to cyber crimes.
Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. Black Madras Films & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1696
The Delhi High Court directed Black Madras Films, the producers of the Tamil feature film "Mask", to either remove the Kannada song “Naguva Nayana” from the movie or deposit Rs 30 lakh with the court before releasing it on OTT platforms, satellite television, or any other online medium.
Case Title: Clyde Pumps Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1692
The Delhi High Court held that legitimate transactional Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied when the assessee was unable to file TRAN-1 due to a GST portal glitch during the shift to the GST regime. The bench noted that since the form could not be filed in time, the distribution could not take place as per Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules within one month.
Case Title: Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar v. Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1693
The Delhi High Court directed various social media intermediaries to treat a suit filed by actor Salman Khan seeking protection of his personality rights as a complaint under the Information Technology Rules and take steps within three days.
Title: DARSHAN MOHAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1694
The Delhi High Court has called for framing of a coordinated policy to prevent the delay in transportation of DNA samples in cases of sexual assault.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma called for an urgent and coordinated policy framework between the Delhi Police, forensic laboratories and Delhi Government's Health and Home Departments.
Case Title: Delhi Public School Society v. Delhi Public School International Bhiwadi And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1695
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained a Bhiwadi, Rajasthan-based school from using the name “Delhi Public School International,” the acronym “DPS,” or a torch-and-shield logo after finding them deceptively identical to the well-known marks of the Delhi Public School Society (DPS Society). The court also ordered that the school's domain name be suspended.
Case Title: S Chand and Company Ltd v. Kaushal Kumar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1696
The Delhi High Court has restrained four online bookstores from selling counterfeit versions of S Chand and Company Limited's textbooks after finding that pirated copies of the publisher's works were being sold through their storefronts on Flipkart. The Court also directed Flipkart to take down the infringing listings.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Marks Bearing Chandigarh Realty Firm's 'Elante' Trademark
Case Title: CSJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Akash Kohli & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1697
The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of three trademarks, “Elante Residencies,” “Elante Group” and a device mark containing the word “Elante,” registered by Elante Residencies Limited after finding that Chandigarh-based CSJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is the prior adopter, prior user and registered proprietor of the “Elante” mark.
Title: SUNIL GAVASKAR v. CRICKET TAK & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1698
The Delhi High Court asked social media intermediaries to treat a suit filed by former Indian cricketer Sunil Gavaskar seeking protection of his personality rights as a complaint and decide the same.
Case Title – JSW MG Motor India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Tristar Auto Agencies (Vizag) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1699
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that when a party invokes Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) after a judicial authority has declined a referral under Section 8, ACA, it is impermissible for the Court to appoint an arbitrator, owing to issue estoppel and also res judicata.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Order Allowing Dr. Reddy's To Manufacture And Export Semaglutide
Case Title: Novo Nordisk vs. Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1700
The Delhi High Court refused Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk's plea for an immediate ex-parte stay on a single judge's order that allowed Dr. Reddy's Laboratories to manufacture and export Semaglutide-based formulations to countries where Novo Nordisk does not hold patent rights.
Title: JAIVARDHAN DHAWAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1701
The Delhi High Court has granted default bail to a man in an NDPS case, observing that the time for competition of investigation was extended without giving any notice to him which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Title: VENKATESHWAR HOSPITAL AND ANR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1702
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR alleging criminal medical negligence against a private hospital and its senior gynaecologist for leaving a cotton mop inside a woman's abdomen during her c-section surgery.
Case Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Harjinder Brothers
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1703
The Delhi High Court on December 11, 2025 upheld an Arbitral Award that favoured a contractor, M/s Harjinder Brothers, in a dispute over encashment of a bank guarantee and non-payment of "watch and ward" security expenses, dismissing an appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The Court presided by Hon'ble Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha reaffirmed that the appellate courts are not permitted to re-evaluate evidence under 37, and held that the arbitrator's decision is a "possible and reasonable" interpretation that did not contravene public policy.
Delhi High Court Revives Street One's Opposition To Registration Of the 'Street 9' Trademark
Case Title: Street One GMBH v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1704
The Delhi High Court has overturned a Trade Marks Registry order that had rejected an objection filed by German fashion label Street One against the registration of the mark “Street 9.” The court has sent the matter back to the registry for a fresh hearing.
Title: SHUBHAM VERMA v. CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS C DOT AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1705
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea filed by a “Scientist-E” working with the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT), seeking work from home citing hazardous air quality and respiratory issues.
Title: SAHIBA SODHI v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1706
The Delhi High Court has said that a wife not being entitled to monetary maintenance due to concealment of her income does not disentitle her to a residence order under the Domestic Violence Act.
Title: ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1707
The Delhi High Court has ordered blocking of additional mirror websites providing access to Sci-Hub which are already blocked in India in a copyright infringement suit filed by publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society.
Case Detail: National Fregrance vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1708
The Delhi High Court in a matter involving export of mouth freshner/pan masala, where two differing Test Reports were issued and refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) was denied, has flagged validity of Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) test reports.
Case Title: Asad Mueed & Anr. v. Hammad Ahmed & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1709
The Delhi High Court on December 8th, 2025 held that the withdrawal of the Consent of Affiliation (CoA) by Jamia Hamdard Deemed University (JHDU), necessary for the 150 MMBS seats in the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR) violated the binding arbitral and court orders, “frustrating” the arbitral process.
Delhi High Court Stays Registration Of Mark Found Similar To Dabur's Pudin Hara
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1710
The Delhi High Court has stayed the opertaion of trademark registration for “Wellford Pudin Hara,” holding that its adoption appears prima facie dishonest and likely to confuse consumers familiar with Dabur's digestive remedy “Pudin Hara".
Delhi High Court Quashes ₹45.36 Crore GST Demand Against NBCC After Finance Ministry Clarification
Case Title: NBCC (India) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi South
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1711
The Delhi High Court has quashed a Rs 45.36 crore GST demand raised against NBCC (India) Ltd, a state-owned construction and project management company under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, in connection with the redevelopment of East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi.
Title: LEAYAN GLOBAL PVT LTD v. BATA INDIA LTD and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1712
The Delhi High Court has upheld a single judge order granting interim injunction restraining an entity from using the mark “POWER FLEX” for footwear in a trademark infringement suit filed by Bata.
Case Title: Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1713
The Delhi High Court has passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Fly High Institute, a Nagpur based aviation institute, from using the marks “FLY HIGH,” “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” or any other mark deceptively similar to “FLY HIGH,” a registered trademark of Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd.
Title: NISHA KHAN v. DELHI POLICE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1714
The Delhi High Court has held that post failure claims for correction in exam forms cannot be entertained and candidates must verify the details.
Delhi High Court Restrains Mumbai Apparel Brand Using Logo Similar To Beverly Hills Polo Club
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Anr v. Priyanka Alpeshbhai Polara
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1715
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained a Mumbai-based clothing business, Vivaan Enterprise, from using polo player logos on its apparel after finding them deceptively similar to the well-known “Beverly Hills Polo Club” brand.
Delhi High Court Allows Au Naturel Beauty To Rebrand NEUDE As BE NEUDE In Dispute With Wet and Dry
Case Title: Au Naturel Beauty Private Limited v. Wet and Dry Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1716
The Delhi High Court has allowed cosmetics brand Au Naturel Beauty Private Limited to switch from the mark “NEUDE” to “BE NEUDE,” holding that the new mark would eliminate the risk of confusion with rival brand Wet and Dry Personal Care Private Limited's trademark “NEUD.”
Delhi High Court Quashes Pre- Insolvency Resolution GST Demands Against Patanjali Foods
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Limited v. Assistant Commissioner CGST Narela Division & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1717
The Delhi High Court has set aside GST demands raised against Patanjali Foods Limited (Ruchi Soya) for periods preceding the final approval of its insolvency resolution plan on September 4, 2019. The court held that all statutory dues not included in the approved plan stood extinguished.
Stridhan, Gifts Not Source Of Income To Defeat Wife's Claim For Maintenance: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1718
The Delhi High Court has ruled that stridhan, inherited property or gifts received by a wife from her parents or relatives cannot be construed as a source of income so as to defeat her claim for maintenance from the husband.
Mere Filing Of Complaints Even If Later Found False Not Defamation: Delhi High Court
Title: RAJAN SAREEN v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1719
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere filing of complaints even if they are later found to be false does not automatically constitute the offence of defamation.
Title: Surinder Kumar Choudhary v. Google LLC & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1720
The Delhi High Court ordered removal of objectionable content on social media against Surinder Kumar Choudhary, Deputy Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.
Case Title: Shantanu Prakash v. CBI and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1721
The Delhi High Court has held that an accused cannot invoke Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek production of company and bank records during an ongoing investigation merely to help him answer questions during interrogation, ruling that such a demand would amount to allowing the accused to interfere with the investigation.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20 Lakh Costs On Instant Bollywood Founder In Trademark Dispute
Case Title: Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1722
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs 20 lakh on Instant Bollywood founder Mandeep Singh for suppressing material facts about his knowledge of four trademark registrations first secured in Shabir Momin's name and subsequently assigned to Times Internet, while ordering status quo on the assignment.
Delhi High Court Directs To Re-Assess Bills Of Entry, Allows Infra Cess Exemption On E-Golf Carts Owing To Technical Glitch
Case Detail: JK India (Fabs) vs. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1723
The Delhi High Court in a matter where importer could not avail Infrastructure Cess exemption due to technical glitch, has directed the Customs Department to re-assess and refund the excess Infrastructure Cess of ₹55,876.29 paid by the Petitioner on imported electrically operated golf carts.
Case Name: Manikjeet Singh Kals vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1724
The Delhi High Court has upheld the adjudication process in a matter involving validity of a Show Cause Notice which was signed by an Officer, but portal reflected the same under the name of another Officer.
Case Title: Onesto Labs Private Limited v. Manishaben Bhaveshbhai Narigara & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1725
The Delhi High Court has restrained the manufacture, sale and marketing of hair care products sold under the brand name 'FOXTEEL', holding that their packaging is deceptively similar to the 'Bare Anatomy' products of premium personal care company Onesto Labs Private Limited.
Case Title: Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. and Anr v. Kartar Industries
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1726
The Delhi High Court has directed a Sonipat-based manufacturer of motorcycle parts to pay a total of Rs 5 lakh after finding that it obstructed a court-ordered search in a trademark infringement case involving the “HERO” marks owned by Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd.
Title: CASC v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1727
The Delhi High Court has declined a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking four times compensation for flight tickets recently cancelled by Indigo airlines, as well as a judicial inquiry against the DGCA over recent lapses which left millions of travellers stranded.
Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Issue Guidelines For Engagement Of Govt Counsel Within Three Months
Title: Vishal Sharma v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1728
The Delhi High Court granted three months time to the Union Government for issuing guidelines for engagement of counsels to represent its various departments.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1729
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the one year separation period required as a pre-requisite for presenting the first motion for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory and can be waived.
Case Detail: MD. Aniqul Islam VS. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1730
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Writ Petitions challenging GST Summons issued by the Enforcement Agency, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) alleging clandestine trading of tobacco on 'merits'.
Case Title: SEBI vs Amit Jain
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1731
The Delhi High Court has held that the appointment of an adjudicating officer by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is only an administrative step to initiate an inquiry and does not amount to finding of guilt at that stage.
Case Title: Malkit Singh Proprietor Makhan Fish Corner v. Registrar Of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1732
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Trade Marks Registry that removed the trademark “MAKHAN FISH CORNER” from the Register of Trade Marks, holding that the decision was poorly reasoned and ignored important evidence.
Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1733
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra and set aside an order passed by the Lokpal of India granting sanction to the CBI to file chargesheet against her in relation to the cash for query row.
Case title: Varner Retail Services South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Division - Okhla, Central Goods And Service Tax (Delhi South) & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1734
The Delhi High Court dismissed a retail business' plea seeking benefit of government's tax amnesty scheme for a second show cause notice issued to it post the cut-off date, in pursuance of the first SCN.
Case title: Saumya Chaurasia v. Union Of India & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1735
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that approval of collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers is only required in cases where tax evaded is less than the threshold limit of ₹25 Lakh.
Case: MSA Global LLC Oman v. Engineering Projects India Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1736
The Delhi High Court has upheld an anti-arbitration injunction issued by a single judge to discontinue an ICC arbitration between Engineering Projects India Ltd (EPIL) and MSA Global LLC (Oman).
Case title: M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1737
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the GST Department cannot raise fresh demands for a period prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, after the resolution plan has been approved by the NCLT.
Delhi High Court Quashes Bank's Decision Declaring Account Of Jai Anmol Ambani's Firm As Fraudulent
Case title: ANMOL AMBANI v/s UNION BANK OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1738
The Delhi High Court quashed a decision by the Union Bank of India declaring bank account of Anil Ambani's son Jai Anmol Ambani's firm as fraudulent.
Case title: M/S Truespices India Inc v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1739
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs authorities to consider releasing the bank guarantee of a city-based pan masala exporter, forfeited after conflicting lab reports about adulteration of its export products with tobacco.
Case title: Mohit Mann v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1740
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that under the garb of attending weddings where wearing gold jewellery is a common affair, a foreigner of Indian origin cannot be permitted to bring half kg gold jewellery to India.
Case title: Navneet Bansal v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1741
The Delhi High Court has held that the precedents barring invocation of writ jurisdiction in cases involving complex GST/ ITC transactions equally apply to cases of fraudulent CENVAT Credit.
Case Title: Surinder Kumar v. Rahul Khanna
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1742
The Delhi High Court has ruled that intellectual property disputes involving the same or overlapping issues should be heard together to prevent parallel cases and conflicting decisions, even if some of those cases are pending before non-commercial courts.
Income Tax Act | S.153C Trigger Starts On Handing-Over Date, Not Search Date: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram Vs. Deepak Kumar Aggarwal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1743
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram, upholding the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order which had rejected a reassessment notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14.
Case Title: Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University vs. Asad Mueed & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1744
The Delhi High Court on 17th December set aside an order dated 8th December 2025, of the Executing Court which directed Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University to issue a Consent of Affiliation (CoA) for 150 MBBS seats at the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR).
Case title: M/S J.K. Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sh. Jai Kishan Bansal v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1, Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1745
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in cases involving multiple noticees, adjudication has to be done by a single commissionerate, depending upon the highest monetary demand.
Case title: M/S Guru Kirpa Enterprises v. Office Of The Commissioner Of Customs (Export)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1746
The Delhi High Court has disapproved of the Customs Department mentioning the name of such officer in the order who communicated it to the party, instead of the officer who actually passed the order.
Delhi High Court Cancels Trademark Similar To Punjab Football Club Held By Apparel Company
Case Title: Punjab FC Private Limited v. Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1747
The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the “PFC” trademark registered in favor of Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited, holding that the mark was deceptively similar to the trademarks of Punjab Football Club and had remained unused since its registration.
Case Name : Indraprastha Gas Limited vs. Ambrish Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1748
A Delhi High Court Bench comprising Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that a workman engaged through a contractor is not an employee of the principal employer if the claimant fails to prove a direct employer-employee relationship with credible evidence.
Title: STATE v. TOSHIB ALIAS PARITOSH & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1749
The Delhi High Court has flagged misuse of victim compensation received by some victims in sexual offence cases, and has issued guidelines for and effective implementation of victim compensation mechanisms.
Case Title: Black Gold Resources Private Limitada v. International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1750
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Black Gold Resources Private Limitada to prevent the termination of its coal mining contract in Mozambique as well as the invocation of a $10.5 million Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) by International Coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Minas De Benga Limitada.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1751
The Delhi High Court has ruled that while adjudicating disputes before Family Courts, it is neither appropriate nor permissible to assess the caregiving capacities of a single parent through a gendered lens.
Title: MINOR S (THR GUARDIAN M) v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1752
The Delhi High Court has asked the Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) in the national capital to evolve internal mechanisms to ensure that urgent cases involving minor rape victims are addressed without avoidable delay, irrespective of weekends, holidays or non-working hours.
Termination Of Employee Solely For Being HIV-Positive Is Arbitrary & Unlawful: Delhi HC
Case Name : Mr. Abc Vs. Border Security Force & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1753
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that termination of an HIV-positive employee without compliance with safeguards under the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 is unlawful.
Title: RANGANTHAN MADHAVAN v. G FIMLZ STUDIOZ & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1754
The Delhi High Court passed an interim injunction order protecting the personality rights of actor R Madhavan, including restrain on the sale of commercial merchandise using his image and likeness as well as takedown of obscene material.
Case Title – M/s Ramacivil Construction Work & Another v UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1755
The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while dismissing an appeal under Section 10, Delhi High Court Act (“DHC Act”) and Section 13(2), Commercial Courts Act (“CC Act”) observed that the expression “any other law for the time being in force” used in Section 13(2), CC Act encompasses in its fold the provisions of Section 10 of the DHC Act as well. Thus, Section 13(2), CC Act overrides Section 10, DHC Act in relation to appeals in commercial matters including those relating to arbitration.
Title: H v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1756
The Delhi High Court has ruled that sexual assault on a wife by family members of the husband is also a form of cruelty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and does not warrant a separate trial.
Case Title: Westend Green Farms Society v. Vicky Kakkar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1757
The Delhi High Court dismissed trademark and passing-off suits against neighbouring farmhouse owners filed by Westend Green Farms Society, which manages a gated farmhouse colony in south Delhi.
Performance Incentives Earned By Advertising Agency From Media Firms Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise Delhi Iv Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate v. M/S Nexus Alliance Advertising And Marketing Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1758
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the incentives received by an advertising agency from media firms for achieving benchmark targets is not susceptible to levy of service tax.
Case Title: Havells India Limited & Anr. v. Cawels Electric Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1759
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Cawels Electric Private Limited, a Delhi-based electrical products manufacturer, from using the brand names “CAWELS” and “CAWELS ELECTRIC,” holding that they are deceptively similar to “HAVELLS,” the well-known trademark of Havells India Limited.
Case Title: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1760
The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to Dindayal Industries Limited, a Madhya Pradesh-based manufacturer and seller of ayurvedic and herbal medicines, in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning ayurvedic products.
J&K Terror Funding Case: Delhi High Court Rejects Pleas Of Accused Against Framing Of Charges
Title: SHAHID YOUSUF v. NIA & other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1761
The Delhi High Court rejected the appeals filed by sons of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin and others challenging the framing of charges against them in a Jammu and Kashmir terror funding case.
Case Name: ICICI Bank Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1762
In yet another writ petition by ICICI Bank, the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to ICICI Bank in a demand pertaining to charged levied by the Bank for not maintaining a Minimum Average Balance (MAB).
Title: SUNIL GAVASKAR v. CRICKET TAK & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1763
The Delhi High Court passed an ad interim injunction order protecting the personality rights of former Indian cricketer Sunil Gavaskar.
Case title: Eastern Broadcast Solutions Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Import) & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1764
The Delhi High Court upheld the import duty imposed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission on a company authorised by BCCI to provide broadcast equipment and associated services for covering the Indian Premier League in 2012.
Delhi High Court Suspends Life Sentence Of Kuldeep Singh Sengar In Unnao Rape Case
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1765
The Delhi High Court suspended the life sentence awarded to expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in the Unnao rape case.
Case title: Sayara v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1766
The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for wasting public resources by withholding seized goods despite an adjudication order already having directed its unconditional release, eventually leading to avoidable litigation.
Case title: Pranij Heights India Pvt Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1767
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department need not communicate to an importer that the time for adjudicating a show cause notice issued to it has been extended by virtue of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Order Restraining 'HP+' Mark Over Similarity With 'HP' Screw Brand
Case Title: Ganraj Enterprises & Ors. v. Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1768
The Delhi High Court's division bench has upheld an interim order stopping Ganraj Enterprises, a Maharashtra-based maker of screws, from using the marks “HP+” and “HP®+” on its products. The court held that using these marks for self-drilling screws and related goods infringes the registered “HP” trademark owned by Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd
Case Title: True Value Marketing Services Pvt Ltd v Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1769
The Delhi High Court observed that litigants cannot be denied an effective appellate remedy under debt recovery law when their statutory appeal remains unheard due to tribunal vacancies, recusals and administrative difficulties.
Title: Richa Dubey v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1770
The Delhi High Court refused to halt the release of web series “UP 77” purportedly based on the life of gangster Vikas Dubey who was killed in a police encounter in July 2020.
Title: Arnav Singh & Anr v. GNCTD & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1771
The Delhi High Court asked the civic authorities in the national capital to take action against various cafes and restaurants in Majnu ka Tila, located on the banks of the Yamuna river, operating without sanctioned building plans and safety measures.
Case title: M/S RR Fashion v. Union Of India And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1772
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because DRI headquarters or Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) are located in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction upon it to deal with Customs disputes arising in Tamil Nadu.
Software Receipts Can't Be Taxed On PE Assumption Already Rejected By ITAT: Delhi High Court
Case title: Zscaler Inc v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1773
The Delhi High Court has held that software receipts cannot be subjected to tax deduction at source (TDS) on the assumption of a Permanent Establishment (PE) when such an assumption has already been rejected by ITAT, setting aside a withholding certificate issued under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Use Of 'Medilice Lice Killer' For Anti-Lice Hair Oil
Case Title: Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v. Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1774
The Delhi High Court has upheld an injunction restraining Rapple Healthcare from using the mark “Medilice Lice Killer” for its anti-lice hair oil, holding that it infringed and amounted to passing off of the registered trademark “MEDILICE” owned by Wings Pharmaceuticals Private Limited.
Case title: Rajesh Gupta & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 31 Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1775
The Delhi High Court has held that the 120-day period prescribed under the second proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for deciding an assessee's request for release of seized assets is not mandatory, and a decision taken beyond the said period does not automatically become invalid.
Delhi High Court Upholds AAI Tower Height Restriction For Shristi Infra Project Near Kolkata Airport
Case Title: Airports Authority of India v. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1776
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Airports Authority of India's decision to restrict the height of a tower in a commercial project near Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata. The court held that courts cannot re-assess with technical decisions taken by specialised aviation authorities
Case title: Sachin Dev Duggal v. Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1777
The Delhi High Court has held that non-bailable warrants (NBWs) can't be issued against a person who has only been summoned as a witness or suspect in a money-laundering investigation, unless such person is shown to be accused of non-bailable offence.
Case Detail: Adinath Veterinary Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1778
The Delhi High Court, in a matter involving claim of Customs Duty exemption on import of Enzyme linked Immuno Absorbent Assay (ELISA) Kits for antibiotic testing in food as 'diagnostic kits' will hear the plea by food safety importers in January 2026.
Case title: Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar & Anr. v. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1779
The Delhi High Court has held that a victim has no right to seek certified copy of an order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board acquitting the accused, since no appeal lies from such orders.
Case Title: Rahul Bhargava & Anr. vs M/S Neo Developers Pvt Ltd along with Connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1780
The Delhi High Court has ruled that homebuyers and investors are not barred from seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, solely on the ground that they had already previously approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
Case Title – M/s Triom Hospitality v. M/s J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1781
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justices Om Prakash Shukla and C. Hari Shankar have allowed the Section 8, Arbitration and Conciliation (“ACA”) application seeking referral for arbitration between M/s Triom Hospitality (“Triom”) and M/s J.S. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (“J.S.”) regarding the registered trademark of the famous “Pind Balluchi” restaurants.
Delhi High Court Mandates E-KYC For Domain Registrations To Curb Online Frauds
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1782
To curb online scams run through fake websites impersonating popular brands, the Delhi High Court has ordered mandatory e-KYC for domain name registrations and restricted automatic privacy masking of registrant details. It has also directed banks to strengthen payment verification safeguards to protect unsuspecting consumers from being duped.
Case Name: Primemover Mobility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanmarg Infra Tech Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1783
The Delhi High Court observed that the application of Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act is not limited to any specific sub-section, and applies to the entire Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Delhi High Court Registry Refuses To Drop Akshay Kumar, PVR and INOX From Bata's Defamation Suit
Case Title: Bata India Ltd. v. Subash Kapoor & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1784
The Delhi High Court registry has refused to delete Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar and mutiplexes- PVR and INOX from the array of parties in a defamation suit filed by Bata India Ltd. in connection with the film Jolly LLB 2.
Case Title: Reckitt And Colman Overseas Health Limited v. Ind Swift Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1785
The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “DECA-NEUROPHEN” from the Trade Marks Register, holding that the name is similar to “NUROFEN”, a well-known pain-relief brand, and could confuse consumers.
Case Title: Technology Information Forecasting And Assessment Council (TIFAC) Versus Strategic Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1786
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that the arbitrator travelled beyond the contractual terms by making repayment of financial assistance contingent upon commercial success of the project contrary to the express stipulations of the Technology Development Assistance Agreement (TDA).
Cheque Dishonour Prosecution Barred When Accounts Are Blocked By Insolvency Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Farhad Suri and Anr v. Praveen Choudhary and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1787
The Delhi High Court has quashed three criminal cases linked to cheque dishonour, reiterating that cheques returned with the remark “account blocked” due to insolvency proceedings cannot lead to criminal prosecution.
Case title: Jahid v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1788
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a stepfather under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that the victim-daughter may have retracted from her testimony due to fear of losing shelter, financial stability, and the desire to preserve the family unit, especially when the accused is a caregiver or breadwinner.
Case title: Ex.Asstt.Commandant R.S.Yadav v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1789
The Delhi High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a CISF Assistant Commandant nearly 25 years after the disciplinary action was taken, holding that the punishment was founded on unsubstantiated allegations.
Case Title: M/S Khubi Ram Rajiv Kumar & Co Vs. M/S Naveen Enterprises & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1790
The Delhi High Court has held that once invoices are accepted as binding contractual documents, an arbitral tribunal cannot selectively enforce some clauses while ignoring other clauses contained in the same invoices.
Case Detail: Chinu Kumar vs. Directorate General of Goods and Services Intelligence
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1791
The Delhi High Court granted bail to an Accountant allegedly involved in running fictitious firms and passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,00,000.
Case Title: M/s Inderjit Mehta Constructions Pvt Ltd v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1792
The Delhi High Court rejected an application seeking the substitution a retired Supreme Court Judge as the sole arbitrator, despite a delay of more than 16 months in announcing the arbitral award. The Court found it better suited to grant a short extension to facilitate the finality of the proceedings rather than unsettling them through fresh adjudication.
Delhi High Court Allows Use Of Transitional CENVAT Credit For Mandatory Pre-Deposit Before CESTAT
Case Name: Army Welfare Housing Organisation vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1793
The Delhi High Court, in a 'rare' scenario where an appeal was sought to be admitted before the CESTAT on the strength of pre-deposit made using through DRC-03, has clarified that pre-deposit was partial component of the demand just as tax, interest and penalty.
Case Title: Shri Brajendra Khandelwal Versus M/S Rajendra Iron Mart & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1794
The Delhi high Court has dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ("Arbitration Act") and upheld an order passed by a Single Judge setting aside an arbitral award which had declared retirement deed of a partner as null and void.
Case title: Sanjeev Maggu v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1796
The Delhi High Court has held that Customs officials discharging their duties in an official capacity are not liable to be cross-examined as a matter of right during adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act.
Delhi High Court Holds ICC Trademark Rights Under LG Sponsorship Agreement Attract Royalty TDS
Case Title: M/S LG Electronics India P.Ltd & Anr. Vs. Director of Income Tax(International Taxation) & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1797
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Income Tax Department's decision to treat a portion of sponsorship payments made for ICC cricket events as taxable royalty.
Case title: Makemytrip India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 16 1 Delhi & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1798
The Delhi High Court has set aside reassessment proceedings initiated against MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the notices issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were unreasoned.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1799
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Biodeal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. from using the marks “PEPFIX-DSR” and “MINOZIL” for its pharmaceutical products over similarity with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.'s registered trademarks “PEPFIZ” and “MINOZ.”
Case title: Deepak Kumar v. Directorate Of Civil Defence, Government of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1800
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6(2) of the Civil Defence Act, 1968, which empowers authorities to discharge Civil Defence Volunteers without hearing, but has held that the provision can't be used as a cloak to impose punitive or stigmatic dismissals without following principles of natural justice
Delhi High Court Disposes Meta's Execution Plea, Notes Compliance In “FACEBAKE” Trademark Case
Case Title: Meta Platforms Inc v. Noufelmalol and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1801
The Delhi High Court has disposed of an execution petition filed by Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly Facebook), after finding that the operators of the “FACEBAKE” and “FACECAKE” brands have substantially complied with an earlier injunction restraining use of marks deceptively similar to Meta's “FACEBOOK” trademark.
Case title: HM v. RM
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1802
The Delhi High Court has “outrightly rejected” the argument that a working mother seeking maintenance for her minor children reflects misuse of maintenance laws or a sense of entitlement, holding that courts must recognise the dual burden borne by custodial mothers and ensure that fathers do not evade their parental responsibilities.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax-1), New Delhi v. Exl Service.Com Inc (Presently Known As Exl Service Com Llc)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1803
The Delhi High Court has held that outsourcing customer care and back-office services to an Indian subsidiary does not, by itself, result in the creation of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India–US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Case Title: Trustline Securities Limited v. Hanish Singla
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1804
The Delhi High Court pulled up a stock brokerage firm for indulging in unauthorised trading and “sharp practices” aimed at earning commission income at the cost of investors. It also imposed a costs of Rs 1 lakh for prolonged harassment of its client.